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

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

Rs. 8.02 Crores Dispute and Allegation of Wrongful ITC: Orissa High Court Directs Vedanta to Reply to SCN

M/s. Vedanta Ltd. Jharsuguda vs Union of India and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 183

The Orissa High Court has ordered Vedanta to respond to the show cause notice about ₹8,02,84,232, which the government believes was an incorrectly obtained input tax credit (ITC).The court held that the authority says and will pass order by 5th February, 2025.

Acting Chief Justice Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M.S. Sahoo’s bench has held that the Vedanta petitioner will respond to the contested show-cause notice. Vedanta is free to include any point, including the point of limitation, in it. The order will be issued by February 5, 2025, according to the authority.

Pre-SCN Reply must be considered before Issuing GST SCN: Calcutta HC quashes Notice

M/s Jyoti Tar Products Private Limited & Anr. vs TheDeputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 185

The Calcutta High Court has held that the pre-show cause notice (SCN) reply should be considered before issuing SCN under Goods and Service Tax Act (GST), Act , 2017.The court found that the show-cause notice is a replica of the intimation given earlier and all that the assessing officer has said is that the reply furnished by the appellants in response to the intimation is not found to be satisfactory and hence, not acceptable.

The court quashed the show-cause notice issued under Section 74(1) and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority to consider the reply and if it still finds it to be not satisfactory, it will be well-open to the authority to proceed in accordance with law.

Proceedings under Income Tax Act against Deceased Assessee Cannot be Continued against Legal Representative: Karnataka HC

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER vs SMT.PREETHI V CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 184

The Karnataka High Court held that proceedings initiated against an Income Tax Assessee by issuing notice after his demise cannot be continued against his/her legal representative. It was found that the procedures were started against the deceased Assessee while he was still alive and may have been carried out against his attorneys.

The bench held this after rejecting an appeal from the Income Tax officer contesting a one-judge bench ruling that had supported Preethi V’s petition and revoked the demand and penalty notices as well as any further legal actions that may have followed.

Himachal Pradesh HC Admits Petition Challenging Eligibility Conditions for GSTAT Technical Member

Amit Kashyap vs Principal Secretary & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 186

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has admitted a petition challenging the eligibility conditions for the appointment of a Technical Member in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

The case has garnered considerable head-turns, with interested ones across the country closely watching the progression. In the interim, the High Court has restrained the Government from making any further appointments, delaying the functioning the GSTAT further, albeit for judicial reasons.

Know Tax Planning Real Estate Transactions - CLICK HERE

Arrest on Wrongful Availment of ITC Based on Manipulated Bills: Rajasthan HC Refuses to Grant Bail

Vineet Jain vs Union Of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 187

The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to 10.87 crores, based on forged transactions and also manipulated the bills showing transportation of goods from Delhi to Jaipur. The court found that the material collected by the department prima facie exhibits that the petitioner was fraudulently profited from the ITC based on sham bills obtained or procured in the name of non-existing firms.

The court refused to grant bail on the ground that the material collected by the department prima facie exhibits that the petitioner was fraudulently profited from the ITC based on sham bills obtained or procured in the name of non-existing firms.

GST Evasion by Transporting Gold Jewellery citing Display at Exhibition: Madras HC upholds Confiscation Notice

Mukti Gold Private Limited vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 189

The Madras High Court recently upheld the confiscation of Gold Jewellery claimed by a jeweller to be transported from Mumbai to Tamil Nadu for the purpose of displaying at exhibitions and to potential resellers, observing violation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) provisions intended to provide leeways for the transport procedure.

Observing that the overriding effect of Section 129 over Section 130 of TNGST Act would be applicable only for matters regarding detention and seizure of goods and not confiscation, the Court upheld the decision of the Revenue Authorities and dismissed the Writ while granting livery to the Petitioner to file their reply to the confiscation notice within 14 days of the order for appropriate adjudication.

GST DRC-07 w/o DIN: Andhra Pradesh HC quashes Order

Sunrise Marine Services vs The Assistant Commissioner Stand Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 190

Read More: The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati recently quashed an Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 observing that no Director Identification Number (DIN) was mentioned in the Assessment Order.

In light of the precedents set by the aforesaid judgments, the Andhra Pradesh High Court proceeded to set aside the impugned proceedings passed by the Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 while maintaining their liberty to conduct fresh assessment after providing due notice and assigning DIN to the new assessment order.

Return Filed via Part-Time Accountant: Madras HC Condones 78-Day Delay Due to Taxpayer’s Unawareness of GST Portal Notices

Tvl Ponnusamy vs The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 191

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court condoned a 78-day delay in filing an appeal before the GST appellate authority, citing the petitioner’s lack of awareness about notices uploaded on the GST portal and the returns filed by a part-time accountant.

The court set aside the appellate authority’s rejection order and directed it to accept the appeal and decide it on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The writ petition was disposed of, and the miscellaneous petition was closed without costs.

Issuance of Consolidated SCN for Multiple Years Allowable u/s 74 of CGST: Kerala HC

M/S. X L INTERIORS vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 188

In a recent case, the High Court of Kerala viewed that the bunching of show cause notices does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as it is open to the petitioner to take up any contention peculiar to any particular year in the reply to the show cause notice.

The Single bench of Justice Gopinath P directed that the time for filing a reply to show cause notice shall be extended till 21.11.2024. Since the extension of time is at the request of the petitioner, any limitation for passing orders for any of the financial years will also stand extended by similar period i.e. the period from 21.10.2024 (last date for filing reply as per show cause notice) till 21.11.2024 will stand excluded.

Complete Guide to Reassessment: Comprehensive Topic-wise Analysis, Circulars, Case Laws & Practical Insights - Click here

Revenue cannot extend Reassessment Notice Period Due to Earlier Litigation Delays: Delhi HC

ABHINAV JINDAL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 52 1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 192

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot issue a fresh reassessment notice beyond the prescribed limitation period if the initial notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued without following due procedure.

The court emphasized that the Revenue must adhere to legal procedures and initiate reassessment proceedings within the prescribed time frame. It also noted that no stay order prevented the Revenue from issuing a fresh notice within the limitation period. The petition was thus allowed, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee.

Non-Disclosure of Sensitive Information by DGGI for Search Operation not Amounts to Violation of Natural Justice Principles: Calcutta HC

Deltatech Gaming Limited vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 194

The Calcutta High Court, in its recent judgement has held that the non-disclosure of sensitive information gathered by Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) forming the basis of search operation is not violative of principles of natural justice.

The Court made it clear that, especially when delicate third-party interests are at stake, the principles of natural justice do not grant a right to indiscriminate or irrelevant disclosures. Furthermore, it was heldthat as the department had already given the petitioner access to all of the cited documents, the withholding of sensitive material in this case was appropriate and did not violate natural justice principles.

Customs Gold Baggage Rules: Delhi HC issues Interim Directions w.r.t. Tourists of Indian/Foreign Origin

ANJALI PANDEY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 196

In a recent decision affecting tourists carrying Gold Ornaments, of both Indian and Foreign Origin, the Delhi HIgh Court has issued interim guidelines to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) regarding treatment of gold ornaments as ‘personal effects’ and issuance of detention receipts.

The directions were to be followed henceforth by the Customs Department in all cases where jewellery is seized or detained from tourists of either Indian or foreign origin

3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here

PMLA Scam of Investment in Cloud Particles: Punjab &Haryana HC refuses to Defreeze Bank Account

In a scam of Huge transaction through induced investment in Cloud particles, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has refused to de-freeze bank account of Vuenow Infotech Pvt. Ltd and directed the assessee company to present case before concerned adjudicating authority.The Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ) 2002 is entitled to adjudicate the matter on receipt of a complaint.

The Adjudicating Authority is entitled to adjudicate the matter on receipt of a complaint. Before the Adjudicating Authority all the stakeholders are entitled to participate and explain their position. The court disposed of the writ petitions with the liberty to the petitioners to present their case before the Adjudicating Authority under the 1999 Act as well as the 2002 Act.

Money in Bank Account Liable for Provisional Attachment u/s 281B of Income Tax Act: Kerala HC

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs MOHAMMED SALIH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 193

The Kerala High Court has held that Money in bank account is a ‘property’ and liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

As a result, it is clear that the authorities must make a determination on the likely demand, which at that point is obviously impossible to specify precisely. The amount of property that is attached, including the money that is attached to bank accounts, should, nevertheless, be in proportion to the likely demand, including the penalty. The bench allowed the appeal.

Availability of Statutory Remedy: Kerala HC dismisses Challenge against Benami Act Proceedings

MUHAMMED SUHAIB P C. vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 198

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition against show cause notice (SCN) and provisional attachment order under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 on availability of statutory remedy.

The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas court viewed that the petitioner can raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority and since such a remedy is available, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner is at liberty to file an objection within a period of three weeks from today.

Supreme Courts trashes PIL against Income Tax TDS on Salaried Class

UPADHYAY VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 116

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation against the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) system on salaried individuals under Income Tax Act, while preserving the liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court.

“We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits either way, the writ petition is dismissed as not entertained with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court”, said the bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Post-Inspection GST Registration and Payment of Tax not “Voluntary”: Madras HC

M/s.Annai Angammal Arakkattalai (Pre Mahal) vs The JointCommissioner or GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 199

In a recent decision, the Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice K Kumaresh Babu held that the act of taking a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration and paying tax dues after an inspection cannot be termed voluntary, upholding the imposition of penalty on the GST taxpayer.

Observing that, “Only after the inspection they have agreed to pay the tax by registering themselves. This conduct cannot be said to be a voluntary conduct. There have been contraventions of provisions of the GST Act for which the petitioner is liable to make good the non-payment and also suffer penal consequences for the same”, the Madras High Court bench dismissed the writ petition.

Complete Referencer of GSTR-1, GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C - CLICK HERE

DGGI can Transfer Adjudication of SCN in GST Evasion: Gujarat HC

S. KUSHALCHAND INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. vs THE ADDITIONALDIRECTOR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 195

The Gujarat High Court in a recent case has held that the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax (DGGI) Intelligence (DGGI) is empowered to transfer adjudication of Show cause notice (SCN) in GST evasion.

The court ruled that, generally speaking, the court should not interfere with a show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it lacks jurisdiction, is prohibited by law, or has an invalid patent. There are no requirements in the case’s facts to consider this writ petition, and at this point, no intervention in writ jurisdiction is necessary.

Recording of satisfaction u/s 271E insufficient for Income Tax Penalty proceedings u/s 271D: Rajasthan HC

Sunil Agrawal Son Of Ghanshyam Agarwal VS AssistantCommissioner Of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 203

In a recent decision, the High Court of Rajasthan has held that recording of satisfaction by DCIT under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act is insufficient for the initiation and imposition of proceedings and penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act by Assessing Officers (AO).

It was thus noted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra) and the notice issued under Section 271E and the proceedings in pursuance thereto are quashed, thereby allowing the assessee’s writ petitions.

Paying Penalty for Willful Delay in Filing ITR does not Exempt Taxpayer from Prosecution: Karnataka HC

RAJKUMAR AGARWAL S/O RAGHULAL AGARWAL vs INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 202

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court ruled that merely paying a penalty for delayed filing of Income Tax Returns (ITR) does not exempt a taxpayer from criminal prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act.

A bench led by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty observed that delayed ITR filings, even if later accepted with penalties, do not exempt taxpayers from prosecution under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the taxpayer to rebut the presumption of guilt under Section 278E by presenting evidence before the trial court.

S.10A of IBC Doesn’t Bar CIRP Applications Where Default Continues Beyond Moratorium Period: Madras HC

Dharamshi K.Patel vs Indian Bank CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 201

According to the Madras High Court, situations in which the default persists after the moratorium term is not covered by the proviso to Section 10-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. According to the court, Section 10-A merely places a temporary hold on the start of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

While dismissing the appeal, the court held that there was no extraordinary circumstance warranting the Court to entertain a writ petition when there is an alternative remedy.

Kerala HC Quashes Time-Barred Income Tax Penalty u/s 271B

M/S. VEE ESS HARDWARES vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 204

In the latest judgment that has been passed by the High Court of Kerala, the income tax order imposing penalty under section 271 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it was time-barred.

The bench allowed the writ petition and held that the penalty order is time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) and is invalid. The judgement was passed by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

Madras HC directs Payment of 10% Disputed Tax and Reverification on ITC Mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A

The Nilgiri Dairy Farm P.Limited vs The AssessmentCommissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 205

In a recent ruling regarding mismatch in the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) as per Form GSTR-3B and the auto-populated GSTR-2A, the Madras High Court directed the Petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount while passing an order for re-adjudication by the tax authorities on the basis of new material.

The Madras High Court Bench presided over by Justice Mohammed Shaffiq set aside the impugned order and the consequential demand order while directing the Petitioner to deposit 10% of the disputed taxes along with other compliance measures, the fulfilment of which shall grant the Petitioner another opportunity to submit their objections towards the Respondent who shall pass a fresh order on the basis of any supporting documents or material that are to be produced by the Petitioner.

Fees Paid by Law Firm to use Name & Goodwill of Founder is Business Expense, Deductible u/s 37 of Income Tax Act: Delhi HC rules in Favour of Remfry & Sagar

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -21 VS M/S.REMFRY &SAGAR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 206

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has held that the fees paid by IPR law firm Remfry & Sagar to acquire the goodwill of the founder is a business expense and are deductible under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The primary purpose of referring to the total billing of the law firm was to provide a firm, definite and fixed basis to compute the consideration liable to be paid for use of goodwill.

Delhi High Court quashes GST Show Cause Notices Against Electricity Regulatory Commissions

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION vs THEADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 207

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notices (SCNs) issued to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC), holding that their regulatory functions do not constitute a taxable service under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma, categorically stated that the statutory functions discharged by these commissions, including tariff regulation and licensing, cannot be equated with commercial activities that fall under the purview of GST.

GST on Royalty paid by Quarry Lessor Contracting with State Government: Gujarat HC stays Coercive Action

RAINBOW INFRASTRUCTURE vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 209

The Gujarat High Court recently issued directives to the Revenue Department to refrain from undertaking all forms of coercive action in a dispute regarding the payability of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on royalties paid by an entity who had entered into a contract with the State Government for the lease of a mining quarry.

Granting temporary relief to the Petitioner, Rainbow Infrastructure, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court ordered that no coercive action may be taken by the Respondent Governmental Departments while the present petition remains pending before the High Court. The matter was posted to be heard at a later time alongside the similar matters.

Vehicle Supplier unaware of GST Proceedings: Madras HC directs Re-assessment subject to payment of 25% Disputed Taxes

Tvl.Jainsons Castors and Industrial Products vs TheAssistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 211

The Madras High Court recently granted relief to a supplier of purpose-built automotive vehicles, realizing their right to avail reassessment following their failure to participate in assessment proceedings due to not being aware of the initiation of such proceedings undertaken by the Revenue Department.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed the submissions and directed the Petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed taxes to be paid so as to provide them another opportunity of presenting their case, and objections if any, within four weeks from receiving a copy of the present order. Issuing a note of warning to the Petitioner, the Single-Judge advised that any failure to abide by the conditions set by the High Court would result in the restoration of the impugned Assessment Orde

Madras HC sets aside ITC VAT Order u/s Section 19(5)(c) of TNVAT Act observing Pendency of Supreme Court Decision

Tvl.Elgi Equipments Limited vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 211

The Madras High Court recently set aside an Order passed by the Respondent Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) rejecting the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), citing the pendency of a Supreme Court decision on a similar matter.

Observing precedence, the present Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court averring that the impugned order cannot be sustained insofar as it invokes Section 19(5)(c) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, while keeping the door open for the Revenue to pursue the matter following the decision of the Supreme Court.

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

No Mandate to approach GST Appellate Authority before Invoking Revisionary Provisions: Allahabad HC

M/S Buddha Resorts Private Limited vs Chief CommissionerOf Goods And Services Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 210

The Allahabad High Court recently affirmed that the provisions under the Goods and Service Tax (GST) regime does not require a Petitioner aggrieved by an order of an adjudicatory body to first approach the appellate authority before seeking to invoke the revisionary provisions under the Act.

Consequently, the Allahabad High Court proceeded to restore the matter before the Revisional Authority for fresh adjudication in terms of the present decision.

Income Tax Department Cannot Recover Tax Arrears from Properties Auctioned Under KGST Act: Kerala HC

JOB G.OOMMEN vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 213

The Kerala High Court ruled that the Income Tax Department cannot recover tax arrears from properties that were auctioned under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act.

A Single Bench of Judge Harisankar V.Menon also referred to previous rulings, including one from the Supreme Court, which stated that the Income Tax Department doesn’t get priority over other claims unless clearly stated in law. The Court ultimately ruled that the Income Tax Department could not take any action against the properties and dismissed their claims.

Kerala High Court upholds Settlement Commission’s decision on Undisclosed Income

THOMAS PHILIP vs INTERIM BOARD FOR SETTLEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 214

The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal by businessman Thomas Philip against the Income Tax Interim Board for Settlement-II. The court ruled that loans availed by Philip from his companies should be treated as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that these transactions qualified as undisclosed income for tax purposes.

The Kerala High Court ruled that settlement orders are final and cannot be easily challenged in court. Loans from closely held companies to major shareholders can be taxed as dividends under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. In conclusion, the writ appeal was dismissed.

2002 Amendment to CST Act Won’t Affect Accrued Rights: Supreme Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. vs PRISM CEMENTLIMITED & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 120

The Supreme Court held that even though after the amendment of Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the State Government’s right to grant exemption from tax has ceased to exist, the accrued right of assessees won’t affect. It would not apply to the cases where an absolute exemption has already been granted.

While dismissing the appeal, the Court viewed that the State Government was not justified in issuing the impugned notices and taking away the granted benefit. Further held that the requirement of submission of Form ‘C’ and ‘D’ would apply prospectively after 11.05.2002 i.e., after the Finance Act of 2002.

No Penalty Exception u/s 271AAA(2) if Undisclosed Income is Declared only during Assessment Proceedings: Supreme Court

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 232

The Supreme Court of India recently affirmed that the exception to penalty encompassed under Section 271AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be applicable if the Assessee has declared the undisclosed income only during the stage of assessment proceedings and not during search, even if requisite taxes were paid voluntarily.

A Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manmohan observed that the Appellant had only disclosed part of the income during search, while ₹2,49,90,000 was admitted later during assessment, justifying the penalty. Being so, the Apex Court clarified that the term ‘found in the course of search’ is of wide amplitude and includes subsequent recoveries linked to the search. Since the income in question was discovered through sale deeds obtained as a result of the search, it was rightly categorized as undisclosed. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal levying a penalty of 10% on the ₹2,49,90,000 revealed during assessment proceedings.

Filing ITR after Due Date still Constitutes Offence u/s 276CC, Even before Prosecution: Supreme Court

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 117

The Supreme Court has ruled that filing an Income Tax Return ( ITR ) after the due date but before prosecution does not eliminate liability for offenses under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court clarified that the offense under Section 276CC is committed the day after the due date for filing the return expires, not on the date of belated filing. Since the offense for AY 2013-14 (committed on 01.11.2013) occurred before the show-cause notice for AY 2011-12 was issued (27.10.2014), both offenses should have been treated as a “first offense.” The appeal was disposed.

Madras HC slams Chennai Customs for Seizing Sri Lankan Bride’s Gold Thaali (mangalsutra)

Thanushika vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 215

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court criticized the Chennai Customs Department for unlawfully seizing gold jewelry from a Sri Lankan citizen, including her Thaalikodi ( mangalsutra ), and directed the customs authorities to return the jewelry. The court ordered an inquiry into the misconduct of the seizing officer and explained that worn jewelry does not qualify as baggage under customs laws.

The court quashed the confiscation order and directed the immediate return of the seized gold within seven days. The court ordered an inquiry against the customs officer, S. Mythili, and directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs ( Tamil Nadu & Puducherry ) to take disciplinary action. The matter was also referred to the Department of Personnel & Training (IRS-Customs) for further investigation.

Delhi HC directs Customs, GST Department, DRI and DGGI to Properly Instruct Counsel Appearing on Advance Service

M/S VISHAL VIDEO AND APPLIANCES PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS AC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 217

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department, the Central GST Department, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and the Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI) to make sure that counsel representing them on advance service are instructed properly.

Following this, the Customs Department, appearing in the matter, furnished a list of specific email addresses to which advance copies are to be served. The Court then directed its Registry to ensure that whenever cases relating to Customs and GST are filed before the Court, the advance copies are served at the relevant email addresses as mentioned in the list.

Court Cannot Condone Delay in Filing of Appeal Beyond Timeline u/s 107(1) and 107(4) CGST Act: Delhi HC

M/S ADDICHEM SPECIALLITY LLP vs SPECIAL COMMISSIONER I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 219

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court ruled that the statutory timeline for filing an appeal, as provided under Section 107(1) and the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4), is absolute and cannot be extended.

The court held that the appeals were filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, so the Appellate Authority was correct in rejecting them. The court also held that the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be used to extend statutory time limits and that strict adherence to tax laws is necessary to maintain compliance and administrative efficiency.

Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - CLICK HERE

Complete Compliance is necessary under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme: Kerala HC

MAHALI ASSANAR AZEEZ vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 218

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has observed that mere attempted compliance is not sufficient , but actual compliance is necessary under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas scheme and held that if the petitioner has, by now, remitted the full amount required to be remitted by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, the liability of the petitioner will be treated as settled.

A single bench of Justice Gopinath P while allowing the writ petition directed that if the petitioner has, by now, remitted the full amount required to be remitted by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, the liability of the petitioner for tax, penalty and interest for the assessment year 2009-2010 will be treated as settled and the petitioner will be eligible for all benefits under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

“Personal Effects” u/s 2(vi) of Baggage Rules cannot exclude Personal Jewelry or Ornaments: Delhi HC

ANJALI PANDEY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 220

The Delhi High Court recently noted that 3 gold bangles would have been worn by the petitioner as a part of her personal effects, and there was no requirement to declare the same.

The judgement was concluded by Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma by directing the Customs to follow this decision in all cases where jewellery is seized or detained from tourists of either Indian or foreign origin

Delhi HC Upholds ITAT Order Allowing Deduction of Goodwill License Fee u/s 37

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -21 vs M/S.REMFRY &SAGAR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 221

The Delhi High Court has upheld an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing the deduction of a license fee paid for the use of goodwill under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, dismissed the Revenue’s appeals, upholding the ITAT’s decision to allow the deduction of the license fee under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act.

Kerala HC sets aside Direction to Pay 20% Assessed Income Tax Considering the stay applications/condonation of delay applications

THE CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT vs THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 222

The High Court of Kerala sets aside the direction to pay the 20% assessed Income Tax as the assessee made stay applications/condonation of delay applications. While upholding the direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the series of applications within a prescribed time, the court modified the latter part of the judgment of the Single Judge and directed that the 5th respondent shall consider the stay applications/delay condonation applications preferred by the appellant,

The recovery of the amounts confirmed against the appellant by the 6 assessment orders impugned in the appeals before the 5th respondent, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 5th respondent in the delay condonation applications/stay applications referred above.

Failure to Give Opportunity of Hearing: Kerala HC Sets Aside Income Tax Order Against Kerala Minerals & Metals

KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED vs THEADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 223

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court set aside the income tax order against Kerala Minerals and Metals as the department failed to give the opportunity of a hearing while passing the order.

In such circumstances, the court found that the impugned orders have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, entitling the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The bench set aside the orders and the 3rd respondent Appellate Authority shall hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

Mere Absence of GSTN in Supplier Certificate Not Sufficient to Deny ITC Claim: Allahabad HC

M/S Bhagwan Das Agrahari VS State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 224

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the absence of GSTN in a supplier’s certificate alone is not a valid ground for denying the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) and directed the tax authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s claim.

The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication. The court directed the tax department to consider all submitted materials and issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months. The court also clarified that any amount deposited by the petitioner would be subject to the final decision of the tax department. The writ petition was allowed.

Delay in Issuing Requisition u/s 132A: Delhi HC Upholds Validity and Links Seized Cash to Undisclosed Income

GAUTAM THADANI vs DIRECTOR INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) ANDANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 225

In the recent ruling,the High Court of Delhi,upheld the validity of the requisition under Section 132A of Income Tax Act,1961 and linked the seized ₹98,00,000 to undisclosed income, finding the assessee’s explanation about the cash unconvincing.

The two member bench comprising Vibhu Bakhru(Additional Chief Justice) and Swarana Kanta Sharma(Judge) found the petitioner’s explanations unconvincing and upheld the requisition, agreeing with the Income Tax Authorities that the cash was linked to undisclosed income. To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Delhi HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 132 Companies and NFRA Rules in Challenge by CA Firms, quashes SCNs

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS LLP vs UNION OF INDIA &ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 226

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, and Rules 3, 8, 10, and 11 of the National Financial Reporting Authority ( NFRA ) Rules, 2018.

In result, the Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 132(4) and the NFRA Rules while emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the separation of functions within regulatory bodies.

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

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling; Imposing Service Tax on Lottery Distributor is Unconstitutional

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS vs FUTURE GAMING SOLUTIONSPVT. LTD. & ANOTHER ETC. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 118

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the Union Government’s appeal, affirming that lottery distributors are not liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court held that being no agency and no service rendered, service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the purchaser of the lottery tickets and the Government of Sikkim.

The bench held that being no agency and no service rendered by the respondents-assessees as an agent to the Government of Sikkim, service tax is not leviable on the transactions between the purchaser of the lottery tickets (respondents-assessees) and the Government of Sikkim. Gurmeet Singh appeared for the petitioner and Arjun Garg appeared for the respondent.

Madras HC issues Directions to Streamline Cheque Bouncecases under Negotiable Instruments Act

In order to expedite and guarantee the timely resolution of check bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a number of directives. These directives were based on precedents previously established by the Supreme Court in similar instances throughout the years.

Additionally, the Court ordered that trial courts do everything in their power to finish the proceedings by the deadline set by Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In order for the judicial magistrates who hear these matters to be informed, the Court additionally ordered that a copy of its ruling be forwarded to each Principal District Judge in Tamil Nadu.

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