Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-Up

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court & High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week, from August 31, 2025 to September 7, 2025.

Supreme Court

Service Tax vs VAT: Supreme Court to Hear Revenue’s Appeal against CESTAT Ruling and Schindler India on Monday

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX II vs SCHINDLER INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 251

The Supreme Court of India is examining whether VAT paid on the goods portion of elevator works contracts should be excluded from the service tax base under Section 67 of the FinanceAct, 1994 and Rule 2A of the 2006 Rules. The Revenue has appealed against the CESTAT Mumbai’s 15 March 2023 order that set aside tax demands on Schindler India Pvt. Ltd., holding only installation and commissioning taxable.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the appeals and listed them for 1 September 2025. CESTAT had relied on precedents like Wipro GE Medical Systems and Johnson Lifts to rule that VAT-paid goods value must be excluded, a decision now under Supreme Court scrutiny with wide implications for works contracts.

Vehicles Used Only Inside Enclosed Industrial Premises Not Liable to Motor Vehicle Tax: Supreme Court

M/S. TARACHAND LOGISTIC SOLUTIONS LIMITED VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH& ORS. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 252

The Supreme Court examined whether vehicles confined within RINL’s central dispatch yard were liable to motor vehicle tax under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. Tarachand Logistic Solutions argued that since their vehicles never used public roads and operated only within a CISF-guarded, non-public area, no tax could be levied.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan agreed, holding that liability arises only when vehicles are used in public places accessible to the public. It ruled that Rule 12A of the 1963 Rules cannot widen the Act’s scope, set aside the Division Bench ruling, restored the Single Judge’s order, and allowed the company’s appeal.

Supreme Court Questions Punjab & Haryana HC Over Delay in Publishing Bail Order, Orders Probe into Backdating Allegations

AJAY MAINI vs STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 253

The Supreme Court of India recently flagged serious concerns over the delay in uploading a Punjab and Haryana High Court bail order in Ajay Maini v. State of Haryana. The petitioner challenged the anticipatory bail rejection order dated 31 July 2025, pointing out that it had not been uploaded even by 20 August 2025, forcing him to approach the apex court without a copy. Observing the unexplained delay, the Court sought a report from the Registrar General.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi noted that the order appeared to have been issued only after the Supreme Court’s intervention. It directed seizure of the Secretary’s steno book, a discreet inquiry, and an affidavit from the National Informatics Centre on the date of typing and uploading. Meanwhile, interim protection was granted to Ajay Maini, and notice was issued to the State of Haryana, returnable in four weeks.

Income Tax Dept. Launched Evasion Prosecution Flouting CBDT Circulars: Supreme Court Slaps ₹2 Lakh Fine on Revenue

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 254

The Supreme Court of India recently quashed prosecution proceedings initiated under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and imposed costs of ₹2,00,000 on the Income Tax Department. The case arose from a 2016 search at the appellant’s residence, where cash of ₹4.93 crore was seized, followed by prosecution based on alleged tax evasion.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that the Department’s action was in blatant violation of its own binding circulars and guidelines. The Court noted that the Settlement Commission had already accepted the appellant’s full disclosure and granted him immunity from penalty, further undermining the basis for prosecution. Consequently, the Court set aside the criminal proceedings and directed the Revenue to compensate the appellant with ₹2,00,000 for the unwarranted litigation.

CBIC Circular on Refunding Unutilised GST ITC u/r 89(5) Not Prospective: Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue SLP with ₹10K Costs

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs M/S. TIRTH AGRO TECHNOLOGY PVT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 255

The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India in Union of India & Ors. v. Tirth Agro Technology Pvt. Ltd. concerning refunds of unutilised Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the inverted duty structure. The case arose under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(5), where the Gujarat High Court had held that the July 2022 amendment including input services in refund calculations was clarificatory and retrospective, following its earlier decision in Ascent Meditech Ltd. v. Union of India.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that the Union’s challenge to Ascent Meditech had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in March 2025, making the present SLP unsustainable. Noting that the petition was filed despite this precedent, the Court dismissed it and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the Union of India, directing that the amount be deposited with the Advocate-on-Record Association.

Revenue Contests Adani Power’s Refund Claim Over Service Tax on Ocean Freight: Supreme Court lists Matter this Date

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX vs ADANI POWER MUNDRALIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 256

The Supreme Court of India has admitted the Revenue’s appeal against the CESTAT Ahmedabad order directing refund of ₹5.03 crore service tax paid on ocean freight by Adani Power without applying Notification No. 12/2013-ST. The core issue is whether SEZ-specific procedural conditions can restrict refunds where the Gujarat High Court in SAL Steel Limited has already struck down the levy itself as unconstitutional under the Finance Act, 1994.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Viswanathan is scheduled to hear the matter on 16 September 2025. During preliminary proceedings, Adani Power was granted four weeks to file its counter affidavit, while the Revenue sought time for filing an affidavit of valuation. The Court’s ruling is expected to clarify whether refunds must be routed through SEZ notifications or allowed outright where the levy has been declared ultra vires.

20% Pre-Deposit of Tax Amount is Pre-condition to Appeal before CT&GST Officer: Supreme Court Dismisses Appellant’s Case

M/S TRIVENI ENGINEERS vs ASSESSING AUTHORITY CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 257

The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Triveni Engineers for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 16(4) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999. The appellant had challenged an assessment order, but its appeal before the Additional Commissioner (CT & GST) was rejected on 17 January 2025 for failure to deposit 20% of the disputed demand. A subsequent revision and writ petition before the Orissa High Court also failed, with the Division Bench ruling that courts cannot dilute or rewrite statutory provisions mandating such deposits.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Orissa High Court’s decision, holding that Triveni Engineers’ attempt to deposit only 10% was contrary to the clear statutory mandate. Finding no illegality in the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court affirmed that the 20% pre-deposit requirement is a binding condition for maintaining appeals and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

Independent Services Cannot Be Clubbed as Ancillary to Composite Supply for Service Tax: Supreme Court dismisses Revenue's Appeal

COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE GANDHINAGAR vs KALPATARUPROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 258

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal challenging a CESTAT ruling that transportation and insurance services cannot be treated as incidental to installation services for service tax. The case arose from a demand of over ₹14.42 crore against Kalpataru Projects for allegedly excluding transport and insurance charges from the taxable value of works contract services. CESTAT, Ahmedabad Bench, in June 2024, quashed the demand after finding that the contracts clearly bifurcated installation charges from transportation and insurance, treating them as distinct and independent services.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected the Revenue’s appeal on the ground of a 172-day delay as well as on merits. Affirming the Tribunal’s view, the Court held that under Section 66F of the Finance Act, 1994, bundled service classification applies only where one service is ancillary to another. Since transportation and insurance were completed prior to installation and were independent in scope, they could not be artificially clubbed into a composite service. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Extended Period u/s 11A of CEA Cannot be Invoked without Misstatement or Suppression: SC Finds No Error in Tribunal’s Ruling on Kalyan Jewellers

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX vs KALYAN JEWELLERS INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 259

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd., upholding the CESTAT ruling that the extended limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act cannot be invoked without proof of misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty. The dispute concerned alleged misclassification of silver articles and wrongful exemption claims for the period March 2016–June 2017, with a demand raised through a Show Cause Notice issued in January 2021—well beyond the normal limitation period.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan found no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning that Kalyan Jewellers had duly filed returns, maintained audited accounts, and not collected excise duty, thereby ruling out suppression. Relying on settled precedent, the Court affirmed that mere omissions or interpretational issues do not justify invoking extended limitation. While leaving the classification question open, the Bench held the demand time-barred and dismissed the appeal.

Electronic Records from Seized Devices Admissible Despite Absence of S.138C(4) Certificate if Taxpayer Admits Contents u/s 108 of Customs: Supreme Court

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION & SURESH KUMAR AND CO.IMPEX PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 260

The Supreme Court has ruled that electronic records seized from a taxpayer’s devices are admissible in evidence even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, if their contents are admitted in statements recorded under Section 108. The ruling came in appeals against a 2018 CESTAT order that had set aside demands, penalties, and confiscations against Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors on the ground that the electronic evidence lacked the mandatory certificate.

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan held that the respondents had acknowledged and signed the seized records during investigation and admitted their authenticity under Section 108, thereby fulfilling the substance of Section 138C(4). Finding that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the case on a mere technicality, the Court set aside its order and remanded the matter to CESTAT for fresh adjudication on all other issues, while affirming the admissibility of the electronic records.

Revenue Challenges Gujarat HC Order on Reopening Income Tax Assessment Based on External Trading Data Before Supreme Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs CHANDRIKA DHANSUKHLAL GANDHI CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 261

The Revenue has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Gujarat High Court judgment that quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against Chandrika Dhansukhlal Gandhi. The High Court found that the Assessing Officer had relied solely on external trading data from the National Spot Exchange Limited and brushed aside the taxpayer’s objections without proper examination, contrary to the principles laid down in GKN Driveshafts India Ltd.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice on the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 40313/2025, along with its application for condonation of delay, returnable in six weeks. The Court will now examine whether reliance on external investigation data without independent verification can justify reopening assessments under Section 148.

Supreme Court Clarifies Bombay HC Erred in Treating CESTAT’s Finding on Black Firing Guns as Misdeclaration Instead of Misclassification

BRUCE LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 262

The Supreme Court has clarified that the Bombay High Court erred in recording that CESTAT had accepted the Commissioner’s finding that Bruce Logistics Pvt. Ltd. advised an importer to mis-declare “Black Firing Guns” as “Metal Toy Guns.” The Court noted that CESTAT had instead treated the matter as one of misclassification, not misdeclaration, and had relied on the principle that a retracted confession cannot alone form the basis of an adverse finding without corroboration.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the High Court’s conclusion was contrary to the Tribunal’s actual reasoning, which recognized that Customs officers themselves had classified the goods as toy guns after examination. The Court disposed of the appeal with this clarification and ordered that all pending applications be closed.

Service Tax Liability under Airport Services: Supreme Court to Hear Airports Authority of India Appeal Next Week

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 263

The Supreme Court of India has listed for next week the civil appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India challenging a CESTAT order that upheld its liability to pay service tax under the category of “airport services.” The dispute covers the period from 01.10.2003 to 31.03.2007, during which the Original Authority had confirmed a demand of ₹8.59 crore along with penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale directed that the matter be listed next week, allowing the parties to file additional documents in the meantime. The CESTAT had earlier ruled that the services rendered by AAI were taxable as “storage and warehousing” up to 09.09.2004 and as “airport services” thereafter, rejecting the contention that they constituted exempt “cargo handling services” for export cargo.

Supreme Court dismisses Condonation and SLP against Bombay HC Order regarding Aggregation of Royalty for Technology used

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER vs CUMMINS INDIALIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 264

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s SLP against the Bombay High Court’s order dated 28 July 2023 in a transfer pricing dispute involving Cummins India Ltd., where the core issue concerned aggregation of royalty for technology with the manufacturing segment for benchmarking under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The HC proceedings arose under Section 260A from ITAT orders for AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18, addressing TNMM aggregation of royalty versus the Revenue’s CUP-based segregation.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that SLPs against the very same HC order had already been dismissed and, therefore, this petition “must meet the same fate.” The Court accordingly dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the SLP, leaving the Bombay High Court’s view and the ITAT’s aggregation approach undisturbed.

Purchases on Behalf of Ex-UP Principals Not Taxable u/s 30(1) of UP Trade Tax Act: SC Dismisses Revenue Appeal

COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P vs S/S SANJAY TRADERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 265

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s order in a dispute under Section 30(1) of the UP Trade Tax Act for AY 2004–05, holding that purchases made on behalf of Ex-UP Principals were not taxable.

A Bench of Justice [names not specified in order] noted that Sanjay Traders, the assessee, had secured consistent findings from the AO, Joint Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal that the transactions were carried out for Ex-UP Principals, duly identifiable, verified, and recorded in prescribed forms. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court upheld the view taken below and dismissed the Revenue’s challenge.

Win for SpiceJet: Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal Delayed by 567 Days, CESTAT’s ₹25.56 Crore Tax Demand Drop Order Stands

COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE vs M/S SPICEJET LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 266

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against SpiceJet Ltd. in a service tax dispute involving excess CENVAT credit and taxability of baggage charges, citing both a 567-day delay without sufficient cause and lack of merit. The Revenue had challenged a CESTAT order setting aside demands of ₹25.56 crores relating to AY 2009-2012.

A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan noted that SpiceJet had recomputed CENVAT credit within the prescribed period, that baggage charges were integrally linked to passenger transport and covered by the capped levy, and that the extended limitation period was inapplicable given prior audits. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed the appeal and all pending applications.

High Court

Arrested for Possession of Large quantity of illegal Mahua liquor: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Regular Bail on Condition

Anish Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1763

The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail to Anish Kumar Sahu in a case involving possession of 23 liters of illegal Mahua liquor, noting that the applicant has been in custody since 02.06.2025 and a charge-sheet has already been filed. The case pertains to Crime No. 312/2025 registered at Sipat Police Station, Bilaspur, under Sections 34(2) and 59(a) of the C.G. Excise Act.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that the applicants had no criminal antecedents, the alleged liquor was found in joint family premises, and the trial is likely to take time. Considering these factors, the Court granted regular bail on furnishing personal bonds with two local sureties each.

Recovery of 80 Litre Illicit Country made Liquor from Scooter: Patna HC Grants Anticipatory Bail for Offence U/s 30(a) & 37(b)(c) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Ritik Kumar vs The State of Bihar CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1764

The Patna High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Sections 30(a) and 37(b)(c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, concerning the recovery of 80 litres of illicit country-made liquor from a scooter registered in the petitioner’s name. The legal issue revolved around the petitioner’s claim of innocence, as he was not present at the time of recovery and no incriminating material was found in his conscious possession.

A Single Bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra directed that the petitioner be released on bail if arrested or upon surrender within six weeks, upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of the like amount. The Court considered the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Calcutta HC Upholds ED Probe on Immovable Property Mortgaged against More than 1 Cr share Transaction as amounts to crime of Money Laundering Offence

Rupdarshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Deputy Director CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1765

The Calcutta High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), involving immovable property mortgaged to repay credit facilities exceeding ₹1 crore. The matter arose from transactions of shares in Rupdarshi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., where the ED contended that the share transfer was part of a money laundering process. The appellants, including a company and its majority shareholder, challenged the proceedings, claiming that the immovable property and share transactions were not connected to any proceeds of crime.

A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that the immovable property was mortgaged to obtain credit facilities that were never repaid, and the subsequent transfer of shares facilitated manipulation to extract the property. The Court observed that the share transfer transactions constituted a step in the laundering process, and therefore, the property could not be exempted from ED investigation. However, the original documents submitted by the appellants were permitted to be returned.

CGST Order Imposing Penalty of Rs.9 Cr is Invalid due to violation of Natural Justice Principle: Jharkhand HC

M/s. Kamla Construction & Co vs Principal Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1766

The Jharkhand High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the imposition of a substantial penalty of ₹9.01 crore by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST), Ranchi, under the provisions of the CGST Act. The petitioners, M/s Kamla Construction & Co. and Swastik Enterprise (JV), challenged the ex-parte order on the grounds that it violated the principles of natural justice, as no show-cause notice or subsequent notices for personal hearing were served. The petitioners also contended that the works executed during FY 2014-15 and 2015-16 were exempt from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and that VAT and Service Tax are mutually exclusive.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that the impugned order was unsustainable, citing gross violation of natural justice. The Court quashed and set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to be decided afresh, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

One Day Notice for Hearing on Demand of GST and Penalty: Delhi HC directs to allow 30 days for hearing

DAWN EXPRESS COURIER DEL PRIVATE LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1767

The Delhi High Court addressed a legal issue concerning the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner, M/s Dawn Express Courier Del Private Limited, challenged the SCN dated 29th June 2025 demanding GST of ₹32.82 crores along with penalties, arguing that one-day notice for hearing violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner highlighted delays in communication of summons, lack of pre-notice consultation, and the practical impossibility of preparing a detailed reply within such short notice.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain held that the GST department must grant at least 30 days for filing a reply to ensure compliance with natural justice. The Court directed that a proper personal hearing be provided and a reasoned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, noting that the petitioner had already paid a portion of the tax and that no jurisdictional flaw existed in the SCN warranting writ interference.

Seizure of 27000 ml illegal liquor: Chhatisgarh HC grants Bail Considering Prolonged Custody of Accused

Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State of Punjab CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1768

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealt with a legal issue concerning the grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), in connection with FIR No.77 dated 17.7.2025, registered under Section 61 of the Excise Act and Sections 111/123/62 of the BNSS, at Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot. The accused, Raj Kumar @ Raju, was arrested for possession of 27,000 ml (36 bottles) of illegal liquor containing poisonous/health-hazardous substances. The petitioner challenged his continued incarceration, citing his age, health issues, and alleged non-compliance with mandatory procedures under the BNSS during the recovery.

A single bench of Justice Sumeet Goel granted regular bail to the petitioner, noting that he had already suffered incarceration for one month and nine days. The Court directed his release upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate, while observing that investigation and trial would proceed, and that no concrete evidence suggested the petitioner would abscond or interfere with the prosecution.

Officer unaware of GST Act Search and Seizure Provisions: Allahabad HC directs 3 Months Training and quashes Seizure Order

M/S Mlv Constructions vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1769

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, addressed a legal issue concerning the improper issuance of a seizure order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In M/s MLV Constructions v. State of UP, the petitioner challenged the seizure of goods on 21 June 2025, arguing that no show cause notice had been issued to the owner, consignor, or consignee, contrary to the statutory requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing before imposing any penalty.

A division bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh found that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mobile Squad-I, Lucknow, acted without understanding the provisions of the Act. The Court quashed the impugned orders dated 27 June 2025 and 3 July 2025, directing the authorities to issue fresh show cause notices to the consignor/consignee within one week and to grant an opportunity of personal hearing before passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Court also ordered three months’ training for the officer involved to ensure familiarity with GST provisions before handling seizure matters again.

Inability to Access Portal, view Assessment Order and Prefer Appeal on Time due to Dispute with Tax Consultant: Rajasthan HC directs Admission of Appeal

M/s Sahil Steels vs State Of Rajasthan CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1770

The Rajasthan High Court addressed a legal issue under Section 107 of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017, concerning the limitation for filing appeals. In a case where a taxpayer’s GST registration had been managed by a consultant who withheld login credentials, the petitioner filed an appeal only after regaining access. The Appellate Authority, Bikaner, had rejected the appeal on the ground that the statutory 90-day period had lapsed, counting the limitation from the date the order was uploaded on the GST portal.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Sangeeta Sharma held that the limitation period could not commence until the petitioner had actual access to the portal, either on 17 March 2025 when her credentials were updated or, at the latest, on 5 March 2025 when she received a bank attachment order. The Court quashed the Appellate Authority’s rejection order dated 22 April 2025 and directed restoration of the appeal for adjudication on merits, emphasizing that statutory rights should not be denied due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control.

Demand notice in Form DRC-07 without uploading/serving detailed reasoned GST order : Orissa HC Dismisses Petition on Availability of Alternative remedy

M/s. Maa Sarala Steel vs State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1771

The Orissa High Court dealt with a legal issue under Section 130 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017, and the Central GST Act, 2017, concerning the challenge to a demand notice in Form DRC-07 issued for the period April 2023 to March 2024. The petitioner, Maa Sarala Steel, contended that the notice uploaded on the portal referred to a “detailed notice enclosed as separate attachment,” which was not actually provided, rendering the notice legally untenable.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman dismissed the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available. During the hearing, the Department served the detailed reasoned order dated 6 May 2025 on the petitioner’s counsel in Court. The Court advised the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appellate authority under the statute and disposed of the writ petition along with any pending interlocutory applications.

GST Liability in Construction JDA Arises Only Upon Transfer of Possession or Rights, Not on Execution of Agreement: Bombay HC

M/s Provident Housing Ltd. vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1772

The Bombay High Court addressed the legal issue under the Goods and Services Tax framework concerning liability arising from a Joint Development Agreement (JDA). Provident Housing Ltd. challenged the GST demand raised on a JDA executed on 13 October 2017, contending that liability cannot arise on the date of execution, but only upon conveyance or transfer of possession or rights, as clarified by Notification No. 4 of 2018. The petitioner argued that the JDA did not result in any transfer since the landowner subsequently sold the land outright.

A Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Bharat P. Deshpande held that GST liability arises only on the transfer of possession or rights and not at the execution of the JDA. Observing that no such transfer occurred, the Court directed the department to refund Rs. 7 crores deposited under protest along with 6 percent interest per annum from the date of deposit, to be completed within six weeks. The writ petition was allowed, affirming that the petitioner had no GST liability on the JDA’s execution date.

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