Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [Part 1]

This weekly round-up analytically summarizes the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Court reported at Taxscan during the previous weeks until July 23, 2025.

SUPREME COURT

Entry Tax Leviable on United Spirits under Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax (Amendment) Act: Supreme Court

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LTD. vs THESTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 192

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the levy of entry tax on United Spirits Ltd., a major manufacturer and supplier of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and beer, under the Madhya Pradesh Entry Tax (Amendment) Act, 2007.The apex court dismissed the appeals filed by United Spirits challenging the imposition of entry tax on its products entering the local market in Madhya Pradesh.

The judgment confirms that manufacturers like United Spirits, who initiate the movement of taxable goods into a local area, are liable for entry tax regardless of intermediary storage or distribution arrangements.

Stem Cell Banking part of “Health Care Services”, qualifies for Service Tax Exemption: Supreme Court

M/S. STEMCYTE INDIA THERAPEUTICSPVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 193

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment confirming that stem cell banking services, including enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, constitute “Healthcare Services” under the Finance Act, 1994. The Apex Court thus ruled that such services are exempt from service tax, setting aside adverse orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties for the disputed period, and ordered the refund of the Rs. 40 lakh deposit.

Supreme Court admits SLP on ITC Denial for Wrong Address & GSTIN in GST Invoices

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. vs M/SB BRAUN MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 194

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the department’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Delhi High Court’s ruling that minor clerical mistakes-such as an incorrect address or GSTIN on invoices-should not deprive a company of its lawful Input Tax Credit (ITC).

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has taken up the department’s appeal in M/S B. Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. The Delhi High Court had overturned the original order denying ITC solely because the invoices bore the Bombay office GSTIN instead of the Delhi Office.

No Dissolution of Firm upon Death of Partner if Deed posits Continuity: Supreme Court

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED& ORS vs M/S SHREE NIWAS RAMGOPAL & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 195

The case originated from a kerosene dealership that became a partnership firm in 1989, with Kanhaiyalal Sonthalia and his sons as partners. Sonthalia, holding a 55% interest, passed away in 2009, leading to disagreements among his heirs concerning succession and the future constitution of the firm. Indian OilCorporation Limited (IOCL), the principal dealer, pressed that all legal heirs must join the partnership or expressly refuse to do so before supporting a new partnership structure.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed IOCL’s appeal as devoid of merit, insisting that statutory corporations should not undertake actions that risk disrupting ongoing businesses or consumer interests based on narrow policy interpretations.

S.95 IBC Plea Found Within Limitation Due to Debt Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Ruling

VIPIN SHERSINGH AGARWAL vs STATEBANK OF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 196

The Supreme Court of India, upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)’s decision holding that a Section 95 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),2016, application was filed within the limitation period, as the borrower’s acknowledgment of debt extended the timeline.

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice K.V. Viswanathan found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it,noting that the acknowledgment of debt was not denied in the rejoinder and that the application was filed within the limitation period.

Supreme Court Directs CBIC to Re-examine Timelines for Correcting Bona Fide Errors in GST Filings

CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXESAND CUSTOMS vs M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 197

The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ) to revisit and re-evaluate the statutory provisions and timelines that govern the correction of bona fide errors. It stressed that the timelines should be realistic.

The court stated that “The petitioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, must re-examine the provisions/timelines fixed for correcting the bonafide errors. Time lines should be realistic as lapse/defect invariably is realized when input tax credit is denied to the purchaser when benefit of tax paid is denied. The purchaser is not at fault, having paid the tax amount. He suffers because he is denied the benefit of tax paid by him. Consequently, he has to make double payment.”

S.95 IBC Plea Found Within Limitation Due to Debt Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Upholds NCLAT Ruling

VIPIN SHERSINGH AGARWAL vs STATEBANK OF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 198

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India, upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)’s decision holding that a Section 95 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC),2016, application was filed within the limitation period, as the borrower’s acknowledgment of debt extended the timeline.

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice K.V. Viswanathan found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it,noting that the acknowledgment of debt was not denied in the rejoinder and that the application was filed within the limitation period.

SEBI Not Required to Issue Separate Demand Notices for Interest Recovery: Supreme Court

JAYKISHOR CHATURVEDI & ETCvs SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 199

The Supreme Court of India ruled that SEBI is not required to issue a separate demand notice to recover interest on unpaid penalties, as the original adjudication order itself serves as a valid demand for payment.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that SEBI's adjudication orders serve as enforceable demand notices and that there is no requirement for SEBI to issue an additional notice to trigger interest liability.

Limitation Act does not apply on Conciliation proceedings: Supreme court allows conciliation u/s 18(2) of MSMED Act

M/S SONALI POWER EQUIPMENTS PVT.LTD vs MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 200

The Supreme Court has held that the Limitation Act does not apply to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act. A time-barred claim can be referred to conciliation, as the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the right to recover the amount, including through a settlement agreement that can be arrived at through the conciliatory process.

A two-judge bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the decision of the High Court to the extent of the Limitation Act being applicable to arbitration proceedings under the MSMED Act and have provided our reasons for the same. With respect to conciliation proceedings on the other hand,held that they do not attract the applicability of the Limitation Act.

Supreme Court Upholds 5% GST on Flavoured Milk, Rejects Centre’s Plea for 12% Tax Rate

THE UNION OF INDIA vs M/SHERITAGE FOODS LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 201

The Supreme Court of India ruled that flavoured milk should be classified as milk under the GST law and taxed at 5%, rejecting the Union Government’s attempt to classify it under a higher tax slab of 12%.

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale observed that the issue had already been addressed in a previous case, SLP(C)(D) No. 17602 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 May 2025. The court observed that there was no need to reconsider the issue, as the classification of flavoured milk as milk had already been accepted in law.

SC Restores Cheque Dishonour Case: Rules Partners Can Be Prosecuted Even Without Naming Firm

DHANASINGH PRABHU vsCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 202

The Supreme Court has held that a firm's partners can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, even if the firm itself is not named as an accused. The Court emphasised that a partnership firm has no separate legal identity from its partners, and a notice or prosecution against the partners is sufficient to proceed under the law.

The Supreme Court held that under Sections 25 and 26 of the Partnership Act, 1932, partners are jointly and severally liable for the firm's acts, including the issuance of dishonoured cheques. The Court further held that issuing a notice to the partners is deemed to be sufficient notice to the firm.

HIGH COURTS

S. 40(a)(ia) Not Applicable to short deduction of TDS: Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Income Tax Appeal Against Samsung Heavy Industries

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Samsung Heavy Industries Company Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1295

The Uttarakhand High Court, while dismissing the income tax appeal against Samsung Heavy Industries Company Limited, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order holding section 40(a)(ia) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 cannot apply to short deduction of TDS.

Mr. Arijit Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel for the respondent (assessee) submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly relied on the law laid down by Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.K. Tekriwal.

Deduction u/s 80IA of Income Tax Act must compute Market Value as per rate supplied by State Electricity Boards to consumer: Calcutta HC

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL- 1 vs RUNGTA MINES LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1296

The Calcutta High Court upheld the applicability of the internal CUP method as adopted by the assessee and ruled that deductions under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must be computed market value as per the rate supplied by state electricity boards to consumer.

The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held that the State Electricity Boards rate when it supplies power to the consumer have to be taken as market value for computing the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.

Uttarakhand HC Allows Revocation of GST Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns, Citing Identical Earlier Orders

M/s Chandra Shekar Joshi vs Commissioner, State Goods and Services CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1297

The High Court of Uttarakhand, allowed the petitioner to seek revocation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) registration cancelled for non-filing of returns, noting that the issue was identical to those already decided in Writ Petitions

Chief Justice G.Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra taking note of these submissions disposed of the writ petition on the same terms as stated in Paragraph 8 of the earlier order dated 24.02.2025. No order as to costs was passed.As a result, all pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Calcutta HC Dismisses Writ Petition Against Ex Parte Service Tax Order for Non-Appearance, Citing Availability of Alternate Remedy

Chandra Sekhar Singh vs Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1298

The High Court of Calcutta,dismissed a writ petition against an ex parte service tax order for non-appearance, citing availability of alternate remedy.

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee heard both sides and went through the records.It found that the petitioner was given hearing dates on 9th December 2021, 23rd December 2021, and 19th January 2022 through letters sent to the registered address. Despite receiving the notices, the petitioner did not appear, leading to the ex parte order dated 21st January 2022.

Delay in Filing Form 10B and ITR Due to COVID: Madhya Pradesh HC Allows Condonation Citing Supreme Court’s Limitation Extension

ST. TOMAS EDUCATION AND WELFARESOCIETY INDORE vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1299

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed condonation of delay in filing Form 10, Form 10B, and the income tax return by a charitable society, noting that the delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and fell within the limitation period extended by the Supreme Court.

Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi heard both parties and reviewed the records.It noted that the due date for filing the income tax return was 15.02.2021, but the petitioner filed it on 09.03.2021. The delay occurred during the period affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Delhi HC Finds No Valid Ground to Withhold ₹10 Lakh GST Refund, Orders Processing With Statutory Interest

M/S SISLA LABORATORIES vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CGST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1300

The refund application, originally filed in June 2019, had remained unprocessed as the Department claimed a deficiency memo had been issued but later admitted it could not be traced.The High Court of Delhi,directed the Goods andService Tax (GST) Department to process a refund of ₹10.65 lakh along with statutory interest, noting there was no valid ground to withhold the claim.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that refund applications under Section 54 of the CGST Act had to be filed within two years from the relevant date and must include supporting documents, unless the refund amount was below two lakh rupees.

J&K High Court Holds Home Ministry Liable to Pay GST in Addition to Fixed Rent for Hotel Accommodation

MUSHTAQ AHMAD BHAT vs U.T OFJAMMU & KASHMIR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1301

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir,held the Home Ministry liable to pay Goods and Service Tax (GST) in addition to the fixed rent for hotel accommodation rented from the petitioner.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar ordered that from August 2025, the Department of Home must pay GST with rent, and the landlord had to complete GST registration by July 31, 2025. It also suggested revising the rent through a new committee.

Patna HC Refuses to Interfere in GST Dispute Under Writ Jurisdiction, Cites Availability of Statutory Appeal Before Tribunal

M/s Suraj Agency vs The Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1302

The Patna High Court refused to interfere in the GST dispute under writ jurisdiction, citing the availability of a statutory appeal before the tribunal, as the bench did not find scope of interference with the impugned orders in the Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction

The High Court, comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, dismissed the appeal and held that the petitioner was at liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy.

Deduction Claim on Unpaid Ad-hoc Bonus from AY 1984-85: Bombay HC Quashes ₹12L Income Tax Penalty from 2002 ITAT Order citing Plausibility

M/s. Carona Limited vs DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1303

The Bombay High Court recently set aside a penalty of ₹12,82,700 imposed on Carona Limited, noting that merely claiming deduction on unpaid ad-hoc bonus could not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of any malafide or false statement to prove otherwise.

The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the assessee’s claim was based on a plausible understanding of its accounting liability and there was no evidence of any false or malafide statement.

GST ITC Reversal: Madras High Court Applies Section 16(5) Relief, Orders Refund to Business Proprietor

M/s.Rajkumar Josphine vs TheSuperintendent CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1304

The Madras High Court has quashed the input tax credit ( ITC ) reversal order passed against a sole proprietor directing the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) to issue refunds if any amount is recovered.

The Court directed that any tax amounts recovered based on the quashed assessment whether from the cash ledger or credit ledger must be refunded to the petitioner.

Assessing Officer’s ‘Change of Mind’ Not Valid Ground for Reopening Assessment : Madras HC

P.Sundararajan vs The DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1305

The Madras High Court has held that a mere ‘change of mind’ by the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot justify the reopening of a completed income tax assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench observed that “Having considered the reasons, we would opine that the reopening of the assessment was merely on the basis of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that, as held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings, leading to the assessment order dated 22.04.2008. This change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.”

Patna HC Quashes Time-Barred VAT Reassessment Order, Holds Revenue Acted Beyond Jurisdiction

Mukesh Kumar Singh vs The Stateof Bihar CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1306

The Patna High Court quashed the time-barred VAT reassessment order, holding that the revenue acted beyond its jurisdiction. The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Singh, has approached the high court against the impugned ex parte reassessment order and demand notice passed by the department.

The High Court set aside the impugned order & demand notice dated 31.03.2021, along with the notice dated 10.02.2022. The concerned authority was directed to redress the consequential benefit under law within 03 months.

‘CGST Act Does Not Permit Tax Retention Without Legal Authority’: Sikkim HC Allows Refund of Rs. 4.37 crores Unutilized ITC on Closure of Business

SICPA India Private Limited vsUnion of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1307

The Sikkim High Court allowed a refund of Rs. 4.37 crores of unutilised ITC on business closure, noting that there is no prohibition under the CGST Act, 2016. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing security inks and solutions with GST registration in the State of Sikkim.

The High Court noted that although Section 54(3) of the CGST Act deals only with two circumstances where refunds can be made, the statute also does not provide for retention of tax without the authority of law.

Overlapping GST Interest Demands for Same Period: Delhi HC Restrains Coercive Recovery

SHININGKART ECOMMERCE PRIVATELTD vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1308

The High Court of Delhi,noting overlapping Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) interest demands raised by both Delhi and Central GST authorities for the same period (July 2017 to March 2018), restrained coercive recovery under the impugned order dated 2nd September 2022.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta taking this into account ordered that no coercive action be taken for recovery under the impugned order dated 2nd September 2022. All other proceedings were permitted to proceed.

Customs Cannot Detain Personal Jewellery just because it is 24K Gold: Delhi HC orders Return of ₹6L Worth Gold Bangles to Umrah Returnee

GULISTA KHATOON vs COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1309

The Delhi High Court recently chided the Customs Department, remarking that the customs authorities cannot detain personal jewellery solely on the ground that it is made of 24 carat gold, while ordering the release of gold bangles valued at over ₹6 lakh to an Umrah returnee.

The Delhi High Court set aside both the Orders, directing that the detained gold bangles be released to the petitioner or her authorized representative within a period of two weeks. The High Court also directed that any warehousing charges incurred for the storage of the gold may be adjusted against the pre-deposit amount already paid during appeal.

Single Judge Refused Interim Relief Due to Dept.’s Delay in Filing Affidavit: Calcutta HC Division Bench Grants 3-Week Extension in Income Tax Case

Unisource Hydro Carbon ServicesPrivate Limited & Anr. vs The Union of India & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1310

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court recently granted a three-week extension to the Income Tax Department for filing its affidavit in opposition in an ongoing writ petition after the single-bench observed that the matter could not be adjudicated unless the department filed their affidavit.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak noted that the absence of a statutory remedy against orders under Section 148A(d) necessitates recourse to the writ jurisdiction through the present petition.

Bank Account Attached by Income Tax Dept: Madras HC Allows Instalment Payment of 20% Tax, Orders De-Freezing After 1st instalment

M/s.Devadharshan Food Productsvs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1311

The Madras High Court has set aside an Income Tax attachment order on the condition that the taxpayer pays 20% of the disputed demand in instalments. The court has directed to defreeze the bank account after payment of 1st instalment.

The Court directed the Income Tax Department to lift the attachment and instruct the banks to de-freeze the accounts upon payment of the first instalment. However, the Court made it clear that if the taxpayer defaults on any instalment, the attachment would stand revived automatically.

Bank Accounts Frozen under PMLA: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea to De-freeze ₹5 Cr Citing Lack of Urgency and Availability of Unfrozen Funds

NIMRITA PARVINDER SINGH vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1312

The High Court of Delhi,dismissed a plea seeking de-freezing of ₹5 crore from bank accounts frozen under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA),2002, citing lack of urgency and availability of unfrozen funds.

Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan also noted that two of the applicants were already educated and employed professionals and had not demonstrated any compelling need for daily expenses.

Rs. 2.38 crores GST demand due to Non reconciliation between GSTR-01 & GSTR-09: Delhi HC Directs to accept Rectification Application filed by L& T Ltd

LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1313

The Delhi High Court directed to accept the rectification application filed by Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) as the demand of Rs. 2.38 crores Goods and Service Tax (GST) was based on non-reconciliation between GSTR-01 & GSTR-09.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the summary of the demand finally raised in the impugned order is to the tune of Rs. 2.38 crores. The petitioner had also filed a rectification application wherein vide order dated 30th July, 2024 without granting any hearing, the rectification application was dismissed.

Orissa HC sets aside Demand of Royalty and Additional Charge u/r 51(4) of OMMCR on Stacking of mineral in the Brick Kiln Unit

M/s.Raja Bricks vs State ofOdisha and others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1314

The Orissa High Court sets aside demand of royalty and additional charges under rule 51(4) of Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (OMMCR) on the stacking of mineral in the Brick Kiln Unit.

In order to return factual finding in this regard and to ascertain whether the stacking of mineral in the Brick Kiln Unit by the Petitioner falls within the scope of Rule 51(4) of the Rules to demand Royalty, Additional Charges, DMF & EMF, the Court by setting aside the order/direction contained in letter dated 03rd June, 2025 issued by the Mining Officer (in charge), Balasore (Opposite Party No.2), directs the Petitioner to appear before the said authority on 28th July, 2025.

Section 50C of Income Tax Act Not applicable retrospectively: Delhi HC upholds ITAT’s order Deleting ₹20.00 Cr Addition against Thomson Press Ltd

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXvs M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1315

The Delhi High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT’s) order deleting ₹20.00 Cr Addition against Thomson Press Ltd while holding that section 50 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that application of Section 50(C) in such cases would result in extreme hardship. Parliament has recognized the mischief and has added proviso to Section 50 (C) (i) w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Receipts Not Qualify as FTS if No Technology Transfer: Delhi HC Rules Income Not Taxable Under India-UK DTAA

TUNGSTEN AUTOMATION ENGLANDLIMITED vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1316

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court held that payments received by a UK-based company from an Indian entity are not taxable in India under the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), as the services provided did not involve any transfer of technology and did not qualify as Fees forTechnical Services (FTS).

The bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that although the services used advanced technology, GIPL was not given access to the underlying software, source code, or technical know-how. The court observed that the training provided was only for using the software and did not enable the Indian company to perform the services independently in the future.

Delhi HC Directs Refund of ₹15 Lakh With 4% Interest as Re-Credit Not Permissible Under Abolished Scheme

CMR GREEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1317

The High Court of Delhi, directed the refund of ₹15 lakh with 4% simple interest, holding that re-credit of the amount to the petitioner’s license was not permissible under the abolished re-credit scheme.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta re-credited the petitioner’s licence or paid directly. Since the re-credit scheme was not in place when the order was passed on 13th September 2019, the Court held that the amount could not have been re-credited. It found that the department continued to hold the amount without justification, which amounted to unjust enrichment.

Interim Protection to Continue for Sameer Dyandev Wankhede: Bombay HC frowns over repeated Adjournment Requests from CBI

Sameer Dyandev Wankhede vs Unionof India & Ors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1318

Wankhede retains his shield from coercive measures, at least until the High Court delivers its final verdict on the petition. The Bombay High Court on July 8, 2025, formally recorded its order in the case where former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officer Sameer Dyandev Wankhede sought protection from coercive action by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil confirmed the ad‑interim relief from arrest that had been granted on May 19, 2023, and imposed a firm three‑month timeline for the CBI to complete its probe.

Describing the questions raised in the petition as “arguable,” the bench admitted the writ petition for final consideration. It then “confirmed” the ad‑interim relief, thus extending Wankhede’s protection against any arrest or coercive action until the court decides the matter on its merits.

Audit Objections Can Qualify as "Information" u/s 148A Only If AO Violated Statutory Provisions in Original Assessment: Madras HC

The Income Tax Officer vsM/s.Mahogany Logistics Services Private Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1319

The Madras High Court held that audit objections can be treated as “information” under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act only if they clearly point out that the assessing officer violated statutory provisions during the original assessment.

The division bench comprising Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that audit objections can be considered as “information” under the new provisions but they must clearly indicate that the assessment was not done in accordance with the law.

Merely Quoting Section and Alleging Fraud, Wilful Misstatement or Suppression of Facts in SCN not Enough to Cancel GST Registration: Bombay HC

Saurabh Sahu vs The State ofMaharashtra CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1320

The Bombay High Court set aside the cancellation of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration on the ground that merely quoting a section and alleging fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in a show cause notice (SCN) is not sufficient for such drastic action.

The Bombay High Court noted that a show cause notice must inform the noticee of the precise nature of the allegations so that an effective reply can be submitted. The bench pointed out that the notice in question merely made a generic allegation under Section 29(2)(e) and did not mention what specific act constituted the alleged fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Factual Dispute Whether Appellant Reversed Wrongfully Availed GST ITC: Calcutta HC remands for Appellate Readjudication

Raiganj Jeevan Rekha Diagnostic Private Limited & Anr. vs The Union of India & Ors.

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1321

The Calcutta HighCourt recently remanded a case, observing that whether the appellant had rightfully reversed Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) that had been wrongfully availed by them.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak noted that the core issue was a factual dispute as to whether the ITC in question had already been reversed by the appellant.

Repeated Non-Appearance by Counsel in Bail Hearings Amounts to Professional Misconduct: Allahabad HC

Smt. Pooja vs - State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1322

The Allahabad High Court held that repeated non-appearance by a counsel in a bail matter amounts to professional misconduct and misuse of the judicial process. The court was hearing the bail application of Smt. Pooja, which was ultimately dismissed after the applicant's counsel failed to appear on multiple consecutive dates despite repeated listings of the matter.

The State opposed the bail, and the court expressed serious concern about the impact of such conduct on the integrity of the justice delivery system. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal (2021), the bench explained that adjournments must not be granted mechanically and that courts have a duty to act against delay tactics that obstruct timely justice.

Kerala HC Stays Recovery Proceedings under Section 147, Pending Consideration of Delay Condonation and Stay Petition

AZHAGIYANAMBI VALLINAYAGAMPILLAI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1323

The Kerala High Court has stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending consideration of the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and stay.

The bench observed that “Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1st respondent shall take up Ext.P7 delay petition first, and the decision shall be taken thereon within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.”

New 10-Year Limit u/s 149 of Income Tax Applies Prospectively, 6-Year Rule Governs AYs Before 2021-22: Delhi HC

SANJAY BANSAL vs INCOME TAXOFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1324

The Delhi High Court observed that the new ten-year time limit for reopening income tax assessments under Section 149 ofthe Income Tax Act applies only prospectively, and for assessment years before 2021-22, the old six-year limitation continues to apply.

The division bench, comprising Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia, observed that the limitation period for issuing such notices is governed by the old regime if the assessment year is before 2021-22.

Validity of GST Notification on Time Extension u/s 73 Now Before Supreme Court: Delhi HC Denies to Address

TREHAN INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTSvs COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1325

The Delhi High Court declined to examine the validity of GST Notification No. 9/2023, which extends the time limit for adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act, stating that the issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity to respond since the notice was not effectively communicated. They also observed that since the validity of Notification No. 9/2023 was already being examined by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025, the High Court would not address that issue at this stage.

Appeal Against Interim Order Granting Custody of Cash to Assessee Fails After Cash Release: Kerala HC Dismisses Income Tax Dept’s Appeal

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs STATEOF KERALA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1326

The Kerala High Court dismissed the Income Tax department’s appeal, holding that a challenge against an order granting interim custody of cash to the assessee does not survive after the release of cash.

A single bench of Justice V.G.Arun observed that “Since the cash is released on interim custody to the 2nd respondent, the challenge cannot survive. Moreover, release on interim custody does not prevent the Income Tax Department from approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate with an application after completion of the assessment proceedings.”

Petition Filed before GST Appeal Deadline Ends: Madras HC Grants 15 Days to File Appeal before Appellate Authority

Thulasi Raj vs The State TaxOfficer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1327

The Madras High Court has allowed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Payer an opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate remedy despite a challenge made directly before the High Court.

Justice C. Saravanan, considering this fact, disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

GST ITC Scam: Allahabad HC grants Bail to Masterminds Including Accountant as Trial Remains Pending

Sanjeev Dixit Alias Sanjeev vsof India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1328

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to three prime accused, including the alleged mastermind and his accountant, in a multi-crore Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) scam that exploited fake firms and bogus invoices to wrongfully claim and pass on credits under the GST Act.

The bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj came to the opinion that extended imprisonment would be futile while the trial continues in perpetuity as the charges are triable by a magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years and the material witnesses are mainly official witnesses who are not really at risk of being influenced.

GST Refund u/s 54 Denied for Failure to Reply to RFD 08 Notice : Madras HC Gives Fresh Chance to Claim

M/s.K.L.K.A.International vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1329

The Madras High Court has directed the GST department to consider the claim of the taxpayer afresh whose refund claim was rejected solely due to non-submission of a reply to a notice in GST Form RFD-08.

The Court directed the petitioner to file all relevant documents to establish eligibility for refund under Section 54 of the GST Acts read with Section 16(3) of the IGST Act, 2017. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

GST Appeal Filed Late Over E-Way Bill Issue due to Illness of Managing Partner: Madras HC restores Appeal on Rs. 10k Payment

Tvl.Bullmenn Motors vs DeputyCommissioner (CT) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1330

The Madras High Court has condoned a 70 days delay in filing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal which was filed late due to the illness of its managing partner. The Court restored the appeal subject to a token payment of ₹10,000 to a government medical institution.

JusticeKrishnan Ramasamy, allowing the writ petition, found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and observed that the statutory right to appeal should not be defeated for circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer, particularly when no mala fide intention was shown.

Wrong Shipment Place in GST E-Way Bill No Ground for Seizure or Penalty: Allahabad HC

M/S Saumya Through Its Partnervs Union Of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1331

The Allahabad High Court has set aside the seizure and penalty imposed for a mere error in mentioning the place of dispatch on its GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) e-way bill.

Justice Piyush Agarwal relied on its earlier decisions in M/s Zhuzoor Infratech Private Limited and reiterated that “merely on technical ground that in the e-way bill accompanying with the goods in question, the place of shipment has wrongly been mentioned, the seizure or levy of penalty cannot be made.”

Mere Absence of Activity at Principal Place Does Not Prove Fake Invoice or Lack of Goods Ownership: Allahabad HC

S.S. Enterprises vs State of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1332

The Allahabad High Court has quashed a GST (Goods and Services Tax) penalty order imposed for alleged fake invoicing and wrongful ownership on the mere basis of inactivity at its principal place of business.

The High Court set aside the penalty order dated 24th June 2025 and directed the Assistant Commissioner to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner afresh and to pass a reasoned order within eight weeks, keeping the legal principles in mind.

Madras HC Conditionally Quashes GST Assessment Orders Over Rejected Appeals, Citing Natural Justice Violation

M/s. Indian Spices vs The StateTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1333

The High Court of Madras,while hearing writ petitions filed by the petitioner challenging Goods and Service Tax (GST) assessment orders, conditionally quashed the orders over rejected appeals, citing violation of principles of natural justice.

Justice C. Saravanan after hearing both sides and going through the impugned orders, granted partial relief to the petitioner. It directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax, in addition to the 10% already paid, within 30 days through the Electronic Cash Register.

Kerala HC Grants Relief to Spice Exporter: Stays Coercive Action Until Appeal is Heard

M/S.SOUTH COAST SPICES EXPORTSPVT.LTD. vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1334

The Kerala High Court has directed the Income Tax Department to put on hold all recovery proceedings arising from multiple assessment orders, until the company’s stay applications are considered by the appellate authority.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A, acknowledging that the appeals and stay petitions were pending, the Court directed the 3rd respondent, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, to dispose of the stay petitions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

AO Refuses Nil Withholding Tax Certificate Due to Valuation Ambiguity: Delhi HC Directs Fresh Valuation in Share Transfer Case

BRAY CONTROLS SOUTH EAST ASIAPTE LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1335

The Delhi High Court set aside an income tax order refusing a Nil withholding tax certificate due to valuation ambiguity in a proposed share transfer between related foreign entities.

The division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tejas Karia stated that the Revenue was not required to examine the historical cost in depth or reconsider the initial acquisition. It held that only the current sale transaction and its impact on capital gains needed to be considered. The court further stated that if the updated valuation shows no capital gain, the Revenue must issue a Nil withholding certificate.

No Income Tax Assessment Order Passed After ITAT’s Remand: Delhi HC Directs Acceptance of Return and Refund

ACUITY KP SOLUTIONS vs DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1336

The Delhi High Court held that when no assessment order is passed after a remand by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the proceedings become time-barred, and the return of income must be accepted along with the issuance of a refund.

The division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tejas Karia held that it was clear no order had been passed after the ITAT’s remand. The court further held that the time limit for passing a fresh assessment had expired, making any further proceedings invalid.

Delhi HC: No Income Tax Applicable Without Actual Transfer, Even for Property Worth ₹150 Cr

SNEREA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD vsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1337

The Delhi High Court held that the mere existence of a high-value property does not create taxable income in the absence of an actual transfer of ownership, even if the estimated value of the property is Rs. 150 crores.

The division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that there was no evidence of the companies transferring their property interest. The court also observed that no unexplained credit had been found in the companies’ books, and Section 68 was not applicable. It further stated that even if the property was worth Rs. 150 crores, no taxable income could arise in the companies’ hands unless there was an actual transfer by them.

Arbitral Award for Non-Payment of Supplies Is Business Income, Not Taxable Under Article 7 of Japan-India DTAA: Delhi HC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vsFUJITSU LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1338

The Delhi High Court held that an arbitral award received for non-payment of supplies is business income and not taxable in India under Article 7 of the India-Japan Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), as the assessee had no permanent establishment in the country.

The division bench comprising Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the arbitral award was granted in favour of the assessee for non-payment of dues related to business contracts.

Fraudulent ITC Claims Severely Harm GST System, Writ Jurisdiction to Be Used Sparingly: Delhi HC

HIGH PRECISION CORPS vsCOMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1339

The Delhi High Court held that fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims can seriously harm the GST system and that writ jurisdiction should be used sparingly in such cases.

The division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta referred to a previous case and held that fraudulent ITC claims cause a significant dent in the GST system and must be treated seriously.

Natural Justice u/s 161 TNGST applies only when Rectification is Made, not when Refused: Madras HC

M/s.Eminent Textiles MillsPrivate Limited vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1340

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the principles of natural justice under Section 161 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, apply

only when a rectification is actually made, and not when a rectification application is rejected.

The division bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and K. Rajasekar observed that the third proviso clearly applies only when a rectification is carried out, and that rejection of a rectification application does not amount to rectification.

Appeal Related to Service Taxability Must be Filed Before the Supreme Court u/s 35 of CEA: Delhi HC

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX vsSHYAM SPECTRA PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1341

The Delhi High Court, ruled that the appeal on service taxability must be filed before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act,1944.

The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court. However, the appellant was granted liberty to pursue remedies available in law, including benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the time spent before the High Court.

Onerous Conditions Imposed for Release of Imported Areca Nuts: Delhi HC Reduces Security to ₹4.10 Crore Bond and ₹50 Lakh Bank Guarantee

M/S SHREEHARI ANANTA OVERSEASPVT.LTD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICDPATPARGANJ CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1342

The High Court of Delhi held that the conditions imposed by Customs for the provisional release of imported roasted areca nuts were onerous and reduced the required security to a ₹4.10 crore bond and ₹50 lakh bank guarantee.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the goods were released only for industrial use and found the conditions imposed by Customs to be excessive. The Department had asked for a bond of over ₹4.10 crore and a bank guarantee of more than ₹5.81 crore, which the Court held to be onerous even considering the Department’s own valuation.

Income Tax Reassessment Initiated During Pending Assessment Proceedings: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order for Lack of Jurisdiction

SALESFORCE COM SINGAPORE PTE.LTD. vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1343

The High Court of Delhi,set aside the reassessment order issued under Section 148 against the petitioner, holding it was without jurisdiction as the original scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act,1961, was still pending.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned assessment order. Pending applications wee also disposed of.

Tax Assistant Promotion: Delhi HC Upholds CAT Order Quashing Lists Based on Skill Test Date

SACHIN AMAR KHOLWAD vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1344

The High Court of Delhi, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)’s order quashing promotion lists for the post of Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department, which were prepared based on the date of passing the data-entry skill test.

Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar heard both sides and found that the 2015 Recruitment Rules did not require seniority to be based on the date of passing the departmental exam. Since the exam was only a qualifying requirement for promotion, the Court held that revising the seniority list on that basis was incorrect, arbitrary, and against the Rules. It agreed with the tribunal’s decision.

Filing of Form 10-IC Prior to ITR Filing is Not Mandatory: Allahabad HC Condones delay considering Genuine Hardship

CELL COM TELESERVICES PRIVATELIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1345

The Allahabad High Court has held that that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of return is not mandatory and if “genuine hardship” is shown then delay may be condoned.

The Court held that filing of Form 10-IC prior to filing of return is not mandatory and if “genuine hardship” is shown then delay may be condoned and in this respect the provision of law shall be taken as a beneficial piece of legislation. The court quashed the impugned order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and directed to condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC and accept the said Form 10-IC.

2600 Firms Formed Using Forged GST Numbers to Defraud State: Allahabad HC Rejects Bail Plea of Accused

Vikas Dabas vs State of U.P. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1346

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of an accused allegedly involved in a massive racket where approximately 2,600 firms were created using forged GST numbers to defraud the state exchequer.

The high court noted that “Considering the fact that the accused is involved in economic crime by committing serious fraud which has resulted to defraud the State from GST and to get illegal benefit of Input Tax Credit and the bail application of the other co-accused persons have been rejected by a coordinate of this court, therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, present application is rejected.”

GST Order issued imposing Penalty u/s 74 without Granting Hearing Opportunity: Madras HC sets aside order

Laxmi Rolling and Strips Pvt.Ltd vs The State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1347

The Madras High Court has set aside a penalty order issued under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, for having been passed without affording a personal hearing to the assessee.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the principles of natural justice had been violated. The Court observed that a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner, which merited thorough consideration and an oral hearing. The absence of such a procedure invalidated the respondent's order.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Notice u/s 149(1)(a) of Income Tax Act Issued Beyond Period of Limitation

BABA GLOBAL LTD vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1348

The High Court of Delhi, set aside a reassessment notice issued to the petitioner under The Court noted that the AO had initially dropped the reassessment proceedings through a reasoned order dated 27.04.2023, but later reversed it post-midnight on 28.04.2023 solely to align with the Principal Commissioner’s prior approval., 1961, holding it was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1)(a) of the Act.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the AO had already formed an opinion that reassessment was not required, and then changed it only to align with the PCIT’s approval. As per Section 148A(d), the AO was expected to take an independent decision after considering the material on record. Changing the decision just to match the approval was found to be against the law.

Patiala House Court Grants ₹2L Bail Bond to Accused in ₹17 Crore GST ITC Scam observing 24-Hour Plus Detention and other Irregularities

CGST vs Liyakat CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1349

The Patiala House Court, New Delhi, has granted bail to an accused in a ₹17 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud case, taking serious note of the procedural irregularities including detention beyond 24 hours prior to being produced before the magistrate.

The bench presided over by Chander Jit Singh (DHJS), acceded to the submissions of the applicant regarding procedural violations, including the unexplained delay in producing the applicant before a magistrate and discrepancies in official records relating to the arrest.

Summary of SCN Not a Substitute to Show Cause Notice : Gauhati HC quashes Summary of S. 74 Order and SCN

PRANAV GOGOI vs THE STATE OFASSAM AND ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1350

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a mere summary of a show cause notice cannot substitute the mandatory requirement of issuing a detailed show cause notice under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017.

The High Court quashed the impugned summary notices and orders but granted liberty to the tax authorities to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law, if deemed necessary. It also directed that the period during which the defective summary notices were pending should be excluded while computing limitations under Section 74(10) for passing fresh orders.

GST Registration Revocation Delay: Gauhati HC Permits Restoration if assessee Files Pending Returns, Pays Full Dues

SANJOY AGARWALLA vs THE UNION OFINDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1351

The Gauhati High Court has allowed the restoration of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) registration that was revoked because of extended non-filing of returns, provided that all statutory obligations and procedural criteria are fully complied with.

The Court ruled that the taxpayer's sincere intention and readiness to keep to all requirements should not be invalidated simply because the designated portal schedule had passed, noting the serious legal consequences of cancellation.

GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Uttarakhand HC Directs GST Authority to Consider Revocation Plea if Dues Cleared

Ashu Enterprises vs CommissionerCentral Goods & Services Tax & another CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1352

In a recent ruling, with regards to the GST registration cancellation, the Uttarakhand High Court has allowed a registered assessee to seek restoration of its cancelled GST registration, provided it clears all outstanding statutory dues.

The Division Bench, relying on case order in Writ Petition (M/B) No.39 of 2025, granted the petitioner's request for parity and ordered that the petitioner be permitted to submit a formal application for the reversal of the cancellation decision, acknowledging that the facts were undeniable and that the respondents had no objections.

Reassessment Notices Issued by JAO instead of FAO Not Valid: Madras HC Quashes Notices, Permits Revival After SC Verdict on Hexaware Case

Vijay vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1353

The Madras High Court has quashed a batch of reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessment Officers ( JAOs ) instead of the designated Faceless Assessment Officers (FAOs).

The Court, comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan, disposed of numerous writ petitions filed by aggrieved assessees who contended that the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were vitiated on the sole ground that they were issued by local jurisdictional officers, contrary to the statutory mandate of the faceless assessment scheme.

Failure to Attend Hearing Noticed: Madras HC directs to Pay 5% Pre-deposit from ECR for Final Hearing Opportunity

M/s.Sri Mahalakshmi Constructionvs The State Tax Officer (Data Analytics) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1354

The Madras High Court recently granted the assessee one more chance to challenge its GST assessment for the FY 2017-18. However, this relief was only granted if the taxpayer deposited ₹15,000,000, or 5% of the contested tax amount, from its Electronic Cash Register (ECR) within a certain time frame.

Justice C. Saravanan observed that although the petitioner may have a valid case, they had failed to cooperate during the rectification proceedings. The Court said that non-attendance at scheduled hearings, despite multiple opportunities, could not be brushed aside lightly. However, considering the financial stakes and the availability of an appellate remedy even at that stage, the Court invoked a balanced approach.

No Proof of Resignation: Delhi HC Reduces Fine to ₹1L for Former Company Directors over Non-Filing of Financial Documents

VIMAL NANDA & ANR vsREGISTRAR OF COMPANIES NCT OF DELHI & HARYANA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1355

The Delhi High Court recently reduced the compounding fine imposed on two former directors of a company for the company’s non-compliance with filing requirements. The fines imposed on each directed was reduced from ₹1.5 lakh to ₹1 lakh each, while affirming their liability for non-filing of statutory financial documents in the absence of concrete proof of their resignation during the period of default.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upon examination found that while the petitioners may have submitted resignations to the Board in 2011, there was no documentary evidence or minutes showing acceptance by the Board or their removal from directorship at that time.

GST ITC Claims Made Before 30.11.2021 Valid u/s 16(5): Madras HC Quashes S. 73 Order, Clarifies Assessee Barred from Claiming Refund of Paid Tax Amount

Sunder and Company vs .Union ofIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1356

The Madras High Court has quashed assessment orders passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017, pertaining to the denial of belated input tax credit ( ITC ) claims. However, the court also clarified that the assessee is barred from claiming refund of any disputed tax paid.

The Court made it clear that if any part of the disputed tax amount had already been paid by the petitioner, they would not be entitled to a refund of such payment. This limitation complies with Circular No. 237/31/2024-GST dated 15.10.2024, which expressly prohibits refunds of taxes that have already been paid in these circumstances.

Property Sold Despite Sales Tax Arrears: Madras HC Allows Commercial Tax Dept to Declare Sale Void

S.J.Natural Minerals vs StateTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1357

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has permitted the Commercial Tax Department to declare a property sale as void under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in light of long-standing sales tax arrears owed by the original owner.

Justice C. Saravanan observed that under Section 53(1) of the Act, any transfer of immovable property made with the intent to defeat or delay creditors is voidable at the option of such creditors. In this context, the Commercial Tax Department qualifies as a creditor and is therefore legally entitled to seek the declaration of the sale as void, if such intent is established.

Bombay HC Permits Inter-State GST ITC Transfer on Post-Amalgamation, Orders GST Council and GSTN to Create Mechanism

Umicore Autocat India vs Unionof India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1358

In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court at Goa has permitted the transfer of unutilized Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) from a transferor company located in Goa to a transferee company in Maharashtra following a lawful amalgamation.

The bench clarified that although the petitioner sought to transfer ITC comprising IGST, CGST, and SGST components, it voluntarily waived the claim to SGST (which is State-specific) to avoid revenue loss to the State of Goa.

Blocked GST ITC u/r 86A Must Be Released if Appeal is Filed by Depositing 10% Disputed Tax: Madras HC

Arise Steels Private Limited vsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1359

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has directed the Commercial Taxes Department to unblock Input Tax Credit (ITC) in cases where the assessee has filed an appeal against an assessment order after depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount as required under Section 107 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act.

The bench observed that continuation of such a block, despite the filing of a valid appeal, would be detrimental to the taxpayer's ability to continue business operations and against the principles of natural justice.

Himachal Pradesh HC Dismisses Plea for Concurrent Sentences in Dual Cheque Bounce Convictions

Shiva Packages & anr. vsState of Himachal Pradesh & anr CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1360

The Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected a plea seeking concurrent running of sentences in two cheque bounce cases by observing that the judgements in both cases were independent and arose out of separate transactions.

A single bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that in the present case, both instances of default were separate, and the consequences of non-payment of compensation were individually determined. Since the sentence imposed was not substantive but conditional upon non-payment, Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with set-off of sentences, did not apply.

Issuance of advisory by GST Authority subjected to further proceedings as u/r 142B is not Conclusive: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal of Reliance Formulation

RELIANCE FORMULATION PRIVATELIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1361

The Gujarat High Court has held that the issuance of an advisory by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Authority is subject to further proceedings, as under rule 142 B of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) is not conclusive, and dismissed the appeal of Reliance Formulation Private Ltd..

A division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi observed that the reference to Section 79 of the GST Act in the impugned advisory is only to put the petitioner on guard as to such outstanding liability as per the record of the respondent- Authority so that the petitioner can either make the payment of such liability if agreed or may oppose the same when the notice in Form GST DRC-01D is received by the petitioner for recovery of such amount as stated hereinabove.

Arrest Over ₹8.36 Crore Fake ITC Claim Using Bogus GST Invoices: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail Citing Completed Investigation and Five Month Custody

Sarthak Jain vs SeniorIntelligence Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1362

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail citing completed investigation and five-month custody in a matter involving arrest over ₹8.36 crore fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim using bogus Goods and Service Tax (GST) invoices.

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj heard both sides and reviewed the case record. It noted that the petitioner was prosecuted for tax evasion under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act. As per the reply, he had claimed ₹2.75 crores in ITC through M/s Sarthak Enterprises and ₹3.98 crores along with his wife through M/s Disha Enterprises. The investigation was complete and a complaint had already been filed.

Tender Scam: Jharkhand HC rejects Bail Plea of Ex-Minister in PMLA Case

Alamgir Alam vs The Directorateof Enforcement CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1363

The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the bail application filed by the senior politician and sitting MLA in Jharkhand, who is accused in a high-profile money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad dismissed the bail application and directed that the trial court should proceed with the matter without being influenced by any observations made by the court and decide the case strictly in accordance with the law.

Delhi HC Waives ₹17.21 Lakh Pre-deposit Noting ₹5.36 Crore Already Paid in Service Tax Dispute over Composite Works Contract

MCM CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATEPRIVATE LTD vs COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1364

The High Court of Delhi waived the ₹17.21 lakh pre-deposit noting that the petitioner had already paid ₹5.36 crore in a service tax dispute involving composite works contracts.

Justice Prathiba M Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta considered whether the total service tax demand should be treated as a whole or split into pre- and post-show cause notice (SCN) amounts. It noted that the petitioner had already deposited ₹5.36 crore against the total demand of ₹13.66 crore, which was a substantial portion.

64-Gram Gold Piece Seized for Non-Declaration: Delhi HC Permits Release on Payment and Re-Export

RAKESH KUMAR JAT vs COMMISSIONEROF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1365

The High Court of Delhi, permitted the release of a 64-gram uneven-shaped gold cut piece seized at IGI Airport for non-declaration, after the petitioner agreed to pay the redemption fine and penalty and re-export the item.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta disposed of the petition after noting that the petitioner had agreed to abide by the Order-in-Original dated 27th May 2025. The order had denied the benefit of ‘Free Allowance’ for non-declaration of gold, directed confiscation of a 64-gram gold cut piece under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a redemption fine of ₹25,000 for re-export, and levied a penalty of ₹30,000 under Section 112(a) and 112(b).

CA Certificate Sufficient to Establish No Excise Duty Passed to Consumers, Refund Allowed: Delhi HC Grants Relief to Nokia

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS vs NOKIA INDIA SALES PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1366

The High Court of Delhi, upheld the Customs,Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

(CESTAT)’s order allowing refund claims of ₹2.33 crore and ₹3.43 crore to Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., ruling that a Chartered Accountant (CA)’s certificate was sufficient to establish that the burden of excise duty was not passed on to consumers.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the respondent had discharged its burden by submitting the CA certificate and relevant documents, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, there was no justification to deny the refund.

Telangana HC quashes Non-Faceless Income Tax Notices, rebukes Dept. for not following Established Precedents

Rakesh Reddy Paidi vs UNION OFINDIA CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1367

The Telangana High Court recently set aside income tax notices issued to a taxpayer, on the ground that the Income Tax Department failed to issue them in compliance with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, thus disregarding binding judicial precedents that have adjudicated on the matter.

The Bench comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda noted that, despite numerous unambiguous judicial pronouncements by the Telangana High Court and several other High Courts across the country barring the issuance of non-faceless notices, the Income Tax Department has continued to pursue the same process, leading to a surge in litigation on an issue that has already settled by judicial precedents.

GST Registration Cancellation: Gauhati HC Directs Department to Drop Proceedings if Taxpayer Furnishes Returns and Pays All Dues

DIPJYOTI BORAH vs THE STATE OFASSAM CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1368

The Gauhati High Court has held that GST (Goods and Services Tax) registration cancellation proceedings must be dropped when a taxpayer has furnished all pending returns and paid the requisite tax dues along with applicable interest and late fees.

The bench relied on this provision and a similar precedent in Sanjoy Nath vs. Union of India, observed that the cancellation of GST registration carries severe civil consequences that should not be imposed when the taxpayer has remedied the default in accordance with law.

Himachal Pradesh HC Sets Aside GST Order Passed Without Personal Hearing, Additional Advocate General Admits Dept’s Action Unsustainable

Chander Mukhi Resorts Private Limited vs The State of Himachal Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1369

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order that was issued without complying with the mandatory requirement of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2019.

The bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja allowed the writ petition. The impugned order dated 18.01.2025 was set aside with a direction that the petitioner be granted a proper personal hearing. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent authority with its reply and all relevant documents on 02.08.2025.

Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to Borrower in Canara Bank Dispute, Directs No Coercive Action for Two Weeks

RAJESH GUPTA vs CANARA BANK CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1370

The Delhi High Court granted a two-week protection from coercive action to a borrower embroiled in a property dispute with Canara Bank, observing that the borrower is now pursuing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) following the resumption of its Chairperson’s office.

The Court allowed the petition to be withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to move the DRAT for early consideration of his appeal. The Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken by Canara Bank for a period of two weeks from the date of the order, specifically in relation to the property in question.

Calcutta HC Slams Customs Authorities for Judicial Overreach, Relief to Importer in 27-Year-Old ‘Prawn Feed’ Classification Dispute

ATHERTON ENGINEERING CO. PRIVATELIMITED vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1371

The Calcutta High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, setting aside both the 2017 de novo adjudication order and a subsequent Customs Appellate Tribunal ruling dated June 26, 2024. The court heavily criticised the customs authorities for judicial indiscipline, exceeding jurisdiction, and delaying adjudication by over a decade, all while disregarding earlier binding decisions of the High Court.

The court held that this was a classic violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. regarding the duty of subordinate authorities to follow binding precedent without question or delay.

Delhi HC Allows Release of Seized Gold Items After Traveller Agrees to Pay Fine and Customs Duty

SANJAY AGARWAL vs THE ADDITIONALCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1372

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Department to release two seized gold ornaments after the petitioner agreed to pay the customs duty, penalty, and redemption fine as determined by the authorities.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta viewed that the petitioner was willing to comply with the appellate order and make the payments as calculated. Taking note of the petitioner’s readiness, the Court directed that he may appear before the Customs Department on 28th July 2025 at 12:30 PM, deposit the total amount, and collect the gold ornaments.

Kerala HC Stays Recovery Proceedings for One Month as Petitioners Shift Appeals to Tribunal u/s 253(1)(d)

MOHAMED HANEEFA ONATHU KATTIL vsINCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1373

The Kerala High Court has ordered a temporary halt on recovery proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against a group of petitioners who are now in the process of moving their appeals before the appropriate forum, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as per Section 253(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. disposed of the writ petitions with a direction that recovery proceedings arising out of the impugned assessment orders be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The court was of the opinion that this period would give the petitioners a fair opportunity to obtain interim protection from the Tribunal without the threat of coercive recovery in the meantime.

Calcutta HC Dismisses Challenge to Section 148A(b) Reassessment Notice, Directs Taxpayer to Pursue Statutory Appeal

Mukul Mahanta vs The Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1374

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a taxpayer challenging the validity of a reassessment notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the single bench’s decision refusing to entertain the writ petition and instead directed the taxpayer to avail the statutory appellate remedy provided under the Act.

No Question of Law: Calcutta HC Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal Against ITAT Order Deleting Share Capital Addition u/s 68

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX 2 vs RAJSHREE INTEGRATED COLD CHAIN PVT LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1375

The Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department disputing an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) that had removed an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for share capital and share premium, reiterating that purely factual findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law.

The Bench noted that both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had examined the critical requirements under Section 68 identity of the investors, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction and had found that these were fully established by the assessee.

Calcutta HC Rejects Writ Against Service Tax Order, Says Petitioner Cannot Blame Dept for Missed Hearing After Failing to Notify Address Change

Mrs. Rashmi Rungta Vs. Union ofIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1376

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a service tax order, ruling that the petitioner could not blame the department for missing the opportunity of a personal hearing when she herself failed to inform the authorities about her change of address.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, after the hearing and noting the records, agreed with the department’s stand. It was observed that the show cause notice was duly served at the Kolkata address and the petitioner had responded on her own letterhead reflecting the same address.

S. 151A Makes Faceless Assessment Applicable from SCN Stage u/s S. 148 & S. 148A: P&H HC Affirms NFAC’s Exclusive Authority

LAKHVINDER SINGH GILL vs INCOMETAX OFFICER AND OTHERS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1377

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has once again confirmed that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and 148A of Income tax act, 1961 must strictly comply with the faceless framework mandated by Section 151A.

The Court reiterated that once the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notified the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) as the exclusive authority for issuing notices under Section 148.

Calcutta HC Dismisses Revenue’s Service Tax Appeal on Ground of Low Tax Effect, Leaves Questions of Law Open

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAXKOLKATA vs M/s. WACKER METROARCH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1378

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed Service Tax appeal filed by the Commissioner of Service Tax citing the appeal’s low tax effect.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), clarified that while the appeal could not proceed on monetary grounds, the substantial questions of law raised by the revenue were left open to be examined in appropriate future cases.

Rs. 10cr GST ITC Fraud: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail to Accused Noting Prolonged Custody and Ongoing Trial

Vinay Kumar Tandan vs Union OfIndia CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1379

The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted bail to the accused, who was arrested for allegedly availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth over ₹10 crore through non-genuine transactions under the CGST Act, 2017.

The Court issued bail with strict standards, such as a personal bond, two local sureties, and several undertakings to guarantee collaboration with the trial court. The applicant was specifically instructed to stay in person on important hearing dates and refrain from requesting adjournments in order to postpone proceedings; otherwise, the trial court may consider this to be abuse of bail.

Allahabad HC Quashes GST Cancellation Order Passed Without Reasons, Reiterates Doctrine of Merger Inapplicable where Orders Lack Application of Mind

M/S Suraj Kumar Upadhyay vsState Of U.P. And 2 Others CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1380

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration cancellation order on the ground that the order was passed without assigning any reasons and without proper application of mind.

Justice Piyush Agarwal observed that a quasi-judicial order which adversely affects the right to do business guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution must reflect an application of mind and clear reasoning, failure to do so violates Article 14 as well.

Delhi HC Sets Aside Ex-Parte GST Demand Over Improper SCN Service via Portal’s ‘Additional Notice’ Tab

PRIYANKA GOYAL vs SALES TAXOFFICER CLASS II/AVATO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1381

The High Court of Delhi, set aside an ex-parte Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) demand of ₹1.04 crore raised under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, citing improper service of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) via the portal’s ‘Additional Notice’ tab.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the issue of notices being uploaded under the ‘Additional Notice’ tab had already been addressed in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner, Delhi GST, where similar ex-parte orders were set aside due to lack of proper service. In that case, the Court followed earlier decisions and held that notices uploaded only under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab could be missed and must also be communicated clearly, including via email.

GST Registered Firm Cannot Claim Ignorance of GST Provisions or Rules, Service via GST Portal is Valid: Madras HC

M/s.Mohana Constructions rep vsThe Deputy State Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1382

In an important ruling, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court upheld the service of notices through GST port is valid and observed that a registered GST firm cannot plead ignorance of the GST Act or its rules made thereunder.

Justice C. Saravanan, rejected the petitioner's argument, observing that since the firm was registered under the GST enactments, it was expected to be fully aware of the modes of communication prescribed under the law.

Bank Employee’s Exit Option Scheme fails to Meet VRS Criteria: Kerala High Court dismisses Appeal for Section 10(10C) Income Tax Exemption

N G GANGADEVI vs COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1383

Kerala High Court dismisses Bank Employee’s Appeal for Section 10(10C) Income Tax ExemptionIn a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal of a retired bank employee who had sought income tax exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the Exit Option Scheme (EOS) under which she retired did not qualify as a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in terms of Rule 2BA of the Income Tax Rules.

It was observed by the bench that, “Even before us in this appeal, there is nothing produced that would suggest that the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below were perverse or based on no evidence whatsoever. Under such circumstances, we find that there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal since the findings of all the authorities have been essentially on the facts that obtained in the instant case. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal.”

Delhi HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Petition Against ITC Denial Over Non-Service of SCN, Directs Petitioner to Avail Appellate Remedy

M/S SOHAM INDUSTRIES vs CENTRALGOODS AND SERVICE TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1384

The High Court of Delhi, refuses to entertain a writ petition challenging denial of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) worth ₹26.95 lakhs under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) on the ground of non-service of ShowCause Notice (SCN), holding that the order was appealable under Section 107 of GST Act.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that such matters should be addressed through proper appellate channels and that allowing writ petitions in such cases would result in multiplicity of proceedings and possible contradictory findings. However, since the petitioner claimed non-receipt of the SCN, the Court directed that a copy be provided within a week at the given email address.

Arrest for Dealing of Illicit Drug: Jammu & Kashmir HC grants bail considering the Medical condition of Accused

Parvaiz Ahmad Hanga vs UnionTerritory of J&K CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1385

Parvaiz Ahmad HangaThe High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh granted bail to an accused who was arrested for dealing illicit drugs, considering his critical medical condition.

A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti granted bail for a duration of four months subject to the furnishing of bond, personal as well as surety, to an amount of Rs. 5 lac each to the satisfaction of the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal who shall also settle terms and conditions of the bail hereby granted by the Court and then enlarge the petitioner on bail.

GST Registration obtained by fraud and suppression of fact: Calcutta HC sets aside cancellation finding existence of Premises

Shree Balaji Polycon & Ors. vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (GST) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1386

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court set aside the cancellation, finding existence of premises. The cancellation was made on finding that the GST registration was obtained by fraud and suppression of fact.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury viewed that the cancellation of registration cannot be permitted to continue. The court set aside the order of cancellation of the petitioner no.1’s registration effected vide order dated 17th February 2023. The jurisdictional officer is directed to restore the petitioner no.1’s registration on the portal.

Karnataka HC directs to grant bail for offence u/s 4 of PMLA on Execution of Personal bond

DR. B.K. NAGARAJAPPA vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1387

The Karnataka High Court in itsrecent case directed to grant bail for the offence punishable under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act') upon execution of a personal bond.

A single bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty directed to be enlarged on bail in ECIR/BGZO/05/2025 registered by the Additional Directorate, Directorate of Enforcement, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending before the Court of Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, subject to conditions.

Delhi HC Rejects Bollywood Actress Jacqueline Fernandez’s Plea to Quash PMLA Case Without Trial

JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1388

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to dismiss the corruption case against Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez without a full trial stating that the matter involves serious allegations that must be examined thoroughly in court.

The bench presided over by Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the evidence on record raised serious questions about whether the actress was aware of the source of the gifts and whether she had benefited from criminal proceeds. The court said these questions could not be decided at the preliminary stage and required a full trial where evidence could be examined in detail.

Second-hand Digital MFDs Qualifying as Highly Specialized Equipment Are Freely Importable and Eligible for Provisional Releases: Madras HC

M/s.Taanish Enterprises vs TheCommissioner Of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1389

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that second-hand digital multifunction devices (MFDs) that qualify as Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) are freely importable and eligible for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

The bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose held that once the imported MFDs met the conditions under Clause 8 of CRO, 2021, they were exempt from BIS and DGFT requirements. The court observed that similar goods had already been adjudicated as freely importable by other High Courts and the Supreme Court.

J&K High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail to Retired Army Man Accused in ₹6 Crore Crypto Fraud

Naresh Kumar Gulia vsDirectorate of Enforcement and anr CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1390

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a retired army personnel accused in a multi-crore cryptocurrency fraud case.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani observed that the allegations were serious and involved the financial exploitation of thousands of people, including over 2,000 victims from Leh alone.

BNS Offences Qualify as Scheduled Offences Under PMLA Even Without Formal Amendment: Bombay HC

Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi vsThe Union of India CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1391

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, can be treated as scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, even without a formal amendment to the PMLA Schedule.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed that the PMLA Schedule does not incorporate the IPC provisions word-for-word but merely refers to them. The court held that this kind of reference is to be interpreted in light of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, which allows for substitution when a statute is repealed and replaced.

Provisional Release of Goods Under Section A of the Customs Act: Madras HC Grants Importer an Opportunity for Hearing

Satheesh T R vs The AdditionalCommissioner Of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1392

The Madras High Court has granted an importer an opportunity to be heard in relation with his plea for provisional release of imported goods that had been detained by customs authorities.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that the issue is highly debatable and held that the petitioner should be allowed to submit a reply including this new evidence and that the customs authorities must consider this reply in a fair and timely manner.

Malaysian National's 4Lakh Indian Currency Seized: Madras HC Declines Immediate Return, Orders Customs to Follow Due Process in 8 Weeks

Saravana Jothi vs The ChiefCommissioner Of Customs CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1393

In a recent order, the Madras High Court refused immediate release of the Indian currency of a Malaysian National seized amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs, however, ordered the customs department to release it within 8 weeks.

The Court, thus disposed of the writ petition without awarding costs, stating that it would not intervene at this premature stage where departmental proceedings were still underway.

Wrongful Invocation of GST S. 130 Instead of S. 74: Allahabad HC Finds Prima Facie Case, Restrains Coercive Recovery

M/S Bindal Smelting PrivateLimited vs The Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1394

The Allahabad High Court, restrained coercive recovery in which it has prima facie found that there was merit to the claim that the proceedings under Section 130 was wrongly invoked instead of Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act, 2017.

JusticePiyush Agrawal heard both sides. It was observed that the matter requires consideration and directed the respondents to file their counter affidavit within six weeks. The bench granted interim protection to the petitioner by restraining coercive recovery actions until the next date of listing, provided the petitioner deposits 10% of the remaining tax liability within 15 days.

Clerical Error in E-Way Bill Not Tax Evasion: Allahabad HC Quashes Penalty, Directs Refund with 4% Interest If Any Amount Deposited

M/S Gaylord Packers India Pvt.Ltd. vs State Of U.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1395

In an important ruling, related to the fact that clerical mistakes do not imply tax evasion, the Allahabad High Court quashed the penalty order, holding that a minor typographical error in the e-way bill does not warrant proceedings under Section 129 of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) Act.

Justice Piyush Agrawal agreed with the petitioner's arguments and pointed out that the case at hand was directly related to the precedent set in M/s Cavendish Industries Ltd.

GST Order Not Reflected in 'View Notices' Tab: Allahabad HC Accepts Plea, Directs Fresh Notice with 15 Days’ Clear Time

M/S Gupta Traders vs State ofU.P CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1396

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order issued due to the improper uploading of statutory notices on the GST Portal.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar, while allowing the petition, directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law, providing at least 15 clear days’ time to the petitioner to respond.

GST Appeal on Registration Cancellation Rejected without Reasons: Allahabad HC sets aside Order, says Quasi-Judicial Orders Must Be Reasoned

M/S Nikhil Construction vs StateOf U.P. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1397

The Allahabad High Court is to examine a critical question concerning the applicable rate of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) in cases where the invoice reflects a revised rate, but payment is made at an earlier rate.

The division bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Praveen Kumar Giri was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Nikhil Construction, challenging the respondent authorities’ remittance of GST at 5% instead of 12%, despite the petitioner raising the invoice at the revised rate.

GST Appeal on Registration Cancellation Rejected without Reasons: Allahabad HC sets aside Order, says Quasi-Judicial Orders Must Be Reasoned

M/S Tyagi Lube Agency vs StateOf Uttar Pradesh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1398

The Allahabad High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration and subsequent appellate rejection observing that the quasi-tribunal orders must be reasoned and should apply before passing it.

Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that the appellate authority’s dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal filed against the rejection of revocation of registration was passed without assigning any reasons, and therefore could not be sustained in law.

No SCN Issued Post-Seizure of Goods: Madras HC Orders Customs to Decide Representation Promptly

Jai Jwala Exim vs The AdditionalCommissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1399

The Madras High Court directed the Customs Department to expeditiously decide on the representation filed by the petitioner concerning seized imported goods, in which the department failed to issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) after seizure.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that no prejudice would be caused to the Customs Department if it were directed to dispose of the representation on its merits. The Court stated that the authorities were duty-bound to act on such representations without undue delay, particularly when a person’s goods and commercial interests are affected.

S. 44(1)(c) of PMLA Applicable After jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of scheduled offences: Bombay HC

Amit Chandole vs Directorate ofEnforcement CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1400

In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has held that section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act') applies after jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of scheduled offences.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that the stage that has been contemplated under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, 2002 will be after the jurisdictional Court has taken cognizance of the scheduled offences. The said stage will come if the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by rejecting the C-Summary Report takes cognizance of the offence and issues process.

‘Admitted Liability’ Auto-Selection on GST Portal Misled Assessee: Madras HC Allows Liberty to File GST Appeal Despite Delay

Tvl SLV Concrete GSTIN vs StateTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1401

Due to uncertainty produced by the GSTN interface, the Madras High Court recently ruled that the assessee had the right to appeal a GST (Goods and Services Tax) assessment order even after the statute of limitations had passed.

The court, considering the procedural confusion and absence of any legal bar on filing an appeal, permitted the petitioner to file the appeal afresh, subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount comprising 10% towards the statutory pre-deposit and an additional 5%.

Dept Erred in Treating Voluntary GST Payment u/s 73(5) as Response to S. 74 SCN: Calcutta HC Remands Matter

Dharmendra Singh vs DeputyCommissioner of Revenue CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1402

In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court held that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) department was not justified in treating a voluntary tax payment made under Section 73(5) of the CGST Act as a response to a show cause notice issued under Section 74, without seeking clarification from the taxpayer.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the department had not made any effort to confirm the petitioner’s intention behind the voluntary payment before treating it as compliance with the show cause notice under Section 74.

Delhi HC Upholds Legality of Supplementary PMLA Complaint Despite Lack of Extensive New Material

Directorate ofEnforcement Represented through its Deputy Director Government of India 10-A vsSh. Sanjay Bhandari CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1403

The Delhi High Court upholds ED’s supplementary PMLA complaint despite the absence of extensive new material, finding no procedural illegality.In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld the legality of a supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), even though it did not include extensive new material.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that the law does not prohibit filing a supplementary complaint even if it contains limited new material, as long as it serves a valid procedural or legal purpose.

Setback for Kalyan Jewellers: Karnataka HC Rejects KVAT Appeal, Holds Revision u/s 64 Within Limitation

M/S KALYAN JEWELLERS SALEM(PVT.) LTD vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OFCOMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1404

The High Court of Karnataka,while dismissing the appeal filed by Kalyan Jewellers Salem (Pvt.) Ltd held that the revision proceedings initiated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act,2003,were within the prescribed limitation period.

Justice S.G Pandit and Justice T.M Nadaf observed that the limitation period under Section 64(3) should be counted from the date the records were called. Since the records were called within the permitted time from the date of the appellate order, the proceedings were held to be within time. Hence, the substantial question of law did not survive.

FEMA Violation Not a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA, ED Cannot Freeze Assets Without Predicate Crime: Madras HC

R.K.M Powergen Private Limitedvs The Assistant Director CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1405

The Madras High Court ruled that a violation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) cannot, by itself, trigger proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as FEMA is not a scheduled offence under the Act. The Court held that in the absence of a predicate offence and proceeds of crime, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) lacked the jurisdiction to freeze the assets.

The division bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that the existence of a predicate offence is a mandatory requirement under PMLA. The court observed that the alleged FEMA violations or financial structuring issues cannot substitute for a scheduled offence.

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