Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-Up [August 2nd- August 9th]

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court & High Courts reported at Taxscan during the previous week, from 2nd August 2025 to 9th August 2025.

SUPREME COURT

Service Tax Levy on Royalty, DMFT and NMET Payments: Supreme Court clubs Petitions

UNION OF INDIA & ANR vs M/SINDIA CEMENTS LIMITED ETC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 209

The Supreme Court of India, has clubbed multiple writ petitions involving the question of whether service tax could be levied on royalty, District Mineral Foundation Trust ( DMFT), and National Mineral Exploration Trust ( NMET ) payments, to be heard together.

Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi allowed the transfer petitions and disposed of all pending applications.

Limited Remanding Power of Authority u/s 107(11) on Procedural Lapse Cases: SC says ‘Let HC Deal with this

M/S BIMLA PULP AND PAPERS PVTLTD & ANR vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST COMMISSIONERATE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 210

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed the legal question of whether an appellate authority under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act is empowered to remand a case back to the assessing officer.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan acknowledged that the High Court order had been passed with the petitioner’s agreement but clarified that the issue raised was a genuine legal question.

Service of Excise Adjudication Order through Post Disputed: Supreme Court dismisses Case lacking Grounds to Interfere

M/S MOHD NAFISUDDIN vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 211

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition which challenged the review order of the Allahabad High Court regarding the service of an excise adjudication order purportedly delivered through speed post.

The apex court said that “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s), we see no ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

Supreme Court orders “Status quo" on Pending NCLT Proceedings over JSW Steel Limited

JSW STEEL LIMITED vs SANJAYSINGHAL & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 212

The Supreme Court Of India in its order issued "order of status quo" on pending National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) proceedings over JSW Steel Limited. The Court explicitly mentioned that it arises out of an "impugned final judgment and order dated 13-05-2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.

A two judge bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice SatishChandra Sharma viewed that the interest of justice would be served and in order to avoid future legal complications in the matter, an order of status quo of the proceedings pending before the Court issues the National Company Law Tribunal.

Relief to JSW Steel: Supreme Court upholds CESTAT Order Allowing Cenvat Credit

THE COMMISSIONER OF GST ANDCENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S JSW STEEL LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 213

The Supreme Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT ) order allowing Cenvat Credit in favour of JSW Steel and dismissed the appeal for condoning gross delay of 309 days in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.

A division bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the appeal in the absence of good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 01-03-2024 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

Income Tax Reassessment Proceedings: SC Instructs AO to Dispose of Objections as per Law Laid Down in Rajeev Bansal Case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX & ANR vs SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 214

The Supreme Court of India, instructed Assessing Officers (AO) to decide objections in income tax reassessment proceedings in line with the law laid down in the Rajeev Bansal judgment.

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, in line with above ruling, in the present matter, disposed of the petitions and directed the assessing officers to decide the objections in accordance with the law laid down in the Rajeev Bansal judgment.

Loans Qualify as NPAs After 180 Days of Default Under Income Tax Rules, Not 90 Days per NHB Guidelines: Supreme Court Rejects HUDCO’s RP

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 215

The Supreme Court of India ruled that loans can be treated as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) for tax deduction purposes only if interest remains unpaid for more than 180 days, as specified under Rule 6EB of the Income Tax Rules.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan refused to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the High Court and dismissed Special Leave Petitions. Then, the corporation went for a review petition.

Supreme Court Reopens IBM India Case to Decide Whether Payments to IBM Philippines Are Taxable as Technical Services Despite DTAA Protection

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX &ANR vs IBM INDIA PVT LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 216

The Supreme Court of India reopened a previously dismissed case concerning the tax treatment of payments made by IBM India Pvt. Ltd. to IBM Philippines, to determine whether such payments are taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Indian tax law despite the provisions of the India-Philippines Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

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

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan agreed to reconsider the matter. They observed that the earlier dismissal on the ground of low tax effect was inadvertent, as the case involved important legal issues. The Court allowed the application for restoration, condoned the delay in filing the application, and reinstated the Special Leave Petition for hearing on merits.

Excise Dept Fails to Prove Clandestine TV Assembly at Warehouse: Supreme Court Upholds CESTAT Order Quashing Duty Demand

COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRALEXCISE vs SUNDER INTERNATIONAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 217

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Excise Department failed to establish that Sunder International was engaged in the illegal assembly of television sets at its Bhiwandi warehouse, and therefore affirmed the CESTAT’s decision quashing the central excise duty demand.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the matter and observed that there was no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the tribunal. The Supreme Court found no credible evidence to support the department’s claim and upheld the CESTAT’s findings.

GST Liability on Online Gaming Under Spotlight as Supreme Court hears Gameskraft's ₹21,000Cr GST Demand Case Today

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS ANDSERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE vs GAMESKRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 218

At the heart of the storm is Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which is a Bengaluru based gaming company that in 2022 was slapped with a ₹21,000 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). However, today the dispute is far larger than just one company.

The courtroom, presided over by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, is now the venue for a consolidated batch of more than 70 petitions involving not only online gaming platforms but also casinos, horse racing entities, lottery operators and state governments.

No Notional SWS on Duty-Free Imports Under MEIS: Supreme Court Upholds Bombay HC Ruling Allowing Re-credit

UNION OF INDIA vs LA TIMSOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 219

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld a decision of the Bombay High Court, confirming that importers are entitled to re-credit of notional Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) debited on duty-free imports made under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS).

A bench of the Supreme Court, led by the Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar, declined to interfere with the High Court's order. While the Court condoned the delay in filing, it dismissed the petition on merits, upholding the Bombay High Court’s ruling and thereby reinforcing the entitlement of importers to reclaim notional SWS in such cases.

Inordinate Delay of 17 Months in GST Appeal Without Sufficient Cause: Supreme Court upholds Registration Cancellation

M/S. BOKNA RAIYAT ROJGARCOMMITTEE vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 220

The Supreme Court of India upheld the cancellation of GST registration of Bokna Raiyat Rojgar Committee, ruling that the firm had failed to file its appeal within the prescribed time and did not offer a sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay of 17 months.

The court agreed that there was no sufficient cause for the 17-month delay and held that the GST law provides no scope to condone such extended lapses. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and upheld the High Court’s ruling.

Taxability on Affiliation Fees Collected by Universities: Supreme Court upholds HC’s decision to quash SCN, Dismisses DGGI’s SLP

PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTORGENERAL Petitioner(s) DIRECTORATE GENERAL GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS vs M/SBANGALORE UNIVERSITY

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 221

The Supreme Court has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence ( DGGI ), challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had quashed show-cause notices (SCNs) issued to Bangalore University for service tax demands on affiliation fees.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, thereby affirming the non-taxability of such fees as part of the educational services rendered by universities.

GST Refund Claim Paid by Revenue Along with Interest: Supreme Court Dismisses SLP

UNION OF INDIA vs M/S FIRMENICHAROMATICS PRODUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 222

The Supreme Court in a recent case dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP)in absence of merit. As it was evident from the High Court ruling out of which the case arose that the Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) refund claim got paid by revenue along with interest.

A two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan found that there is an inordinate delay of 169 days in filing of the special leave petition, which has not satisfactorily been explained. After going through the Special Leave Petition , the court did not find any merit in the same and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Supreme Court refused to condone 215 days in filing SLP Against order Upholding Merger of Short Term Capital Loss of 108.75 crores

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vsAZALEA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 223

The Supreme Court refused to condone 215 days in filing Special Leave [etition (SLP) against order upholding merger of short term capital loss of 108.75 Cr. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner - Revenue and the two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the ground of delay.

The SLP arose out of the impugned final judgment and order dated 04-03-2024 in ITA No. 136/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The Commissioner impugns the order dated 28 January 2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"] and insofar as it has proceeded to reject the appeal of the Department which had raised the issue of Short Term Capital Loss originating from the forfeiture of share warrants of India Bulls Infrastructure Ltd.

Supreme Court Disposed of SLP Relying on ‘Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal’, Upholds Validity of TOLA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs REVMAX TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 224

The Supreme Court in its recent case disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) relying on ‘Union of India & ors v. Rajeev Bansal’ where the court upheld the validity of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA).

A two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan disposed of the petitions filed by the Revenue. The assessee will be governed by reasons discussed in the said Judgment. The assessing officers will dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by the Court. Thereafter, the assessee who is aggrieved will be at liberty to pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, save and except for the issues which have been concluded in the Judgment.

Classification of Fabrics partially Coated with Plastics and bearing Designs: Supreme Court Dismisses SLP due to 225 days Delay

UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs M/SGIRISH PRAVINBHAI RATHOD (JAY AMBEY) & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 225

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the High Court ruling on the classification of fabrics partially coated with plastics and bearing designs due to an unexplained delay of 225 days in filing the Special Leave Petition.

A two judge bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the SLP arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-06-2024 in SCA No. 17980/2021 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which was in favour of Girish Pravinbhai Rathod (Jay Ambey) & Anr.

Supreme Court dismisses Revenue SLP over Income Tax Evasion by Bogus LTCG and STCL Claims

THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vsANURAG BAGARIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 226

In a recent decision, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, dismissed an Income Tax Department Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging a December 2023 Karnataka High Court order that had quashed multiple criminal proceedings against businessman Anurag Bagaria, his family members and their companies under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court has upheld the High Court’s finding that mere filing of returns later revised under departmental advice and delayed payment of tax cannot, without more, constitute a criminal “attempt to evade” tax.

Tracking of GST Paid on OIDAR Services: Supreme Court tells GST Council to Decide, directs Petitioner to File Representation

PRADEEP GOYAL vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 227

The Supreme Court has declined to create a system for tracking services that foreign companies supply in India under the GST regime, dismissing a public interest petition on the issue.

A bench led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan heard Advocate Charu Mathur, who argued that platforms like Facebook or OpenAI deliver services here without any way for Indian authorities to monitor or tax them, resulting in a substantial revenue shortfall. Rather than entertain the petition, the Court suggested treating it as a formal representation to the GST Council.

19-Year Delay in Fund Recovery Claim: Supreme Court Permits SLP Withdrawal with Liberty to Return to Punjab & Haryana HC

M/S FIS GLOBAL BUSINESSSOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST GURGAON & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 228

The Supreme Court of India recently allowed a petitioner to withdraw its Special Leave Petition (SLP) impugning a 2024 judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court that dismissed the petitioner’s claim of funds for gross delay in approaching the Court.

The Supreme Court granted the request and dismissed the SLP as not pressed while explicitly granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Punjab & Haryana High Court for further proceedings.

Supreme Court Upholds Pantographs Classified Under Railway Parts, Not General Electrical Equipment

COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRALEXCISE vs M/S. FAIVELEY TRANSPORT RAIL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 229

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, confirming that pantographs used in railway locomotives are to be classified as railway parts under Chapter Heading 8607 and not as general electrical equipment under Chapter Heading 8535.

The department appealed the CESTAT ruling to the Supreme Court. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan condoned the delay in filing but found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s well-reasoned order. The appeal was dismissed.

Supreme Court directs Assessee to Opt for Appeal Under CGST as Ruled by Gujarat HC

M/S LALIT METAL CORPORATION vsUNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 230

The Supreme Court directed the assessee to file a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) as ruled by the Gujarat High Court (HC).

A two judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that “we see no good reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. It shall be open for the assessee to prefer statutory appeal in accordance with law. If the issue of limitation arises, the Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the fact that the assessee was pursuing his remedy before the High Court and later before this Court.”

Supreme Court Upholds Excise Duty on Stock Transfers to Sister Units Should Be Valued Under Rule 8 at 110% of Cost

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GSTvs M/S OCL INDIA LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 231

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), holding that excise duty on stock transfers to sister units must be calculated under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules at 110 percent of the cost of production.

The court also agreed with the Tribunal’s view that Rule 8 was the correct rule to apply in this case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Debonding Application of Dr Reddy’s Lab Upheld by HC : Supreme Court Dismisses SLP

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXMEDCHAL GST CUSTOMS vs M/S DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 232

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition(s) for Special Leave (SLP) to Appeal as there was no case for interference made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Telangana in its order upheld the debonding application of Dr Reddy’s Laboratories from which the SLP was filed

A two judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering the SLP arose out of Final judgment and order dated 13-11-2024 in CEA No. 13/2020 passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

Is GST Leviable on Transfer of Lease-hold Rights? Supreme Court Clubs Multiple Petitions to Examine Issue in Joint Hearing

UNION OF INDIA & ANR vs ALFATOOLS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 233

The Supreme Court of India has decided to examine whether the transfer of lease-hold rights constitutes a taxable supply under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime by clubbing together multiple cases pertaining to the same issue for joint hearing.

The Division Bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N. Ray, after examining the Deed of Assignment, relied on Gujarat Chamber of Commerce (supra) to hold that the transaction constituted a transfer of immovable property, and was thus, outside the scope of GST.

Supreme Court Dismisses SLP Against GST Order Quashing action of Negative Blocking on ECL

DEPUTY DIRECTOR vs KINGSSECURITY GUARD SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 234

The Supreme Court in a recent case dismissed the Special Leave Petition(SLP) against the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order quashing action of negative blocking on Electronic Credit Ledger [‘ECL’].

A two judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was considering SLP arose out of final judgment and order dated 04-12-2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi which was in favour of assessee, Kings Security Guard Services Private Limited. In absence of case for interference, the court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Supreme Court Upholds Andhra Pradesh HC Order set aside GST Refund Rejection Order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL TAXES vs M/S. GEMINI EDIBLES AND FATS INDIA LIMITED & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 235

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund rejection order. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the said order, for which the court refused to interfere and dismissed the same.

The Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar were considering the SLP arising from the final judgment and order dated 29-01-2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati which was in favour of assessee, Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited & Anr.

Voluntary Surrender of Corporate Debtor's Leased Property to Lessor not barred by IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court upholds NCLT's decision

Sincere Securities PrivateLimited & Ors. vs Chandrakant Khemka & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 236

The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund rejection order. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the said order, for which the court refused to interfere and dismissed the same.

The Chief Justice and Justice Sanjay Kumar were considering the SLP arising from the final judgment and order dated 29-01-2025 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati which was in favour of assessee, Gemini Edibles and Fats India Limited & Anr.

HIGH COURT

Customs’ Auction Materials Not as per T&C of Sale: Madras HC Orders Consideration of Bidder’s Refund Representation with Interest

M/s.Ravi International Exportsand Imports vs The Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1491

In a recent order, the Madras High Court directed the Customs Department to consider, on merits, a refund representation submitted by a successful auction bidder who declined to take possession of goods allegedly not conforming to the terms and conditions of sale.

The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s refund claim. However, it directed the customs authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 05.08.2024 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.

No Personal Hearing Despite Taxpayer’s Request: Calcutta HC Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notice u/s 148A

Usha Martin Telematics Ltd vsAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1492

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court observed that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is invalid if the income tax department fails to grant a personal hearing to the taxpayer despite a specific request.

The single-judge bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the scheme of Section 148A requires the assessing officer to give the assessee an opportunity to explain their position and to be personally heard before issuing a reassessment notice under Section 148. The court held that failure to provide such an opportunity violates the law and the principles of fairness.

Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail to Accused Who Allegedly Scammed Rs. 1.33 Crore Posing as Customs Officer

ANOOP ALIAS ANUP vs STATE OFHARYANA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1529

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a man accused of being involved in a Rs. 1.33 crore online scam by posing as officials from the Customs Department and the CBI.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, there was evidence linking him to the case. The court also observed that pre-trial custody should not be treated like punishment. Considering the 6 months he already spent in custody, the seriousness of the charge, and other facts, the court granted bail.

78 grams Silver-Coated Gold Coins Caught at IGI Airport: Delhi HC Flags Serious Concern, Denies Immediate Release

MOHAMMADSHAHID vsTHECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS&ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1530

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to allow the immediate release of gold items seized from a passenger at IGI Airport, raising serious concern over an alleged attempt to disguise gold coins as silver.

The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Customs Department on 31 July 2025 for the appraisal process. It allowed the Customs Department to pass an order imposing applicable customs duties as per law. The court also directed the petitioner to pay warehousing charges from the date of detention of the goods.

Customs Fails to Issue SCN in a Year: Delhi HC Orders Release of Two Gold Chains Belonging to Uzbek National

ALISHER OCHILOV vs COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1531

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to release two gold chains belonging to an Uzbek national after finding that the department had not issued a show cause notice even after detaining the goods for over a year.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the gold jewellery appeared to be used as personal items. The court also referred to past decisions from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, which held that used personal jewellery worn by a passenger falls under the definition of “personal effects” and should not be detained under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Pre-Filled SCN Waiver Form Not Legally Valid: Delhi HC Orders Release of Jewellery Upon Payment

LAXMI CHAUHAN vs COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS AIRPORT AND GENERAL & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1532

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that a pre-filled waiver of the right to a show cause notice is not legally valid and cannot be used by the Customs Department to bypass the procedure required under law. The Court ordered the release of seized jewellery upon payment, despite an earlier confiscation order by Customs authorities.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that a waiver of the right to a show cause notice cannot be enforced if it is based on a pre-filled form and not a properly explained or voluntary choice.

2001 km Goods Transport Without E-Way Bill Part B: MP HC Upholds IGST Levy and Penalty

MANISH PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITEDvs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1533

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, upheld the levy of ₹3.58 lakh Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) and an equal penalty on goods worth ₹19.18 lakh, after finding that the assessee transported PVC film over 2001 km without completing Part B of the E-Way bill.

Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi examined Section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which dealt with detention and seizure of goods transported in violation of the Act or its rules. It noted that the section allowed release of goods on payment of tax and penalty or on furnishing security and further provided for proceedings under Section 130 if payment was not made within seven days.

Delhi HC Permits RP to Convene CoC Meeting Pending NCLT Proceedings, Directs to Make Decision Subject to Tribunal Decision

JAG MOHAN GARG vs MR. RAHULJINDAL RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1534

The High Court of Delhi, permits Resolution Professional (RP ) to convene 39th CoC meeting despite the petitioner’s objection citing a pending National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) application, but directed that all decisions taken in the meeting would remain subject to the tribunal’s final decision.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard both sides and allowed the respondent to go ahead with the 24.06.2025 meeting, stating that any decisions made would depend on the outcome of I.A. No. 2863/2025 before the NCLT.

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

Application for extension of time period for passing an arbitral award u/s 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after Expiry of 12 month: Delhi HC

SHIPRA ESTATE LIMITED vsINDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1535

The Delhi High Court observed that an application for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period.

The Court does not find any impediment in the mandate of the Arbitrator being extended.It is stated that the mandate of the Arbitrator came to an end on 03.09.2023 and since then, the matter has been hanging in the Court only on the ground that an Order has been passed by the NCLAT stating that further steps will not be taken in pursuance of the impugned order.

Orissa HC dismisses writ petition filed beyond condonable period u/s 107 of GST Act

M/s. Bikash Panigrahi vs TheCommissioner Commercial Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1536

The Orissa High Court has held that writ petition is not maintainable being filed beyond the condonable period provided under Section 107 of the GST Act.

A bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Mr. Murahari Sri Raman observed that if notice/order is uploaded on common GST portal, the same shall be considered as service on the assessee (petitioner) in view of unambiguous provisions contained in Section 169 of the GST Act and the writ petition is not maintainable being filed beyond the condonable period provided under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before NCLT: Calcutta HC

Brijsons Hotel Private Limitedvs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1537

The Calcutta High Court has held that the registrar is not in a position to take a decision When removal of Director is pending consideration before the National company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ). The provision of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 requires the Registrar to verify the documents and find out as to whether the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules which relates to vacation or removal of Directors before approving or invalidating Form No. DIR-12.

A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Companies to take a decision in respect of the application made by the petitioners in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, 2014 at the earliest, but positively within a period of four weeks.

Once Resolution Plan has approved by NCLT Commercial Tax Department cannot create further dues: Allahabad HC

M/S Tehri Iron And Steel CastingLimited And 2 vs State Of U.P CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1538

In a recent case, the Allahabad High Court quashed the passed under section 28(2) (ii) of the U.P. VAT Act 2008 and under section 9(4) of the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act 2007 demanding tax, holding that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, the Commercial Tax Department cannot create further dues.

In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court, the division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri viewed that the principle is crystal clear that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process.

Karnataka HC dismisses Plaint in terms of Proceedings pending before NCLT

ZILLION INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATELIMITED vs TENOVA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1539

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the plaint in terms of proceedings pending before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), since that was objected to by the petitioner and the matter being at the stage of arguments, the court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the respondent-plaintiff to urge all the contentions that he is wanting to draw into as additional written statement before the concerned Court.

A single bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna observed that such arguments are advanced by the plaintiff before the concerned Court taking cue from the plaint that is filed or the additional written statement that is sought to be preferred before the concerned Court. The concerned court shall answer the same in accordance with law and take the suit to its logical conclusion.

Protection of IBC is only applicable to corporate debtors and not to Person Who drawn cheque in Individual capacity: Allahabad HC

Madhur Gulati vs State of U.P.and Another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1540

The Allahabad high court held that protection of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 is only applicable to corporate debtors and not to persons who draw cheques in Individual capacity. The court allowed the applicants to raise all contentions, legal or factual, before the court below while contesting the proceedings.

A single bench of Justice Vikas Budhwar is not entering into the merits of the summoning order while leaving it open for the applicants to raise all contentions, legal or factual, before the court below while contesting the proceedings and the Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be considered in correct perspective.

Delhi HC Clarifies Adjournment Rule Under GST in Tata Play Case: Maximum 3 Adjournments Allowed But Not Mandatory

TATA PLAY LTD vs SALES TAXOFFICER CLASS II CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1541

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that under the GST Act, allowing three adjournments during adjudication proceedings is permissible, but not mandatory.

The court found that Tata Play had been given sufficient opportunity and that no violation of natural justice had occurred. The court dismissed the writ petition. However, it did allow Tata Play to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 31.08.2025, directing that the appeal be decided on its merits.

GST Officer Erred by Issuing Order on Matter Already Before DGGI and Stayed by Karnataka HC: Bombay HC Quashes Order

M/s. HM Leisure vs AssistantCommissioner of CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1542

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court quashed a GST order after finding that the tax officer had proceeded with adjudication even though the same matter was already under consideration by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and stayed by the Karnataka High Court.

The bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta observed that if two different authorities initiate proceedings on the same matter and assessment period, it creates confusion, legal uncertainty, and hardship to the assessee.

Relief for Reliance Jio: Jammu & Kashmir HC Rules No Penalty Under Entry Tax Act for Bypassing Check Post

Commissioner State Taxes vs M/sReliance Jio Infocomm Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1543

In a recent ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that no penalty can be imposed under the Entry Tax Act solely for bypassing a check post, in the absence of any allegation of fake or false documents.

The division bench comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed that Section 4(3) of the Entry Tax Act allows for a penalty only when fake or false documents are found. There was no such allegation or finding, so the court held that the imposition of a penalty had no legal backing.

Manager Continues Business Post-demise of Proprietor: Madras HC Refuses to quash S. 74 GST Order, Says S. 93 Liability May Arise

Tvl. Vairam Agencies VodafoneCell vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1544

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to interfere with a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order issued under Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, as the manager continued business despite the demise of the proprietor.

Justice C. Saravanan, presiding over the matter, rejected both contentions. It was noted that notwithstanding the death of the proprietor, the business had continued to operate. Inward supplies from Vodafone were recorded till 31.03.2018, amounting to ₹3.45 crores, leading to a deemed outward supply value of ₹3.79 crores under Rule 30 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The resultant GST liability was calculated to be ₹68,38,728 (CGST and SGST of ₹34,19,364 each) at an 18% tax rate.

GST Notices to Cancelled Registrants Must Be Served Through Means Other Than GST Portal: Madras HC

Tvl.Dimora vs The AssistantCommissioner (State Tax) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1545

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that service of GST notices through the common portal alone is not valid when the taxpayer’s registration stands cancelled and the portal becomes inaccessible.

The Bench observed that “When the assessee could not even access the portal, we have to conclude that there was no notice of service on the assessee. In this view of the matter, we hold that the orders impugned in the writ petitions were vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice.”

GST Demand in DRC-01D Persists Despite Payment of Dues: Madras HC directs to Appropriate Amount and Refund Excess, If Any

M/s.LRS and Co vs The State TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1546

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed a GST demand issued in Form DRC-01D against a government contractor, after it was established that the entire admitted tax liability along with interest had already been paid.

Justice C. Saravanan thus quashed the impugned order and directed the jurisdictional officer to pass suitable appropriation orders, acknowledging the payments made and ordering refund of any excess amount, if applicable.

Allahabad HC Dismisses Petition Challenging Best Assessment by Income Tax in absence contrary proof

M/S Rai Wines Ras Bahar Colonyvs The Commisssioner Of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1547

The Allahabad High Court has held that when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature.

The court viewed that when a best assessment is done, it is for the assessee to bring on record the facts that may reveal that the findings are perverse in nature. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that in absence of material brought on record to convince us to dislodge the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, dismissed the appeal.

GST Demand out of disallowance of ITC: Orissa HC Dismisses Petition on Alternative Remedy

M/s. Savitri Industries vs ChiefCommissioner of CT & GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1548

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court dismissed the petition on the availability of an alternative remedy in the petition challenging Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand out of the disallowance of the Input Tax Credit (ITC).

A division bench of Chief Justice Mr. Harish Tandon and Justice Mr. Murahari Sri Raman considered that the appellate authority is the competent authority to deal with the facts as well as the law. The issues raised in the present case can very well be addressed in appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. If need be other alternative fora are also put in place to question the appellate order after disposal of appeal.

NCLT Order Passed in Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala HC Allows Writ Petition Despite Remedy Under IBC

JAJU BABU vs NATIONAL COMPANYLAW TRIBUNAL KOCHI CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1549

The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition was filed seeking the quashing of an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench which was violative of natural justice principle.

The single bench of Justice T.R. Ravi set aside the order and dircetd the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders, after hearing the petitioner on the contents of the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, after the matter was taken for orders earlier.

Rs 44 Cr Customs Duty Evasion Involving Undervalued Walnut Imports: Bombay HC Allows Anticipatory Bail

Dipakkumar DharamsinhbhaiKakadiya vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Mumbai Zonal Unit CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1550

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court allowed anticipatory Bail in case of Rs 44 Cr of customs duty evasion involving undervalued walnut imports. The applicants have demonstrated their willingness to pursue the statutory remedy of compounding the alleged offence.

A single bench of Justice R.N. Laddha considering the applicants’ willingness to comply with compounding provisions, the stage of the investigation, absence of prior criminal record, the documentary nature of the evidence, the willingness on the part of the applicants to jointly deposit a total amount of Rs.5 Crores with the respondent allowed the application subject to the conditions.

Any award passed by an Arbitrator unilaterally appointed is Invalid: Delhi HC Sets aside Arbitral Award passed on Liquidated Company

SANDEEP MAHAJAN vs MAHINDRA ANDMAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1551

The Delhi High Court has held that any award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed is invalid and set aside the Arbitral Award passed on the liquidated company.

The Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman has categorically held that any award passed by an arbitrator unilaterally appointed by an interested party is vitiated. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position and to uphold the sanctity of the arbitral process, the single bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside the arbitral award.

Lawyer Cannot Be Raided Merely for Representing Clients' Tax Cases: Delhi HC Reprimands GST Dept

PUNEETBATRA vs UNIONOFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1552

The GST Department was warned by the Delhi High Court for harassing a tax lawyer by raiding his offices in relation to a client's alleged GST evasion. It turned out that the lawyer was only submitting the client's tax case.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that “The Advocate cannot be subjected to harassment in this manner unless and until there is some material for the GST Department to show that the advocate himself is not merely representing his client but is also personally involved in the alleged illegality. For the said purpose, some prima facie material would have to be shown by the GST Department.”

Winding-up Petition filed after Appointment of a liquidator: Delhi HC transfers Petition to NCLT

TRIGO IMAGEMENT SLOVAKIA vsMADHUSUDAN AUTO LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1553

The Delhi High Court transferred the Winding-up Petition filed after Appointment of a liquidator to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Trigo Imagement Slovakia, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 433(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the Respondent Company.

A single bench of Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju transferred the petition to the National Company Law Tribunal. The Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for further proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal.

Liability of Deceased guarantor to repay Debt shall fall upon legal heirs who were party to DRT proceedings: Delhi HC Dismisses Petition against DRAT Order

SUMAN SRIVASTAVA vs UNION BANKOF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1554

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has held that liability of deceased guarantor to repay debt shall fall upon legal heirs who were party to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) proceedings and dismissed the petition against the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) order.

A division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the Petitioner has not filed the present Writ Petition with clean hands as there is clear evidence against the pleas taken by her. In light of such concealment of facts, the Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the proceedings before DRT.

“Time Is to Be Calculated by the Calendar, Not the Clock”: Jharkhand HC Slams Income Tax Dept for Ignoring Timely Reply

Ravi Singh Bhatia vs ThePrinciple Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1555

In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court held that a taxpayer’s reply submitted on the last permitted date must be considered by the Income Tax Department, and that deadlines should be counted by the calendar date, not by the exact time of day.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad stated that if the department had acknowledged the first letter sent on 18 March 2024, there was no reason for it to ignore the detailed reply sent on the same day. The court remarked that “time is to be calculated not by the clock but by the calendar,” and that since the reply was filed on 18 March 2024, it was clearly within time.

Orissa HC Grants bail to GST Fraud Accused on Rs. 50L Bond citing Stage of Possibility of Influencing Witness Over

Gurdit Dang vs State of Odisha CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1556

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court has granted bail to an accused in a high-profile Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) fraud case under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax ( OGST ) Act, 2017. The Court, while granting relief, stated that the critical stage of investigation where the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses exists appeared to have concluded.

The bench, noting that the accused was a permanent resident of Rourkela and that extensive searches and document seizures had already taken place, the Court concluded that bail could be considered with strict conditions to ensure fairness.

Anticipatory Bail Denied in ₹425 Cr GST Fake Billing Case: P&H HC says Custodial Interrogation Needed to Uncover Modus Operandi and Network

Gurbax Lal vs State of Punjaband another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1557

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the accused involved in Rs. 425 crore GST fake billing case stating the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the full extent of the fraudulent network and modus operandi.

The Court, presided over by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, dismissed the twin bail applications moved by the petitioner, noting that his involvement appeared substantial and sophisticated, with wide-reaching financial and operational implications.

Limitation to Claim GST Refund Begins from Date of Correct IGST Payment: Patna HC

M/S Sai Steel vs The State ofBihar CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1558

The High Court of Patna, limitation period for claiming a Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) refund in cases of wrong tax deposit begins from the date the correct Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST ) is paid, not from the date the original Central Goods and Service Tax / State Goods and Service Tax ( CGST/SGST ) was paid.

Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Shailendra Singh heard arguments from both the parties and observed that the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, in the impugned order, acknowledged multiple times that the amount paid as SGST and CGST was eligible for refund. However, the refund application was ultimately rejected, citing Section 54 of the BGST Act, 2017, and stating it was barred by limitation.

GST Dept Cannot Send Multiple Notices to Advocates for Client Info in Fraud Cases: Calcutta HC Explains Advocate-Client Privilege

HIMANGSHU KUMAR RAY vs STATE OFWEST BENGAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1559

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that the GST Department cannot issue multiple notices to advocates seeking client information in connection with GST fraud investigations. The court explained that such actions violate the principle of advocate-client privilege as protected under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The bench comprising Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the notices had been issued in a standardized format without any specific reference to individual cases or allegations.

Calcutta HC dismisses GST Appeal for Non-Exhaustion of Appeal Remedy against Order Blocking ITC on Alleged Fake Invoices

Roshan Sharma vs DeputyCommissioner of Revenue CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1560

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to challenge a GST officer’s order blocking his input tax credit (ITC) on the ground of alleged “fake” invoices.

The single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that the petitioner had failed to exhaust his statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the court, and that the High Court could not re-evaluate the merits of the tax officer’s findings.

Gujarat HC Denies Bail to Journalist of The Hindu in PMLA Case, says He may Cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution

MAHESHDAN PRABHUDAN LANGA vsSTATE OF GUJARAT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1561

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the bail application of a senior journalist associated with The Hindu, who is accused of serious offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ).

Justice M.R. Mengdey, while refusing bail, observed that the applicant’s conduct raised grave concerns regarding tampering of evidence and influencing witnesses, thereby causing potential prejudice to the ongoing investigation.

Patna HC quashes GST Order for Denial of Post-Reply Hearing, directs to Comply with S. 75(4) Immediately

M/S Satguru Cattle Feeds vsState of Bihar CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1562

The Patna High Court quashed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order issued without granting a personal hearing to the taxpayer after submission of a reply to the show cause notice.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Shailendra Singh ruled that the denial of post-reply hearing violated the mandatory requirements under Section 75(4) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017.

‘Natural Justice Not Lip Service’: Delhi HC allows to File Appeal Despite Time Elapsed as Customs Dept Fails to Provide Hearing

INDERPAL SINGH vs COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1563

The Delhi High Court allowed to file an appeal which was time elapsed against a customs confiscation order stating the denial of personal hearing and non-service of SCN to the petitioner.

The bench directed to release the gold chain subject to payment of Rs. 45,000/-. Further, although the statutory period for filing an appeal had lapsed, the Court, in the interest of justice, permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days.

Illegal Re Entry of Borrower to Dispossessed Property u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act: MP HC Directs DM to Re Execute Dispossession

CAPRI GLOBAL HOUSING FINANCE LTDvs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1564

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the District Magistrate (DM) to re execute the dispossession of the mortgaged property on finding illegal reentry of the borrower to the dispossessed property under section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(SARFAESI).

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh observed that since the Securitization Act itself provides mechanism for recovery of loan amount, therefore, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, no effective legal remedy is available to the petitioner.

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

Rs 7 Cr Transaction by Misusing PAN Card: Punjab & Haryana Grants Bail on Conditions

Sanjay Singhal vs State ofHaryana CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1565

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail based on conditions prescribed against the offence of Rs 7 crore transaction by misusing the PAN card of another person. The case arose out of a complaint registered in a police station about a fake firm named SBJ Enterprises.

A single bench of Justice Sumeet Goel viewed that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate.

5% GST on Nizam Pakku: Madras HC quashes DGGI’s Notice as Clear abuse of Law

M/s.Azam Laminators PrivateLimited vs Additional Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1566

The Madras High Court, while upholding the applicability of 5% GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) on “Nizam Pakku,” quashed show cause notice sought to reclassify the product under a higher tax bracket without considering the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, CESTAT and AAAR on the classification.

The Madras High Court quashed the impugned show cause notice and allowed the writ petition, reiterating that “Nizam Pakku” falls under Chapter 0802 of the CTA and is liable to GST at 5%.

BACL Not eligible for ITC on electricity consumed for township maintenance prior to 5-7-2022: Chhattisgarh HC

Bharat Aluminium Company Limitedvs State of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1567

In a recent case, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that Bharat Aluminium Company Limited( BACL ), the petitioner is not entitled to ITC on electricity consumed for township maintenance, as such consumption is not in the course or furtherance of business under Section 16(1) of the CGST Act. The court observed that the benefit of amendment in shape of Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules would be available only for the period after 5-7-2022.

A single bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal found that the appellate authority adjudicated the appeal preferred under Section 107 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on 17-9-2020 and thereafter, the notification dated 5-7-2022 inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules came into force with effect from 5th July, 2022 on the recommendation made by the GST Council.

Gold bars Weighing More than 1kg is Prohibited u/s 2(33) of Customs Act: Madras HC rules No Redemption allowed

Shri Ravinder Kumar Rishabchandvs The Principal Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1568

The Madras High Court has ruled that gold bars weighing more than 1 kilogram are prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, denying the petitioners' request for redemption of confiscated gold under Section 125 of the Act.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that, in the present case, all the authorities below had consistently held that the petitioners were not entitled to the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation.

Lawyer Allegedly Withholds Gold Bar After Customs Release: Delhi HC says it Private Dispute, Refers to Mediation

JAKIR HUSAIN vs THE COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1569

The High Court of Delhi observed that the dispute, in which the lawyer allegedly withheld the gold citing unpaid dues, was a private dispute between the petitioner and his lawyer and referred the matter to mediation.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain noted that Advocate Mr. Aman Kumar Yadav was present and stated that he had been in continuous contact with the petitioner’s relatives and had assisted in obtaining documents from the Bureau of Immigration for the petitioner’s emergency certificate. He further stated that the gold bars were in his possession and that he was willing to return them upon clearance of his dues.

Customs Duty Drawback Recovery u/r 16A initiated after more than 3 years: Madras HC orders to Reconsider

M/s. New Sun Innovaation vs TheAssistant Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1570

The Madras High Court has directed the customs authorities to reconsider a duty drawback recovery order, which was issued after more than 3 years holding that the adjudication was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The bench of Justice Abdul Quddhose, despite having the legal precedent of the same court which ruled that the claims beyond 3 years shall be unsustainable, chose to reconsider the matter by protecting the revenue and also ensuring the fair hearing to the petitioner.

“Enormous Push to Environmentally Safer and Friendly Vehicles”: Delhi HC reduces CESTAT Pre-Deposit to ₹5.5 Lakh on E-Rickshaw Import Classification

SONI E VEHICLEPRIVATELIMITED vsCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD TUGHLAKABAD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1571

The High Court of Delhi, in a matter concerning the classification of imported e-rickshaw consignments, reduced the pre-deposit to ₹5.5 lakh and directed Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) to hear the petitioner’s and its Director’s appeals on merits.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Shail Jain considered the 12th March 2014 office order, which stated that five key components: transmission, motor, axle, chassis, and controller together made a complete e-rickshaw in CKD/SKD form, classifiable under heading 8703. If along with the motor, any two of these parts were missing, the goods would be treated as parts under heading 8708 and not attract the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

"Order Without Any Reasons Is No Order in the Eyes of Law": Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Reassessment Notice

Neena Singh Thakur vs Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1572

In a recent ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an order passed without giving reasons cannot be sustained in law. The court ruled that such an order is not valid and cannot be used to reopen an income tax assessment.

The Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja observed that the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to the material on record. The court pointed out that it is not enough to say that a matter needs more examination. The officer is expected to give reasons before moving forward.

CA and Trader Previously Arrested in Ongoing Fake Firm Case: Delhi HC Refuses to Intervene in Challenge to Quash SCN

SULENDER SHAH AND ANR vsADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1573

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with a show cause notice issued to a Chartered Accountant and a trader who had previously been arrested during a fake firm investigation.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the petitioners themselves had acknowledged their connections with the individuals named in the investigation.

CA Only Acts as AR, not Automatically Entitled to Receive ITAT Orders Behalf of Assessee Without Specific Authorisation: Bombay HC

Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar vsThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1574

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa held that a Chartered Accountant who appears before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as an authorised representative is not automatically entitled to receive the Tribunal’s final order on behalf of the assessee, unless specifically authorised.

The bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta pointed out that the Income Tax Act allows assessees to be represented by authorised representatives, including Chartered Accountants, but it specifically requires the Tribunal to communicate its final order directly to the assessee.

GST Fraud of PAN India Level: Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Bail to 21-Year old Accused Citing Seriousness of Offence

Anush Kumar Gangwani vs Union ofIndia CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1575

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected the bail application of a 21-year-old accused of orchestrating a multi-crore GST fraud spread across various states. The Court, while denying bail, underscored the gravity of the offence, the pan-India scale of fraudulent operations, and the risk to the ongoing investigation.

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, after considering submissions from both sides, cited the seriousness of the allegations and the calculated manner in which the fraud was allegedly perpetrated. The Court observed that the accused’s actions creating and operating multiple fake firms to siphon off government revenue appeared to be part of a deep-rooted conspiracy carried out with a calculated design for personal profit.

GST Fraud Committed using ID of CA: Delhi HC Grants Bail to Accused After 8 Months’ Custody with Strict Conditions

SHASHI KANT GUPTA vs STATETHROUGH INCHARGE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1576

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a complex Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case involving the creation of fake business entities using the identity credentials of a Chartered Accountant.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the accused had been in custody for nearly eight months, while charges were yet to be framed and the trial was yet to commence. The chargesheet stated as many as 23 prosecution witnesses, indicating a protracted trial process.

Gujarat HC Allows Refund of Compensation Cess claimed on Unitilised ITC on Captive Power Inputs Used for SEZ/Export Supplies

ATUL LIMITED & ANR. vs UNIONOF INDIA & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1577

The Gujarat High Court has allowed the refund of Compensation Cess on unutilized Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) arising from inward supplies used for generating captive power.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi accepted the petitioner’s submissions. The court, relying on the precedent in Patson Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, clarified that exporters who pay Compensation Cess on inputs but not on outputs are eligible for refund of such unutilized ITC, regardless of whether the export is made under bond/LUT or on payment of IGST.

GST Council’s Notification 56/2023 is Illegal: Madras HC sets aside GST Orders Taking Note of Tata Play Ruling

M/S.SKT Swamy Auto Agency vs TheUnion of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1578

The Madras High Court quashed a series of GST (Goods and Services Tax) orders issued under Notification No. 56/2023 Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, deeming the notification arbitrary, ultra vires, and void.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the impugned notification, issued under Section168A of the CGST Act, 2017, could not validly extend the limitation period for issuing orders under Section 73 without any exceptional circumstances.

Customs Duty Paid under Protest: Calcutta HC Upholds CESTAT order to Refund ₹7.98 Cr to Raymond Apparel

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE) vs M/S. RAYMOND APPAREL LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1579

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court upheld the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), directing the refund of ₹7.98 crore to M/s Raymond Apparel Ltd, reiterating that limitation does not apply for the duties paid under protest.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) , while dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata, rejected the department’s challenge to the refund on grounds of limitation and alleged failure to reassess or modify the assessments.

‘Inscrutable Face of the Sphinx’ Cannot Guide Justice: Jharkhand HC Quashes GST Appellate Order, Stresses Duty to Give Reasons

M/s Sidh Hanuman Enterprises vsThe State of Jharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1580

“Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them” ruled the Jharkhand High Court. While invalidating the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appellate order, it said that orders passed without giving reasons are unsustainable.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad emphatically held that every judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative order must disclose the rationale behind the decision.

No Transfer of Right to Use Hoardings in favour of third party while Displaying Advertisement, KVAT not Leviable: Kerala HC

J.VIJAYAKUMAR vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1581

The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( KVAT ) is not leviable on advertisement hoardings , as there was no transfer of right to use hoardings in favour of third parties.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A observed that the obligations of the petitioner include erection and maintenance of the hoardings. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the charges collected by the petitioner for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance etc.

Gauhati High Court Makes Interim Bail Absolute for Trader Accused in GST Case, Directs Full Cooperation with Investigation

SHRI ABHIMANYU KUMAR vs STATE OFNAGALAND CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1582

In a recent order, the Gauhati High Court has made absolute the interim bail earlier granted to a trader from Assam, who was accused in connection with a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) matter.

The bench decided to confirm the interim relief. The interim bail granted on 26.06.2025 was made absolute, with a clear direction that the petitioner must continue to cooperate fully with the investigation, including appearing whenever summoned and providing all the relevant documents as previously instructed.

Probe into 108 Firms Reveals Fraudulent GST ITC Availment: Delhi HC Permits SCN to be Contested before Appellate Authority

MALIKTRADERSTHROUGHITSPROPRIETORvs THEPRINCIPAL COMMISISONEROFCENTRALTAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1583

The Delhi High Court recently permitted a business entity alleged to have fraudulently availed Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) to duly contest an adjudication order and allied Show-Cause Notice ( SCN ) issued to them before the appellate authority.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the impugned order was appealable, and that the grounds raised by the petitioner could be agitated before the appellate authority.

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

Frozen Bank Account Halts Business Operations: Orissa HC Directs Taxpayer to Seek Remedy from GST Dept

Pawan Kumar Sundarka & Ors.vs Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1584

In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court has clarified that taxpayers whose bank accounts are frozen due to GST (Goods and Services Tax) proceedings must first approach the designated GST authorities before seeking judicial intervention.

Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi observed that the hardship caused to the petitioners due to the account freeze, it would not be appropriate to bypass the statutory mechanism provided under the GST Act.

Individual alleges GST Demand Illegal Due to Turnover Below ₹20 Lakh: Patna HC Directs to take Appellate Remedy

Nishant Raj vs The Union ofIndia CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1585

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an individual who challenged a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order on the ground that his turnover was below the ₹20 lakh threshold, exempting him from registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The bench allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate forum within two months. Also, it directed the Appellate Authority to consider condoning the delay in filing the appeal by applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and to decide the matter within three months of receiving the appeal.

NFAC Apologises for Denial of Hearing Due to Oversight and Huge Case Pendency: Calcutta HC Remands Matter for Fresh Disposal

Nazirpur Large sizedMultipurpose Co-op Society & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1586

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) admitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee due to oversight and high pendency of cases.

After hearing both sides, the bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury explained that the reason given by the department was not sufficient to justify the denial of a hearing, but the apology appeared to be sincere. The court quashed the order dated 17 March 2025 as it was passed in breach of both natural justice and the court’s earlier directions.

Income Tax Dept Cannot Issue Notice in Name of Deceased When Earlier Court Order Recognised Legal Heir: Calcutta HC

NARENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL vs INCOME5TAX OFFICE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1587

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot issue a notice in the name of a deceased person when the legal heir has already come forward and been recognised in an earlier court order.

The bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury pointed out that this explanation was not acceptable. The court stated that since the earlier order in 2022 had been passed in the name of the petitioner and had acknowledged the death of Chiranjilal Agarwala, the assessing officer ought to have proceeded against the legal heir instead of repeating the same mistake.

NFRA Limited to Issue Directions, Not to Monitor Companies on its Compliance: Delhi HC Directs Petitioner to Seek Info via RTI

VIVEK CHHATRE vs UNION OF INDIATHROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1588

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that the National Financial Reporting Authority ( NFRA ) has the power to issue directions under Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, but it does not have the authority to monitor whether those directions are followed by companies.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that NFRA had already passed an order in March 2023 and there is a mechanism available under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The court directed the petitioner to seek information about follow-up action under the RTI route.

Unable to Avail Amnesty Scheme as Amended GST DRC-07 Not Available on Portal: Delhi HC Directs Upload within 2 Weeks

NEWEXCELLENTTELEVENTURESLLP vsUNIONOFINDIAANDORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1589

The Delhi High Court was recently met with a plea by a petitioner who stated it was unable to avail the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the department had not uploaded the amended DRC-07 form on the portal within the deadline for availing the scheme.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the corrigendum had finally adjudicated the SCN and thus modified the Order-in-Original, and in such event, the revised DRC-07 reflecting the updated demand amount ought to have been uploaded on the portal.

Orissa High Court Excuses 15-Day Delay in Filing Appeal Over Limitation Miscalculation

Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax-1 vs Jay Kishore Choubey CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1590

The Orissa High Court has condoned a 15-day delay in filing an income tax appeal caused by an inadvertent miscalculation of the limitation period by tax authorities. The order, dated July 29, 2025, came in response to an application by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Sambalpur, challenging an ITAT order from October 2023 in the case of assessee Jay Kishore Choubey.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman found the department’s explanation reasonable, noting the administrative transfer of documents between offices contributed to the miscalculation. The court referenced established judicial principles that technicalities should not override substantive justice when delays are minimal and adequately explained.

Orissa HC Grants Conditional Relief in Delayed GST Appeal, Petitioner Must Deposit 10% Tax Within a Week

Chandrakanta Parida vs The StateTax Officer, CT & GST Circle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1591

The Orissa High Court has provided conditional relief to a petitioner who filed a delayed appeal under the GST laws, directing the deposit of 10% of the disputed tax amount within a week to proceed with the case.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.R. Pathak, noted that while the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act was not yet operational, the petitioner could not be left without a remedy. However, the court emphasized that statutory conditions for filing an appeal must still be met, even in writ proceedings. Referring to the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8), the court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax within a week.

Gauhati High Court Orders Restoration of GST Registration for Businessman Who Missed Deadlines

MOKIBUR RAHMAN vs THE UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1592

The Gauhati High Court has directed the restoration of a businessman’s GST registration after it was cancelled due to non-filing of returns for six consecutive months.

The order was delivered by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi who emphasized that this direction was made in the interest of justice regardless of the earlier dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal.

State & Centre cannot Initiate GST Proceedings on Same Issue: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds ₹120 Cr CGST RCM Demand on SECL

South Eastern Coalfields Limitedvs Principal Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1593

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently reaffirmed that the State and Central authorities of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department cannot simultaneously initiate proceedings on the same subject matter, as barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Court upheld a ₹120.09 crore demand issued by Central GST authorities under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) against South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) - a mining company which is the largest coal producing company in India.

Digital Marketing Business Carried Out via Computers cannot be Treated as Profession, is a 'Business': Madras HC Restores Audit Exemption u/s 44AB(a)

Vajra Global Consulting ServiceLLP vs Assistant Director of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1594

The court clearly clarified that digital marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities.Merely because digital marketing carried on the business through computers, it cannot be treated as a profession, said the Madras High Court while restoring the audit exemption under Section 44AB(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to a digital marketing business.

Justice Krishnan Ramasmay observed that the use of computers or digital tools does not transform a business into a profession. It was observed that, “Digital Marketing is the business for persons who carry out the said activities. Merely because it is carried on through computers, it cannot be treated as a profession.”

Bombay HC Upholds State’s Power to Levy Entertainment Duty on Online Ticket Booking Charges Above ₹10, Dismisses FICCI's Writ Petition

FICCI-Multiplex Association ofIndia vs State of Maharashtra Mantralaya CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1595

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of a 2014 amendment to the MaharashtraEntertainments Duty Act that allows the State to levy entertainment duty on online ticket booking convenience fees exceeding Rs. 10 per ticket.

The court held that such charges, when above the prescribed limit, form part of the “payment for admission” and can be included in the measure of entertainment duty.

Extinguishment of Debt under IBC would not ipso facto apply to extinguishment of criminal proceedings under NI Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Charandeep Singh Jolly vs C.B.Healthcare through SPA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1596

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in a recent case held that the process of extinguishment of Debt under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 would not ipso facto apply to extinguishment of criminal proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act(NI Act).

A single bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts is quite different and would not intercede with each other. In fact, a bare reading of Section 14 IBC would make it clear that the nature of proceedings which have to be kept in abeyance do not include criminal proceedings, which is the nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Notice sent Invoking Arbitration Agreement u/s 21 of Arbitration Act is Valid Invocation: Delhi HC

PRISM JOHNSON LTD vs DOOSANPOWER SYSTEMS INDIA PVT LTD CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1597

The Delhi High Court has held that notice sent invoking arbitration agreement under section 21 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is valid invocation and viewed that there was no requirement for the Petitioner to resort to Clause 25(c) of GTC to formally notify the ICA for appointment of the arbitrator.

A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that there was no requirement for the Petitioner to resort to Clause 25(c) of GTC to formally notify the ICA for appointment of the Arbitrator and the notice sent by the Petitioner to the Respondent on 13.09.2024, invoking arbitration agreement under Section 21 of 1996 Act is valid invocation.

ADGCEI Lacks Authority to Issue SCN in Customs Case Without Clear Territorial Jurisdiction: Madras HC

The Commissioner of Customs(Imports) vs Shri. C.K.Geever CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1598

The Madras High Court has confirmed that the Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence ( ADGCEI ) cannot issue a show cause notice ( SCN ) in customs matters without a clear and specific conferment of territorial jurisdiction in the enabling notification.

While dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, the Division Bench of Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice N. Senthilkumar upheld the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) decision quashing the SCN issued against importers of used photocopier components.

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