Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [May 31st to June 8th, 2025]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from May 31st, 2025 to June 8th, 2025.

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Allowing Income Tax Reassessment Against Dalmia Bharat and Subsidiaries

M/S DALMIABHARAT LIMITED vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 182

In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India granted a stay in favour of Dalmia Bharat Limited and its subsidiaries, Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited and Dalmia Power Limited, against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated April 23, 2025.

At the hearing on May 30, 2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar issued notice and granted an interim stay on the impugned High Court order. The court permitted the petitioners to serve notice via the Standing Counsel in addition to the usual modes and tagged the matter with a related pending SLP.

Calcutta HC upholds ITAT Order Confirming Deletion of Addition made on Unexplained Cash Deposits during Demonetization Period

PRINCIPALCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA VS THE RIFLE FACTORY CO OPERATIVE SOCIETYLTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 891

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court while dismissing the revenue’s appeal upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT’s) order confirming the deletion of addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period.

The first appellate authority while allowing the assessee’s appeal by order dated 11.05.2023 has elaborately considered the factual situation and perused the voluminous documents which the assessee placed before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that despite a direction issued by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to file a remand report on the documents and details furnished by the assessee, the assessing officer failed to furnish any remand report.

The bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) found that from the reasoning given by the Tribunal, the revenue miserably failed to do so and dismissed the petition.

GST ITC denied on Non-Compliance of Circular: Madras HC grants Hearing Opportunity Conditionally

BahadurGajendra Kumar Jain vs The Deputy State Tax Officer – II CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 892

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside an order, wherein the input tax credit ( ITC ) claimed by the petitioner/ assessee under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act was denied due to non-compliance with Circular.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel expressed willingness to comply with the requirements of the said circular and requested a fresh opportunity to present the necessary documentation. The petitioner also volunteered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, considering the circumstances and the petitioner’s readiness to comply, held that a fresh opportunity ought to be provided, albeit conditionally. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the respondent authority for reconsideration, on the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed demand within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Activity of Handling goods being part of composite agreement entered by third parties cannot be bifurcated under different heads for service tax Demand: Calcutta HC

COMMISSIONER OFSERVICE TAX KOLKATA vs M/S EMTA COAL LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 893

The Calcutta High Court, in its recent order, held that the activity of handling goods being part of the composite agreement entered into by third parties, cannot be bifurcated under different heads for service tax demand.

It was held that the activity of loading, unloading, packing, unpacking, stacking, re- stacking and shifting of sugar bags from mill floor to godown or from one godown to another godown within the factory is not covered in cargo handling service as there being no activity of loading or unloading for movement outside the factory on public road or ship or aeroplane or trucks for any destination.

The court comprising the Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the activity of handling of goods including loading and unloading thereof being part of the composite agreement entered into by the assessee with the third parties cannot be bifurcated under different heads for the purpose of demanding service tax.

Provision under IBC overrides Income Tax Act: Calcutta HC

SREI EQUIPMENTFINANCE LIMITED vs ASSESSMENT UNIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 894

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has held that the provision of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, shall override the provision of the Income Tax Act.

The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) have held that a conjoint reading of both the above provisions will clearly show that the provision of IBC shall override the provision of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the proceeding initiated by the respondent/department commencing from the issuance of notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and culminating in the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act should ex facie without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law.

Allahabad HC Slams VAT Assessing Authority for Copy-Paste Orders Ignoring Remand Directions, Orders Appropriate Action by Pr. Secretary

M/s LifestyleInternational Private Limited vs State of U.P. and another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 895

In a strong rebuke to the VAT ( Value Added Tax ) Assessing Authority, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a series of assessment orders for blatantly disregarding remand directions issued in earlier appellate proceedings.

Additionally, the Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, State Tax, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to examine the conduct of the Assessing Authority and take appropriate action.

No GST Input Mismatch Details or Hearing Given: Madras HC directs to Re-do Assessment Order on 10% Deposit

M/s.Alfa FlugsElectrodes vs The State Tax Officere-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 896

The Madras High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment order on the ground that the petitioner was not provided with the details of the alleged input tax credit ( ITC ) mismatch, nor given an opportunity of personal hearing before the order was passed.

Recognising the procedural lapses and lack of opportunity afforded to the petitioner, the Justice S. Srimathy held that the assessment order could not be sustained.

Uploading Summary of SCN on GST Portal Solely Not Fulfills S. 169: Patna HC Sets aside Order

M/s BinodTraders vs The Union of India through the Secretary CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 897

The Patna High Court has held that solely uploading a show-cause notice ( SCN ) on the GST portal is not sufficient service under Section 169 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax ( BGST ) Act, 2017.

Accordingly, the bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and S. B. Pd. Singh set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority, directing it to issue a fresh SCN, grant the petitioner ample opportunity to reply and be heard, and pass a reasoned order within six months. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate in the fresh proceedings.

Entire GST Demand Confirmed Without Considering 58% Paid via ECRL: Madras HC Directs Reconsideration

Tvl. PrabhaDrug House vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 898

In a recent decision, the Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order after finding that the GST authorities failed to consider a substantial payment already made by the petitioner through the Electronic Credit Ledger ( ECRL ).

Accordingly, the bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the assessment order and remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and to duly take into account the payments already made via the electronic credit ledger before passing a fresh order.

As the second respondent had only been impleaded as a garnishee in connection with a bank attachment arising from the now-set-aside order, the writ petition was disposed of without issuing notice to them. Consequently, the Court ordered that the bank attachment be lifted and closed all connected miscellaneous petitions, with no order as to costs.

S.74 GST Demand Order issued Ex Parte : Madras HC provides Date and Exact Time to Appear for Hearing

South IndiaDevelopers LLP vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 899

The Madras High Court has set aside an ex parte GST demand order passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( TNGST ) Act, citing lack of adequate opportunity for hearing.

Justice G R Swaminathan observed that the petitioner had not been afforded sufficient chance to present their case, which led to the issuance of the order without proper representation.

All contentions of the petitioner were kept open for reconsideration. The Court directed the adjudicating authority to provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to submit all relevant documents and to pass a fresh order on merits, strictly in accordance with law.

Personal Account of Club’s President Cannot Be Frozen for Club’s Default in GST Dues: Madras HC Orders De-freezing

M.Jaiganesh vsThe State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 900

The Madras High Court has held that the personal bank account of an individual cannot be frozen for the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) liabilities of a club, even if the individual happens to be the president of the said club.

Justice S. Srimathy concurred with the petitioner’s argument, stating that liability under GST must rest with the taxable entity in this case, the club and not with its office-bearers in their personal capacity, unless specific wrongdoing is established.

Madras HC Upholds Validity of GST Rule 36(4), Declares It Neither Ultra Vires Nor Violative of Article 14

M/s.L & TGeostructure LLP, vs The Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 901

The Madras High Court dismissed a constitutional challenge against Rule 36(4) of the Central and Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Rules, 2017, confirming its validity and holding that the provision is neither ultra vires the parent GST enactments nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the restriction in availing ITC in the absence of supplier compliance is consistent with the legislative objective of curbing tax evasion and preventing fraudulent credit claims, which plagued the pre-GST regime.

The bench also noted that ITC is a statutory concession, not a vested right, and its availment can be subject to conditions to protect revenue interest. Rule 36(4), which initially allowed 20% ITC on mismatched invoices and was gradually tightened to nil tolerance, was held to be a reasonable and proportionate measure.

Mere Uploading GST notice on Portal Repeatedly without Ensuring Receipt by Taxpayer Cannot be Considered as Effective Service: Madra

AlagappanPalaniappan Proprietor vs The Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 902

In a recent judgment, the Madras High Court set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order, holding that merely uploading a notice on the GST portal without ensuring its receipt by the taxpayer cannot be treated as valid service under the law.

The Court noted that while the law permits service of notices through electronic modes, it also requires authorities to act diligently if no response is received. It observed that repeated uploading of notices without verifying their receipt by the assessee reflects a mechanical and ineffective mode of compliance, leading to unnecessary litigation and hardship.

“Mere uploading notice repeatedly without ensuring their receipt by the petitioner cannot be considered as effective service. Such mechanical compliance does not serve any useful purpose and the same will only lead to multiplicity of litigations, wasting not only the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority / Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there was no response from the tax payer to the notice uploaded in the portal, the Officer should have sent the notice through RPAD, which would have served the purpose” said Justice N. Mala.

GST SCN Issued Based on Unshared Verification Report: Madras HC Declines to Quash SCN, Orders Dept to Provide Report

Tvl.Sri SaiCompany Prop. G.Kathiravan vs State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 903

The Madras High Court, while declining to quash the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) ordered the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department to provide the copy of the verification report which was the basis of the show cause notice.

The Court, after hearing both sides, declined to quash the show-cause notices but directed the department to provide the copy of verification report on representation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner would then have a further two weeks to file a detailed reply to the show-cause notices.

Income Tax AO Can Grant Relief u/s 220(6) Even Below 20% Tax Deposit: Madras HC Remands Matter

M/s.VMEInfrastructure Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 904

The Madras High Court has clarified that an Assessing Officer ( AO ) is empowered to grant relief under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even when the assessee has deposited pre-deposit below 20% of the total amount.

Justice G R Swaminathan held that “Applying the aforesaid ratio, the order impugned in the present writ petition is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the respondent. The respondent will bear in mind the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner.”

No Service Tax on Supply of Food Stuff by Private Universities to Students: Himachal Pradesh HC rules in favour of JUIT

M/s JaypeeUniversity of Information Technology vs State of H. P. & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 905

In a ruling in favour of Jaypee University of Information Technology (JUIT), the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that private universities are not liable to pay tax on the supply of foodstuffs to students.

The division bench of Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sushil Kukreja has noted that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the petitioner must pay taxes on the provision of food and other items to students on its property, despite the petitioner's primary purpose being education.

The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner(s) had an independent intention to engage in business related to the auxiliary activities of providing canteen facilities to the children. As a result, in this instance, the auxiliary activity of offering university convicts cafeteria amenities would not qualify as business under the Act. After that, the petitioner was manifestly exempt from paying any taxes related to the aforementioned actions.

GST DRC-01 cannot be Substitute to Show Cause Notice Issued u/s 73 (1) of CGST Act: Gauhati HC

AMAN GUPTA vsTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 906

The Gauhati High Court has held that a summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms of Section 73 (1) of the CGST Act as well as the SGST Act.

The bench of Justice Arun Dev Choudhury has relied on the decision in the case of Construction Catalysers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the State of Assam in which it was held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice, the Summary of the Statement under Section 73 (3) and the Summary of the Order passed in terms with Section 73 (9) are to be issued in GST DRC-01, GST DCR-02 and GST DRC-07 respectively.

The court has ruled that in order to implement the provisions of Section 73, the Proper Officer must issue a Show Cause Notice regardless of whether the Summary of the Show Cause Notice has been issued. The summary of order and the summary of show cause notice were set aside by the court in its decision to dismiss the writ petition.

Challenge based on factual dispute against KVAT Act is not approachable under writ jurisdiction: Kerala HC

SMT. MAJUSHASANJITH vs SALES TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 907

In a recent case, the Kerala High Court observed that a challenge based on factual dispute against Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act ( 'the KVAT Act'), 2003 is not approachable under writ jurisdiction.

The Single Judge found that the factual dispute raised by the appellant could not be appreciated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence relegated the appellant to his statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The Judge also took note of the period spent by the appellant in pursuing the Writ Petition and directed that the said period would stand excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal before the First Appellate Authority.

GST ITC Refund Withheld Without Challenging Appellate Order: Delhi HC Directs Department to Release Refund with Interest

M/ S JVGTECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER CGST, DELHI WEST AND ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 908

The Delhi High Court directed the Department to release the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund with interest, ruling that the refund could not be lawfully withheld since no appeal or stay was filed against the Appellate Authority (AA) ’s order allowing the refund.

The Court stated that the Department’s opinion alone was not enough to stop the refund. Since no appeal had been filed against the AA’s order and there was no stay, the Department could not lawfully withhold the refund.

The Court also relied on the case of G.S. Industries, where it was held that merely planning to file an appeal could not justify delaying the refund, especially when the refund was already allowed on appeal.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Department to release the refund with interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act within two months. It also clarified that if the Department later succeeded in any legal challenge, it could recover the refunded amount as per law. The petitioner was permitted to file an application if the refund was not credited by 10th July 2025.

GST S.73 Demand Order issued Without Proper Hearing Quashed: Madras HC Directs Hearing and Lifting of Bank Attachment on 25% Deposit

M/s. Rajvijayand Co. vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 909

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court quashed a demand order issued under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ( TNGST ) Act, 2017, on the grounds that it was passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity for hearing.

The petitioner’s bank account had been provisionally attached due to the earlier order. The High Court directed that upon payment of 25% of the demand by June 12, 2025, the said bank attachment must be lifted forthwith by the third respondent.

However, the Court made it clear that if the petitioner fails to comply with the undertaking, the benefit of this order would automatically stand recalled. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Delhi HC Upheld Acquittal Order of Offence u/s 276B of Income Tax Act on Finding Committed Bonafide Mistake, Dismisses Income Tax Officers Appeal

INCOME TAXOFFICER WARD 73(2) NEW DELHI vs MKY CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 910

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court has upheld the acquittal order of the offence under section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on finding a committed bona fide mistake and dismissing the Income Tax Officer's Appeal.

A single bench of Justice Amit Mahajan viewed that the Trial Court rightly observed that the financial difficulty stemmed from the fact that substantial, legally recoverable payments due to the respondent company from contracting parties had remained unpaid, resulting in a liquidity crunch. This root cause was adequately substantiated by the documents and explanations placed on record, and provided the reasonable cause envisaged under Section 278AA of the Income Tax Act.

No TDS was required to be deducted from Payment EDC made to HUDA: Delhi HC Allows Appeal

SWIFTRANSINTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 77 4 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 911

The Delhi High Court has held that TDS was required to be deducted from external development charges [EDC] payment made to Haryana Urban Development Authority [HUDA]

A division Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia had allowed the writ petition and had set aside the orders passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act as well as an order imposing penalty under Section 271C of the Act, which was premised on the allegation that the petitioner had failed to deduct TDS under Section 194-I of the Act in respect of payments of EDC to HUDA.

The Court had also clarified that respondents were not precluded to proceed further in accordance with law as well as the observations made by this Court in Puri Constructions Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 939. It is clear from the above that the liberty granted to the Revenue to proceed further was qualified by the expression “in accordance with law”.

Costs cross-charges are not FTS and FIS: Delhi HC Sets aside order rejecting Application for ‘NIL’ withholding tax

AECOM TECHNICALSERVICES INC. vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 912

The Delhi High Court has set aside the order rejecting application for ‘Nil’ withholding tax holding that costs cross- charge are not technical services [FTS] within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or ‘fees for included services’ [FIS] under Article 12(4) of the India USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [India-US DTAA].

The petitioner, Aecom Technical Services Inc. has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 26.07.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Assessing Officer [AO] under Section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act], whereby the petitioner’s application for ‘NIL’ withholding tax, was rejected. However, the AO had held that the deductors are authorised to withhold tax at the rate of 15% (including surcharge and cess) on the payment of ₹114,90,00,000/-.

A division Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia set aside the impugned order and directed the AO to issue the necessary certificate or ‘NIL’ withholding Tax Certificate in respect of the cross-cost charges as received by the petitioner from AIPL and AIGSPL.

ITAT Erred in Holding Vedanta’s Block Assessment Order Time-Barred: Madras HC Restores 25 Years Pending Matter to Tribunal

TheCommissioner of Income Tax vs M/s.Vedanta Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 913

The Madras High Court has overturned the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s ( ITAT ) decision that had held the block assessment order issued against Vedanta Limited as time-barred and restored the 25-year old pending matter back to the tribunal.

However, the bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and C. Saravanan found fault with the ITAT’s reasoning. Based on the Income Tax Search and Seizure Manual and Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that prohibitory orders under Section 132(3) are different from considered seizures and do not signal the conclusion of a search.

Delay in filing reply against CGST Notice Due to Under Going Medical Treatment : Orissa HC allows opportunity of hearing

Arjun Nayak vsChief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (C.T.) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 914

In a recent case, the Orissa High Court condoned the delayin filing reply against the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST ) notice due to under going medical treatment during that period and allowed opportunity of hearing.

The court is of the considered view that the petitioner is required to be given one opportunity to justify that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. There appears to be sufficient cause for the petitioner to file an appeal beyond the period stipulated under sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the GST Act.

GST Appeal Dismissed for 27-Day Delay Restored by Madras HC, Orders Disposal on Merits

TVL. KandasamiBalasubramaniam vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (S.T.) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 915

In a relief to a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appellant, the Madras High Court has set aside an order dismissing an appeal due to a 27-day delay, holding that such a minor delay ought to be condoned in the interest of justice. The Court directed the appellate authority to restore and hear the appeal on merits.

The Court observed that delay in such matters, especially when it falls within the statutorily condonable period, must be viewed with leniency. It stated that the appellate authority ought to be liberal and indulgent in cases of short delays, the Court found the reasons provided in the petitioner's affidavit to be satisfactory.

Selective Personal Interaction for GSTAT Judicial Member Post: Orissa HC Issues Notice

Pranaya KishoreHarichandan vs Union of India and Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 916

The High Court of Orissa issued notice in a challenge against the Search-cum-Selection Committee’s method of conducting selective personal interactions for the Judicial Member post of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).

The division bench of Justice K.R.Mohapatra and Justice M.S. Sahoo found that the matter needed attention and issued notice. Since Mr. Parhi accepted notice for the opposite parties, the Court asked the petitioner to give him three extra copies of the brief within three days to get instructions.The matter was listed for 20th June 2025, and the Court asked that instructions be taken before then.

In the interim application, the Court saw a prima facie case in the petitioner’s favour and allowed the selection process to go on but directed that no final decision be made until the next hearing.

DMK Trust Gets Relief from Madras HC, Quashes Income Tax Transfer Orders u/s 127 on Lack of Procedural Issues

DMK CharitableTrust vs The Principal Chief Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 917

The Madras High Court has quashed transfer orders issued against DMK Charitable Trust and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Party under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing procedural lapses.

The court ruled that reasons must be explicit, communicated, and based on material facts when exercising quasi-judicial powers. It concluded that the impugned orders did not meet these standards and were therefore liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned transfer orders, restoring jurisdiction to the original assessing officers. The court added that “It is needless to state that the respective petitioners may be given an opportunity of being heard to explain the case as the respective petitioners are likely to loose out the benefit of faceless assessment under Section 144B of the IT Act.”

GST S. 74 Proceedings' Closure Does Not Absolve Penalty u/s 122: Allahabad HC refuses to Quash Penalty against Patanjali Ayurved

M/S PATANJALIAYURVED LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 918

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with the show cause notice ( SCN ) issued to M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., proposing a penalty of ₹273.5 crore under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Patanjali contended that Section 122 involves "offences" as defined under the General Clauses Act and should therefore be tried by a criminal court under proper procedural safeguards, especially when it entails a quasi-criminal penalty of ₹273.5 crore.

However, the High Court did not accept this contention. The Court held that Section 122, though placed under the chapter on "Offences and Penalties," is essentially a civil provision dealing with administrative penalties, distinct from criminal prosecution under Section 132. It observed that the penalty under Section 122 can be adjudicated by a proper officer and need not await or depend upon the outcome of proceedings under Section 74.

Delhi HC Sets aside Reassessment Notice issued against CPI(M) after 31.03.2021 without following Procedure u/s 148A of Income Tax Act

COMMUNIST PARTYOF INDIA (MARXIST) vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 919

The Delhi High Court set aside the reassessment notice issued after 31.03.2021 without following the procedure under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the order dated 29.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not sustainable. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order dated 23.05.2023, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the assessment order dated 23.05.2023 and the demand raised pursuant thereto, are hereby set aside.

GST Notices Must Be Effectively Served: Madras HC Says RPAD Required If No Response to Portal Upload

Tvl. Sri Mathuru Eswarar Traders vs The Deputy State TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 920

The Madras High Court ruled that GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) notices must be effectively served, and held that if there is no response to a notice uploaded on the GST portal, the authorities are required to serve the notice through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due ( RPAD ).

The Court observed that merely uploading a notice on the GST portal, without ensuring its receipt, does not constitute valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. It stated that when there is no response to portal notices, tax officers must explore alternate methods of service such as registered post, to ensure effective communication.

The mechanical act of uploading notices without follow-up was deemed a violation of the principles of natural justice and could lead to unnecessary litigation. The court observed that “Mere uploading notice repeatedly without ensuring their receipt by the petitioner cannot be considered as effective service. Such mechanical compliance does not serve any useful purpose and the same will only lead to multiplicity of litigations, wasting not only the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority / Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there was no response from the tax payer to the notice uploaded in the portal, the Officer should have sent the notice through RPAD, which would have serve the purpose.”

Order under CGST Act passed without Providing Opportunity of Hearing : Delhi HC Directs to avail Appellate Remedy

M/S JAIN BHADRI GRAPHICS vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 921

The Delhi High Court has directed to avail appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against an order passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing.

A division bench Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the jurisdiction having been established by the said notifications and the opportunity for personal hearing having been granted, the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the Appellate Authority for availing the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.

CGST SCN for Personal Hearing Issued on old Address: Delhi HC Allows

THE PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTDvs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST DELHI WEST WARD 45 DELHI & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 922

The Delhi High Court has allowed one more opportunity to the Milk Producers Federation Ltd for personal hearing as the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 show cause notice (SCN) for personal hearing was issued on old address of the director of firm.

It is made clear that if the email is received and the personal hearing is not attended, no further opportunity shall be granted to the Petitioner Federation. Only one opportunity is being granted in the unique facts of this case. The limitation in respect of passing of the order pursuant to the SCN, shall not apply in the facts of this case as well. The Petitioner is directed to get all its details corrected on the GST portal within 15 days failing which the Department would not be blamed for future notices being sent at the wrong address.

GST Appeal Filing Delayed due to Confusion in GST Rate: Madras HC Orders Department to Hear Govt Civil Contractor’s Case

Tvl.SSB Construction vs Deputy Commissioner (CT) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 923

The Madras High Court has allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a delayed appeal and an ex parte assessment order issued under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act.

Justice N. Mala concurred with the petitioner’s submission, observing that the delay had been reasonably and satisfactorily explained.

Holding that the first respondent’s rejection order warranted interference, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to entertain the petitioner’s appeal without reference to the delay. The respondent was further instructed to dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest.

Challenge against order passed by Liquidator is Appealable under IBC : Madras HC Dismisses Writ petition

T.Sivasankar vs The Managing Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 924

The Madras High Court in its recent judgment has dismissed the writ petition holding that a challenge against order passed by Liquidator is appealable under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

It must be noted that Section 42 of the IBC, 2016 provides a specific statutory mechanism for appeal against an order passed by the Liquidator, which must be preferred before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of fourteen days. In the present case, the impugned order of the Liquidator is dated 20.01.2021, whereas the writ petition has been filed only on 23.03.2021, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioners, having failed to avail the remedy under Section 42, cannot now invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when an efficacious and statutorily prescribed remedy was available.

GST Cancellation Recall Denied Due to Unpaid Dues Found Later, SCN & Demand known Belatedly: Delhi HC directs to take Alternate Remedy

CHETAN ASRANI vs THE SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II WARD 96 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 925

The Delhi High Court declined to quash a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order arising from, holding that the proper remedy lies in statutory appeal.

The Court, after considering the facts, observed that its earlier direction to recall the cancellation was conditional upon verification of outstanding dues. Since the impugned demand had emerged and stood in the way of such recall, the Court held that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, ruled that the demand order was appealable and not fit for interference under writ jurisdiction.

GST Cancellation Set Aside: Orissa High Court Slams Mechanical and Non-Speaking Order

M/s. Technocrat Enterprises vs The Central Board ofIndirect Taxes & Customs and others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 926

The Delhi High Court recently set aside a cancellation order of GST registration passed against assessee, Technocrat Enterprises, calling out the Goods and Services Tax Department for adopting a “mechanical” and “non-speaking” approach that failed to adhere to principles of natural justice. The petitioner, Technocrat Enterprises, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration on the ground that the impugned order lacked proper reasoning and failed to consider its responses and explanations.

After hearing both sides, the Orissa High Court found merit in the petitioner’s contentions. The Court observed that the show cause notice was vague and cryptic and did not enable the petitioner to understand the exact nature of the alleged non-compliance. Notably, the Court noted that the cancellation order was passed without dealing with the petitioner’s reply or providing any reasoning for rejecting it. This, the Court held, was contrary to the well-established principles of natural justice.

Madras HC Grants Interim Stay on Recovery Over Non-Recognition of TR 6 Challan for IGST Payment

M/s DataPatterns India Limited vs Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 927

The High Court of Madras, granted an interim stay on recovery proceedings over the non-recognition of TR 6 Challan as proof of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) payment on import.

Data Patterns India Limited, petitioner-assessee, submitted that IGST on import had been paid via TR 6 Challan, referred to as a Treasury Receipt. The petitioner contended that this document was not accepted by the respondents, resulting in the issuance of the impugned order. The learned Senior Standing Counsel requested time to file a counter.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan granted an interim stay on the recovery proceedings until the respondents filed their counter. The stay was extended for an additional two weeks after the counter was submitted. After that period, the petitioner was required to apply for any further extension of the interim order.

Orissa HC Allows Revocation of Cancelled GST Registration, Grants Relief to Petitioner Upon Tax Compliance

Saumya Ranjan Moharana vs State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 928

The Orissa High Court in the case of Saumya Ranjan Moharana v. State Tax Officer, directed the authorities to consider the application for revocation of cancelled GST registration, subject to payment of tax dues and compliance with statutory formalities.

Taking note of the submissions, the High Court reproduced paragraph 2 of the Mohanty Enterprises decision and extended similar relief in the present case. The Bench observed that Likewise direction is made in this writ petition. Petitioner gets the relief in the interest of revenue.

Accordingly, the High Court condoned the delay and directed the authorities to consider the revocation application upon deposit of taxes and dues. The writ petition was thus disposed of with a direction that the petitioner’s claim be processed in accordance with law.

CGST refund rejected after cancellation of registration without providing opportunity of hearing : Calcutta HC Sets aside GST Order

Gaurav Agarwal vs The Assistant Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 929

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the GST order which rejected the appeal filed on the ground that the assessee had given an undertaking while filing Form PMT 03 that he shall not prefer an appeal from the determination to be made. It was found that the CGST refund was rejected after the cancellation of registration without providing the opportunity of hearing.

A single bench of Justice Raja BasuChowdhury found that the appellate authority appears to have dealt with the matter in a reckless manner and appears to have rejected the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had given an undertaking while filing Form PMT 03 that he shall not prefer an appeal from the determination to be made. The conduct of the concerned respondent is deplorable to say the least.

CAM charges are not lease rentals or license charges: Delhi HC Upholds ITAT Order

COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX(TDS)-1 vs LIBERTY RETAILREVOLUTIONSLTD. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 930

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Order (ITAT), which ruled that common area maintenance (CAM) charges are not lease rentals or license charges.

The bench held that “CAM charges are essentially maintenance charges paid by a unit for proper maintenance of the common area. The said charges are contributed towards expenditure ON cleanliness, utilities and maintenance. These charges are shared expenses for common works and utilities. The said charges cannot, by any stretch, be construed as payment of rent for occupying the premises in question. The fundamental premise that CAM charges are, by their nature, lease rentals or license charges is erroneous. Thus, the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the AO have rightly been set aside by the learned ITAT.”

Delhi HC Declines to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction in Fraudulent GST ITC Case, Follows Mukesh Kumar Garg Precedent

M/S JASMEETTRADING COMPANY vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 931

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court, relying on the Mukesh Garg Judgment ruled by the same court, ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case involving fraudulent Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ).

The Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is reserved for exceptional circumstances. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Commercial Steel Ltd., the Court reiterated that writs may only be entertained where there is a breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, jurisdictional excess, or constitutional challenge, none of which applied in the present case.

Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16, Rules TOLA Cannot Extend Limitation Post-April 1, 2021

CHANDRA PRAKASHSRIVASTAVA EX DIRECTOR OF ATEN PORTFOLIO MANAGERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs INCOME TAXOFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 932

The Delhi High Court has quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, ruling that the said notice issued after April 1, 2021, was time-barred and impermissible under the amended reassessment regime.

The Court noted that the reassessment was substantially revised by the Finance Act, 2021, and the transitional provisions under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) could not be invoked to sustain notices issued beyond the limitation period. The matter was decided based on the decision taken in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr.

Proceedings u/s 148 A of Income Tax Act is Invalid when Rejecting Response furnished by Assessee Solely for Information on Portal : Delhi HC sets aside order

DEVAT AND RAMCOMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 933

The Delhi High Court set aside the order passed under section 148 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the proceedings become invalid when rejecting the response furnished by the assessee solely for information on portal. It was viewed that it is necessary for the AO, at the bare minimum, to examine the material placed by the petitioner and verify whether the same could be faulted.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that it is necessary for the AO, at the bare minimum, to examine the material placed by the petitioner and verify whether the same could be faulted. However, the AO did not undertake any such exercise but rejected the overwhelming evidence furnished by the petitioner merely on assuming that information available on the portal was correct.

Writ Petition Against GST Demand Disposed: Orissa HC Grants Liberty to File Fresh Representation

M/s. AshrafPetrol Pump vs The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 934

The Orissa High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Ashraf Petrol Pump challenging a demand order under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (OGST Act). The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the appropriate authority and seek a hearing under the law. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking to set aside the demand order issued under Section 74 of the OGST Act, alleging non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The matter was heard by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman, who observed that since the petitioner failed to appear on the date fixed and the order was passed thereafter, the Court would not be inclined to quash the impugned order on that ground alone.

Reassessment Triggered by 175% Spike in Penny Stock Gains Allegedly Manipulating Capital Gains: Madras HC Quashes S. 148 Notice Issued Beyond Limitation

Mr.SohanrajPraveen Kumar vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 935

The Madras High Court has quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148under Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of limitation, despite the Revenue's allegations of manipulated capital gains through reversal trading in penny stocks.

JusticeC. Saravanan, after examining the submissions and statutory framework, noted that the reassessment notice dated 26.03.2021 was issued beyond the six-year limitation period under the old regime.

The Court also rejected the Revenue's justification that new information or insight warranted a re-opening, observing that the allegations were vague and pertained to transactions already scrutinized during the original assessment.

Failure to Check Additional Notice Tab on GST Portal Not Fatal: Madras HC Grants Relief to Advertising Firm

GRANDADDY vsThe Deputy Commissioner (ST) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 936

The Madras High Court has extended relief to an advertising and consulting firm after it failed to notice a show cause notice uploaded in the ‘Additional Notice’ tab on the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) portal.

The Court found merit in the petitioner’s case and held that since the notice was not communicated through any physical mode and the petitioner was not aware of it due to its placement in a subsection of the portal, it could not be presumed that the assessee had been properly served or given a fair opportunity to respond.

Erroneous GST Filing by Former Auditor: Madras HC directs Udhagamandalam Municipality Commissioner to Appear Before AO

The Commissioner Udhagamandalam Municipality MuicipalOffice vs The Deputy Commissioner / Appellate Authority State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 937

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order passed under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the Udhagamandalam Municipality, owing to an inadvertent error in return filing by its previous auditor.

Justice G.R. Swaminathan, presiding over the matter, quashed the impugned assessment order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was directed to appear before the officer on 10.06.2025 at 4:00 PM, and was granted liberty to submit corrected GST returns and place all relevant materials on record.

Forged GST Notices and Aadhaar Card, Fictitious Petitioners: Delhi HC Exposes Organized GST Scam, Reminds Advocates to Verify Documents before Filing Petition

M/s S R Enterprises vs. Pr. Commissioner of Goods andService Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 938

In a sensational turn of events, the Delhi High Court has unearthed a massive fraud involving forged GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) show cause notices, fake Aadhaar cards, and fictitious petitioners, exposing the huge GST scam. The bench reminded the legal professionals/advocates to verify the GST documents before filing the petition.

The Court sent out a stern reminder to advocates to confirm the legitimacy of the papers filed with GST petitions, particularly SCNs and Aadhaar cards. It added that “Let the present order be communicated to the Law Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi as also to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Union of India for considering whether taking of photographs ought to be insisted upon when affidavits are attested by the Oath Commissioner and Notaries, so as to ensure physical presence of deponents.”

No IGST Payable on Head Office Services Not Cross-Charged to Branches When Full ITC is Available: Delhi HC.

M/S KEIINDUSTRIES LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 939

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court held that Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) is not payable on services provided by the Head Office (HO) to its Branch Offices (BOs) when there is no cross-charging and the BOs are eligible for full input tax credit (ITC).

The court held that the authority must reconsider the matter, granting a fresh hearing to the petitioner and applying the correct legal framework. The court explained that failure to follow binding circulars and precedent rendered the original order unsustainable. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue further remedies, if needed.

GST Notice must be Issued to Legal Representative before Determination of Tax Liability Post-Death of Proprietor: Allahabad HC

M/s Agarwal KhilonaBazar vs State of U.P. and another CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 940

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that no GST (Goods and Services Tax) notice must be issued to the legal representative before determining the tax liability post-death of the proprietor as it is established that demand against a deceased in void ab initio. The representative must be informed before determining the demand.

The Court observed that “Once the provision deals with the liability of a legal representative on account of death of the proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place.”

Orissa HC Grants Relief to GST Registrant, Orders Consideration of Revocation Application Despite Delay

Asis Ranjan Prusty vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 941

The Orissa High Court, in a recent case, directed the GST authorities to consider revoking the cancellation of a GST registration upon payment of dues, despite procedural delays in filing such an application. The matter titled Asis Ranjan Prusty v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman. The petition was taken up on May 9, 2025, through a hybrid mode.

After hearing the arguments presented by both parties, the High Court observed that the facts of the present case were materially similar to those in Mohanty Enterprises, and that a similar direction was warranted to serve the broader interest of revenue collection and promote voluntary compliance.

Orissa HC Negates Cancellation of GST Registration, Citing Precedent Pronounced by Coordinate Bench

Bimal Chandra Behera vs State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 942

The Orissa High Court allowed the revival of a cancelled Goods and service Tax (GST) registration, observing that the taxpayer was willing to comply with the statutory obligations, including payment of dues and completion of formalities. The ruling was made in the case of Bimal Chandra Behra v. State Tax Officer, CT & GST.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, referred to the precedent set in Mohanty Enterprises and quoted paragraph 2 of the said judgment, which condoned delay under Rule 23 of the OGST rules. The Court observed that:

“In that view of the matter, the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc., due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered by law.”

GST Relief: Orissa HC Directs Revocation of Cancelled Registration as Taxpayer Agrees to Pay Dues

Samita Panda vs The Commissioner of CT & GST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 943

The Orissa High Court directed GST authorities to consider a revocation application despite delay, subject to the taxpayer clearing all statutory dues. The decision was made in the case of Samita Panda v. Commissioner of CT & GST.

The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman, with the matter being taken up through a hybrid mode on 16th May 2025. The Bench proceeded to pass a similar direction in this matter, stating that such relief was granted in the interest of revenue. By doing so, the Court underscored that the object of tax statutes must not be defeated by technicalities, especially when the taxpayer approaches with a willingness to comply.

Madras HC Upholds Seizure of 3 Kg Crude Gold Bars Due to Carrier’s Inability to Prove Legitimate Source u/s 123 of Customs Act

Commissioner ofCustoms vs Mohammed Ali Jinnah CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 944

The Madras High Court recently ordered the permanent confiscation of 3.097 kg of crude gold bars seized upon the respondent’s inability to prove a legitimate source of acquisition of, or ability to own the gold.

The Division Bench of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Saravanan observed that adjudication under the Customs Act is governed by the “principle of preponderance of probability”; it found the respondent’s shifting stand “bundled with contradictions”, held that he “has not discharged the burden of proof cast on him under Section 123”, and accepted that the Additional Commissioner was correct in ordering confiscation.

GST on Transfer of Leasehold Rights: Allahabad HC Stays Recovery, Says Matter Needs Consideration

M/s BKP Media Vision Private Limited vs Union of India and5 others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 945

With regards to the applicability of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) on the transfer of leasehold rights, the Allahabad High Court has stayed the recovery of tax until further orders, observing that such transactions may fall outside the ambit of supply under Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.

However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Bombay High Court’s decision pertained to lease deeds executed by authorities in favor of lessees, whereas the present matter related to the transfer of rights after the lease was already executed. The Court found the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning more directly applicable to the petitioner’s case.

GST Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred: Madras HC remands Matter on 25% Pre-deposit noting Ex-Parte Assessment Order

Tvl.Manikandan-SKR Agency vs The Appellate DeputyCommissioner (ST) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 946

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court granted relief to a taxpayer whose GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal was dismissed as time-barred, stating that the underlying assessment order was passed ex parte and in violation of principles of natural justice.

The High Court observed that while the Appellate Authority’s decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred could not be faulted, it was also apparent that the original assessment was rendered ex parte without granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Given this breach of natural justice, the Court set aside the assessment order.

Justice G R Swaminathan considered the petitioner’s undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand within a four-week period and showed indulgence and directed the assessing authority to re-do the proceedings.

GST Authorities Cannot Treat Personal Hearing as Mere Formality: Allahabad HC Sets Aside GST Order

M/S Vedika Guest House vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 947

The Allahabad High Court has held that personal hearing under Section 75 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) Act, 2017 is not a mere formality, and tax authorities must ensure both prior notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before finalizing assessments.

The Court ruled that even if a taxpayer does not respond to a show cause notice, the right to a personal hearing remains, and authorities must give them a chance to provide oral and documentary evidence.

GST on Transfer of Leasehold Rights: Allahabad HC HC Stays Recovery, Says Matter Needs Consideration

M/s BKP MediaVision Private Limited vs Union of India and 5 others

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 948

With regards to the applicability of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) on the transfer of leasehold rights, the Allahabad High Court has stayed the recovery of tax until further orders, observing that such transactions may fall outside the ambit of supply under Section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the Bombay High Court’s decision pertained to lease deeds executed by authorities in favor of lessees, whereas the present matter related to the transfer of rights after the lease was already executed. The Court found the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning more directly applicable to the petitioner’s case.

Import of Solar Inverters Without Photovoltaic Cells Not Eligible for Exemption Under Notification: Kerala HC

M/S SOLGENENERGY PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 949

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court ruled that the import of solar inverters without photovoltaic (PV) cells does not qualify for customs duty exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012.

The court held that the petitioner’s import of only solar inverters did not meet the conditions of Notification No. 12/2012-CE, which was clearly intended to apply to a composite import of an entire solar power generating system. The court also observed that exemption notifications promoting renewable energy are beneficial in nature, but they must be interpreted in line with their stated scope and purpose. The court dismissed the appeals filed by Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd. and upheld the CESTAT’s decision.

Writ Jurisdiction Not Applicable in cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC: Delhi HC Dismisses Petition on Availability of Statutory Remedy

M/S MAHAVIR METAL HOUSE vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 950

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court held that where cases involving fraudulent availment of ITC are concerned, considering the burden on the exchequer and the nature of impact on the GST regime, writ jurisdiction ought not to be usually exercised in such cases. Further directed to avail appellate remedy under the statute.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta found that an appeal before the appellate authority is a full-fledged remedy provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Issue on Availing ITC on Sweetmeat Shop: Delhi HC Directs to File Appeal before Appellate Authority

M/S LALASHIVNATH RAI SUMERCHAND CONFECTIONER vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 951

The Delhi High Court, in the case of the issue of availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on sweet meat shop , directed the assessee to file an appeal before the appellate authority.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta viewed that there would be duplication of two demands as demand qua reversal of availed ITC and demand qua utilisation of ITC would be one and the same thing. But both have been separately demanded in the impugned order. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case, the Petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Authority. However, the predeposit shall be only in respect of demands under paragraphs (ii), (iii) & (iv) of the operative part of impugned order.

The appeal is permitted to be filed by 15th July, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. If any deposits have already been made by the Petitioner, adjustment thereof shall be given qua the pre-deposit. If the same is filed within the time stipulated, the appeal shall be heard on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.

Delhi HC sets aside GST SCN as assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard

MENKACHATURVEDI vs THE SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO WARD 63 ZONE 6 DELHI &ORS CITATION :2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 952

The Delhi High Court set aside the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Show cause notice (SCN) issued on finding that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and remanded the matter back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

The Petitioner is granted time till 15th July 2025, to file the reply to the SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner.

However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. and of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors.

Prima Facie Duplication in GST ITC Demands: Delhi HC Flags Dual Recovery of Reversed and Utilised ITC, Allows Appeal with Limited Pre-Deposit

M/S LALA SHIVNATH RAI SUMERCHAND CONFECTIONER PRIVATELIMITED vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 953

The Delhi High Court observed that there is a duplication in the demand under Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) on the sweet shop-cum-restaurant. It has directed to approach the appellate forum in limited pre-deposit.

The court recognized that the Order-in-Original is appealable, but they believed the dual demand issue was sufficiently important to merit a protective remedy.

Accordingly, the it directed that the petitioner may approach the appellate authority by 15th July 2025, and that the mandatory pre-deposit requirement would be limited only to specific components of the demand namely, those arising from short payment, additional ITC claimed in GSTR-3B over GSTR-2A, and the demand discussed under para (iii) of the order.

Accordingly, the it directed that the petitioner may approach the appellate authority by 15th July 2025, and that the mandatory pre-deposit requirement would be limited only to specific components of the demand namely, those arising from short payment, additional ITC claimed in GSTR-3B over GSTR-2A, and the demand discussed under para (iii) of the order.

Delhi HC Rules Seizure of Gold Jewellery and Used iPhone from UAE Resident Qualify as Personal Effects, Directs Their Release

YOGESH ANAND vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 954

The Delhi High Court, while hearing a plea by UAE resident Yogesh Anand, held that the seizure of his gold jewellery and used iPhone brought from Dubai qualified as personal effects and directed their release.

After reviewing the documents, including photographs showing the petitioner wearing the jewellery, the Court held that the items appeared to be used personal effects. Referring to Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, the Court noted that used personal effects carried by a passenger in bona fide baggage are exempt from customs duty. It clarified that while jewellery is generally excluded from personal effects, courts have consistently distinguished between “jewellery” and “personal jewellery” used by a passenger.

GST Demand Beyond Show Cause Notice is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad HC

M/s Vrinda Automation vs State of Uttar Pradesh andanother CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 955

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order should not exceed beyond the scope of the show cause notice ( SCN ). The court found it as a violation of Section 75(7) of GST Act.

Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra rejected the state's claim that the disparity was the result of a clerical error involving the interest rates and IGST penalty, ruling that such oversights could not excuse judicial overreach.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the demand order and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Ghaziabad, directing that the petitioner be given a proper opportunity to respond to the SCN. It was directed to pass a fresh decision in compliance with the law after granting a personal hearing.

GST Payer Not Obligated to Monitor Portal for 2018-19 Notice Post- Registration Cancellation on 31st March 2019: Allahabad HC

M/s Micasa vs Union of India and 3 others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 956

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has observed that a GST payer whose registration stood cancelled as of March 31, 2019, cannot be expected to monitor the GST portal for any electronic notices pertaining to tax period 2018-19.

The bench found that the revenue had neither alleged nor established that any physical notice had been served prior to passing the impugned order. The High Court revoked the adjudication order and gave the petitioner another chance to respond to the show cause notice after recognizing the failure to adhere to natural justice standards.

S.93 GST Act Does not Permit to Determine Demand Against Deceased and Recovery from Legal Heir: Allahabad HC

M/S Atishay Traders vs State of U.P. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 957

The Allahabad High Court has held that GST ( Goods and Services TAx ) proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against a deceased person under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Court stated that initiating proceedings in the name of a dead person is a legal nullity and violative of natural justice. It further clarified that determination of liability, if any, must be preceded by a valid show cause notice issued to the legal representative, who must be given an opportunity to be heard before any adverse order is passed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and granted liberty to the tax authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, this time against the legal heir, if so advised.

APL Apollo Tubes’ Plea Against ₹14 Crore GST Demand Dismissed: Allahabad HC Says No Grounds to Bypass Statutory Remedy

APL Apollo Tubes Limited vs Commissioner, State Tax GST,UP, Commercial CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 958

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by APL Apollo Tubes Limited challenging a ₹14.01 crore GST demand, ruling that the petitioner cannot bypass the statutory appellate remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax ( UPGST ) Act, 2017.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, held that there were no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would justify invoking the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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