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

This Half Yearly Digest analytically summarises all the Supreme Court and High Court Tax Decisions in the First Half of 2025, as reported at Taxscan.in.

S. 73 Proceedings on GST ITC Availment on Payment Under Dispute in Appeal: Allahabad HC Finds Matter Worth Consideration, Grants Interim Relief

Kshetriya ShreeGandhi Ashram vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1086

The Allahabad High Court has given interim relief to a taxpayer who is facing proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 in a case pertaining to the extent of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ).

After hearing both sides, the Court observed that the matter requires consideration. Accordingly, it granted four weeks’ time to the respondents, including the GST department, to file their counter affidavit, with liberty to the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter. The matter is to be listed in the week commencing 28th July 2025.

Appeal Challenging GST S. 62 Proceedings Rejected on Ground of Laches: Allahabad HC stays Coercive Action

M/S MarkolinesPavement Technologies Limited vs State Of U.P. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1087

The Allahabad High Court, in the matter of a challenging assessment under Section 62 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, stayed all coercive action until the next listing date.

The High Court held that the matter requires consideration. It directed that notice on behalf of all respondents has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel, and granted the State six weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit, with the petitioner allowed to file a rejoinder affidavit within one week thereafter. The matter is to be listed immediately thereafter for further hearing.

The Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the interim, provided the petitioner deposits 10% of the remaining disputed tax amount within 15 days of the date of the order.

GST Consultant alleged to Have Sold GST Receipts, Invoices etc. to Other Firm: Allahabad HC Finds Allegations Worth Probing, Dismisses Petition

Raviraj Sonialias Ravi Karan Soni vs State of U.P. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1088

The Allahabad High Court refused to dismiss the FIR against a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) consultant who was accused of selling private GST documents of the informant/ accused’s hirer to the other firm.

The Court held that the allegations are not prima facie absurd or mala fide so as to warrant interference under its writ jurisdiction. Finding no grounds to quash the FIR, the High Court dismissed the petition summarily, allowing the investigation to proceed.

 Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand - Click here 

Rejecting the plea for quashing, the Court observed: “Considering the allegations in the First Information Report, it cannot be said that no offence worth investigation is made out, or that the allegations are utterly incredible or mala fide. In this view of the matter, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned FIR.”

Calcutta HC Quashes Order u/s 154 of Income Tax Act Passed Against Deceased, Allows Appeal Filed by Daughter-in-law of Deceased

Murari Lal Sonivs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1089

The Calcutta High Court, in a recent ruling, quashed the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was passed against the deceased, and allowed the petition filed by the daughter-in-law of the deceased against the order.

A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury viewed that when the showcause notice was issued under section 154 of the said Act the assessee had died, and the factum of death being within the notice of the Assessing Officer when the order dated 25th July 2024 was passed, the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the said Act dated 25th July 2024 for the assessment year 2013-14 cannot be sustained.

SARFAESI Act Allows Joint Application by Tenants with Separate Lease Agreements: Kerala High Court

MOIDEEN KOYA vsM/S.PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1090

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the SARFAESI Act, 2002, does not prohibit multiple tenants from filing a consolidated application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), even if separate lease deeds bind them. The petitioners, Moideen Koya, Mohammed T., Muhammed Sinan, and Dinoop D.D., were tenants of a secured asset located in Thamarassery, Kozhikode.

The single bench consisting Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that SARFAESI was designed to provide a streamlined and efficient recovery mechanism, not to become a procedural roadblock for those adversely affected by its operation. It was held that when the challenge stems from a common cause of action, insisting on separate applications only adds to litigation and delays resolution, adding that such an interpretation would be wholly inconsistent with the legislative intent.

No Legal Mechanism Existed to Compute Capital Gains on Unlisted OFS Shares Before 2024 Amendment: Allahabad HC Quashes Income Tax Notice

Pramod SwarupAgarwal Thru vs Prin. Director Of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1091

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed a search and notice, holding that prior to the amendment of Section 55(2)(ac) in September 2024, there was no legal mechanism to compute capital gains on the sale of unlisted shares through Offer for Sale (OFS).

The court ruled that the entire search and the notice were invalid and illegal, lacking the statutory foundation required under the Income Tax Act. The writ petitions were allowed. However, the court clarified that this decision would not prevent the Income Tax Department from proceeding against the petitioners under other applicable provisions such as Section 148, if lawfully warranted.

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

State Cricket Association Cannot Retract Counsel’s Concession: Jharkhand HC Rejects Review on Section 2(15) Applicability Under Income Tax Act

M/s JharkhandState Cricket Association vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1092

In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Jharkhand State Cricket Association (JSCA), holding that an oral concession made by its counsel regarding the applicability of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act is binding and cannot be retracted. The court found no valid grounds to interfere with its earlier order remanding the matter for fresh adjudication based on that concession.

The court relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, to rule that a review can only be granted in cases of error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material evidence, none of which were present in this case.

Union Properties Exempted from State Taxes Irrespective of its Use: Madras HC overturns Single bench’s Decision

Madurai MultiFunctional Complex Private Limited vs The Madurai Corporation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1093

With regards to the constitutional immunity granted to Union properties, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court has ruled that properties belonging to the Union of India are exempt from State-imposed taxes under Article 285(1) of the Constitution, irrespective of whether such properties are used for public interest or commercial purposes.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and M. Jothiraman, set aside a previous order of a single judge, thereby quashing the property tax demand raised by the Madurai Corporation against a commercial complex situated on railway land.

GST Reply and Personal Hearing Scheduled on Same Day: Allahabad HC Orders to Pass Fresh Order

M/S KahnaBartan Bhandar Thru vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of State Tax Lko. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1094

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order imposing penalty under the CGST/SGST Act after finding that the date fixed for submitting a reply and the date for personal hearing were the same, depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to present their case.

The single-judge bench of Justice Manjive Shukla agreed with the petitioner’s contention. Referring to precedents on the matter, the Court observed that it is a well-established legal position that sufficient time must be granted between the deadline for submitting a reply and the date of the personal hearing.

Madras HC dismisses Writ Petition as GST payer admitted to Tax liability in a Reply

Tvl.M.ReddiapattiIndustries Sales Society vs The Deputy State Tax Officer – 1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1095

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed challenging a GST assessment order, citing both delay in filing and admission of tax liability by the petitioner in an earlier reply.

The Court found that even if the writ petition had been filed within the statutory period, it would not have survived judicial scrutiny due to the petitioner’s unequivocal acceptance of the liability.

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

The court noted that “This writ petition, therefore, is dismissed not only on the ground of laches but also because the petitioner has admitted to the tax liability in a reply dated 06.02.2023.”

No Participation in GST Adjudication: Madras HC Grants Final Opportunity to Assessee with Strict Recovery Warning

TVL vs TheDeputy State Tax Officer-I. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1096

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has granted a final opportunity to an assessee who failed to engage with the adjudication process, but did so with stringent conditions.

JusticeC. Saravanan, noting that the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings, observed that in similar situations the Court had previously granted relief by quashing the assessment order conditionally subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. The judge found no reason to adopt a different approach in this case.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the assessment order but imposed the condition that the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax from the electronic cash ledger within 30 days. Further, the petitioner must file a reply to the earlier show cause notice within the same period, treating the quashed order as an addendum to the original notice.

Addition under Sales Act Based Solely on Sister Concern’s Higher Profit Unjustified Without Rule 18-C Enquiry: Madras HC

Tvl. SwarnaSteels vs The State of Tamil Nadu CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1097

The Madras High Court has ruled that an addition under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax ( NGST ) Act based solely on the higher gross profit of a sister concern is legally unsustainable unless the assessing authority conducts a proper enquiry in accordance with Rule 18-C of the TNGST Rules.

Tvl. Swarna Steels challenged an earlier order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar found that the Appellate Tribunal had mechanically reproduced the findings of the inspection wing, without independent analysis or discussion of the specific facts relevant to the assessee’s case.

GST Notice u/s 61 stating Price Comparison Instead of Pointing Out Discrepancies beyond Jurisdiction: Jharkhand HC

MayasheelRetail India Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Commercial Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1098

The Jharkhand High Court has held that GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) notices issued under Section 61 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax ( JGST ) Act, 2017, based solely on comparisons between transaction value and prevailing market price of goods, are beyond jurisdiction and without legal authority.

The Court observed that “We are of the firm opinion that notices issued comparing the particulars at which Petitioners have sold their goods with that of prevalent market price, is wholly without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of Section 61 of the Act. In fact, it is settled law that unless transactions of sale are shown to be sham transactions or the mere fact that the goods were sold at a concessional rate/rate less than market price would not entitle the Revenue to assess the difference between the market price and the price paid by the purchaser as transaction value.”

‘Every Person’ in S.76 of JGST Act Covers Unregistered Suppliers: Jharkhand HC Directs Action for Failure to Deposit Collected Tax

M/s R.K.Transport & Constructions Limited vs The State of Jharkhand through itsSecretary CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1099

In a recent ruling clarifying the scope of liability under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act ( JGST ), 2017, the Jharkhand High Court has held that the expression “every person” under Section 76 includes even those suppliers who may be unregistered or registered under Central GST jurisdiction.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar, firmly held that the State authorities could not shirk their responsibility on the ground of jurisdiction, as the statutory provision does not exempt unregistered or cross-jurisdictional suppliers from its ambit. The Court observed that inaction by the department had caused substantial financial loss to the petitioner, who was prevented from claiming lawful ITC.

Dual GST Demands for Same Assessment Year Cannot be Sustained in Law: Madras HC

Tvl. IndoAssociates vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1100

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a second assessment order issued under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act for the same assessment year, declaring that such dual proceedings are unsustainable in law.

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

Justice C. Saravanan observed that “Since the present demand pertains to the same assessment year and the same subject matter, dual demands under the respective GST enactments cannot be sustained in law.”

Road Tax Exempted for Hybrid Vehicles: Allahabad HC Orders Refund Without Interest Post-Govt Policy Shift

Anjana Agarwalvs State Of U.P CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1101

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh state authorities to refund road tax collected from a hybrid vehicle owner, following the government's decision to exempt such vehicles from road tax.

The Court noted that the petitioner's previously paid tax was no longer necessary in light of the newly granted exemption, acknowledging the importance of this official policy change. Considering this, it is evident that the petitioner's road tax payment was exempt, the Bench noted.

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities to refund the entire road tax amount collected from the petitioner. The refund is to be made within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The Bench, however, categorically stated that no interest shall be payable to the petitioner on the refunded sum.

SCN Reply Inadequate and Hearing Skipped: Madras HC dismisses Petition granting Liberty to file Statutory Appeal

MalathyConstructions vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1102

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court dismissed petition as the assessee/petitioner failed to provide adequate reply and skipping hearing opportunity. However, it granted liberty to file statutory appeal.

JusticeKrishnan Ramasamy observed that since the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities, including multiple personal hearings, there was no procedural violation. The Court found the reply to the SCN neither effective nor substantial, and held that the assessment order did not warrant interference.

No Notice Issued to Legal Heir of Deceased Assessee, Rectification filed Rejected: Madras HC sets aside Order

S.Abdul Kaboorvs The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1103

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) assessment order passed against a deceased assessee, on the ground that no notice was served on the legal heir. The Court also set aside the subsequent rejection of the rectification application filed by the legal heir.

JusticeC. Saravanan, observed that the assessment proceedings were initiated and concluded without issuing any notice to the petitioner, S. Abdul Kaboor, the son and legal heir of the deceased assessee, Mohammed Musthafa Rowther Sabiya Beevi proprietor of Royal Tiles and Fittings.

Karnataka High Court Quashes ED’s FEMA Proceedings Against Greenpeace Entities Citing Binding Precedent

GREENPEACEENVIRONMENT TRUST vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1104

In a recent judgement passed by the Karnataka High Court in June, it quashed the Directorate of Enforcement's (ED) proceedings under the ForeignExchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) against Greenpeace Environment Trust and Greenpeace India Society, citing a binding precedent.

The High Court, by relying on the observation of its coordinate bench in the Mrs Kshithija Urs case, quashed the SCN by noting that the ED had initiated proceedings after the omission of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA.

The bench noted that “ In that view of the matter, applying the dicta laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this court in its order dated 6.12.2025 passed in W.P. No.1418/2021, the above petition is required to be allowed.”

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

Provision of PMLA Attracts on Offence Committed prior to June 1, 2009 as proceeds of Crime Continue till Amendment: Calcutta HC

SMT.TAIJUNNEHAR BIBI vs THE JOINT DIRECTOR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1105

The Calcutta High Court held that the provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 attracts offence committed prior to June 1, 2009 as proceeds of crime continue till the amendment.

A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Shabbar Rashidi observed that the proceeds of the crime remain with the appellants till date. It remained with the appellants on the date when the Schedule to the Act of 2002 was amended with effect from June 1, 2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that, as on the date when the Schedule to the Act, 2002 was amended, the appellants were not in possession of the proceeds of the crime of an offence within the meaning of the Act of 2002 disentitling the authorities under the Act, 2002 to invoke the provisions of the Act of 2002 as against any of the appellants before us.

SCN issued under Income Tax Act due to Failure on part of Accountant: Calcutta HC Dismisses Challenge Against order passed u/s 144 B on availability of Statutory Remedy

M/S. JAYASHREEFINVEST PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), KOLKATA &ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1106

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the challenge against the order passed under section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the availability of statutory remedy. The bench found that the show cause notice (SCN) issued under the Act due to failure on the part of the accountant.

A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury found that the aforesaid order passed under Section 147 read with 144B of the said Act is an appealable order. The petitioner has ample opportunity to raise all questions which the petitioner seeks to raise in the instant petition before the appellate authority. Statute requires the appellate authority to consider all points raised by the petitioner in the appeal.

Any one of modes u/s 169(1) of CGST Act is valid for proper service of notice: Kerala HC Dismisses Petition

T K NAVAS vsCOMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1107

The Kerala High Court, in its recent ruling, held that any one of the modes under section 169(1) of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, is valid for proper service of notice and dismissed the petition by holding that the service of notice by making it available on the portal, would be sufficient.

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

The bench observed that Section 169 of the SGST/CGST Act, contemplates various methods for the same. Section169(1)(d) contemplates for service of notice by way of making it available in the common portal. Since the statute recognizes any one of the modes as referred to in Section 169(1) as the proper service of notice, the effective service through any one of the modes would amount to sufficient notice for initiating or continuing proceedings under the Act.

Rejection of GST S.161 Application for ‘No Apparent Error’ Set Aside by Madras HC, Orders Fresh Consideration

Tvl. Monikandan(W.C) vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1108

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside an order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer rejecting an application filed under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( TNGST ) Act, 2017, on the ground that there was "no error apparent on the face of the record."

Justice C. Saravanan, after considering submissions, observed that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 and remanded the matter to the respondent authority with instructions to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

ED Admits Lack of Power to Seal Premises Without ‘Reason to Believe’: Madras HC Orders De-Sealing and Grants Interim Relief

VikramRavindran vs The Joint Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1109

In a recent interim ruling, the Madras High Court granted relief to businessman Vikram Ravindran, directing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to de-seal his residential premises after finding that the agency had acted without proper authority under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court held that the ED had failed to show any credible information or “reason to believe” that justified the search and subsequent sealing of the property.

During the proceedings, the bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan questioned whether the ED had any legal basis to seal a property merely because it was locked during a search. In response, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju admitted that the ED did not have the power to seal a premise under Section 17 of PMLA. The counsel argued that while the provision allows officers to break open a lock to carry out a search, it does not authorize sealing. The counsel stated that the ED had chosen not to break open the premises in order to avoid escalating the situation.

GST Payment Made ‘Under Protest’ cannot be Construed as Admission of Liability: Himachal Pradesh HC

Shyama PowerIndia Ltd. vs State of H. P. & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1110

In a recent ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) payment made ‘under protest’ by a taxpayer cannot be treated as an admission of liability.

The Court quashed an order passed under Section 74 of the HP GST Act, 2017, imposing interest and penalty based on a mistaken assumption that the taxpayer had admitted the liability by reversing Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The Division Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that when a taxpayer deposits an amount under protest, it implies a denial of liability and preserves the right to challenge the same through proper legal channels. The Bench categorically stated that the act of making such a payment does not amount to voluntary admission of tax dues.

GST Notices and Orders must be Signed Digitally or Physically: Jharkhand Imposes Rs. 10k cost on Dept

Rajendra Modivs State of Jharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1111

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that notices and orders issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act must bear either a physical or digital signature, as mandated by Rule 26(3) of the SGST Rules, 2017.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan condemned the practice of issuing unsigned or digitally unauthenticated GST communications. The Court highlighted that such actions are in clear violation of Rule 26(3) of the Jharkhand GST Rules, which require that all notices, orders, or certificates be issued only through a Digital Signature Certificate (DSC).

Purchaser may be Denied GST ITC if Supplier Fails to Remit Tax: Madras HC suggests Offset Printer to avail Appellate Remedy

Tvl. GlobalOffset Printers vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1112

A single bench of the Madras High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the assessment year (AY) 2017–18, holding that the purchaser cannot automatically claim ITC if the supplier fails to remit the tax to the government.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd.(2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 131), the Court reiterated that mere production of invoices or cheque payments is insufficient to prove the genuineness of transactions and discharge the burden of proof. It further held that the purchasing dealer must establish both the genuineness of the transaction and that the tax collected was actually remitted to the government

Rajasthan HC permits PMLA accused to Travel Abroad with Rs. 25 Lakh Bank Guarantee

AshutoshBajoria vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1113

In a significant order, the Rajasthan High Court has granted conditional permission to Ashutosh Bajoria, a businessman facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), to travel abroad for business purposes. The permission comes with stringent safeguards, including the furnishing of a ₹25 lakh bank guarantee.

The Court further ruled that the bank guarantee would be forfeited without notice if any condition is violated. The guarantee would be returned upon Bajoria’s compliance and reappearance before the Trial Court.

Income Tax Payer Unable to Opt for Hearing Due to Portal Glitch: Madras HC Remands Case directing to Pay ₹10K to Govt Naturopathy Med. College

R.R.International vs The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1114

The Madras High Court has conditionally remanded an income tax assessment order after the petitioner was unable to opt for a personal hearing due to a technical glitch in the e-filing portal.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, while accepting the petitioner’s contention, observed that technical impediments beyond the taxpayer’s control cannot be held against them. The Court ruled that an assessment order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, especially where demand is raised, violates natural justice.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and remanded the matter to the assessment unit, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹10,000 with the Principal Government Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital. The Court directed the department to reactivate the portal, allow the petitioner to file a fresh reply, and grant a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.

Unsigned SCN and DRC-01A Nullify Signed GST Final Order, Rules Jharkhand HC

Sandip KumarSingh vs State of Jharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1115

The Jharkhand High Court has held that the absence of a digital signature on a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) and Form DRC-01A vitiates the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Final order, even if the final order itself bears a valid signature.

The court observed that “Though, counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the same contending that Annexure-7 which is the impugned order contains the signature of the 5th respondent, we do not find any merit in the said contention for the reason that the preceding intimation being DRC-01A and the show cause notice under section 73 dt. 29.04.2023 do not bear the digital signature of the 5th respondent and, therefore, are vitiated. Consequently, Annexure-7 is also vitiated.”

GST Goods Confiscation Matter Involves Disputed Facts: Gujarat HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Petition

M/S SHREEDEVIDAYAL METALS vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1116

In a recent decision, the Gujarat High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The case involved the detention and confiscation of goods by the GST department, and the court observed that the matter raised serious factual disputes which could not be addressed through writ jurisdiction.

The division bench led by Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice P. M. Raval observed that the issues raised in the case involved questions of fact, such as whether the supplier existed and whether there was actual movement of goods which could not be resolved through a writ petition.

The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commercial Steel Ltd., which held that when an effective alternative remedy exists, and there is no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction, a writ petition should not be entertained.

Auditor affected with Covid Causes Delay in Form 10B Report Filing: Madras HC Condones 44-Day Delay with ₹5,000 Cost

M/s.Centre forEducare and Research Charitable Trust vs The Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1117

The Madras High Court condoned a 44-day delay in filing Form 10B required for income tax exemption claims observing that the delay was due to the petitioner's auditor being affected by COVID-19 conditionally.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, recognizing that COVID-19 disruptions continued well into 2022, noted that the reason for delay appeared genuine and deserved leniency. The Court held that procedural delays caused by pandemic-related issues should not defeat substantive rights, especially in the case of public charitable institutions.

Delhi HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Holds Customs’ Detention Without Magistrate’s Approval as Illegal Custody

HABIOB BEDRUOMER vs CUSTOMSCITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1118

TheDelhi High Court granted bail in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, holding that the detention of the applicant by customs officials without producing him before a magistrate within 24 hours amounted to illegal custody.

The bench, by going through various precedents, noted that “there can be no doubt that the applicant was under the 'custody' of the respondent, since the time of his interception on 21.05.2025. As pointed out hereinabove, ‘The Handing Over’ – ‘Taking Over’ memos prepared by the Customs clearly show the transfer of the applicant’s custody from one officer to the other of the respondent. It is further recorded therein that appropriate procedure was to be followed as per the Customs Act, 1962 or NDPS Act, 1985, meaning thereby that the concerned officers were conscious of the fact that the applicant was being detained for suspicion of commission of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act.”

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

Mere Audit Objection Alone Cannot be taken as Basis for Issuing SCN under S. 74: Jharkhand HC Grants Interim Stay on GST Proceedings

M/s. P. K.AGARWALA vs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1119

The Jharkhand High Court has stayed further proceedings pursuant to a demand-cum-show cause notice ( SCN ) issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017, observing that a mere audit objection cannot form the sole basis for such action in the absence of suppression or fraud.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan took cognizance of the petitioner's arguments and observed that prima facie, the SCN appeared to be without jurisdiction. The Court noted that in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement by the assessee, a notice under Section 74 could not be sustained merely on the strength of an audit objection.

GST Orders States ‘No Reply Filed’ Despite Filing: Madras Orders to Pass Order Afresh

M/S.Sri ModernAgencies vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1120

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order that incorrectly recorded no reply to the show cause notice ( SCN ), despite the taxpayer having duly submitted a response.

Justice C. Saravanan, held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed as it was clearly passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply. The Court noted that such procedural lapses not only violate the principles of natural justice but also render the order arbitrary and unsustainable.

It stated that “Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interfering with the impugned order, as the impugned order clearly records that the petitioner has not replied, even though the petitioner has indeed replied on 22.01.2025, which has been duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC 06.”

Ignorance of GST Order Uploaded on Portal Constitutes Genuine Cause: Madras HC Condones 291-Day Delay in Filing Appeal

M/s.ANNAIMEDICALSSole Proprietorship vs The Deputy Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1121

The Madras High Court has condoned a 291-day delay in filing an appeal under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, holding that unawareness of the uploaded assessment order on the GST portal constituted a “genuine cause.”

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, after considering the facts and hearing both sides, held that the petitioner’s explanation was genuine.

As the petitioner had already deposited the statutory 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing the appeal, the Court directed the petitioner to make an additional 10% deposit due to the lengthy delay. Post-compliance with the same by the petitioner, the appellate authority was instructed to admit the appeal and decide it on merits after granting the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.

GST S.73 Order Passed Without SCN and Hearing: Gauhati HC sets aside Orders

MS GANAPATI ENERPRISE vs THE STATEOF ASSAM AND ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1122

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order that was passed without issuing a proper show cause notice or providing an opportunity for personal hearing to the assessee.

It was further noted that the absence of these procedural safeguards amounted to a violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any adverse order.

Accordingly, the Gauhati High Court set aside the impugned GST order dated 28.04.2024 and the corresponding summary of the show cause notice dated 13.12.2023. However, the Court granted liberty to the tax authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73, if deemed appropriate, while excluding the period consumed in the earlier proceedings for limitation purposes.

GST Appeal Dismissed for One-Day Delay: Jharkhand HC rules Appeal filed within Condonable Period of 1 month, Sets aside Order

M/s. J. J.Electrotech Private Limited vs The Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1123

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court has set aside an order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST and Central Excise, Ranchi, who had dismissed a GST appeal on the ground of being filed with a one-day delay.

The division bench of Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan, finding merit in the petition, allowed the writ and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2024. The matter has been remanded back to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi, with directions to reconsider the appeal on its merits, without being influenced by the earlier rejection.

S. 148A Notice Must Be Issued Before S. 147 Order: Jharkhand HC Quashes Order, Finds Lapse by Income Tax Dept

Anvari Khatunvs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1124

The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an order passed under Section 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the Income Tax Department Counsel admitted failure to issue the mandatory notice under Section 148A.

Accordingly, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar set aside the reassessment order and remanded the matter back to respondent no. 4 for fresh consideration. The Court further directed that a notice under Section 148A must now be served upon the petitioner at the address indicated in the writ petition, in compliance with statutory requirements, before any further proceedings are initiated.

No Time Limit u/s 174(2)9e) of CGST Act Does Not Mean Indefinite Time: Jharkhand HC Stays 9-Year-Old Pending Excise Case

M/sInternational Commerce Limited vs The Principal Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1125

The Jharkhand High Court has granted an interim stay on further proceedings in a central excise matter that had remained pending for over nine years.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan passed the order while hearing a writ petition challenging inordinate delay in the conclusion of proceedings initiated through a show cause notice dated 12.10.2015.

The bench ordered an interim stay on all further proceedings before the second respondent until further orders. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 15.07.2025, and the Court directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavit in the meantime.

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

Call Book Fluctuations Not Justification for 15-Year Delay in Customs SCN Adjudication: Delhi HC quashes Final Order

VIJAYENTERPRISES vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1126

The Delhi High Court has quashed a 2008 show cause notice (SCN) issued by the Directorate of RevenueIntelligence (DRI) against Vijay Enterprises and others, citing unreasonable delay and violation of statutory timelines. The Court also set aside the consequential adjudication order passed in January 2024, calling it impermissible and unjust.

The Court expressed serious concern over this parallel proceeding, noting that it rendered the judicial process “redundant.” Referring to multiple precedents, including Swatch Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., the Court reaffirmed that indefinite delays in adjudication—particularly by citing transfer of files to and from the “call book”—are unacceptable.

GST Order Cannot Merely Copy Assessee’s Reply Without Analysis: Madras HC Sets Aside S. 74 Order

Tvl. SKPREADYMIX vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1127

The Madras High Court has set aside a demand order passed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017, after finding that the order merely reproduced the assessee’s reply without any independent discussion or analysis by the adjudicating authority.

However, upon examining the impugned order, Justice C. Saravanan observed that although the petitioner’s reply and submissions made during the personal hearing had been extracted in full, the adjudicating authority had failed to provide any proper discussion or reasoning on the merits of the issues raised.

Interest Cannot Be Levied After GST Paid into E-Cash Ledger Even if GSTR-3B Filed Belatedly and Amount Debited Later: Madras HC

M/s.TamilnaduState Transport Corporation vs The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1128

The Madras High Court has held that interest on delayed GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payment does not accrue beyond the date on which the tax amount is deposited in the electronic cash ledger, even if the actual debit is made at a later date during the filing of GSTR-3B.

In accordance with Rule 88B(1) of the CGST Rules, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that interest liability ends on the day the tax amount is deposited in the electronic cash ledger, citing its previous ruling in M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd.

The rule clarifies that if the tax amount is lying in the cash ledger on the due date but is debited later while filing the return, no interest shall be calculated on such amount for the intervening period.

Electricity Supply Without Consumption Not Taxable as Sale: Karnataka HC Strikes Down Tax on Minimum Tariff

M/S SONASYNTHETICS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1129

In a recent decision, the Karnataka High Court struck down the tax imposed on minimum electricity charges, ruling that the supply of electricity without actual consumption cannot be treated as a sale and is not taxable. The court held that the State does not have the legal authority to levy a tax on such charges under the Indian Constitution.

The court declared the amended Section 3(1) unconstitutional to the extent that it taxed electricity supply without regard to consumption. It allowed the federation’s petition in full, directing the State to refund the tax collected from it between January 15, 2009, and July 18, 2018. For the textile companies, the court did not grant a refund immediately. It observed that these companies had not shown that they bore the tax burden themselves and gave them the liberty to pursue a refund separately through proper legal channels. The writ petition was partly allowed for the companies and fully allowed for the federation.

SBI has Right to Deny Appointment Based on Poor CIBIL Report and Loan Defaults: Madras HC

P.Karthikeyanvs The General Manager CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1130

In a recent decision, the Madras High Court upheld the State Bank of India’s (SBI) right to cancel a candidate’s appointment if they have an adverse credit history and a poor CIBIL report. The court dismissed a writ petition that challenged the cancellation of his appointment as a Circle Based Officer (CBO) based on his past loan defaults and negative credit records.

A single bench led by Justice N. Mala observed that SBI’s eligibility criteria were clearly mentioned in the recruitment notification and had not been challenged by the petitioner. The court found that SBI acted within its rights to enforce these standards and rejected the petitioner’s claim that loan repayment at a later stage should qualify him for appointment. The court also found no merit in the allegation of discrimination, as the other candidates cited by the petitioner had satisfied the conditions set out in a specific internal circular.

 Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector! Click here 

TNVAT ITC utilised during GST Period without Filing TRAN 1 : Madras HC Sets Aside S.74 Order, Allows Fresh Hearing

Tvl .SriVinayagar Steels vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1131

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside a demand order issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017 for availing Input Tax Credit ( ITC) without filing TRAN-1 as prescribed under Section 140 of GST Act.

The Court noted that in similar cases, a consistent view has been taken to offer assessees a chance to rectify such procedural lapses, subject to conditions.

Accordingly, Justice C. Saravanan quashed the impugned assessment order dated 29.10.2024 and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount in cash as a pre-condition.

Orissa HC Questions Selective Re-Interview Process in GSTAT Judicial Member Selection, Issues Notice to Centre

Pranaya KishoreHarichandan vs Union of India and Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1132

In a recent hearing, the Orissa High Court issued notice to the Union of India on a writ petition challenging the selection process for appointing Judicial Members to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The petitioner questioned the legality of conducting a second round of personal interaction for a select group of candidates after all shortlisted applicants had already been interviewed once.

A single bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that the petitioner had raised a serious concern about the fairness of the selection process. The court remarked that there was a prima facie issue as Rule 3(4) did not appear to permit a second round of interviews for only a few candidates. The court added that the process must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, giving equal opportunity to all shortlisted applicants.

Non-consideration of Representation Submitted by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax regarding Promotion as Joint Commissioner amounts to dereliction of duty: Madras HC

K.Chandrasekaranvs The State of Tamilnadu CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1133

The Madras High Court has held that non-consideration of representation submitted by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax regarding promotion to Joint Commissioner amounts to dereliction of duty.

A single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh found that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a StatutoryAuthority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely.

It was submitted that non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty.

Considering the facts and circumstances , the Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 28.12.2023, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Compliant u/s 132 of HPGST Act cannot be quashed simply because investigation was not made with GST Authorities at Delhi: Himachal Pradesh HC

Gagandeep Singhvs State of H.P CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1134

In a recent case, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that compliance under section 132 of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (HPGST)/Central Goods and Services Tax CGST Act, 2017 cannot be quashed simply because investigation was not made with GST authorities at Delhi.

A division bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla and Justice Saurav Pathania viewed that in Mukesh Singh, the Supreme Court held that the investigation is not vitiated simply because the informant is the investigator. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case; hence, the cited judgment does not show that the complaint is liable to be quashed because the investigation was made by the officials of the department.

Benefit of Exemption Claim u/s 12A of Income Tax Act should not have Denied merely on account of delay in furnishing audit report: Orissa HC

Society forTraining Action Research and Rehabilitation vs Central Board of Direct Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1135

The Orissa High Court has held that the benefit of exemption claim under section 12A of Income Tax Act, 1961 should not have been denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the audit report.

The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that mere technicality should not have been grounds for claim of exemption under Section 12A of the IT Act. Thus, the CIT has failed to consider the application for condonation of delay in its right earnest under the provisions of Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with power conferred by virtue of Circular No.10/2019, dated 22.05.2019.

Failure to Justify Custodial Interrogation Undermines ED's Case: Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Matter

ANUP MAJEE vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1136

The Delhi High Court in a recent case granted anticipatory bail to , a businessman accused in a high-profile money laundering case, after finding that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) failed to establish any credible need for custodial interrogation or produce concrete material indicating guilt under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

While granting anticipatory bail, the Court imposed several conditions on the applicant. He was asked to pay a personal bond of ₹2 lakh and two sureties. Furthermore he was asked to surrender his passport. He was also asked to cooperate with the ED during investigation and appearance on summons. The applicant was also asked not to tamper with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also clarified that any breach would entitle the ED to seek cancellation of bail.

Limitation Period of GST Appeal begins from Date of Communication of Order: Rajasthan HC

M/s. SainikMining and Minerals Coy vs Union of India and Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1137

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the limitation period for filing an appeal under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act begins from the date the order is communicated to the assessee, not merely from the date it is passed.

Hearing the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that the appellate authority had failed to examine the important issue of when the cancellation order was actually communicated to the petitioner.

The Court observed that under GST Act, the time limit for filing an appeal runs from the date the order is served or communicated, not the date it is merely passed, and directed the authority to give a clear finding on this aspect.

Not Reply to GST SCN due to Registration Cancellation, Order Passed: Madras HC grants Opportunity to Contest on Condition

Tvl. Ramya AutoSpares vs The Assistant Commissioner(ST) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1138

The Madras High Court has granted conditional relief to a taxpayer who failed to reply to a GST show cause notice (SCN) because their registration had already been cancelled.

JusticeC. Sarvanan observed that although the petitioner failed to reply due to its own default in maintaining an active registration, an opportunity should still be given to contest the demand to ensure natural justice.

Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned assessment order but imposed a condition: the taxpayer must deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in cash with the department.

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