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

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.

Delegation of power to categorize Consumers as per discretion without any guidance in Duty Act is invalid: Andhra Pradesh HC

A.P. TextileMills Association vs State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1180

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that delegation of power to categorize Consumers as per discretion without any guidance in A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939 is invalid.

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

The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao viewed that the stand of the State is that, guidance has to be elicited on the basis of the Objects and Reasons, of Act 23 of 2024. As discussed above, no guidance can be obtained from these Objects and Reasons. Consequently, the delegation of power, to the executive, to identify categories without any guideline or policy, would amount to excessive delegation, which is not permissible.

Tariff can be regulated under Electricity Act, levy of Duty is sole prerogative of State and cannot be regulated under Act : Andhra Pradesh HC

A.P. TextileMills Association vs State of Andhra Pradesh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1180

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Tariff can be regulated under Electricity Act,2003 while levy of Duty is sole prerogative of the state which cannot be regulated under the act.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao viewed that cross subsidy which is a part of the Tariff can be regulated under the provisions of the Electricity Act. However, levy of duty, either for the purposes of subsidizing consumers or for any other purpose, would be outside the scope of the regulatory process under the Electricity Act, 2003. The levy of Duty or additional Duty is the sole prerogative of the State and cannot be regulated under the Electricity Act, 2003.

No PAN Mandatory for Lower TDS under DTAA: Gujarat HC rules in favour of Adani Wilmar Ltd

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX vs M/S ADANI WILMAR LTD. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1181

In a ruling in favour of Adani Wilmar Ltd, the Gujarat High Court has held that the Permanent Account Number (PAN) is not mandatory for lower Tax Deducted At Source (TDS) under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). The bench affirmed the Tribunal order upholding CIT(Appeals) action in deleting the tax demand relatable to difference between 20% and the actual tax rate on which tax was deducted by the respondent assessee in terms of the relevant DTAAS.

How to deal with GST special audit and departmental audit? Register Now

The division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has concluded that the CIT(A) in deleting the tax demand relatable to difference between 20% and the actual tax rate on which tax was deducted by the assessee in terms of the relevant DTAAs. As the respondent assessee has deducted the tax at source on payment made to non residents on account of royalty and/or fees for technical services at the rates prescribed in respective DTAAs between India and respective countries of non residents and such rate of tax being lower than rate of 20% as provided under section 206AA of the Act, CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly arrived at concurrent findings to the effect that as per section 90(2) of the Act, the provisions of DTAA would override the provisions of the Domestic Act where the provisions of the DTAA are more beneficial to the assessee.

Delayed Service of GST Notice Hardcopy: Madras HC Condones 142-Day Delay and Allows Tax Appeal

M/s.SivasubramanianLaxmanan vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1182

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has condoned a 142-day delay in filing a GST appeal, due to a delay in receiving the physical demand notice, despite it being uploaded online earlier.

The High Court Justice Vivek Kumar Singh noted that the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay, especially since the demand notice was not immediately communicated in physical form.

Consequently, the Court condoned the delay, set aside the order rejecting the appeal, and directed the appellate authority to hear the matter afresh on merits, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Patna HC Directs State GST Dept to refund Rs. 10K against Illegal GST Recovery Conducted

M/S GreatEastern Hire Purchase Private Limited vs The State of Bihar CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1183

The Patna High Court has ordered the State GST Department to return the money plus 9% simple interest and Rs. 10,000 in costs after invalidating an unlawful tax recovery made under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

After seeing that the authorities had violated their previous order, the division bench consisting of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ashok Kumar Pandey sent show-cause notices to the Appellate Authority and the Assistant Commissioner. They were requested to defend themselves against being held personally responsible for paying interest and legal fees resulting from their deliberate disregard for the court's order, as well as why contempt proceedings should not be brought against them. Both officers gave unequivocal apologies and show-cause replies in return.

Dispute Over Email ID in Income Tax Proceedings leading to Ex Parte Order: Madras HC Directs Fresh Consideration

NatarajanManohar vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1184

The Madras High Court has remanded a case back to the Income Tax Department for fresh consideration after noting that an ex parte assessment order was passed without proper service of notice to the taxpayer.

MSME Dues Stuck? Recover Payments Legally - No Court Needed - Register Now 

The fact that the assessment order had been issued ex parte was undeniable, says Madras High Court Justice Krishnan Ramasamy. The Court determined that the petitioner's assertion that he did not receive correspondence at his personal email account seemed sincere and merited review, given the case's involvement with natural justice and tax responsibility issues.

Relief to Hindustan Equipment Pvt. Ltd, 50% Relief Under 2020 Samadhan Scheme Applies to Taxpayers with Pending Appeals: Madhya Pradesh HC

M/S HINDUSTANEQUIPMENT PVT. LTD vs STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT ANDOTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1185

In a recent ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held Hindustan Equipment Pvt. Ltd eligible under 2020 Samadhan Scheme (The Madhya Pradesh Karadhan Adhiniyamon Ki Puranee Bakaya Rashi Ka Samadhan Adhyadesh, 2020) holding that taxpayers with pending appeals are eligible for 50% relief under the said Scheme.

A division bench of Justices Vivek Rusia and Binod Kumar Dwivedi observed that “Had the petitioner submitted an application for settlement under the Ordinance during the pendency of the proceeding before the Assessment Officer, then certainly this case would have fallen under category 1, but now that stage has crossed. The petitioner’s case is pending before the appellate authority as per the definition of 2(f) the settlement amount is liable to be calculated on the basis of the disputed amount.”

Putting up Non-Commercial Signages on their Property: Karnataka HC Sets aside Ad Tax Demand on Educational Institutions

SRI. B.S. GUPTAvs THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1186

While setting aside a demand for advertisement tax against an educational institution, the Karnataka High Court has held that in the absence of any commercial or promotional content, advertisement tax under Section 134 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 is not applicable for displaying non-commercial signage and boards on its own property.

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

A single bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum viewed the placement of signage on the college building as being part and parcel of the institution's physical infrastructure and not intended to solicit business. Such signage lacks the essential character of an advertisement as defined under Rule 2A(1) of the BBMP Advertisement Bye-laws 2006.

Goods Classification under EPCG by DGFT Binding on Customs Department

M/s.Adyar GateHotel Ltd vs The Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1187

In a notable judgment with implications for importers availing duty concessions under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, the Madras High Court has held that the classification of goods as ‘capital goods’ under an EPCG licence issued by the Directorate General ofForeign Trade (DGFT) is binding on the Customs Department.

The Court observed that the Customs authorities cannot take a contradictory stand or deny concessional duty benefits once such classification is accepted by the licensing authority.

GST Appeal Delayed for 1 day as Due Date was Sunday, Dept Refuses to Condone Delay: Madras HC Condones delay

M/s.Star Conesvs 1.The Deputy Commissioner (ct) Gst-appeal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1188

The Madras High Court has condoned a one-day delay in filing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal caused by the due date falling on a Sunday.

After considering both sides, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the reason for the delay was genuine and unavoidable.

The Court noted that the last date fell on a Sunday, which was beyond the petitioner’s control, and that the subsequent filing on Monday should be treated as within time, especially since the petitioner had acted in good faith and complied with the statutory pre-deposit requirement. The bench found the reasons of the petitioner genuine.

SCN u/s 75(10) of CGST Act issued after 30 days period is without Jurisdiction: Gujarat HC rules in favour of IndusInd Bank

INDUSIND BANKLIMITED vs STATE OF GUJARAT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1189

In a recent case, the Gujarat High Court ruled in favour of IndusInd Bank, holding that a show cause notice (SCN) under section 75(10) of the Central Goods andService Tax Act (CGST Act), 2017, issued after a 30-day period is without jurisdiction. It was observed that when the period prescribed is three months as contrasted from 90 days from a specified date, the said period would expire in the third month.

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

A division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the three months would be over on 28.11.2024 and therefore, the show cause notice dated 30.11.2024 would be without jurisdiction and as a consequence thereof, the impugned order in original would be without jurisdiction.

GST Notice via WhatsApp Not a Valid Mode of Service u/s 169, Even During COVID-19: Kerala HC

MATHAI M.V vs THE SENIOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1190

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that GST notices sent via WhatsApp are not a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, even if used during the COVID-19 period.

The court observed that service of notice is a mandatory requirement before confiscating goods or conveyances under Section 130, and the department’s failure to follow the statutory procedure rendered the confiscation illegal. The court set aside the confiscation of the petitioner’s truck, which had been seized by the GST department without issuing a proper statutory notice.

Section 5A Tax on Buildings Valid as It’s Not a Luxury Tax, But Recovery Barred Beyond 3 Years: Kerala HC

ISON GEORGE vs STATE OF KERALA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1191

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, which imposes tax on large residential buildings, is valid as it is not a luxury tax but a tax on buildings and ruled that recovery of such tax cannot be made for periods beyond three years from the date of the demand notice.

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

The court set aside the demand for the years 2007-2008 to 2015-2016 while upholding the validity of Section 5A of the Act. It ruled that the department could recover tax dues only for the period from 2016-2017 onwards. The writ appeal was partly allowed.

Madras HC Upholds Continuation of ADD on Viscose Staple Fibre Imports from Indonesia Despite 11-Day Gap Between Expiry and Extension

M/s.PT.SouthPacific Viscose vs The Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1192

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court dismissed a set of writ petitions filed by PT South Pacific Viscose challenging the continuation of anti-dumping duty (ADD) on imports of Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) from Indonesia despite a gap of eleven days between the expiry of the original notification and the extension.

The court also observed that the petitioner’s reliance on the Kumho Petrochemicals ruling was misplaced, as the decision only applied where the review itself was initiated after the expiry of the levy. The court further observed that the petitioner should have approached the Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, given that the case related to the rate of duty, and noted that writ petitions were not the appropriate remedy in such cases.

AO Not Bound By Observations of First Appellate Authority during De Novo VAT Assessment: Madras HC Upholds Sales Tax Tribunal Decision

The State ofTamil Nadu vs Tvl.Aro Granite Industries Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1193

The Madras High Court recently shed light on the independent authority exercisable by an Assessing Officer (AO) during de novo proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Value Added TaxAct, 2006, confirming that the AO is not bound by the observations of the first appellate authority while conducting a reassessment.

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

The Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar considered these submissions and observed that, during de novo assessment proceedings, the AO must independently apply his mind to all facts and circumstances of the case, strictly in accordance with law; and should not be constrained by the observations of the appellate authority in the preceding stage.

GST Return Filed and Paid Outstanding Dues Till date of GST Cancellation : Gauhati HC Direct to Revoke Cancellation

Smti GichakDaniam vs The State of AP CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1194

The Gauhati High Court has directed the revival of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration cancelled by tax authorities, observing that the petitioner had filed the requisite returns and paid all outstanding dues up to the date of cancellation.

The Court observed that the petitioner had complied with requirements, including filing the necessary returns and clearing outstanding dues up to the date of cancellation. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent authorities to restore the GST registration.

It ordered that the revocation of the cancellation be carried out within 25 days from the date of the judgment. Additionally, the authorities were instructed to inform the petitioner of any remaining statutory dues to facilitate the filing of returns, if required.

GST Attachment Order Withdrawn After Appeal Admitted: Orissa HC Dismisses Writ as Infructuous

M/s.Manoj Distributor vs The Chief Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1195

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST ( Goods and Services tax ) attachment order after noting that the statutory appeal against the assessment order had already been filed and admitted. The matter was heard via hybrid mode.

Your ultimate guide for mastering TDS provisions - Click here 

Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman observed that “Since the order of attachment has already been withdrawn and the original order of assessment is the subject- matter of challenge in the statutory appeal, we thus feel that justice would not be sub-served to keep the instant writ petition pending.”

CBIC Circular Allowing Superintendents to Issue GST Summons Prima Facie Without Legal Authority: Rajasthan HC Grants Interim Stay

M/s MohitKirana Store vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1196

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court granted an interim stay on the operation of a CBIC circular that allowed Superintendents to issue GST summons, finding that it prima facie lacked legal authority under the GST law.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case, indicating that the circular may have been issued without proper legal authority. The court also observed that since a substantial legal question was involved, the matter required detailed examination at the final hearing stage.

Income Tax Proceedings cannot Survive if Empowering Notices have been Statutorily Quashed: Madras HC

DevarajRamasamy Naidu vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1197

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court reiterated the settled position of law that all proceedings flowing from a foundational or “empowering” notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall stand vitiated if the relevant notice has been quashed by a competent court.

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

The single-judge Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the entirety of the reassessment and penalty proceedings would stand unsustainable when the original notice giving rise to such proceedings has already been set aside by the Division Bench.

Button Mushroom Cultivation Under Controlled Conditions Not Exempt as Agricultural Income, Taxable as Business Income: Madras HC

The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-1 vs M/s.British Agro Products (India) Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1198

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that income from cultivating white button mushrooms under controlled conditions is not agricultural income and is taxable as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Saravanan observed that under Section 2(1A), agricultural income requires a direct nexus with land used for agricultural purposes, and the product must be raised on such land.

The court observed that cultivating mushrooms in controlled factory conditions without using land for agriculture does not meet the statutory definition, regardless of the soil being placed in trays. The court also observed that the ITAT erred in relying solely on the Special Bench decision in Inventaa Industries without independently examining the statutory definition of agricultural income in the present case.

Relief to TVS: Madras HC Quashes Income Tax Notices Issued by JAO, Upholds Mandatory Notice By FAO under Faceless Assessment

TVS CreditServices Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1199

In a Recent ruling, the Madras High Court has quashed income tax notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and affirmed that such notices must be issued by the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) under the mandatory faceless assessment regime.

The Division Bench ruled that notices issued by the JAO were invalid. It quashed the impugned notices and set aside related proceedings, keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek revival of the petitions if it succeeds before the Supreme Court.

Are You Paying More Tax Than You Should? Master Capital Gains Law Now! Click here 

The bench also noted that issues not covered by the Hexaware judgment remain open for adjudication at the appropriate stage. The writ petitions were disposed of in favor of the assessee, TVS Credit Services Limited, with no order as to costs. All connected interim applications were also closed.

Relief for Hyundai: Madras HC Rules Income Tax Assessment Cannot Be Reopened Just for AO's Changed Opinion on Forex Gains

TheCommissioner of Income Tax vs Hyundai Motor India Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1201

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed the reopening of Hyundai Motor India Ltd’s income tax assessment, stating that the action was based merely on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer regarding foreign exchange gains and technical know-how payments.

A division bench led by Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the Assessing Officer had issued extensive questionnaires during the original proceedings and had concluded the assessment after considering Hyundai’s detailed responses. The court held that the reassessment notice lacked fresh tangible material and was solely based on a reappraisal of the same facts already examined.

GST ITC Denial Without Considering Retrospective Relief u/s 16(5) Unjustified: Calcutta HC Remands Case

DYS ImpexPrivate Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1202

The Calcutta High Court held that denying Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act without considering the retrospective effect of Section 16(5) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 is unjustified.

The High Court noted that the extended benefit provided under Section 16(5) had substantially altered the scope and application of Section 16(4).

The Court stated that since the refund denial rested solely on the limitation under Section 16(4), without accounting for the overriding effect of Section 16(5), such rejection could not be sustained.

As a result, the Court quashed both the appellate and adjudication orders and remanded the matter to the proper officer for de novo consideration in light of the amended provision

GST Penalty cannot be Levied when there is No Intention to Evade Tax : Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Demand for Missing E-Way Bill

M/s KunalAluminum Company vs State of Himachal Pradesh & ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1203

The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the penalty and tax demand imposed under Section 129 and 130 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act for non-generation of an e-way bill, ruling that the absence of intent to evade tax renders such a penalty unsustainable. It reaffirmed the necessity of ‘Men Rea’.

The court noted that penalties under tax law must be reserved for deliberate acts of tax evasion, not for genuine, inadvertent lapses. According to the bench, the burden of proof lies with the tax authorities to establish a taxpayer’s intent to evade, before imposing any penalty.

Nine GSTINs, NIL Returns, and Massive ITC Fraud: Patna HC Says No Prima Facie Case for Interference under Article 226

MangalamEnterprises vs The State of Bihar CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1204

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Mangalam Enterprises, a sole proprietorship, seeking to quash a tax demand of over ₹1.59 crore raised under Section 74(9) of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act.

The Court observed that no prima facie case had been made out for invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While dismissing the petition, the Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that “No ground for entertaining this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India… has been made out. The statements made in the counter affidavit have not even been controverted by the petitioner.”

Mandatory Personal hearing u/s 28(8) of Customs Act cannot be denied by relying on special provision S.122A: Kerala HC

M/S. PREMIERMARINE FOODS vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1205

The Kerala High Court has held that a mandatory hearing opportunity is to be granted under section 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 and it cannot be denied by the department by relying on a special provision under section 122A of the act.

On going through the notice, the single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. found that apart from requiring the petitioner to submit evidence of realization of the export proceeds within 30 days and also intimating that if the exporter desires to be heard, they may request for the same in writing, no specific date was fixed for personal hearing. Thus, the 2nd respondent had only extended an option to the petitioner to avail an opportunity for personal hearing, if they desire.

Kerala HC Upholds validity of SCN Served on Adult Member of Noticee u/s 153 of Customs Act

MANUVALIYAVEETTIL MADHU vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1206

The Kerala High Court upheld the validity of a show cause notice served on the adult member of the noticee under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962. The contentions of the petitioner that the proper opportunity was denied to contest the matter cannot be accepted while upholding the validity of the notice served.

The bench viewed that the contentions that the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity to contest the matter cannot be accepted as the notice was served upon the petitioner through the elderly member of the family is admitted and later, an opportunity to appear through virtual mode was availed by the petitioner. By utilizing the said opportunity, the petitioner appeared before the adjudicating officer concerned and offered his explanation without raising any contention with regard to the non-receipt of the show cause notice or denial of opportunity to submit an explanation to the notice.

Absence of Express Reference for Conveyance in Confiscation Order does not Exclude It from Confiscation u/s130 CSGT Act: Kerala HC

ASGAR ALI vsUNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1207

The Kerala High Court, in its recent ruling, held that the absence of an express reference to the conveyance in the confiscation order does not exclude it from confiscation under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The court denied the petition, ruling that the operative component of the directive, which was issued in lieu of confiscation, stipulated that the sums must be collected prior to the release of goods and conveyance in order to collect taxes, penalties, and fines. In these situations, the order did not call for the forfeiture of the conveyance.

Madras HC Dismisses writ petition against SEBI on availability of remedy u/s 15T of SEBI Act

M/s.SASCityscapes Pvt.Ltd vs The Securities and Exchange Board of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1208

In a recent case, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on availability of remedy under section 15 T of the SEBI Act , 1992.

Not All Cash Is Legal! Discover when to say NO - Click here 

A single bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh on the ground of availability of an effective and efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Section 15 (T) (1) (a) of the SEBI Act, 1992 provides for an appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal and such appeal has to be filed within a period of 45 days and the Tribunal has also been given the power to condone the delay, if any appeal is filed after the expiry of 45 days, if sufficient cause is shown for the delay.

Dispute Over Ownership of Property during Liquidation Process under Company Law: Madras HC directs Official Liquidator to value building through ITCOT within 60 days

M/s.TeamAssociates vs The Official Liquidator CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1209

In a recent case, the Madras High Court directed the official liquidator to value the building through ITCOT within 60 days while a dispute over the ownership of property arose during the liquidation process under company law.

Judge Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy's single bench ruled that the Official Liquidator had sixty days to value the building on S.F. No. 79/1 using ITCOT. Within 30 days of obtaining the valuation report, the applicants (Team Associates & Vangili Feeds) must give the Official Liquidator the building's worth.

No Double GST Action on Same Issue: Karnataka HC Quashes State Notice to Toyota Kirloskar Amid Central Proceedings

M/S TOYOTAKIRLOSKAR AUTO PARTS PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1210

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court quashed a State GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) notice issued to Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Pvt. Ltd., holding that the State authorities could not initiate proceedings on the same issue when the Central GST authorities had already begun action.

The court directed Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts to file its reply to the notice issued by the Central GST authorities, allowing the department to reconsider the petitioner’s ITC claim in accordance with applicable laws and recent circulars.

The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for relief under the Amnesty Scheme, allowing the proceedings to be considered under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which could potentially enable the petitioner to resolve the dispute on favourable terms. The writ petition was allowed.

Income Tax Dept. Can’t Deny Adequate Time for SCN Reply Citing Limitation, Must Initiate Proceedings Earlier: Madras HC Grants Relief to Tamil Nadu Power Corp.

The Tamil NaduPower Distribution Corporation Ltd. vs Joint commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1211

The Madras High Court recently granted relief to the Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TNPDC) in a dispute concerning the Income Tax Department’s denial to provide TNPDC adequate time to respond to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Income Tax Department citing reasons of being barred by limitation.

The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, observed that if limitation truly was the basis for restricting the time for reply, the department ought to have acted with greater diligence and issued the show cause notice much earlier.

No Interference with Order by Income Tax Settlement Commission Unless Contrary to Law or involves Bias, Fraud, or Malice: Madras HC

M/s.Sri KrishnaTiles and Potteries vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1212

The Madras High Court has ruled that courts cannot interfere with orders passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission unless they are contrary to law or involve bias, fraud, or malice.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan, undertook a detailed review of Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including the decision of the Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-3) vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) and others, (Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt. Ltd) (2019) to reiterate that the Settlement Commission operates as a forum for self-surrender and relief, not as a tribunal for contesting the legality of assessment orders.

Reopening Based on Information in Audited Statements Invalid: Madras HC Finds No Failure by Company to Disclose Material Facts

Sterling TreeMagnum India vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1213

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that reopening the assessment of Sterling Tree Magnum India Ltd was invalid as the reassessment was based solely on information already available in the company’s audited statements and reports, with no failure on the company’s part to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the original assessment.

The court observed that the Assessing Officer had the opportunity to examine these details during the initial scrutiny, and the reopening was not justified merely because the officer did not notice or interpret the disclosures earlier.

Dismissal of Customs Appeal on Limitation Set Aside: Madras HC Allows Reconsideration of Duty Drawback Claim Upon Full Deposit

M/s.SangeethaTex vs The Commissioner of GST and C.EX (Appeals) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1214

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the dismissal of the firm’s customs appeal on the grounds of limitation and remanded the matter back to the customs authorities for reconsideration.

However, Justice C. Saravanan, in the interest of justice, considering that the petitioner’s willingness to make deposit and as the matter is on the export incentive, rescued the petitioner by directing to remit the whole disputed amount of Rs.2,59,517/- within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Transfer of Tata Projects’ ECL under GST: Rajasthan HC Directs GSTN to Act on Grievance Within Two Months

M/s TataProjects Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1215

The Rajasthan High Court, with regards to the transfer of Electronic Cash Ledger ( ECL ) under GST has directed the Goods and Services Tax Network ( GSTN ) to address the grievance raised by Tata Projects Limited within two months.

The division bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit passed this order while disposing of a writ petition filed by the company.

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