Half Yearly Tax Digest 2025: Supreme Court and High Court Cases [Part XIII]

Bombay HC uses forum conveniens Doctrine to Dismiss Trustcap’s Income Tax Matter with Cause of Action at Kolkata

Trustcap Private vs Income Tax Officer Ward CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 692

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed an income tax matter using the principle of forum conveniens, holding that the Bombay High Court was not the appropriate court exercising jurisdiction over show-cause notice and reassessment notices that had been issued in Kolkata.

Dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the challenge to the reassessment proceedings, and the petitioner was free to pursue appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta.

Nearly 5-Year Delay in Filing Defective ITRs Due to Financial Hardship: Bombay HC Allows Condonation on Condition

Skystar Clearing & Forwarding Pvt Ltd vs Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 693

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court condoned a delay of nearly five years in filing defective Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for two assessment years, on the condition that the petitioner would not claim interest on any resulting refund. The Court found that the delay was due to financial hardship and internal miscommunication, rather than any deliberate intent to evade the law. The court also clarified that if any refund is due, it shall be granted without interest.

Renewal of Passport Withheld by Economic Offences Wing: Bombay HC allows NRI to Record Statement Via Video Conferencing

Gaurav Goenka vs The State of Maharashtra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 694

The division bench of Bombay High Court comprising Binu Tamta ( Judicial Member ) and Hemambika R. Priya ( Technical Member ) has allowed the Non-Resident Indian (NRI) to record statements via video conferencing before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in the case were the renewal of passport was withheld.

In order to record his statement for the investigation, the court ordered the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer via audio-video technology.

Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here

5 % VAT Leviable on Sale of Liquid Carbon Dioxide: Andhra Pradesh HC

Punjab Carbonic (p) Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer andOthers CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 695

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Division Bench comprising Justices R Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao held that 5 % Value Added Tax (VAT) is leviable on the sale of liquid carbon dioxide.

While allowing the appeal, the bench disagreed with the contention of the department that a declaration has to be obtained from the purchaser of carbon dioxide to obtain concessional rate of tax available to such products and set aside the order of revision.

No Tax Reassessment After 3 Years, regardless of Old or New Regime: Delhi High Court

LALIT GULATI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 696

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that income tax reassessments cannot be initiated after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, regardless of whether the reassessment is under the old regime or the new framework introduced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).

The court observed that this time limit must be respected to maintain legal certainty and avoid unnecessary litigation.

Relief for IndiGo: Delhi HC Quashes IGST Demand on Reimported Aircraft Parts Taxed as Service Import

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS ACC (IMPORT) NEW CUSTOM HOUSE NEW DELHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 697

The Delhi High Court,granted relief to IndiGo by quashing the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) demand on reimported aircraft parts that were previously taxed as a service import.

The court found that the 2021 amendment and CBIC clarification went beyond mere clarification and instead expanded the tax base. It held that imposing an additional duty after treating the transaction as a supply of service was unconstitutional and not permissible.

Customs Dept’s Appeal over Rs 57K Drawback Dispute: Delhi HC Declines Dismisses Writ petition Citing Negligible Quantum

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs KUNAL TRAVEL CARGO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 698

The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain the appeal filed by the customs department over Rs. 57K drawback dispute by citing negligible quantum.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has observed that the penalty imposed in the Order-in-Original was Rs. 50,000, but the total sum claimed to have been improperly obtained by the customs agency through drawback is only Rs. 57,201.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

PMLA Offence by CA by vitiating Legal Process of NCLT: Delhi HC Grants Bail Considering No possibility of Trial

RAKESH KUMAR GULATI vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 699

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a Chartered Accountant (CA) who was accused of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by vitiating the legal process of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The bail was conducted considering no possibility of trial.

The court granted CA bail after he satisfied the Trial Court/Link Court with a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of the same amount, subject to a number of additional requirements.

Assessee‘s Failure to Check GST Portal resulted in Non-Response to SCN: Delhi HC Allows to file Appeal

SANDEEP GARG vs SALES TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 700

The Delhi High Court ruled that the department cannot be faulted for the act of the petitioner neglecting to check the portal and not replying to the show-cause notice.

While disposing the appeal, the court held that the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 along with the pre-deposit on the tax amount in terms of the said provision.

Delay in GST Response: Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 1 Lakh Cost on Exide Industries, Remands Matter for Fresh Hearing

EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 701

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court acknowledged a degree of procedural laxity on Exide Industries’ part in responding to hearing notices and imposed Rs. 1 Lakh cost while remanding the matter for fresh hearing.

The court also clarified that the period of limitation under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, would not apply in this case, owing to the company’s earlier delays. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with directions for a new hearing.

Fake ITC Availment: Delhi HC allows Bail and refuses Re-arrest

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE (DGGI) vs YOGESHKUMAR GUPTA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 702

The Delhi High Court allowed the bail and refused to allow the rearrest of the accused, alleged to have made a fake /bogus availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Court believed that significant time had elapsed since the issuance of the impugned order. Therefore, in light of the developments noted above, it is not warranted to curtail the Respondent’s liberty by ordering his re-arrest.

Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act Issued Beyond Limitation Period: Delhi HC Sets Aside Proceedings

SAROJ MEHNDI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 703

In a recent ruling the High Court of Delhi,set aside the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15, holding that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 23.06.2021 was beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The issue was already settled in favour of the petitioner in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO. The court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

Proceedings u/s 153C of Income Tax Act cannot be Initiated in Absence of Incriminating Material: Delhi HC

R.C. JEWELLERS PVT.LTD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 704

The Delhi High Court, ruled that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act,1961,could not be initiated in the absence of incriminating material. The division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia set aside the impugned notices, order, and all related proceedings, and disposed of the pending applications, allowing the petition.

AMP Expenses Not Separate International Transaction: Delhi HC Upholds ITAT Decision

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs M/S WRIGLEY INDIA PVT.LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 705

The Delhi High Court in a recent ruling,upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decision for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, stating that Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion(AMP) expenses are not a separate international transaction.

The Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia had also taken the same view in the assessee’s own case for AY 2010–11, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal by relying on Maruti Suzuki.

30 Day Delay in Filing Form 10B Due to Accountant’s Family Medical Issue: Delhi HC Directs CIT(E) to Condone Delay

FIITJEE FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH AND TRAININGS vsCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 706

The Delhi High Court,directed the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] to condone the 30-day delay in filing Form 10B for Assessment Year(AY) 2022-23, following the assessee’s explanation that the delay was due to medical issues in the accountant’s family.

The Court also referred to Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which allows for the condonation of delays in cases of genuine hardship. It noted that the Bombay High Court had emphasized a liberal interpretation of “genuine hardship” in similar cases. The bench concluded that the delay was not due to negligence.

Businesses can Rectify GST Returns Even After Prescribed Due dates: Supreme Court directs CBIC to Re-examine Timelines Correcting Bonafide Errors

CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS vs M/SABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 169

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that the businesses can rectify GST(Goods and Services Tax) returns even after prescribed due dates observing that human mistakes are normal. It has dismissed the petition filed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ).

Rejecting the CBIC’s plea, the court held that there was no revenue loss in allowing such rectifications and thus saw no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, which it found to be “just and fair.” The CBIC has been directed to re-examine the provisions and timelines currently in place for correcting bonafide errors in GST filings.

Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here

Supreme Court upholds Gujarat HC Ruling on GST Classification of ‘Fusible Interlining Cloth

UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs M/S GIRISH PRAVINBHAI RATHOD(JAY AMBEY) & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 170

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Gujarat High Court decision on the classification of ‘fusible interlining cloth’ under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Tariff, thereby affirming that such fabric does not fall under Heading 5903.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP on two grounds: (i) a 225-day delay in filing the petition that was not satisfactorily explained, and (ii) lack of merit in the challenge to the High Court’s ruling.

Patanjali’s Ruchi Soya Wins 23-Year Customs Battle: Supreme Court orders Refund of Customs Duty Recovered via Bank Guarantee

M/S PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 171

The Supreme Court has provided a best ending to the 23-year old customs dispute with regards to the refusal of the customs department to refund the duty which was recovered via bank guarantee.

Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed the refund of customs duty amounts recovered by coercive encashment of bank guarantees. It overturned the 2016 judgment of the Gujarat High Court that had denied Patanjali Foods’ ( former Ruchi Soya) refund claim on grounds of unjust enrichment.

Supreme Court dismisses Safari Retreats Case Review Plea by GST Dept

Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax &Ors. vs M/s. Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 172

The Supreme Court has slammed the brakes on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department’s last-ditch attempt to reopen the landmark Safari Retreats ruling, dismissing the Centre’s review petition and leaving intact developers’ right to claim input-tax credit (ITC) on the construction cost of commercial properties that are leased out.

Supreme Court Clarifies S. 80-IA(9) of Income Tax Act Does not affect Computability of Cumulative Deductions

Shital Fibers Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 173

The Supreme Court held that Section 80-IA (9) of the Income Tax Act does not alter the computation of deductions under other provisions and further ruled that deductions under Sections 80-IA/80-IB of the Act need not reduce the gross total income before computing deductions under other provisions like Section 80-HH for export profits.

The court held that assesses do not have to subtract the Section 80-IA deduction before calculating the Section 80-HHC deduction, i.e., both the deductions can be calculated separately.

Supreme Court upholds Constitutional Validity of Kerala Luxury Tax on Cable TV, rules against Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER vs ASIANET SATELLITECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. & OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 174

In a ruling against Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. And Ors, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Kerala luxury tax and affirmed the state’s power to tax cable TV services under Entry 62 of List II (State List) as “luxury.”

The bench explained that there is no constitutional overlap between central and state levies because the service tax levied by the Finance Act on broadcasting services under Entry 97 of List I (Union List) does not clash with state entertainment taxes.

Are You GST Compliant? Get the Clarity You Need on RCM Click here

Supreme Court Confirms Penalty on Non-Filing of GST Returns and Payment

M/S. SRIBA NIRMAN COMPANY vs THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 175

The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by a construction company confirming the ruling of Andhra High Court upholding the penalty imposed for non-filing and non-payment of Goods and Services Tax Returns ( GSTR ). It confirmed the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s ruling confirming the penalty imposed by the department.

The apex court found nothing to interfere with the Andhra High Court, thus upheld its ruling and confirmed the penalty for non-filing of GST returns and its Non-payment.

Pre-decisional Hearing should be Provided before Unblocking ECRL under GST Rule 86A : Supreme Court

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR vs K-9 ENTERPRISES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 176

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision which ordered to unblock Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ) as blocking did not provide mandated pre-decisional hearing under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Rule 86A.

Development Agreement Grants Construction Rights, Not Land Ownership: Patna HC Upholds GST on Construction Services

Shashi Ranjan Constructions Private Limited company vsUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 772

In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court upheld the imposition of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on construction services rendered under a development agreement, holding that no transfer of land ownership occurred through such an agreement.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that all essential elements for the levy of GST, taxable event, person liable, rate, and value, were present. The court also found no grounds to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly since statutory appeal mechanisms were available to the petitioner. No costs were awarded.

Madras HC Upholds I-T Case Transfer to Kochi Citing Rs. 50 Lakh Seizure and Central Circle Guidelines

A.Uthayakumar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(PCIT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 773

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld an order transferring the income tax assessment from Theni to the Central Circle of the Income Tax Department in Kochi. The Court found that the transfer was in line with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) guidelines and arose from a search action which led to the seizure of Rs. 50 lakhs from the petitioner in the State of Kerala.

The writ petition was dismissed on 03.03.2025, with no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed

SCN missed under ‘Additional Notices’ tab on GST portal due to Visibility Issue: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order

TANISHKA STEEL vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAXAND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 774

The Delhi High Court,set aside the order after the petitioner missed the Goods and Service Tax(GST) show cause notice uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab due to a visibility issue, and directed the authority to grant a fresh opportunity to file a reply and be heard.

The Court clarified that the validity of the notifications challenged by the petitioner was left open and would depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in S.L.P No. 4240/2025. All rights and remedies of the parties were also kept open.

GST on Real Estate & Works Contracts – Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector! Click here

Pre-Consultation of SCN Not Mandatory When Returns Not Filed: Delhi HC dismisses Service Tax Challenge

Shashi Galvanising Private Limited vs PrincipalCommissioner of CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 775

The Patna High Court dismissed a service tax challenge , holding that pre-consultation of Show cause notice (SCN) was not mandatory due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns for the period April 2015 to March 2017.

The petition was dismissed. The petitioner was allowed to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and the tribunal was requested to condone any delay caused by this litigation.

Madras HC Rules Against Revenue Dept: GST Demand Invalid as Tax Officer Ignored Adjournment Request

TVL.PVK Constructions vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 776

In a significant ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside GST demand orders issued against TVL. PVK Constructions after finding that the tax authorities had passed the order without considering the taxpayer’s request for adjournment. The petitioner, TVL. PVK Constructions, represented by its proprietor Perumal Vijayakumar, had challenged the demand order dated 23.08.2024 and the subsequent rejection of the rectification application dated 13.01.2025, both issued by the State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection), Trichy Division.

GST S. 75(12) Not Invokable Once Self-Assessed Tax as per S. 37 Included in Return furnished u/s 39: Calcutta HC

Kuddus Ali, Proprietor of M/s. Kuddus Ali Construction vsThe Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 777

The Calcutta High Court held that once the self-assessed tax as per Section 37 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act is included in the return furnished under Section 39, the provisions of GST Section 75(12) cannot be invoked for recovery.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury rejected the respondents’ argument that the absence of a show cause notice was not fatal due to the taxpayer’s “admission” in response to ASMT-10. It held that any recovery under the Act must be preceded by due process, including issuance of a notice and an opportunity to be heard, especially where the tax has been duly included in the return under Section 39.

Unexplained Two-year Delay in Service Tax proceedings: Patna HC Sets Aside Tax Demand and Penalty

Pankaj Rai a proprietorship vs The Union of India throughthe Ministry of Finance CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 778

The High Court of Patna,allowed the writ application and set aside the tax demand and penalty due to an unexplained two-year delay by the tax authorities in service tax proceedings.

It also noted with concern that the case was left pending with no action for over two years. The Court asked the Chief Commissioner of CGST and Respondent No.2 to look into the delay and decide what action to take. In short,the writ application was allowed.

Claiming GST ITC from Non-existent Firm Without Genuine Supply comes under Purview of S. 74: Allahabad HC dismisses Petition

M/s Reliable Trading Company vs Joint Director DirectorateGeneral of Goods and Services Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 779

In a recent decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that claiming input tax credit ( ITC ) under the GST (Goods and Services Tax ) Act without any actual supply of goods or services especially from non-existent firms and squarely falls within the ambit of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The bench concluded that “In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition bypassing the availability of alternative remedy. The alternative prayer made for exempting the mandatory deposit, cannot be countenanced, which prayer is contrary to the statute.”

Stay Updated with the Latest Audit Report Formats & Audit Trials Requirements! Click here

Patiala House Court grants Bail to Accused in Rs. 75 Cr Fake GST ITC Fraud Case

DGGI Vs Het Ram Sharma CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 780

The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, allowed metals entrepreneur Het Ram Sharma to anticipatory bail in an alleged ₹75 crore fake input-tax-credit (ITC) racket, observing that the prosecution had shown no “extraordinary circumstance” to justify custodial interrogation.

Anticipatory bail was therefore granted on a ₹2,00,000 bond with a like surety from a blood relative, subject to conditions that he appear when summoned, remain in India, preserve six months of mobile data and abstain from tampering with evidence. The order expressly disclaimed any opinion on merits.

Relief to Microsoft: Delhi HC Restores Customs Appeals after SC Ruling on DRI’s Jurisdiction to Issue Notice u/s 28 of Customs Act

M/S MICROSOFT LICENSING GP vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 781

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court revived the Customs Department’s appeals before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), granting relief to Microsoft Licensing GP by directing the tribunal to reconsider the cases in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the authority of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) under the Customs Act, 1962.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the Delhi High Court directed that the Customs department’s appeals be restored before the CESTAT for a revised decision based on their merits.

Rs. 3L Income Tax Refund for AY 2015-16 Pending: Madras HC directs ITO to Consider Representation within 6 weeks on its Receipt

Thirumalai Ramesh S vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 782

In a recent order, the Madras High Court directed a taxpayer to file a fresh representation before the Income Tax Officer ( ITO ) seeking an income tax refund of Rs. 3 lakhs for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

The bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noting the limited nature of relief sought and without delving into the merits of the case, the Court accepted the department’s submission.

ITR filing Mandatory for High-Value Withdrawals, Even for POA Holders: Madras HC Upholds Income Tax Notice Against Advocate

Thangaraju vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 783

In an important ruling, the Madras High Court has ruled that income tax returns ( ITR ) must be filed when you’re withdrawing a high value even while acting as a power of attorney ( POA ) holder. It upheld the income tax demand notice issued against the practising Advocate who acted as a POA and withdrew a high value amount.

Dismissing the petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned notice dated 19.02.2025 within 30 days.

Income Tax Recovery Automatically stays when 20% Pre-deposit is Paid for Appeal Filing: Madras HC quashes Recovery Notice

Ranjit V Srivatsaa vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 784

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has held that recovery proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 are automatically stayed when an assessee deposits 20% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing an appeal.

The High Court accordingly quashed the impugned notice and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three weeks. It further ordered the tax department to defer recovery proceedings until the appeal is decided.

The UAE Tax Law Is Evolving — Stay Ahead Before Clients Find Someone Who Already Is. Click here

Wife Seeks Income Tax Refund of Deceased Husband’s Salary Tax with 6% Interest: Madras HC Directs To Make Representation Before ITO

Radhamani vs The Income Tax Officer (HQ) (PR) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 785

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking a refund of income tax deducted from her deceased husband’s salary, along with 6% interest.

The bench directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent. Upon receipt, the respondent was instructed to forward the same to the concerned authority, who would then be required to consider and decide on the request within a period of six weeks.

Non-Specification of Date and Time for Hearing in Two SCNs issued in a Gap of 4 Months: Madras HC sets aside GST S.73 Order

M/S.M.S.DISTRIBUTORS vs THE OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAXOFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 786

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act on the ground that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the absence of specific mention of date and time for personal hearing in two successive show cause notices ( SCNs ) issued four months apart.

The Court also clarified that since the petitioner had paid more than the required 10% of the disputed tax, they are entitled to deduct the excess amount from future payments. The writ petition was thus allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

No Provision for FIR Under Income Tax Act: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused in Bogus Refund Scam

MANISH KUMAR VS STATE OF PUNJAB CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 787

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to an accused involved in an alleged bogus income tax refund scam, observing that there exists no provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

The court stated that in the event of arrest, the petitioner would be entitled to interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating or Arresting Officer.

Income Tax Notices Unanswered as Authorised Representative Hospitalised for Surgery: Madras HC grants Opportunity to File Reply

Sohanlal Jain Ramesh vs The Assessment Unit CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 788

The Madras High Court has granted relief to a taxpayer whose authorised representative was hospitalised and unable to respond to income tax notices.

The Court set aside the order dated March 1, 2025, and remanded the matter to the department for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within two weeks from the date the portal is reopened.

Period of Limitation as per S. 153 C Commences with date on which documents were Submitted: Delhi HC

LANDCRAFT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 27 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 789

The Delhi High Court in its recent case held that the period of limitation as per section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 commenced with date on which documents were submitted.

The court allowed the petition and set aside the proceedings commenced pursuant to the impugned notice are set aside. It is also clarified that, in the event, any assessment order has been passed after filing of this petition in respect of AY 2015-16 pursuant to the impugned notice, the same would also stand quashed.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

Income Tax Notice issued Demanding Management Fee Paid to Oversea Company: Delhi HC sets aside Notice being Violative of S. 149 (1)(a)

IDEMIA IDENTITY AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 790

The Delhi High Court in a recent case has set aside the Income Tax notice issued demanding management fee paid to oversea company being violative of section 149 (1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia found that this does not fall within the exception to Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act.

Duty paid under Sugar Cess Act can be Claimed as CENVAT Credit: Calcutta HC

KOLKATA SOUTH vs M/S. DIAMOND BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 791

The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit. It was viewed that Section 3 of the Act provides for levy and collection as a cess for the purpose of Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982, a duty of excise on all sugar produced by any sugar factory in India.

The bench rejected the revenue’s appeal, concurring with the Tribunal that duty payments made under the Sugar Cess Act of 1982 could be claimed as Cenvat Credit.

Revenue Cannot Debit From GST Ledger Once Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Appeal is Paid: Calcutta HC

M/s. Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited vs The DeputyCommissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 792

The Calcutta High Court has held that no deduction from electronic cash/credit ledger can be made by the department where the pre-deposit amount in terms of Section 112(8) of the Central/State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 has already been deposited.

The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that on dismissal of appeal, the petitioners intimated the department of their intention to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and also deposited 10 percent of the tax liability aggregating to Rs. 35,316 and the same can be corroborated from the copy of electronic liability ledger.

ROC cannot File Criminal Complaint While Company’s Penalty Appeal u/s 454(8) is Pending: Kerala HC

M/S RESFEBER INFOSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs REGISTRAR OFCOMPANIES, KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 793

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court held that the Registrar of Companies (ROC) cannot file a criminal complaint under Section 454(8) of the Companies Act while the company’s statutory appeal against the penalty order is still pending. The Court found such a complaint to be premature and quashed the proceedings initiated by the ROC.

The court quashed the criminal complaints and all related proceedings but clarified that the ROC is free to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted, once the appeal is decided. The criminal miscellaneous cases were accordingly allowed.

Invocation of Extended Limitation Period Without Evidence of Willful Misstatement: Calcutta HC Sets Aside AA’s Order

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vs M/S ELECTRO STEEL CASTINGLTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 794

The High Court of Calcutta set aside the adjudicating authority’s (AA) order for invoking the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act,1994 without any evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the assessee.

The court found no proof that the assessee willfully suppressed facts or tried to evade tax. So, it set aside the entire order by the authority and agreed with the tribunal’s decision.

How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here

Seized Documents From Group Companies Justify Coordinated Investigation: Madras HC Upholds Transfer u/s 127 of the ITA

M/s.M and C Property Development Private Limited vs ThePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 795

The High Court of Madras,ruled that seized documents from group entities justified the transfer of assessment cases under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,1961 for a coordinated investigation, as the cases needed to be centralized for effective and joint assessment.

The division bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice C.Saravanan noted that documents were seized from the petitioner’s premises by the Kolkata Investigation Wing, which were relevant to the assessment.

Imposition of Differential Duty on Tempered Glass Despite Prior Payments: Delhi HC Directs AA to Rectify Order

M/S HAMFER INDIA TRADING vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS (IMPORT) & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 796

The High Court of Delhi directed the adjudicating authority (AA) to rectify its order imposing differential duty on tempered glass despite prior payments made by the petitioner.

The Division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the adjudicating authority (AA) needed to review the amounts imposed and correct the impugned order.

Attachment of Senior Citizen’s Pension Account Causes Hardship: Madras HC Allows Monthly Withdrawal of ₹2 Lakh

Dhanarajan Narayansamy vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 797

The High Court of Madras, addressing the hardship caused by the attachment of a senior citizen’s pension account, allowed limited relief by permitting monthly withdrawals of ₹2 lakh and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months.

A single member bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner’s pension account had been attached by the department and that he was facing hardship as a senior citizen due to this.

Assessee’s Confusion Over Which SCN to Reply: Madras HC Grants Two Weeks to File Response and Directs Personal Hearing

GI.Retail Pvt. Ltd. vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 798

The Madras High Court held that the assessee’s claimed confusion over two show cause notices, one from a faceless officer and another from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) who clearly referenced the first, was unfounded and granted two weeks to file a reply while directing a fourteen day notice for personal hearing before finalizing the matter.

UAE Resident’s Gold, 3 iPhones Seized: Delhi HC Clears Release iPhones on Redemption and Storage Fee Payment

CHAKSHU GARG vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 799

The High Court of Delhi, directed a UAE resident to pay redemption and storage fees for three undeclared iPhone devices seized at the airport, while ordering the release of his gold jewelry without any storage charges.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta allowed the gold items to be released without storage charges. For the iPhones, the petitioner was directed to pay both the redemption fee and storage charges.

Delhi HC Upholds Bail in Gold Smuggling Case Citing No Fresh Grounds for Cancellation

AIR CUSTOMS vs SANDEEP & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 800

The Delhi High Court, upheld bail granted in a gold smuggling case, citing no fresh grounds to cancel the order.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted that the respondent was caught with 3 kg of smuggled gold worth about ₹85 lakhs, with Customs Duty evasion of ₹35 lakhs.

Clear all Your Doubts on RCM, TCS, GTA, OIDAR, SEZ, ISD Etc... Click Here

Unawareness of GST Order appears Genuine: Madras HC Allows Delay in Filing Appeal with 5% Additional Pre-deposit

Mahalakshmi Mines vs Deputy Commercial (ST)(GST)(Appeal) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 801

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 30-day delay in filing GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeals by a taxpayer, holding that the petitioner’s unawareness of the ex parte assessment orders appeared genuine on a condition of payment of 5% additional pre-deposit.

The Court further directed the appellate authority to admit the appeals on record upon the petitioner’s payment of the additional 5% and to dispose of the same on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

GST Consultant filed Cryptic Reply without Evidence against SCN: Madras HC Allows to Contest Demand on 25% Pre-Deposit

M/s.Star Brand Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner GST andCE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 802

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court allowed a taxpayer to contest a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) demand order, which was confirmed on grounds that the GST consultant failed to provide a proper reply with evidence.

The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, followed by filing a comprehensive reply along with relevant documents within two weeks thereafter. The respondent department was directed to provide a clear 14-day notice for personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits.

Karnataka HC Halts Coercive Recovery of ₹9.5 Crore GST from Nexus Shantiniketan Retail; Advises Appellate Remedy

M/S NEXUS SHANTINIKETAN RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 803

The Karnataka High Court recently granted relief to Nexus Shantiniketan Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Nexus), restraining the Revenue from initiating coercive recovery steps in connection with a ₹9.5 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand, while advising the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy available under law.

Furthermore, the Karnataka High Court observed that it was necessary to allow the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy to attain the ends of justice and maintained the interim protection against coercive recovery measures for a period of six weeks from the date of judgment.

Income Tax Refund Paid without Sanctioned Interest: Madras HC Directs Dept to Take Action on Pending Claim

Vinplex India Private Limited vs Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 804

In the matter of income tax refund that was sanctioned with interest but paid without it, the Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and dispose of the taxpayer’s representation regarding the unpaid interest.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Income Tax Department to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 11.03.2025 on its own merits and in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.

Madras HC Dismisses Plea to Access Frozen Savings Account, Cites Lack of Proof on Elderly Couple’s Mental Competence

Karunanathan vs The Secretary to Government of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 805

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an elderly couple seeking access to funds held in a frozen savings account, citing the absence of verified proof regarding their mental competence.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, after examining the medical documents and submissions, held that the bank’s actions were appropriate and found no illegality in the impugned communication.

Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Bail for Neeraj Saluja, Director of SEL Textiles in PMLA Case Over Delayed Trial

Neeraj Saluja vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 806

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Neeraj Saluja, a director of SEL Textiles Limited, in connection with a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court cited prolonged incarceration, lack of trial progress, and a judicial stay on further proceedings arising from the predicate offence as key grounds for granting relief.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat, delivering the judgment, ordered Saluja’s release on bail with stringent conditions, including a Rs. 10 lakh bond with three sureties, surrender of passport, and restriction on disposal of assets mentioned in the ECIR. The Court underlined that these measures would ensure Saluja’s presence at trial without infringing on his fundamental rights.

Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here

Karnataka HC Quashes Ombudsman’s Order, Holds Email Invocation Valid Under Information Technology Act

M/S NHDPL SOUTH PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION BANK OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 807

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Banking Ombudsman that rejected a complaint for invocation of bank guarantees through email, holding that such electronic communication satisfies the requirement of a written notice under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Quashing the Banking Ombudsman’s order dated 21 December 2020, the court directed that the complaint be reconsidered in light of the legal recognition of electronic communication, and noted that denying invocation solely due to lack of physical notice despite timely emails was unjustifiable. The petition was accordingly allowed.

GST Levy on House keeping Services to Govt. Educational Institutions: Delhi HC directs for Appellate Remedy, Says Authority Must Decide Pre-deposit

SHIVALIK HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUEAND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 808

The Delhi High Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy against the Goods and Service Tax(GST) demand on housekeeping services provided to government educational institutions, stating the authority must decide on the pre-deposit.

The division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta permitted the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy by 10th July 2025, along with an application for determining the pre-deposit, which was to be considered in accordance with law.

Non-Filing of GST Returns During COVID-19: Madras HC Restores Cancelled Registration Conditionally

T.Thandapani Nattu Marunthu Kadai vs The Superintendent OfGst CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 809

The Madras High Court has restored the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration of a petitioner whose registration was cancelled due to non-filing of GST returns during the COVID-19 pandemic conditionally.

The Court clarified that these dues must be paid in cash and not adjusted against any unutilized Input Tax Credit (ITC). Additionally, any ITC claim must be scrutinized and approved by the competent authority before it can be utilized.

Allahabad HC Quashes GST Assessment order passed without issuance of notice u/s 46 of GST Act

M/S Xestion Advisor Private Limited AdditionalCommissioner Grade II and Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 816

The Allahabad High Court quashed the Goods and Service Tax (GST) assessment order passed without issuance of notice under section 46 of the GST Act, 2017.

Justice Piyush Agrawal held that the impugned order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.

GST Authority cannot allege discrepancy after Goods Verified in MOV-04: Allahabad HC

M/S Maa Kama khya Trader vs Additional Commissioner Grade2 And Another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 817

The Allahabad High court in a recent case held that Goods and Service Tax Authority (GST) Authority cannot allege discrepancy after goods were verified in MOV – 04.

A single bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”

RTI Compensation Sought for Alleged Delay and False Information by Commercial Tax Office: Madras HC Dismisses Review Petition

R.Vijayan vs The Commercial Tax Officer O/o. CommercialTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 818

The Madras High Court has dismissed a review petition appeared by a party-in-person, who sought compensation under the Right to Information Act, 2005, citing delay and alleged false information provided by the Public Information Officer of the Commercial Tax Department.

The Division Bench comprising Justices R. Suresh Kumar and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, however, held that the issue of “false information” was neither raised nor addressed in the earlier proceedings and cannot be introduced at the review stage.

How to Compute Income from Salary with Tax Planning, Click Here

Madras HC Slams ‘Mechanical’ GST Notice Process, Orders Fresh Hearing for Lorry Service Firm

Tvl Sakthi Murugan Lorry Service vs The Deputy State TaxOfficer -1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 819

The Madras High Court has criticised the mechanical approach adopted by the tax authorities in serving GST notices and set aside an assessment order passed against a lorry service firm, citing failure to ensure effective delivery and denial of a fair hearing.

Justice N. Mala, in her order dated 8 May 2025, observed that the act of repeatedly uploading notices to the GST portal without verifying receipt by the taxpayer amounted to mechanical compliance, defeating the purpose of issuing a show-cause notice. The Court held that when a taxpayer fails to respond to notices uploaded online, the officer should have exercised due diligence by resorting to other methods of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD).

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates