Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [ June 28th to July 5th, 2025]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from June 28th to July 5th, 2025.

Dismissal of GST Appeal for Delay Without Proper Justification Liable to Interference: Madras HC

M/s.Thulasi Fabric rep. by its Proprieterix R.Meena vs The StateTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1144

The Madras High Court ruled that the dismissal of a Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal solely on the ground of delay, without proper justification, was liable to interference.

Justice C.Saravanan after hearing the submissions of the petitioner counsel and the Government Advocate for the respondents, observed that the appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay without a proper explanation, which warranted interference.

It further noted that the petitioner had already paid the disputed tax and the issue pertained only to a delay in payment. The question of whether the petitioner was liable to pay interest under the Act could be decided in the appeal proceedings.

Income Tax Penalty Notice Not Properly Served Initially, Reminded after 4 Months of its Issuance: Madras HC Directs Decision After Hearing

Jesu Micheal Spelman vs The Central Board of Direct Taxes CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1145

The High Court of Madras, directed that a decision be made after granting a personal hearing in a case where an income tax penalty notice under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not properly served initially and was only reminded after four months of its issuance.

A single member bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan took note of the fact that the petitioner had already submitted a response to the show cause notice and that no final order had been passed as of yet.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s reply and pass a speaking order on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order

HC Cannot Direct ICICI to Take Possession of Mortgaged Property, Private Bank Not ‘State’ Under Article 12: Punjab and Haryana HC

RAJVINDER SINGH BEDI vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1146

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has dismissed a petition filed against ICICI Bank, a private bank, noting that fundamental rights to take possession of a mortgaged property cannot be enforced against private banks through writ petitions. Since they are not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution ofIndia.

The Court placed reliance on a string of Supreme Court precedents, including Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors., (2022) wherein it has been held that writ petition would not be maintainable against the action of a private financial institution;

The High Court also referred to the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) in which it was held that merely because a private company is carrying on commercial activity of banking, that by itself, would not make it a statutory obligation or one which is public in nature, so as to bring it within the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Rs. 150 Crores Financial Fraud by Employees of Mahindra & Mahindra Finance: Gauhati HC refuses to allow Transfer of case to Assam

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs THE STATE OFMIZORAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1147

The Gauhati High Court, in its recent case refused to allow transfer of a financial fraud case from mizoram to assam holding that a sufficient number of witnesses have been listed by the IO to prove the case, therefore no compelling reason is there to transfer the cases from Aizawl to Assam or to any other District in Assam.

The court held that the petitioner may approach the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench at Aizawl to seek transfer of the cases from the Courts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl and learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl to any other Courts within Mizoram for the purpose of ensuring a proper and fair trial in the interest of justice.

The court dismissed the application on finding that this is not a fit case for transferring the matters from the State of Mizoram to the State of Assam or Kamrup (M) for disposal.

SEBI cannot be compelled to Hand over Documents already in Custody of Accused: Calcutta HC Allows Revision Application of SEBI

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) vs M/s. MPSGreenery Developers Limited and Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1148

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court held that SEBI cannot be compelled to hand over documents already in the custody of the accused. The court set aside the orders passed under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act) and allowed the revision application.

A single bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that it is clearly seen that the copies of documents prayed for by the accuseds/opposite parties herein have been annexed to the writ application and under Section 91 Cr. P.C. by the accuseds/ opposite parties themselves. Two of the documents at number 10 and 11 are also available in the public domain.

Illegal Appointment in Govt. Schools: Calcutta HC Allows Release of Accused in Absence of Arrest Under PMLA

In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure & In Re : Dr. Kalyanmoy Ganguly CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1149

The Calcutta High Court in case of illegal appointments in government schools, allowed the release of the accused in the absence of arrest under the Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act ( PMLA).

A single bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh held that the petitioner ought to be released forthwith upon execution of bond under Section 91 of the BNSS. The order passed by the chief judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta on 7th March, 2025, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is set aside/quashed. The petitioner be released upon furnishing bond under Section 91 of the BNSS.

GST Order Issued without Applying Mind to Reply of Assessee Must be Quashed : Madras HC

Rethinsamy Mahalingam vs The State Tax Officer (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1150

The Madras High Court has ruled that the GST (Goods and Services Tax) order issued without applying the mind to the reply filed by the assessee must be quashed. The court noted that the order was non-speaking.

The High Court held that such mechanical disposal of the case without appreciating the defense offered by the assessee amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. It stated that when a reply is filed, the adjudicating authority is duty-bound to consider and discuss it while passing the final order.

GST Payer Alleges S. 74 Order issued to Circumvent Limitation prescribed u/s 73: Madras HC allows to Contest on 25% Pre-deposit

Tvl. Saravanan vs The State Tax Officer (Intelligence) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1151

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payer to contest a demand raised under Section 74 GST Act, after the taxpayer alleged that the impugned order was deliberately issued under Section 74 to circumvent the limitation period prescribed under Section 73.

The bench made it clear that any failure by the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed either by not making the pre-deposit or failing to submit the reply would automatically result in the dismissal of the writ petitions, leaving the authorities free to recover the entire tax amount confirmed in the quashed orders.

GST Liability on Transportation Services to TASMAC: Madras HC Set Aside for Ignoring Reverse Charge Provision in Order

Rethinasamy Gandhi vs Thedeputy State Tax Officer- I CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1152

The Madras High Court set aside the GST (Goods and Services Tax) demand order for failing to consider the applicability of the reverse charge mechanism while assessing tax liability on transportation services rendered to TASMAC, a state-owned entity.

Referring to Serial No. 11 of Notification No. 11/2017-CT (Rate), which deals with transportation of goods, the Court observed that there was a prima facie case that GST liability in such cases should be discharged by the recipient under RCM. Justice C. Saravanan, noted that the impugned order had not even considered or discussed the applicability of this statutory provision, rendering the order legally unsustainable.

Non-Compliance with RBI Circular While Considering OTS Proposal: Rajasthan HC stays Direction to Deposit ₹7 Crore for Fresh Consideration

Tijaria Polypipes Limited vs Union Of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1153

The Rajasthan High Court stayed the direction to deposit ₹7 crore for fresh consideration of non-compliance with the RBI Circular, while considering the OTS proposal.

A division bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain and Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit held that “the direction in impugned order dated 05.05.2025 to further deposit of 27 crores (in addition to 12 crores, already deposited) shall remain stayed till further orders but respondent No.3 is directed to consider the proposal of OTijaria Polypipes Limited TS strictly in accordance with impugned order dated 05.05.2025 and circular dated 08.06.2023 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps be taken against appellant petitioner.”

Chhattisgarh HC Restores Dismissed Tax Case Against SECL, Grants 7 Days to Cure Procedural Defaults

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle1(1) Bilaspur (C.G.)vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1154

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously dismissed tax case against South EasternCoalfields Ltd (SECL). The case, Tax Case No. 216 of 2024, was dismissed due to procedural defaults under a peremptory order dated 2-4-2025, and the bench granted a period of 7 days to cure the procedural defaults.

After hearing arguments on both admission and the MCC, the court admitted the case and issued a notice to SECL. Advocate Mohit Kumar accepted the notice on behalf of the company. The court then went deeply into the MCC, which requested to revive the dismissed tax case. After going through the reasons presented, the bench concluded that the dismissal was due to procedural lapses and deemed it appropriate to restore the case to its original status.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict in Technical Textiles Case

Prakash Chand Jadaik vs Income Tax Officer and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1155

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against Prakash Chand Jadaik under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related matter.

Following judicial discipline, the bench refrained from expressing its own opinion on the matter. The HC stated that continuing the reassessment proceedings during the pendency of the Supreme Court case could lead to unnecessary litigation and complications. Consequently, the court stayed all further proceedings before the competent authority until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict.

Prior Cutoff Date Not Applicable u/s 245C Income Tax Act for Settlement Application: Kerala HC

UNION OF INDIA vs M/S. AAYANA CHARITABLE TRUST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1156

The Kerala High Court stated that prior cut off date is not applicable under section 245C of the Income Tax Act for a settlement application.

The Single Judge ruled that the deadline of March 31, 2021, should be considered in relation to the search proceedings that were started against the assessee. The issue of whether the applications for settlement before the Board could be maintained was unaffected by the fact that the notices under Sections 153A and 153C of the IT Act were issued later. The court was asked to decide whether an assessee who received notices under Sections 153A and 153C after March 31, 2021, but before September 30, 2021, could continue to submit applications to the Interim Board for Settlement for case settlement.

Customs Cannot Deny Benefit on 'Decalcified Fish Scale' Imported Under Advance Authorisation Scheme: Kerala HC

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1157

The Kerala High Court ruled that imports of "decalcified fish scale" are covered by the advance permission program and that customs cannot refuse benefits. The import of raw materials and inputs needed to create export goods is permitted duty-free under the advance permission scheme.

A division bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj held that during the period subsequent to the period covered by the show cause notice, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the same product this time under the nomenclature 'decalcified fish scale' and no objection has been taken by the Revenue to such import.

Income Tax Dept Permits to file Physical Return Even After Expiry of Revised Returns’ Filing Period: Meghalaya HC Directs CPC AO to accept Return

Shyam Century Ferrous Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1158

The Meghalaya High Court, in a recent case, directed the CPC AO to accept the physical Income Tax Return (ITR) filed bythe assessee as the Income Tax department permitted the filing of a physical return even after the expiry of the period for filing the revised returns.

A division bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew and Justice B. Bhattacharjee, as the concession has been made by the respondents, nothing remains for further consideration in the appeal, and the same is disposed of by directing the CPC AO to accept the revised returns filed by the appellant manually/physically, for due consideration in accordance with law.

PMLA Offence u/s 3 r/w S.4: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes order taking Cognizance for Lack of Hearing Mandated u/s 223(1) of BNSS

Arun Pati Tripathi vs Directorate of Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1159

The High Court of Chhattisgarh in its recent case allowed the petition challenging the prosecution of EnforcementDepartment ( ED ) against the applicant for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA). The court set aside the order only on the ground of non compliance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.

The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint as well as on the prosecution sanction order. The bench directed the applicant/revisioner and the respondent-ED to appear before the Special Court on 05.07.2025, so that the Special Judge can be given an opportunity of being heard in terms of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 223 of the BNSS.

GST SCN uploaded under Additional Notices Tab, Fails to File Reply: Madhya Pradesh HC directs Dept to Re-open Portal

SINGH CONSTRUCTION AND CO. vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ANDOTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1160

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted another opportunity for the assessee after it was found the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) SCN was uploaded under the "Additional Notices" tab on the GSTportal, resulting in the assessee being unaware of the proceedings.

The court noted that the petitioner made out the case. The bench noted that the petitioner had missed out the receipt of the notice and accordingly could not respond to the Show Cause Notice because it was merely uploaded on the portal under the category of "Additional Notices” tab and accordingly could not respond to the Show Cause Notice.

Gauhati HC Allows Bail in ₹6.12 Crore GST Fraud Case Involving Passing on Input Tax Credit

ANIKET SOVASARIA vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1161

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to the accused who was arrested in connection with an alleged ₹6.12 crore GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fraud involving the fraudulent passing of ineligible Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) without actual supply of goods.

After hearing the submissions, Justice Malasri Nandi ordered the release of the petitioner on bail. The Court directed that he furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

The bail was granted subject to several stringent conditions: the petitioner must not leave the territorial jurisdiction without permission, must cooperate in the trial, must not influence witnesses, and must refrain from committing similar offences. Any breach of these conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.

HP HC Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, noting Complainant’s Lack of Financial Capacity and Non-Impleadment of Society

Raghunath Sharma vs Suraj Kant CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1162

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity and had not impleaded the society on whose account the cheque was drawn.

The bench relied on the case of Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy, (2019) 3 SCC 797: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 83, in which the apex court held that “In the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The appellant had signed the cheque as a Director of the company and for and on its behalf. Moreover, in the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused.”

Himachal Pradesh HC directs State to Reimburse Rs 1.66 Crore SGST Incentive to Sylvan Greens by July 31, 2025, Interest at 6% Ordered on Delay

M/s Sylvan Greens Pvt. Ltd vs State of H. P. & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1163

In one of its latest orders, passed on 24th January 2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to reimburse Rs. 1.66 crore in Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) incentive to Sylvan Greens by 31-7-2025. The bench also held that if the payment is delayed, an interest of 6% will be charged per annum from the date the amount became due until the actual disbursement.

The petition was disposed of by the bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja by directing the respondents to respondents to release the amount by 31-7-2025. The matter was listed for compliance on 5-8-2025, to ensure adherence to the order. The court also held that in the failure to make the payment to the petitioner, the respondent will be charged an interest of 6% per annum from the due date until the actual payment is made.

‘Reason to Believe’ Not Communicated to GST Fraud Accused During Arrest: Gauhati HC Grants Conditional Bai’

VARUN GOYAL vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1164

The Gauhati High Court has conditionally granted bail to Varun Goyal, who was arrested under the Assam Goods and Services Tax ( AGST ) Act, 2017, for allegedly availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth over ₹9.9 crore without any actual supply of goods.

The Court found that the State failed to show compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, including service of notice and proper communication of the “reason to believe”. Noting that the petitioner had cooperated during the enquiry and that no further custodial interrogation was sought, the Court held that continued detention was not necessary at this stage.

GST Order Liable to Be Set Aside When No Hearing u/s 75(4) is Provided: Madras HC

Roop Rajat Exports vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1166

The Madras High Court has held that a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order is liable to be quashed if the taxpayer is not provided with a mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The bench instructed that the petitioner must first pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, submit a reply with supporting documents, and the department must then grant a 14-day notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.

Technical Glitch in Income Tax Portal: Madras HC quashes Order as Taxpayer Could not Opt Personal Hearing

R.R. International Represented by Partner vs The Assessment UnitCITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1167

The Madras High Court has set aside an income tax order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing due to a technical issue on the Income Tax e-filing portal.

Justice Ramasamy stated that a “In the case on hand, due to technical glitch, the petitioner could not opt for personal hearing in the portal and ultimately the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.”

When a personal hearing is requested, particularly in cases involving possible tax demands, the court observed that failing to grant it results in a denial of a fair hearing and violates natural justice.

Auditor Misplaced Requisite Papers Causes 32 days delay in filing GST Appeal: Madras HC condones Delay

Tvl.Arunai Computer Forms vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1168

The Madras High Court has condoned a 32-day delay in filing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal caused by the petitioner’s auditor misplacing critical papers needed for filing after finding the reason was genuine.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 25 February 2025 rejecting the appeal and directed the GST Appellate Authority to admit the delayed appeal, hear the matter afresh on merits, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving the taxpayer sufficient opportunity to be heard. The writ petition was thus allowed.

GST Officer Must Consider Granting Additional Time for Reply When Repeated Adjournments Are Sought: Madras HC

Jakam Sekar Ranjith vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1169

The Madras High Court set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order observing that the Officer concerned always has to apply his mind while passing the order and non-providing the opportunity before passing the order is a waste exercise.

The bench stated that the denial of a personal hearing, particularly when factual disputes are involved, constitutes a serious procedural lapse. He noted that the Officer must not only ensure service of notice and receipt of reply but also actively engage with the assessee by pointing out what specific documents are required to justify the claim.

Rs. 14L Cybercrime by Forged Documents and Impersonation as Income Tax Dept & Customs Dept: Gujarat HC Refuses to Grant Bail considering Grievance of Offence

VERONICA ANDREW ANNIKA LETHABO vs STATE OF GUJARAT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1170

In a recent case, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant bail in case of 14 Lakh cybercrime by forged documents and impersonation as the Income Tax Department & Customs Department.

A single bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar viewed that once, the matter was withdrawn or dismissed on merit and there is no change in circumstances, present successive application by the appellant on the same ground is not permissible only on a specific ground that a considerable time have been passed or charge sheet has been filed.

Calcutta HC dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Order passed u/s 148A(d) of Income Tax Act on limitation, citing Availability of Alternative Remedy

Manoj Kumar Bagree vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1171

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order passed under section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was beyond the period of limitation. The dismissal was based on the availability of an alternative remedy.

A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury viewed that the contention raised by Ms. Roychowdhury that the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the said Act is beyond the period of limitation, cannot be sustained. Since, the petitioner otherwise has an alternative remedy to challenge the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and Section 144B of the said Act,the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy before the statutory authority.

“Reasons is the Heartbeat of Every Conclusion”: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes GST Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal on Limitation without Due Reasoning

Anil Kumar vs Union of India and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1172

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently set aside an appellate order that dismissed a taxpayer’s appeal, solely on the ground of limitation without assigning proper valid reasons for the same.

The bench referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) to reiterate that ‘reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion, that which substitutes subjectivity with objectivity and ensures transparency’.

The Bench held that the absence of reasoning amounted to denial of justice and rendered the appellate order unsustainable.

Gauhati HC Allows to seek Restoration of Cancelled GST Registration on Payment of Full tax and Filing of Pending Returns

RIJU MONI GOGOI vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1173

The Gauhati High Court allowed seeking the restoration of cancelled GST registration on payment of full tax and filing of pending returns.

A single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi disposed of the writ petition by providing that the petitioner shall approach the concerned authority within a period of 2 (two) months from today seeking restoration of her GST registration. If the petitioner submitted such an application and complies with all the requirements as provided in the proviso to Rule 22 (4) of the Rules, the concerned authority shall consider the application of the petitioner for restoration of her GST registration in accordance with law and shall take necessary steps for restoration of GST registration of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

Failure to respond to CGST Notice due to lack of proper internet: Guwahati HC Allows GST Registration Restoration on compliance of Rule 22 (4) of CGST Rule

MUNNI CHAR vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1174

The Gauhati High Court allowed the assessee to seek restoration of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), 2017 registration on compliance with Rule 22(4) of CGST Rule, as the assessee was from a remote area that failed to respond to the CGST Notice due to a lack of proper internet.

A single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi viewed that in the event the petitioner approaches the officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the officer duly empowered, may consider to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.

No Business Found at Declared Address: Calcutta HC Refuses to Quash GST Cancellation, Directs to take Appellate Remedy

Surojit Das vs Superintendent of Central GST & CX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1175

In a recent order, the Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with the cancellation of GST ( Goods and Services Tax) registration, whose business premises were found locked and non-operational during physical verification by the GST authorities.

It was also submitted that there was non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the rules governing inspection and verification. However, Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the issue involved disputed questions of fact, which are not amenable to resolution under writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that determining whether the petitioner is actually carrying on business at the declared address would require evidence and fresh enquiry, which is best left to the appellate authority under the GST Act’s multi-tier adjudication process.

Challenge on Unconstitutionality of Nidhi Rules 2014 as per Companies (Amendment) Act 2017: Madras HC directs to Submit Fresh Reply on Rectifying defects

Vaasavi Nidhi Ltd. vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1176

In a recent case, the Madras High Court has directed the petitioner to submit a fresh reply by rectifying the defect while challenging the unconstitutionality of Nidhi Rules 2014 as per the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017.

The Division Bench held that “The writ petitions have been instituted to assail the order passed by the second respondent dated 23.06.2023 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in Form NDH-4 and to declare the amendment made substituting Section 406 of The Companies Act 2013 with new Section 406 as per The Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (Act 1 of 2018) published vide gazette dated 03.01.2018 and notified with effect from 15.08.2019 requiring the Nidhi Companies which are already incorporated as Nidhi Companies to once again get a declaration as Nidhi by the Central Government is illegal, excessive, arbitrary and unconstitutional and strike down the same; to declare the amendment made to Nidhi Rules 2014 by Nidhi (Amendment) Rules 2019 vide notification dated 01.07.2019 with effect from 15.08.2019 by inserting Rule 3A and Rule 23A are illegal, excessive, arbitrary and unconstitutional and strike down the same.

Confiscated Goods u/s 130 of GST Act Can be released During Pendency of Appeal When Not Auctioned: Kerala HC

NIKHIL AYYAPPAN vs STATE OF KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1177

The Kerala High Court ruled that objects seized under Section 130 of the GST Act may be released while the appeal is pending provided they haven't yet been put up for auction.

A single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that it is true that the assessee has previously been given the aforementioned choice in accordance with the confiscation order, but the time frame specified therein has already passed. But according to the department, the products haven't been sold yet.

Writ petition to Quash approval u/s 151 of Income Tax Act: Himachal Pradesh HC Stays Proceedings Till Disposal of Case Pending before Supreme Court

Brij Mohan Khanna vs Union of India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1178

The Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed the writ petition filed to quash the approval under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 till the disposal of the case titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr pending before the Supreme Court.

A division bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja directed that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also. The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, stayed such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Proper Officer Should follow Formulae u/r 42 and 43 to Compute Utilization of GST ITC and Reversal Thereof: Calcutta HC

Hemraj Rice Mill vs The Assistant Commissioner, CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1179

In a recent order, the Calcutta High Court emphasized the importance of the assessing authorities to follow the formulae prescribed under Rules 42 and 43 of the CGST Rules for the computation and reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.

The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury after considering the submissions and materials on record observed that the appellate authority itself had found that the original determination was made without applying the proper procedure for ITC computation and reversal as provided under Rule 42 for inputs and input services, and Rule 43 for capital goods.

Open Ended Provision Permitting Collection of Duty in future Amounts to excessive delegation: Andhra Pradesh HC

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

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that open ended provision permitting collection of duty in future amounts to excessive delegation.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that it was open to the legislature to have shifted to an indirect tax regime, by simply stipulating that Duty can always be collected, by a licensee, from its consumers, subject to an exemption being given by the government, from such collection.

Consent from President not required for amendments to S. 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act: Andhra Pradesh HC

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

In a recent case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that consent from president not required for amendments to Section 3 and 7, which are within purview of A.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1939.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R Raghunandan Rao observed that in case of Article 254 (2), If a law is made by the State legislature, with respect to any matter enumerated in the Concurrent list and contains any provision which is repugnant to any earlier law made by parliament or any existing law, the State law would prevail if the assent of the President is received. Act 10 of 2024 and Act 23 of 2024 have been enacted in respect of matters enumerated in Entry 53 of the State list and not under any entry in the concurrent list. The impugned Acts are not related to any entry in the concurrent list. The question of seeking the assent of the president, on this ground, would not arise.

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

A.P. Textile Mills 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.

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. Textile Mills 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 coss 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 OF INCOME 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.

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.Sivasubramanian Laxmanan 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 Great Eastern Hire Purchase Private Limited vs The State ofBihar 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

Natarajan Manohar 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.

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 HINDUSTAN EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD vs STATE OF M.P. THROUGHCOMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS 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. GUPTA vs 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.

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 Gate Hotel 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 Cones vs 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 BANK LIMITED 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.

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.

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.South Pacific 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 of Tamil 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.

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 Gichak Daniam 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.

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 Mohit Kirana Store vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes andCustoms 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

Devaraj Ramasamy Naidu vs The Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax 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 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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs M/s.British AgroProducts (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 Credit Services 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.

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

The Commissioner 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 Impex Private 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 Kunal Aluminum 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

Mangalam Enterprises 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. PREMIER MARINE 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

MANU VALIYAVEETTIL 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 vs UNION 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.SAS Cityscapes Pvt.Ltd vs The Securities and Exchange Boardof 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.

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.Team Associates vs The Official Liquidator CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1209

In a recent case, the Madras High Court directsed 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 TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR 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 Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. vs Jointcommissioner 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 Krishna Tiles and Potteries vs Commissioner of WealthTax 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 Tree Magnum India vs The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome 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.Sangeetha Tex 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 Tata Projects 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.

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