Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-Up

Sale proceeds Mistakenly recorded in CGDS Account: Meghalaya HC directs Assessee to file revised Return

Smt. SutapaChakravarty vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1654

The Meghalaya High Court directed the assessee to file the revised return rectifying the mistake made of recording sale proceeds in Capital Gain Deposit Scheme (CGDS) Account.

The writ petitioner, Sutapa Chakravarty is before the Court in the 3rd round of litigation, alleging that the respondents have still to pass a final speaking order for the closure of the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme (CGDS) Account of the petitioner, in spite of order dated 06.09.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 213 of 2024, directing for the same.

Gauhati HC Allows 2 months time to seeking Restoration of GST Registration Cancelled

D.D. CONSTRUCTIONvs THE UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1655

The Gauhati High Court allowed the 2 months time to seek restoration of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) registration which got cancelled due to non filing of GST return for a continuous period of 6 months.

Supreme Court to Examine Jurisdiction of Police w.r.t. GST Authorities to Detain Goods in Transit [Read Order]

ABHISHEK KUMARKASHYAP ETC vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 241

The Supreme Court, in an interim order yesterday, has taken up the jurisdictional issue of police officials with respect to the Goods and Services Tax Authorities to detain Goods in transit.

The issue of the case pertains to release of the goods which were seized by the police after registration of First Information Report.

Calcutta HC Dismisses Writ Petition as Income Tax Dept Not Interested to pursue Demand u/s 143

Nitin Chamariavs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1653

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition as the Income Tax Department was not interested in pursuing the demand under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Income Tax Appeal cannot merely File due to exceeding Monetary limit: Chhattisgarh HC

AssistantCommissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s Vandana Ispat Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1652

The High Court of Chhattisgarh observed that Income Tax Appeal cannot merely file due to exceeding monetary limit and disposed of the appeal relying on the fact that the monetary limit (tax liability) is less than Rs.2 Crores.

When the case is taken for hearing, counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued a new circular dated 17.09.2024 in which, monetary limits for filing income tax appeals by the Department before the High Court has been enhanced to Rs.2 crores whereas, in the present case, the tax liability of the assess is less than Rs.2 Crores, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circular dated 17.09.2024, the present Appeal may be disposed of finally.

Non-Submission of Documents Led to Best Judgment Assessment: Madras HC Quashes Income Tax Order subject to 15% Deposit

S. S. Tradersvs The Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1651

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has set aside an assessment order passed under Sections 147 read with 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, granting the assessee another opportunity to present documents, subject to depositing 15% of the disputed tax within 30 days.

The petitioner, S. S. Traders had challenged the assessment order dated 11 February 2025, issued pursuant to a notice dated 20 August 2024 under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act.

Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Initiation of Proceedings’ u/s 6(2)(b) of GST, Lays Down Twofold Test for ‘Same Subject Matter’

M/S ARMOURSECURITY (INDIA) LTD vs COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 240

The Supreme Court of India clarified the meaning of “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act and laid down a twofold test for determining when the “subject matter” is the same.

The court also set out a twofold test, that is “First, the subject matter will be considered the same if an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability of tax or alleged offence by the assessee on the same facts; and secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the company’s petition, upheld the High Court’s order, and issued detailed guidelines for handling situations where multiple authorities investigate the same matter.

Failure to Prove Service of Show-Cause Notice of Service Tax Demand: Gauhati HC sets aside ₹16.37 Lakh Demand Order [Read Order]

DHANJIT KUMARPATHAK vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1650

The Gauhati High Court has quashed an Order-in-Original that had confirmed a service tax demand of ₹16,37,501, along with cess, interest, and penalties, for the financial year 2016-17.

The Court found that the tax department had failed to produce any evidence showing that the underlying show-cause notice was ever served on the petitioner. The case was heard by Mr. Justice N. Unnikrishnan Nair.

Madras HC Rejects GST S. 16(4) Plea in Wrongful ITC Availment Issue, Directs Appeal as Proper Remedy [Read Order]

Tvl.SuyambulingamStores vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1647

The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order on alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ), holding that the dispute did not fall under Section 16(4) of the GST Act and that the proper remedy lay in filing an appeal.

The petitioner, Tvl. Suyambulingam Stores, had approached the Court seeking to quash an order dated 25 February 2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Nanganallur Assessment Circle.

Madras HC Allows Accused in ED Case to Travel Abroad for Cardiac Treatment, Suspends LOC with Stringent Conditions [Read Order]

R.V.Ashok Kumarvs The Deputy Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1649

The Madras High Court has granted conditional permission to an accused in an Enforcement Directorate ( ED ) case linked to the alleged job racket to travel abroad for advanced cardiac treatment at the Mayo Clinic, Arizona, USA.

The Court also ordered that the Look Out Circular (LOC) against him be suspended temporarily from August 29 to September 23, 2025, subject to stringent safeguards.

Late GST Appeal and Non-Reply to SCN: Madras HC Orders Fresh Adjudication on Additional 15% Tax Deposit from ECL [Read Order]

M/s. SunScrapers vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1648

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside three GST (Goods and Services tax) orders and the corresponding appellate rejections, despite the petitioner’s delay in filing appeals and failure to respond to Show Cause Notices (SCNs).

M/s. Sun Scrapers, challenged orders passed by the State Tax Officer on 21 December 2024 and the subsequent rejection of its appeals by the Appellate Commissioner on 30 May 2025. The original assessments for October, November, and December 2023 had been passed on 20 December 2024, modified a day later, and confirmed substantial tax demands.

Over 200 Pages of Supporting Documents Ignored: Madras HC sends back GST Demand for Proper Adjudication [Read Order]

M/s. ChakraChains Jewellery (P) Ltd vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1646

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order stating failure by the authorities to properly consider over 200 pages of supporting documents and the reply submitted by the taxpayer.

Following an inspection at the M/s. Chakra Chains Jewellery (P) Ltd’s premises on 11 and 12 July 2024, during which a sworn statement was recorded from its Director.

Andhra Pradesh HC sets aside GST SCN issued without Mentioning DIN Number [Read Order]

AVANI TECHSOULUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1641

The Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside Goods and Service Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN) issued without mentioning DIN number.

A Division Bench of the Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa ,had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings.

Pending Income Tax Re-assessment Proceedings not a Bar to Institution of Criminal Prosecution: Delhi HC Sustains Complaints [Read Order]

RAJ KUMAR KEDIAvs INCOME TAX OFFICE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1645

The Delhi High Court in a recent matter held that the pendency of income tax reassessment proceedings does not vitiate the institution of criminal prosecution under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The observation was made by the Court while dismissing petitions filed by Petitioner Raj Kumar Kedia in a plea seeking the quashal of criminal complaints against him, registered under Sections 276-C(1) and 277-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

GST S. 16(2)(c) and Rule 36(4) Not Violative of Article 14: Madras HC dismisses writ petition [Read Order]

M/s.Baby Marine(Eastern) Exports vs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1644

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has dismissed writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017 and Rule 36(4) of the GST Rules, 2017, rejecting the argument that these provisions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, M/s. Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, sought a declaration that the provisions which deny Input Tax Credit (ITC) to a recipient if the supplier has not paid the collected tax to the government were unconstitutional and arbitrary. They also sought a refund of ₹31,57,846, which had been adjusted against their eligible refund.

No Notice Issued Prior to Passing Customs Duty Drawback Recovery Order: Madras HC Orders to Consider afresh [Read Order]

M/s.AmbaraExports vs The Deputy Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1643

The Madras High Court has quashed a Customs Duty Drawback recovery order issued holding that no prior notice was served on the petitioner before passing the order.

The writ petition was filed challenging the order in original dated 30 March 2021, by which the Deputy Commissioner of Customs confirmed the recovery of ₹3,76,447 as wrongly availed drawback for certain shipping bills listed in Table-I and imposed a penalty of ₹19,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Challenge against Application for Cancellation of Self Assessed Ex-bond bills of entry: Calcutta HC rules in favour of Customs Dept [Read Order]

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT KOLKATA vs M/S EMAMI AGROTECH LTD

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1642

The Calcutta High Court in a case challenging the application for cancellation of self-assessed ex-bond bills of entry, ruled in favour of the Customs Department. It was found that the tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent importer for withdrawal/cancellation of the Ex. bond bill of entry and re-instatement of Into-bond bill of entry without mentioning the provisions of the Customs Act.

The Commissioner of Customs (Port) filed an appeal against the final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal , Eastern zonal bench, Kolkata under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). M/S Emami Agrotech Limited,the respondent assessee filed 7 Into Bond Bills of Entry for warehousing in respect of imported goods, namely crude palm of edible grade.

Customs Duty on Iron Ore Fines to be Determined on WMT: Orissa HC Dismisses Customs Appeal [Read Order]

Commissioner ofCustoms vs M/s. S.M. Niryat Pvt CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1639

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court dismissed the Customs Appeal in the absence of substantial questions of law in the appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, holding that the customs duty on iron ore fines to be Determined on “Wet Metric Ton” (WMT).

The Commissioner of Customs sailing order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Eastern Zonal Bench), Kolkata (“the CESTAT”) . It was questioned whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the net Fe content of Iron Ore Fines for the purpose of levy of Customs duty shall be determined on WMT basis applying the conversion formula, when the emergence of formula for such conversion has no statutory babasis.

‘A party cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stand at different stages of Proceeding’: Orissa HC Upholds DMT method of Fe content in IOF [Read Order]

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs M/s. Chamong TeeExports Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1640

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court upheld the DMT method in determining Fe content in IOF and dismissed the appeal, stating that ‘A party cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands at different stages of proceedings’.

The appellant has filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 assailing the judgment and order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata whereby and whereunder, the demand raised by the appellant upon issuing the show cause notices alleging that there has been a conscious avoidance of the customs duty by splitting one consignment into different components, was rejected.

Calcutta HC Condones 180 days Delay in Filing Excise Appeal, restores matter back to CESTAT [Read Order]

WEBSOL ENERGYSYSTEMS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF CENT. EXCISE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1638

The Calcutta High Court condoned the 180-day delay in filing the excise appeal and restored the matter back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It was viewed that the delay of 180 days cannot be stated to be inordinate, nor can the appellant/assessee can be stated to have been not diligent in prosecuting the matter.

The court viewed that the delay of 180 days cannot be stated to be inordinate nor the appellant/assessee can be stated to have been not diligent in prosecuting the matter.

‘Not a Frequent Visitor to GST Portal’: Delhi HC Imposes ₹50K Cost for Skipping Hearings in Fraudulent ITC Availment Case [Read Order]

GANPATIPOLYMERS vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1637

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Ganpati Polymers, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 for failing to attend personal hearings despite notices being uploaded on the GST portal in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit (ITC).

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the petitioner’s explanation of being unaware due to not visiting the portal regularly could not justify complete non-participation.

GST Officer cannot Re-levy Demand Already Covered: Orissa HC says this Amounts to Double Taxation, sets aside Order [Read Order]

M/s. SaiSitaram Construction vs Joint Commissioner of CT & GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1635

The Orissa High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order issued by the Additional State Tax Officer, holding that it amounted to double taxation.

The petitioner, Sai Sitaram Construction, a registered dealer, challenged the order passed under Section 73 of the Central and Odisha GST Acts for the financial year 2021-22.

Earlier, for the period April to September 2021, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax had already raised a demand of ₹21,38,338/- on account of alleged mismatch in Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims vis-à-vis GSTR-2B, vide order dated 1st December 2022. That demand had been recovered from the petitioner’s cash ledger during the pendency of appeal.

However, in the subsequent order dated 11th April 2025, covering April 2021 to March 2022, the same amount relating to April - September 2021 was again included, resulting in duplication of the earlier demand.

Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: Supreme Court on Reassessment Limits and TOLA Extensions

Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal: Supreme Court on Reassessment Limits and TOLA Extensions

In the world of tax litigation, some cases quietly resolve at the assessment desk itself, while others travel through layers of appeals before fading into the archives. But once in a while, a dispute emerges that reshapes the rules of the game.

This was one such case.

GST Returns Not Filed due to Medical Reasons: Madras HC Orders to restore Registration Post- Tax and Interest Payment without ITC Adjustment [Read Order]

Tvl.Tharaga andCo vs The Superintendent CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1633

The Madras High Court has ordered the restoration of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration which had been cancelled due to the petitioner’s failure to file returns on time, citing medical reasons on payment of tax and interest without adjusting from unutilised Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The petitioner, Tvl.Tharaga and Co, represented by its partner, Mr. Sukumar Chandran, explained that he was suffering from Type II Diabetes Mellitus and, due to health issues, could not attend to statutory obligations, including the filing of monthly GST returns.

Cash Ledger Deposits by Liquidator Amounts to Valid Payment Despite Non-Filing of GST Returns: Madras HC quashes ₹1.02 Crore Demand [Read Order]

SatyadeviAlamuri vs Office of Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1634

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court, in a recent ruling, quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand of ₹1.02 crore raised against a company under liquidation, holding that amounts deposited into the electronic cash ledger by the liquidator must be treated as valid payment of tax liability, even if no returns filed.

Satyadevi Alamuri, Liquidator of G. B. Engineering Enterprises Private Limited represented for the petition. The GST authorities issued notices to the company for the period April 2019 to December 2019, leading in an order confirming a demand of ₹1,02,57,338, along with interest and penalties.

Unfinalised Income Tax Reassessment not a Ground to Deny DTVSV Scheme Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Order]

KAVUMKAL ROADBUILDERS vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1632

The Kerala High Court has held that the mere initiation of reassessment proceedings, which remain unfinalized, cannot be a ground to deny an assessee the benefits available under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. The judgment was rendered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. in the writ petitions filed by Kavumkal Road Builders.

The petitioner, Kavumkal Road Builders, challenged the denial of relief under both the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and the subsequent DTVSV Scheme, 2024, in relation to Assessment Year 2015-16. While their appeal against the original assessment order was pending, the government introduced both settlement schemes to resolve pending income tax disputes.

ED cannot Freeze Bank Accounts without S.17(1-A) PMLA Order: Punjab & Haryana HC directs ED to Hold ‘Tainted’ ₹45 Cr Pending Adjudication [Read Order]

M/s DarshMinerals Pvt vs Union of India and others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1631

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot freeze bank accounts and records of an arraigned entity if the directorate has not passed an express order under Section 17(1-A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Vikram Chaudhri, Hargun Sandhu, Rahul Bhargava, Diya Bhagwan and Alisha Sharda appearing for the petitioners contended that apart from the email intimation from the date of search and seizure made by the officer, the ED did not pass any order under Section 17(1-A) of the PMLA.

₹1.01 Lakh Extortion via GPay QR Code: Chhattisgarh HC finds No Grounds to Quash FIR [Read Order]

ChatrasaalKatiyar S/o Jagdish Katiyar vs State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. PoliceStation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1630

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against the petitioner in connection with an alleged extortion of ₹1.01 lakh through a Google Pay QR code.

A complaint was lodged by the second respondent, a woman who alleged that she had received threatening phone calls from unknown persons, warning her that her obscene photographs and videos would be made viral if she failed to pay.

9% Interest Payable on GST Refunds if Not Released within 60 Days from Date of FAA’s Order: Bombay HC in Lupin Ltd Case [Read Order]

Lupin Limitedvs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1629

The Bombay High Court at Goa recently ruled in favour of Lupin Limited, holding that the company was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the delayed refund of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) if the refund was not released within sixty days from the date of the First Appellate Authority’s ( FAA ) order.

No SCN or Order for 1 Year after Delhi Customs Seized 5 iPhones from Hong Kong Passenger: Delhi HC Orders Release [Read Order]

YAKIN YUNUSPATEL vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1628

In a recent order, the Delhi High Court directed the release of five iPhones seized by the Customs Department, noting that the continued detention had become untenable as no show cause notice (SCN) or Order-in-Original was issued even after a year from the seizure.

The petitioner, Yakin Yunus Patel had approached the Court seeking release of the detained goods which had been seized by the Customs at Indira Gandhi International Airport while he and his family members arrived in India from Hong Kong on May 3, 2024.

Fraudulently Availing ₹10 Crores ITC: Gujarat HC Grants Bail on surety [Read Order]

SUNIL HIRALALMANDOWARA vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1625

The Gujarat High Court granted bail to the accused, who had fraudulently availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Goods and Services Tax (GST) of over Rs 10 crores by allegedly showing fictitious transactions. The accused applicant is ordered to be released on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety.

Sunil Hiralal Mandowara, the applicant has filed the application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the offence registered with the Office of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ahmedabad.

Calcutta HC sets aside Income Tax Order deleting Disallowance on Share Trading citing Failure to prove Genuineness [Read Order]

PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL vs M/S. ZULU MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1627

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court set aside the Income Tax Order deleting disallowance on share trading, citing the assessee’s failure to prove genuineness.

The appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated September 23, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (tribunal) in ITA No. 553/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2014-2015 which was in favor of respondent assessee, Zulu Merchandise Private Limited.

Challenge on Income Tax Demand Based on assessment u/s 147 Not Maintainable before HC: Orissa HC dismisses Writ Petition [Read Order]

Shri SamirKundu vs National Faceless Assessment Centre CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1626

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a challenge to an income tax demand based on an assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable before the High Court.

Shri Samir Kundu, the petitioner questioned the legality, impropriety and justness of demand raised to the tune of Rs.1,23,78,764/- pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 [relevant to Financial Year 2019-20] by way of assessment framed under Section 147 read with 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

Cancellation of GST Registration Counter-productive to Revenue: Calcutta HC orders Revival of Registration on Payment of all Dues [Read Order]

Meheraj Middevs Superintendent of Central GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1621

The Calcutta High Court held that cancellation of GST ( Good and Services Tax ) registration for non-filing of GST returns without any allegation of tax evasion was counter-productive to revenue interests when the taxpayer is willing to continue its business. The court directed restoration of registration subject to payment of all statutory dues.

The petitioner, Meheraj Midde challenged the GST order cancelling his GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act for non-furnishing of returns under Section 39.

Calcutta HC Condemns Misusing Extraordinary Jurisdiction of HC for Delaying Revenue Deposit, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost on Company [Read Order]

Merc InfraIndia Private Limited vs State of West Bengal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1619

The Calcutta High Court has strongly criticized the abuse of its extraordinary writ power under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of delaying statutory GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payments.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury dismissed a writ petition as withdrawn filed by Merc Infra India Private Limited & Anr. but imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioners, payable to the GST authorities.

Orissa HC Quashes Service Tax Demand on Ex Parte Basis, Says Non-Consideration of Contention is Denial of Hearing [Read Order]

M/s. Basementto Roof vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1624

“Non-consideration of the contention amounts to denial of hearing”, said the Orissa High Court and set aside a service tax demand passed on an ex parte basis holding that failure to consider a taxpayer’s contention amounts to a denial of hearing.

The petitioner, M/s Basement to Roof had challenged the adjudicating authority’s order dated January 1, 2025, which raised a service tax demand despite the claim of exemption under the June 20, 2012 notification for services provided to the government.

GST Notice Upload Mode Must be as Per General Practice: Calcutta HC Orders Appeal Without Extra Pre-Deposit [Read Order]

Shashi KantJaiswal & Anr. vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1623

The Calcutta High Court has held that while uploading a notice on the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) portal is deemed valid service under Section 169 of the GST Act, the mode and manner of such upload must follow general practice.

The petitioners, Shashi Kant Jaiswal & Anr challenged both a demand order under Section 73 of the GST Act for FY 2020-21 and the subsequent attachment of their bank account under GST Section 79(1)(c).

BSNL’s Late GST Payment Cannot Penalise Buyer: Calcutta HC Orders ₹1.67 Lakh Re-credit to Purchaser’s Credit Ledger [Read Order]

Rabin Sarkar vsDeputy Commissioner of Revenue CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1622

The buyer cannot be forced to pay the supplier's overdue GST (Goodsand Services Tax) payments, ruled the Calcutta High Court. It has instructed the GST department to recredit ₹1,67,974 to the buyer's credit ledger and ordered the supplier, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), to pay its GST dues.

The petitioner, Rabin Sarkar, proprietor of Dolphin Enterprises, challenged an appellate order under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 and sought a refund of ₹1,67,974, which had been debited from his cash ledger on 8 December 2024.

Cancellation of GST Registration Counter-productive to Revenue: Calcutta HC orders Revival of Registration on Payment of all Dues [Read Order]

Meheraj Middevs Superintendent of Central GST & CX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1620

The Calcutta High Court held that cancellation of GST ( Good and Services Tax ) registration for non-filing of GST returns without any allegation of tax evasion was counter-productive to revenue interests when the taxpayer is willing to continue its business. The court directed restoration of registration subject to payment of all statutory dues.

The petitioner, Meheraj Midde challenged the GST order cancelling his GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act for non-furnishing of returns under Section 39.

GST Dept cannot Recover Demand prior to Expiry of Statutory Period for Filing Appeal: Calcutta HC says Dept Committed ‘Grave Error’ [Read Order]

SupremeInfotrade Private Limited & anr vs The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1618

Calling it a “grave error” on part of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities, the Calcutta High Court has held that the department cannot recover an entire tax demand before the expiry of the statutory period allowed to the assessee for filing an appeal.

The petitioner, Supreme Infotrade Pvt. Ltd., which had challenged a refund rejection order dated 11 March 2025 and sought the re-credit of ₹18,04,696 recovered from its electronic credit ledger.

Karnataka HC Orders Expeditious Disposal of GST Appeals on ₹2.3 Crore Demand Amid Allegations of Coercion & Threat by Officials [Read Order]

M/S. HUKKERITALUKA SAMAGRA GRAMEEN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1617

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court recently directed the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi to expedite adjudication in two Goods and Services Tax Appeals concerning a penalty demand and interest amounting to ₹2,33,91,504 amid allegations that the Petitioner was subject to threat and coercion by the authorities to effectuate recovery.

The single-judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur recorded that the appeals were filed on February 13, 2025 and that no notice had yet been issued as of July 2025. The bench observed that, given the pendency of the statutory appeals and the allegations pertaining to recovery, the issue requires a time-bound decision by the appellate forum.

Is DRP Procedure Bound by Time Limitation u/s.153? Split Verdict Leads Supreme Court Division Bench to Urge CJI to Form Specific Bench [Read Judgement]

AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax vs Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 239

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a split verdict on whether the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) process under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be completed within the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 153, or whether the timelines set by the DRP have the liberty to operate independent of the statutory prescriptions laid down by the Income Tax Act.

The order was given by the Apex Court while adjudicating a Civil Appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) and Others against Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., a non-resident group of companies engaged in the business of shallow water drilling for clients engaged in the oil and gas industry.

Belated Alteration of Consignee Details to Match IEC Not ‘Innocent Misuse’: Delhi HC Rejects Poppy Seed Importer’s Plea [Read Order]

JYOTIENTERPRISES vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1616

The Delhi High Court recently directed absolute confiscation of goods and imposed penalties of a consignment whose consignee details were belatedly altered to reflect the Import Export Code (IEC) of the Petitioner herein.

The petitioner, Jyoti Enterprises challenged an Order-in-Original dated March 27, 2025, passed by the Customs Department, which ordered confiscation of a consignment on the ground of misdeclaration.

Borrower must disclose being MSME to Avail Benefit: Supreme Court clarifies in MSME-SARFAESI Connected Case

SHRI SHRI SWAMISAMARTH CONSTRUCTION & FINANCE SOLUTION vs THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NKGSB CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 237

The Supreme Court has recently declined to entertain a writ petition by an MSME borrower seeking to halt SARFAESI enforcement, while clarifying how the 2015 MSME revival framework and the SARFAESI Act interact.

The dispute followed a loan default by an enterprise registered under the MSME Act. NKGSB issued a demand notice on May 13, 2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, granting 60 days to pay.

Supreme Court upholds GST ITC Availability on Mobile Telecom Towers, dismisses Revenue SLP [Read Order]

COMMISSIONER,CGST APPEAL-1, DELHI ETC vs M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED ETC. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 238

In a significant boost for the telecom industry, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to disturb the Delhi High Court’s ruling that permits input tax credit (ITC) on mobile telecom towers under the GST regime.

The High Court had found that telecom towers are movable assets and fall within “plant and machinery.” As a result, the restriction on credits relating to “immovable property” in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act does not apply. The court noted that towers are typically bolted, can be dismantled and reinstalled, and therefore do not demonstrate an intention of permanent annexation to the earth.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC stays Income Tax Order passed beyond statutory period [Read Order]

Sanju Aggarwalvs Union of India and Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1615

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stayed the Income Tax order passed beyond the statutory period.

The court disposed of the petition as the respondent submitted that in the event the petitioner initiates the necessary proceedings, as indicated earlier or file an appeal, within two weeks, the order dated August 28, 2020 shall remain operative till the decision of the said appeal/proceedings.

Sale of Late Mother's Flat for Multiple Residential Houses eligible for Income Tax S.54 Exemption: Bombay HC [Read Order]

Krishnagopal B.Nangpal vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1614

In a significant ruling for homeowners and tax planners, the Bombay High Court has held that capital gains from the sale of a residential property-a flat inherited from the assessee’s late mother, can be fully sheltered under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.

This benefit applies when the proceeds are invested in multiple residential houses too, provided the transaction falls under the pre-2014 version of the Income Tax Act.

Factual Dispute on Custody Legal or Proper in Gold Smuggling Case not for Writ Jurisdiction: Telangana HC Directs to Remedy under BNSS [Read Order]

Sangeetha Jainvs The Union of lndia CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1613

The Telangana High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the custody of the petitioner’s husband in a gold smuggling case, ruling that disputed questions of fact regarding the legality or propriety of the custody are not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

The Court ruled that it was improper for it to decide such disputed facts in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 after taking into account the allegations, the facts surrounding his apprehension, and the disagreements over the legitimacy of custody.

Wrong Tax Head Entry Not Ground for Denying CGST Refund: Allahabad HC Rejects Appellate Authority’s Technical Approach [Read Order]

Bharat Mint& Aroma Chemicals vs Union Of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1612

The Allahabad High Court has held that a refund claim for Central GST ( CGST ) cannot be rejected merely because the amount was entered under the wrong tax head in the refund form.

The Court observed that such a technical error, even if caused by a software glitch or typographical mistake, does not justify denying a substantive right when entitlement to the refund is undisputed.

Uttarakhand HC Dismisses GST Waiver & TDS Deduction Plea, Says Liability Determination Requires Factual Inquiry Beyond Writ Jurisdiction [Read Order]

Shankar DuttChandola vs State Of Uttarakhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1611

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) waiver benefits and a direction to prevent deduction of GST and TDS under Sections 22 and 51(1)(d) of the GST Act, 2017, holding that the relief sought needed a factual determination not permissible in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Shankar Dutt Chandola and Another petitioners had prayed for a mandamus directing the authorities to clear pending dues by granting GST waiver and to refrain from deducting GST and TDS, claiming entitlement under the relevant statutory provisions.

Sourav Ganguly’s GST Appeal Reinstated: Calcutta HC Terms Further Pre-Deposit Demand a ‘Travesty of Justice’ After Excess Amount Already Recovered [Read Order]

Sourav Gangulyvs State of West Bengal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1610

The Calcutta High Court has restored former cricketer Sourav Ganguly’s GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal, quashing the appellate authority’s order dated 30 July 2024 that had rejected the appeal for alleged non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under the State’s GST Amnesty Scheme.

Under the scheme notified on 2 November 2023, taxpayers were permitted to maintain appeals against orders passed on or before 31 March 2023 under Sections 73 or 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, provided they filed the appeal by 31 January 2024 and paid 12.5% of the disputed tax, with at least 20% of that amount through the electronic cash ledger.

GST Adjudication Without Mandatory Hearing u/s 75(4) Unsustainable: Calcutta HC [Read Order]

Annu ProjectsPrivate Limited vs Sr. Joint Commissioner

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1609

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order passed under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, holding it to be unsustainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4).

The petitioner, Annu Projects Private Limited, challenged the appellate authority’s order dated 22 January 2025, which had rejected its appeal as time-barred against the adjudication order dated 24 April 2024 for the period April 2018-March 2019.

Whether JAO Can Issue Income Tax Reassessment Notice after Introduction of Faceless Assessment Scheme: Supreme Court to Decide

The Supreme Court will on 11 August 2025 will admit a case that will settle a growing conflict between on whether a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) can issue a reassessment notice after the introduction of the Faceless Assessment Scheme.

The petition was filed on 21 July 2025 against a Delhi High Court order dated 28 October 2024. The matter will be heard by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan.

Supreme Courtto Decide on Retrospective Applicability of Section 5 of Amended BenamiProperty Act

The Supreme Court will again look at the important question of whether Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as changed in 2016, can be used for transactions that happened before the change came into force.

A new case before the Supreme Court, filed on 17 July 2025 by the Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in Chennai against M/s Marg Limited, is set for hearing on 11 August 2025.

This follows a major development on 18 October 2024, when the Court agreed to review its own earlier decision in the case of Union of India versus Ganapati Dealcom Private Limited.

Onus to Prove Sundry Creditor Payments Within 180 Days Before GST Authorities Lies with Company, Even If Not Requested: Calcutta HC [Read Order]

Tara LohiaPrivate Limited vs Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1606

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that the onus to prove payments to sundry creditors within 180 days before the GST authorities lies with the company, even if the audit team did not specifically request such records.

Tara Lohia Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2022. The show cause notice was issued on 1 August 2024 after an audit under Section 65, which contained several allegations.

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