Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-up [Part 2 ]

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 August 2nd, 2025.

Supreme Court Declares Hyatt Has Permanent Establishment in India, Must Pay Tax Under Indo-UAE Treaty

HYATT INTERNATIONAL SOUTHWESTASIA LTD vs ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 204

The Supreme Court of India held that Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd., a company incorporated in Dubai, has a permanent establishment (PE) in India under Article 5(1) of the Indo-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and is therefore liable to pay tax on its income earned through hotel consultancy services in India.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that Hyatt’s control over hotel operations, its right to assign personnel without hotel owner approval, and its revenue-linked fees indicated deep commercial involvement. They observed that the legal requirement was not exclusive use of physical space but the ability to conduct core business activities from a location in the source country.

Paying IGST and Penalty under Protest does not Negate AO’s Liability to Pass Reasoned Order: Supreme Court upholds Assessee’s Right of Appeal

M/S ASP TRADERS vs STATE OFUTTAR PRADESH & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 205

The Supreme Court recently passed a noteworthy judgment, holding that the payment of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and penalty under protest by an assessee does not absolve the proper officer of the statutory obligation to pass a reasoned order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court and directed the proper officer to pass a speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 and upload its summary in Form GST DRC-07 within one month. The Court further clarified that the right to appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act must be preserved through proper adjudication, even if payment has been made.

Supreme Court Questions Flaw in Registered Sale Deeds Executed via Power of Attorney, Refers Matter to Larger Bench

G. Kalawathi Bai (Died) vs G.Shashikala (Died) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 206

The Supreme Court of India has referred a legal issue involving the registration of sale deeds executed through a power of attorney (PoA) to a larger bench. The issue revolves around whether a PoA holder who executes a sale deed is legally regarded as the executant for the purposes of registration under Section 32(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, disagreed with this approach. They noted that a PoA holder, when executing a sale deed on behalf of the principal, does so not in his or her own name but expressly in the name of the principal.

Supreme Court reinstates Three-Year Experience Requirement for Civil Judge Aspirants, overhauls Judicial Promotion Quotas

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vsUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 207

In a recent judgment delivered on May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court of India restored the requirement of three years’ actual legal practice for candidates appearing in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) examinations. Overruling earlier precedents that allowed fresh law graduates to sit for the exams, the Court emphasized that practical courtroom experience is essential for aspiring judges.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, overturned a two-decade-old policy that allowed fresh law graduates to enter judicial service without any prior experience at the bar. The Court observed that the experiment of recruiting "raw graduates" had "not proved to be a successful experiment."

Entry in Balance Sheet Acknowledges Debt: Supreme Court Allows IL&FS Plea

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICESLIMITED vs ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 208

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment has ruled that entry in a company's balance sheet amounts to a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and allowed the plea of IL&FS for a default of ₹55.45 crore.

The court held that the Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20 was admittedly signed by the board of directors on 12.08.2020. This date was within the subsisting period of limitation for the reason that taking 01.03.2018 as the commencement of limitation, limitation ordinarily would have continued till 28.02.2021. Since an acknowledgment came into effect on 12.08.2020, limitation would have stood extended till 11.08.2023. However, Covid-19 intervened resulting in this Court passing a series of orders extending the period of limitation. The relevant order applicable in this case is the order of 10.01.2022.

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

No Automatic Dissolution on Partner’s Death: SC Condemns Indian Oil Corporation Limited for Arbitrary Denial of Kerosene Supply to Firm

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION vs M/SSHREE NIWAS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (SC) 203

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) challenging a Calcutta High Court order that mandated continued kerosene supply to a reconstituted partnership firm. The Court strongly criticised IOCL for acting in a “high-handed” and arbitrary manner, contrary to principles of justice and equity.

A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that IOCL had not terminated the dealership and misread its guidelines by refusing to recognise the reconstituted firm.

HIGH COURTS

Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes JAO’s Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction, Says Notice Should Be Issued by FAO

Krishna Gupta vs Income TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1406

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that it should have been issued only through faceless assessment as mandated by the Ministry of Finance notification.

The bench comprising Justice Deepak Sibal and Justice Lapita Banerji observed that the impugned notice was issued by the JAO in violation of the faceless assessment requirement as per the notification.

Urban Development Office Memo Limits Dues to Service Charges Alone, Not Property Tax: Delhi HC Orders to Enter agreement for Timely Payment

UNION OF INDIA vs MUNICIPALCORPORATION OF DELHI CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1407

The Delhi High Court has directed the Northern Railways, Delhi Division, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to enter into an agreement in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 15th/17th December 2009 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, for payment of service charges instead of property tax.

A bench comprising Justice Mini Pushkarna observed the petitioner’s willingness to execute the agreement and issued directions for the Senior Divisional Engineer-III to visit the Joint Assessor and Collector, Assessment and Collection Department (GRP) Cell, MCD, at Dr. SPM Civic Centre, New Delhi, within two weeks to facilitate the agreement.

ED’s Attachment Order u/s 5(1) of PMLA Not Open to Writ Challenge Without Exhausting Remedies Under the Act: Kerala HC

VIPUL SHIPPING ENGINEERING WORKSvs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1408

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a provisional attachment order issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, cannot be challenged through a writ petition before the available statutory remedies under the Act are exhausted.

The division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar observed that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a self-contained legal framework with a clear mechanism for redressal.

Motor Vehicle Tax Dues: Orissa HC Permits Owner to Deposit Arrears, Direct to file Reply for Penalty Waiver

Sunil Kumar Dehury vs StateTransport Authority CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1409

The Orissa High Court has permitted the petitioner to deposit outstanding Motor Vehicle Tax and additional Motor Vehicle Tax for his vehicle, while directing him to file a reply before the appropriate authority for waiver of penalties shown on the Transport Department's web portal.

A bench comprising Dr. Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed that the petitioner should be allowed to deposit the taxes and seek waiver without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

ITC Reversal under CGST Act: Madras HC Quashes Recovery Order, Applies S. 16(5) for Extended Deadline

M/s.Rivera Enterprises vs TheDeputy State Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1410

The Madras High Court has quashed a recovery order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer and held that the claim for InputTax Credit ( ITC ) is covered under the amended provisions of Section 16(4) and 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

A bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the amendments under Section 16(5) allow registered persons to claim ITC in returns filed up to November 30, 2021, notwithstanding Section 16(4). The court held that the impugned order was no longer sustainable in light of these developments.

Service Tax Demand: Madras HC Quashes Impugned Order Against Ganesh Cell Communication on Terms, Directs Deposit of 25% Disputed Tax

M/s. Ganesh Cell Communicationvs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1411

The Madras High Court has quashed the service tax order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise under the Finance Act, 1994 subject to payment of 25% of disputed tax amount.

A bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan observed that while an appeal was time-barred, partial relief could be granted by quashing the order on terms, following consistent views in similar cases under GST enactments and Supreme Court rulings in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE and CCE and Customs vs. Hongo India (P) Limited.

GST Assessment on a Deceased Person is Void Ab Initio: Allahabad HC

Samban Pharma vs DeputyCommissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1412

The Allahabad High Court has delivered that any tax determination made against a person who is already deceased is invalid from its inception. The court clarified that while legal heirs are liable for the tax dues of a deceased individual, the assessment proceedings cannot be initiated or concluded in the name of the dead person. It is a fundamental requirement that any show-cause notice must be issued to the legal representative, providing them an opportunity to be heard before any liability is fixed.

The division bench, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, observed that since the notice was issued and the determination was made against a dead person without bringing the legal representative into the proceedings, the order could not be sustained in the eyes of the law.

Revision u/s 64 of KVAT Act After Grant of Karasamadhana Scheme Benefit Not Permissible: Karnataka HC

M/S. OMKAR LAND DEVELOPERS vsTHE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1413

The High Court of Karnataka, held that after grant of benefit under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021, initiating revision proceedings under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act is not permissible.

Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice T.M.Nadaf considered whether the Revisional Authority could initiate proceedings under Section 64 of the KVAT Act after the petitioner had already availed benefits under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021. It answered this in the negative.

Depreciation Claim u/s 32 of ITA Allowable on Actual Cost of Assets Taken Over from Dissolved Firm: Madras HC

Sundaram Spinning Mills (P) Ltd.vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1414

The High Court of Madras, held that depreciation claim under Section 32 of Income Tax Act,1961,is allowable on actual cost of assets taken over from a dissolved firm.

The Division bench comprising K.R.Shriram (Chief Justice) and Sunder Mohan (Justice) noted that the main issue was whether the assessee was eligible to claim depreciation on the assets taken over from the firm.

Market Value for S. 80-IA Deductions Should Be Based on Industrial Consumer Rate not Power Supplied to SEBs : Calcutta HC

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL- 1 vs RUNGTA MINES LIMITED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1415

The High Court of Calcutta, ruled that market value for Section 80-IA deductions of the Income Tax Act,1961 should be based on the tariff applicable to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is supplied to State Electricity Boards (SEBs).

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Chitali Chatterjee (Das) noted that the assessee was not in the business of selling power to distribution companies or SEBs. The Captive Power Plants (CPPs) were set up to ensure uninterrupted power supply and reduce electricity costs for its own manufacturing units. Therefore, the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) could not be based on average market rates charged by suppliers to distribution companies.

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

Customs Revisional Order Based on Another’s Case Without Assessing Taxpayer’s Defense: Madras HC Remands Matter

A.K.Ganesan vs The PrincipalCommissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1416

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that a customs revisional order is invalid if it is passed solely based on findings in another person’s case without properly considering the taxpayer’s own defence.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the revisional authority had not considered the petitioner’s case independently and had only looked at the facts relating to Jayanthi.

Madras HC Quashes DGFT Order on MEIS Scrip Cancellation for Daimler India

Daimler India CommercialVehicles Pvt.Ltd. vs Additional Director General of Foreign Trade Office of theAdditional Director General of Foreign Trade CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1417

The High Court also criticized the Appellate Authority for failing to apply its mind and for issuing a mechanically reasoned order without addressing key legal requirements. In an important judgment related to export incentive, the Madras High Court has quashed an order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) that had retrospectively - partially cancelled Merchandise Exports fromIndia Scheme (MEIS) scrips issued to Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court accordingly quashed the impugned order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, directing that the DGFT re-examine the case in light of the Court’s findings within three months.

CFS License Suspended Alleging Smuggling of Poppy Seeds from Myanmar: Madras HC Orders Customs to Reconsider Decision

M/s.Sudharsan Logistics Pvt. Ltdvs The Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1418

The Madras High Court has directed the customs department to reconsider the suspension of the Container Freight Station ( CFS ) licence, which suspended alleged smuggling of 56 MT poppy seeds from Myanmar.

Justice Abdul Quddhose, after hearing arguments from both sides, observed that while the matter involved serious allegations, the petitioner should not be deprived of its right to conduct business without a fair hearing.

Without Seizure or Detention Orders by Customs, Demurrage Waiver Claim Cannot Be Entertained : Madras HC

Modern Line- Export vs TheAssistant Commissioner Of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1419

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking a waiver of demurrage and detention charges on imported goods that remained uncleared at the port observing that the same cannot be entertained when there are no orders on seizure or detention that were not issued by the customs department.

Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that without any formal finding of illegal seizure or detention by Customs, the petitioner cannot claim compensation or reimbursement from the department.

Madras HC dismisses Challenge against DRAT order Allowing Sale of 42.24 acres by Indian Bank citing Non sale of whole property

K.Chandrasekar vs The Chairman CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1420

In a recent case, the Madras High Court dismissed a challenge against the Deb Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT] order allowing the sale of 42.24 acres by Indian Bank on finding that the bank had not sold the entire extent of 42.24 acres.

Since the writ petition was filed on the premise that second respondent/bank had sold the entire extent of 42.24 acres, which is now found not to be correct, the division bench of K.R.Shriram, Chief Justice and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the writ petition.

GST Classification Dispute Over Flavoured Milk: Madras HC Directs Britannia to Approach Appellate Authority

Britannia Industries Limited vsCommissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1421

The Madras High Court has directed Britannia Industries Limited to file a fresh representation before the appropriate appellate authority regarding the GST classification of its “Winkin’ Cow” flavoured milk product.

Justice Krishnan Ramamsamy held that the petition was premature and directed Britannia to file a detailed representation before the designated appellate authority within two weeks. In turn, the authority was directed to decide on the representation within four months from the date of its receipt.

Customs Broker Licence Revoked Under Regulation 17(7): Madras HC directs to Approach CESTAT, Dismisses Writ Petition

M/s.Shalom Forwarders vs TheCommissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1422

In a recent ruling, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed challenging the revocation of customs broker licence under Regulation 17(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Justice C. Saravanan observed that the Customs Act and the CBIC licensing regulations provide a specific statutory appellate mechanism, and it was open to the petitioner to challenge the revocation order before the CESTAT.

Customs Classifies Animal Feed as Edible Nuts: Madras HC Finds ₹1 Cr Bank Guarantee on ₹18L Import Onerous, Orders Reconsideration

Shri Murugula Shabbir Shaik vsThe Additional Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1423

The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Customs Department which required an importer to furnish a ₹1 crore bank guarantee and 1.76 crore bond for the provisional release of animal feed cargo worth ₹18 lakh, terming the condition ‘Onerous’.

Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the conditions imposed for provisional release were disproportionate to the value of the goods and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation. The Court noted that when the cargo was clearly found unfit for human consumption, it was unclear how authorities could classify it under a chapter applicable to edible products.

Delay of 4 months in filing GST Appeal cannot be rejected merely on ground of time barred: Punjab &Haryana HC Directs fresh adjudication

M/s GK Housing & DevelopersPrivate Ltd. vs State of Punjab CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1424

The Punjab and Haryana High Court directs fresh adjudication on finding that the delay of 4 months in filing the GST appeal was rejected merely on ground of time barred without referring to the same or dealing with the merits of the case, review whereof was also dismissed on account of its non-maintainability.

A single bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary viewed that it would have been better that there was an application of mind by an authority higher than the one which was appealed against, reflected through an order. Moreso, the petitioner would stand to gain nothing by delaying filing it.

Writ cannot be invoked to Challenged NFRA Notices: Telangana HC Dismisses Plea of Statutory Auditors of Concord Drugs

Mr. Ayyagari Krishna Rao VSNational Financial Reporting Authority CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1425

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the plea filed by statutory auditors of Concord Drugs, holding that a writ petition could not be invoked to challenge show cause notices issued by the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA).

The Court held that while NFRA could investigate past conduct, it could not impose penalties harsher than those applicable at the time of the alleged misconduct. In this case, NFRA had only issued show cause notices seeking information, and no final orders had been passed. Therefore, the Court found it too early to decide on punishment.

Duplication of GST Order in Portal: Delhi HC allows opportunity to Reply on SCN

M/S RAKS TRADE LOGISTICS PVT.LTD vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1426

The Delhi High Court, in its recent case, allowed an opportunity to reply to show cause notice on finding duplication of GST order in the portal.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta considering the duplication in the final demand order dated 19th February, 2025, the Petitioner ought to be given a chance to file a reply to the show cause notice and an opportunity for a personal hearing also ought to be accorded.

Karnataka HC sets aside order passed without issuing Notice, Directs dept. to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notice

M/S MUNI NAGA REDDY HUF vs THEASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1427

In a recent case, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the order passed without issuing notice and directed the department to establish a system to ascertain delivery of e-mail notice, when the said e-mail was opened and when the email was read, so that these kind of situations could be avoided.

A single bench of JusticeSuraj Govindaraj remitted the matter for fresh consideration by respondent No.1. Petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 without requirement of any further notice on 4th August, 2025 at 2:30 P.M. and submit his reply in such document as the petitioner intends to rely upon and respondent No.1 shall proceed thereafter, in accordance with law.

Assessee unaware of Form GST DRC 01 SCN uploaded on common portal under “Additional Notices and Orders”: Calcutta HC remands to Appellate Authority

Mohammad Hasim Khan vs The Stateof West Bengal & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1428

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court remanded the issue of showcause notice to the appellate authority as the assesee was unaware of the Form GST DRC 01 show cause notice uploaded on common portal under “Additional Notices and Orders”.

A single bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that all records of the proceedings are available on the common portal and it is far more convenient for the appellate authority to access such records from the common portal.

Allahabad HC Upholds validity of GST Notice uploaded in Common Portal u/s 169 (1)(d) of CGST Act, Dismisses Petition

M/S Radha Industries Thru vs TheDeputy Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1429

The Allahabad High Court in its recent case upheld the validity of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) notice uploaded in common portal under section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and dismissed the writ petition challenging the same.

A division bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla found that the petitioner's counsel has misread and misunderstood the purport, meaning and application of clause (f) of Section 169(1). In this case it is not denied that the notice was uploaded on the common portal, which is a mode of service mentioned in clause (d) of Section 169(1), therefore, clause (f) has no play or application in the facts of this case.

‘Bunching’ Impermissible under GST Act: Madras HC Says SCN can be Issued based on Monthly Returns if Annual Filing Pending

Smt R Ashaarajaa vs The SeniorIntelligence Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1430

“The GST Act permits only for issuance of show cause notice based on the tax period” said the Madras High Court while quashing the Show Cause Notice ( SCNs ) issued to multiple taxpayers which bunched multiple financial years together.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that “(i) The GST Act permits only for issuance of show cause notice based on the tax period. Therefore, if the annual return is filed, the entire year would be considered as a tax period and accordingly, the show cause notice shall be issued based on the said annual returns.

Denial of Hearing Despite Prior Direction of Coordinate Bench: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Income Tax Order, Remands Matter to NFAC

Nazirpur Large sizedMultipurpose Co-op Society & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1432

The High Court of Calcutta, set aside the income tax order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and remanded the matter to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), observing that no personal hearing was granted despite prior direction from the Coordinate Bench.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury noted that the appellate authority had tendered an apology for not granting a hearing. While the reasons given were not satisfactory, the apology was accepted as sincere.

Duty Drawback and RoDTEP Claims Withheld Since 2017: Madras HC Directs Authorities to Act on Exporter’s Grievance Against ‘Risky Exporter’ Status

M/s.BNBS Exports Private Limitedvs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1433

The Madras High Court has directed the customs authorities to consider a representation for the removal of the “risky exporter” alert and act on the long-pending duty drawback and RoDTEP claims that have been withheld since 2017.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, taking note of the submissions and the documentation furnished by the petitioner over the years, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities seeking removal of the alert status.

Reopening Beyond 4 Years Invalid if Material Facts Disclosed: Madras HC Dismisses Revenue's Appeal

The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai vs M/s. Siva Ventures Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1434

The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision that quashed a reassessment proceeding initiated after four years on the ground that the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment.

The Court found that the facts of that case were not applicable here, as Honda Siel dealt with a challenge to the reopening notice under Article 226 of theConstitution, focusing solely on whether the Income Tax Officer had jurisdiction to issue such a notice.

Income Tax Dept has No Statutory Power to Cancel Sale Deeds : Madras HC Quashes Attachment Order

K.N.Subramaniam vs The PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1435

The Madras High Court, while quashing the attachment order passed by the TaxRecovery Officer ( TRO ), ruled that there is no statutory provision in favour of the income tax department to annul or cancel the sale deed between two parties which is already pending in dispute before the civil court.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan held that the Income Tax Department has no statutory authority to cancel sale deeds executed between private parties, thereby setting aside the controversial order dated 16.02.2023 issued by the TRO.

Secondment arrangement does not give rise to any tax liability: Karnataka HC sets aside IGST Demand

M/S. ALSTOM TRANSPORT INDIALIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1436

The Karnataka High Court held that the secondment arrangement does not give rise to any tax liability and set aside the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) demand.

In light of the statutory exclusion under Schedule III and the clarificatory Circular issued by the CBIC, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the secondment arrangement does not give rise to any tax liability, and the demand raised by the Revenue is liable to be set aside.

₹25 Lakh Loan from Unverified Entity: Delhi HC Dismisses Income Tax Appeal for Lack of Genuineness and Creditworthiness

MEENAKSHI GUPTA vs INCOME TAXOFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1437

The High Court of Delhi, dismissed an income tax appeal involving a ₹25 lakh loan received from an unverified entity, M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd., due to lack of evidence establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia noted that the record did not show any search or any statement from the authorised person of M/s Oxygen Projects Pvt. Ltd. to support the claim that it was an accommodation entry provider.

Cross Examination of Summons/Arrest Memo issued by GST Officers is not allowable: Gujarat HC

SAZID ALI KHAN vs OFFICE OFPRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1438

The Gujarat High Court held that cross examination by assesee on the Summons /arrest memo issued by GST officers. The court viewed that the assessee has an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the order by preferring an Appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.

A division bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and Pranav Trivedi observed that the assessee has an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the order by preferring an Appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition with a liberty to the assessee to file statuary Appeal as provided under Section 107 of the GST Act.

15-Year Delay in Rewarding Informant for Tip-Offs Leading to Sales Tax Recovery: Bombay HC Orders ₹19L Payout

Darshan Singh Parmar vs TheUnion of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1439

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra Government to pay ₹19,44,802 to an informant who had provided valuable information and tip-offs that led to significant sales tax recoveries. The informant was due to receive rewards for his work, but had been made to wait for over fifteen years due to protracted litigation and bureaucratic delays.

The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain noted that even though the authorities had acknowledged tax recovery attributable to the Petitioner’s information, they delayed reward disbursal on various pretexts.

Detention of 115g Gold Chain Without Issuance of SCN Under Customs Act: Delhi HC Directs Release as Bona Fide Baggage

AGYA SINGH vs COMMISSIONER OFCUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1440

The High Court of Delhi, set aside the detention of a 115g gold chain for non-issuance of a timely Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the Customs Act, 1962, and directed its release as bona fide baggage under the Baggage Rules, 2016.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that once goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a Show Cause Notice and provide a personal hearing. As per Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, a SCN must be issued within six months, extendable by another six months with proper justification. In this case, even after one year, no SCN was issued, rendering the detention impermissible.

“Unsustainable”: Madras HC quashes GST Order Passed in name of Wrong Entity Despite Mentioning Correct GSTIN

Tvl. Gopal Vinod Granites vsState Tax Officer (FAC) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1441

In an important ruling, the Madras High Court ruled that a GST order which was wrongly passed in the name of a wrong entity despite quoting the correct GSTIN of the petitioner is unsustainable.

The bench directed the petitioner to submit a reply along with supporting documents within four weeks and directed the department to issue a fresh notice with a minimum 14-day window for personal hearing before passing a new order strictly in accordance with law.

80% GST Amount Recovered Despite Passing Ex-Parte Order: Madras HC Sets Aside Order

M/s.G.P.Engineers vs The DeputyState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1442

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST order passed under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act, citing a clear violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a taxpayer must be given an opportunity of personal hearing before finalising an adverse assessment.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, considering the submissions of both sides, observed that passing an adverse order without providing an effective opportunity of personal hearing violates the principles of natural justice and the mandatory safeguard under Section 75(4) of the Act.

Delay in Filing GST Appeal Due to Proprietor’s Health: Madras HC Dismisses Petition, Allows to File Appeal as Partial Tax Recovered

Sixer Marketing vs The DeputyCommissioner (GST) Appeal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1443

The Madras High Court has allowed a proprietary firm a fresh opportunity to file an appeal against a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order after condoning delay caused due to the ill health of its proprietor.

The Court directed that if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall entertain and decide it on its own merits without insisting on the limitation period and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer.

Business Slowdown was Genuine Reason for Non Filing of Return: Madras HC Quashes GST Registration Cancellation with ₹10K Payment

M/s.AGN Lorry Service vs TheCommercial Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1444

The Madras HighCourt has set aside the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration and held that the petitioner had genuine reasons for failing to file returns due to a slowdown in their business. The Court also imposed ₹10,000 to be paid by the assessee to set aside the impugned order and ordered certain other conditions to be fulfilled.

The Single Bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the petitioner’s explanation for non-compliance was genuine and observed that the delay was due to a business slowdown. The Court ordered that the cancellation be set aside subject to fulfillment of specific conditions.

Jammu & Kashmir HC Allows GST Registration Revival on Condition of Clearing Tax, Penalty, and Interest Dues

Mohammad Shafi Chachoo vs UnionTerritory of J&K CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1445

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the revival of the cancelled GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration, provided he fulfills statutory obligations, including payment of tax, penalty, and interest.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the competent authority for restoration of his GST registration number within seven days, subject to compliance with the necessary formalities and settlement of all dues.

GST Tribunal Yet to Become Functional: Chhattisgarh HC Lets GTL Infrastructure Wait to File Statutory Appeal

GTL Infrastructure Limited vsThe State Of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1446

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed the assessee to await the constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal before pursuing its statutory second appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Court clarified that the statutory stay under Section 112(9) of the CGST Act shall remain in effect during the pendency of the appeal. However, it also clarified that if the assessee fails to file the appeal within the extended timeline once the Tribunal becomes operational, or if the required pre-deposit is not made within 30 days from the date of this order, the protection offered by the Court would lapse, and the State would be at liberty to proceed with recovery.

GST ITC Block Dispute: Orissa HC Says Writ Not Maintainable Amid Pending Departmental Action

M/s. TRANSTECH SOLUTION vs TheCommissioner CT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1447

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the blocking of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) under Rule 86A of the CGST/OGST Rules, 2017, ruling that the petition was premature given the pendency of departmental adjudication. It noted that the SCN adjudication is already pending.

The bench, led by Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, stated that the availability of alternate statutory remedies and ongoing investigation rendered the writ petition non-maintainable.

Interpretation of "going concern sale" under Regulation 32 of Liquidation Process Regulations must align with S.53 of IBC: Madras HC

Winwind Power Energy PrivateLimited rep by its Authorized Signatory vs The Assistant Registrar of Companies CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1448

In a recent case, the Madras High Court ruled that the petitioner company need not undergo the process of giving reply to the impugned show cause notices since, in any case, it is going to result only in launching of a prosecution against the petitioner company and its new management. It was observed that the interpretation of "going concern sale" under Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations must align with section .53 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code(IBC), 2016.

A single bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh viewed that the petitioner company need not undergo the process of giving reply to the impugned show cause notices since, in any case, it is going to result only in launching of a prosecution against the petitioner company and its new management. Just because there is a possibility of compounding the offences under Section 441 of the Act, that does not mean that the petitioner company has to compound the offences when they strongly feel that they have not committed any offence.

Order taking cognizance of offences under PMLA invalid in absence of pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing: Calcutta HC

Tutu Ghosh vs EnforcementDirectorate CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1449

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court has held that order taking cognizance of offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is invalid in the absence of pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing.

A single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya viewed that it is trite law that counse’s concession on law cannot be treated to be binding on the parties and their cannot be admission against the law. The question which has arisen before this Court is one of legal interpretation of a statute. The apparently contradictory stand taken by the ED before different courts is not a germane factor in the present adjudication and, thus, a non-issue. Hence, such divergence of stands taken by the ED before different forums/courts is hereby held to be immaterial.

Grounds for GST Cancellation not shared with Taxpayer or cited in SCN: Bombay HC quashes Order

Manek Steel LLP vs Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1450

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court ruled that a GST cancellation order is invalid if it relies on documents that were not shared with the taxpayer or mentioned in the show cause notice.

The division bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that the show cause notice was vague and failed to explain the basis of the cancellation. The court also observed that referring to a document that was not provided to the taxpayer or cited in the notice was a breach of the principles of natural justice.

Petition filed against GST Scrutiny Notice alleging it Issued beyond S. 61 : Jharkhand HC directs to file Reply

BPL-KPL(JV) vs The State ofJharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1451

The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed challenging a scrutiny notice and consequential show cause notice under the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) Act, by directing the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the GST department.

Acting Chief Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar , considering the parity in facts, noted that the petitioner had not disputed the precedent cited by the State. Following the earlier approach, the Court disposed of the present writ petition by allowing BPL-KPL (JV) to submit its explanation within two weeks from the date of the order.

Income Tax Reassessment without Faceless Procedure Illegal: Telangana HC Quashes Notices u/s 148A and 148

NITIN ENTERPRISES vs. IncometaxOfficer Ward and Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1452

The Telangana High Court recently quashed an income tax reassessment notice, noting that the Department failed to initiate proceedings as per the mandatory faceless procedure, in violation of binding judicial precedents on the issue.

The Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda took note of its own ruling in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (supra) where similar notices had been quashed on identical grounds. It was further noted that several High Courts across the country had ruled against non-faceless reassessment proceedings in line with the statutory framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022.

Assessee Denied Minimum time of 7 Days to Respond to Income Tax SCN: Telangana HC Quashes Assessment for Violating CBDT SOP

M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha SwamyVari Devasthanam vs Assessment Unit CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1453

In a recent ruling, the Telangana High Court quashed an income tax show-cause notice (SCN) and assessment order noting that the Income Tax Department failed to adhere to its own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which mandates that a minimum period of seven days be provided to the assessee to respond to the SCN.

The Division Bench ofJustice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda rejected the Department’s justification, referring to the Department’s SOP dated 03.08.2022 which mandated that the exception for curtailing the minimum seven-day period to issue reply applied only in cases where the limitation deadline for assessment was imminent.

RAU’s IAS fails to Respond to GST SCN Due to CEO's Custody and Tragic Events: Delhi HC grants Time to File Reply

M/S RAU S IAS STUDY CIRCLE vsGOODS AND SERVICE TAX GSTO 41 DELHI DEPARTMENT TRADE TAXES GOVERNMENT OF NCT OFDELHI & ANR.

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1454

The High Court of Madras,grants time to RAU’s IAS Study Circle to file a reply to the Goods and Service Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN), noting that the institute was unable to respond due to tragic events, including the CEO’s custody.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta directed that the matter be adjudicated as per law after considering the reply. It also clarified that the validity of the impugned notifications remained open and would depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court case in SLP No. 4240/2025 and this Court’s decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024.

Cash Loan above ₹20,000 Not Legally Enforceable: Kerala High Court Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case

P.C. HARI vs SHINE VARGHESE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1455

The Kerala High Court has held that any loan amount advanced in cash exceeding ₹20,000 is not a “legally enforceable debt” under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if it violates Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment authored by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, resulted in the acquittal of the accused in a cheque bounce case involving ₹9 lakh.

Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that this ruling will apply prospectively and only where the defence specifically raises the issue of violation of Section 269SS and the complainant fails to provide a lawful explanation.

Delay In Filing of Form 67 Led to FTC Denial: Madras HC Allows Appeal Against Intimation with Delay Condonation

Rajalingam Nagarathinam vs ThePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1456

The High Court of Madras, allowed appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation of Income Tax Act,1961, with delay condonation after noting that the petitioner had delayed in filing Form 67, required to claim Foreign Tax Credit (FTC ), due to an inadvertent error

Justice C.Saravanan held that the petitioner’s writ petition lacked merit, as the revision application under Section 264 was not maintainable against an intimation issued under Section 143(1). It clarified that such intimation could instead be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act.

Madras HC Holds Income Tax Revision u/s 263 Time-Barred as Limitation Must Be Computed from Original Assessment Date

Commissioner of Income Tax vsM/s.Ganga Textiles Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1457

The High Court of Madras, held that the revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961, was time-barred, as the two-year limitation period must be computed from the date of the original assessment order,not the reassessment order.

Chief Justice K.R.Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the original assessment order was passed on 31.08.2006 and had dealt with the issue under Section 43B. The reassessment was done only to compute capital gains from the sale of land and building and did not touch upon the Section 43B deductions. Hence, the original order on that issue remained intact and did not merge with the reassessment order.

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

Karnataka HC Disposes Himalaya Drug Company Appeal as Assessment Held Time-Barred u/s 144C(13) of Income Tax Act

M/S. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY vsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1458

The High Court of Karnataka, disposed of the appeal filed by Himalaya Drug Company after holding that the assessment was time-barred under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice T.M.Nadaf noted that in an earlier judgment dated 04.06.2025 in ITA No. 571/2017, it had already held the assessment order to be time-barred under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Since the order on merits was passed later, the Court held that examining it was not necessary.

1-Day Delay to file GST Assessment Appeal Due to Jaundice: Madras HC Condones Delay Due to Genuine Reason

M/s.Nandhi Fabrics vs vs TheDeputy Commissioner (CT) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1459

The Madras High Court has ordered to condone a 1-day delay in filing a GST assessment appeal after noticing that the delay was caused as the petitioner was hospitalised due to jaundice. The Court set aside the rejection order issued by the DeputyCommissioner (CT) and directed the authority to hear the appeal on merits.

The Single Bench comprising Justice Krishnan Ramasamy noted that the petitioner’s contention is genuine and that the delay was not deliberate.

Any money/property recovered constitutes 'proceeds of crime’: Orissa HC upholds proceedings under PMLA for offence of Money Laundering

Md. Intekhab Alam and Another vsAssistant Director CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1460

The High Court of Orissa observed that any money/property recovered constitutes 'proceeds of crime’ unless same is disproved at trial and upheld the proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) for offrncr of money laundering relying on the evidence.

A single bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that quashing of PMLA proceedings at this stage would create an anomalous situation because, in the event, it is proved in the course of trial that the proceeds of crime has been generated through the schedule offence for which the trial is pending qua other co-accused person, for the reasons that illegal mining activities have been conducted in the name of the Petitioner No.2, which is the precise reasons for quashing of the proceedings against the Petitioner No.1 by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2022 passed in CRLMC No.2272 of 2021.

Fresh Notice to Legal Heirs of Borrower Not required to take Possession u/s 14 SARFAESI Act: J&K HC

Mst. Sundri vs The Jammu &Kashmir Bank Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1461

Mst. Sundri vs The Jammu & Kashmir Bank LtdThe Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that a secured creditor may use Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, without first notifying the surviving borrower's legal heirs.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar disagreed with the contention that before invoking Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the secured creditor should have issued fresh notice to the legal heirs of the borrower so as to provide them an opportunity to pay the dues in full. Otherwise also, such an argument cannot be accepted for the reason that despite lapse of about two years, the Petitioners have not discharged in full the liability towards the Respondent Bank.

Certain Aspect of GST Beyond Understanding of Common Man: Uttarakhand HC Allows Revocation of Cancelled Registration Despite Limitation Issues

Sai Construction & Buildersvs Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1462

In an important ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration and allowed the revocation of the order under Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite the lapse of the statutory limitation period.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr. G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra passed the judgment, observing that the complexities of the GST law often remain beyond the grasp of the common man whose priority remains the sustenance of his day-to-day business.

Reason Is the Heartbeat of Every Conclusion: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Suo Motu GST Revision u/s 108 for Lack of Reasoning

M/s Agrawal Agro Centre vs StateOf Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1463

The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed a suo motu revision order issued under Section 108 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act ( GST ), 2017, stating the absence of reasons and lack of proper authorization at the time of issuance.

The Court held that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion,” and an order passed without assigning reasons is lifeless and unsustainable in law.

“Flagrant Breach of Principles of Natural Justice”: Gujarat HC quashes GST e-Invoice SCN and Penalty issued on Same Day

TRACTORS AND FARM EQUIPMENT LTD.& ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1464

In a sharp rebuke to hasty tax enforcement, the Gujarat High Court has quashed a GST penalty order and corresponding show-cause notice issued on the same day as the interception of goods, declaring the action a "flagrant breach of principles of natural justice."

The division bench comprising Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, however, was unconvinced by the department’s rigid interpretation. It noted that the law allows seven days for a reply to the show-cause notice, but authorities acted with undue haste.

"Total Failure of Duty”: Bombay HC Fines UIDAI, GST, Bank ₹10,000 Each in Aadhaar-PAN Identity Fraud Case

Vilas Prabhakar Lad vs UniqueIdentification Authority of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1465

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court criticised and imposed penalty on multiple government bodies, including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the GST department, and Union Bank of India, for their prolonged inaction in an identity theft case involving the misuse of a Mumbai resident’s Aadhaar and PAN details.

A division bench of Justices M. S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain found that the bank had failed to authenticate the Aadhaar details as required under the RBI's Master Directions and Aadhaar regulations. The court also observed that none of the authorities had filed a First Information Report (FIR) despite having sufficient grounds to do so.

GST dept can Issue Two Separate Notices u/s 73 and 74 for Selfsame Period when Basis are Different: Calcutta HC

Sayan Biswas vs DeputyCommissioner of Revenue CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1466

In an important ruling, the Calcutta High Court has held that the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities are permitted to issue separate notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/WBGST Act for the same tax period, provided the basis of each notice is distinct, however, it quashed the notice which raised the issued which already dealt in S. 74.

JusticeRaja Basu Chowdhury, after noting Section 73 and 74, stated that “I am of the view that the respondents cannot be faulted for having issued two separate notices in respect of the selfsame period, since, the basis for issuance of notices are different.”

Writ petition against MP's illegal Income Tax Evasion by Hiding Huge Property not Amounts to PIL: Jharkhand HC dismisses Petition

Somnath Chatterjee vs State ofJharkhand CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1467

In a recent case, the Jharkhand High Court was hearing a writ petition against Member of Parliament for illegal income tax evasion by hiding huge property. The court held that this writ petition is not amounts to Public Interest Litigation(PIL).

A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar viewed that once the Court has expressed its view holding the nature of allegation as has been made against Shri Dhullu Mahto as not the Public Interest Litigation, hence, if that order has been referred to raise the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition, then such issue cannot be said to be baseless.

PMLA Arrest for Wrongful loss of Rs. 951.88 cr by fraud: Delhi HC Grants Bail u/s 45 citing prolonged Custody

AJAY YADAV vs DIRECTORATE OFENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1468

The Delhi bench of the High Court granted bail under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA, 2002] against arrest for wrongful loss of Rs 951.88 Cr by fraud citing the prolonged custody. The Court viewed that the continued detention of the applicant cannot be justified on the sole of ground of statutory bar under Section 45.

A single bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant coupled with the absence of any real likelihood of the trial concluding in near future, the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA must yield to the constitutional safeguard under Article 21.

Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Against GST Demand Citing Fraudulent ITC Allegations, Grants One Month to File Appeal

UTKARSH ARORA PROP OF M/S AURAINTERIOR HARDWARE vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1469

The HIgh Court of Delhi, dismissed a writ petition against a Goods and Service Tax (GST) demand citing allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) but granted the petitioner one month to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit.

Justice Prathiba M.Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the supplier firms were fake and created only to issue invoices, and referred to its earlier ruling in Mukesh Kumar Garg vs. Union of India & Ors., where it held that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be used in cases of fraudulent ITC because of the burden on the exchequer and the impact on the GST system.

Violation of GST S. 75(4), Reply Filed not Considered: Calcutta HC sets aside Order

Prosanta Kumar Saha vs Union ofIndia & Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1470

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a GST order passed by the proper officer under Section 73 of the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Act 2017 for the tax period covering 1st July 2017 to 31st March 2018.

The Court directed the officer to grant the petitioner or his representative an effective opportunity of personal hearing and to consider the reply already filed before deciding the matter afresh.

Raising New Issues in GST Final Order Without Opportunity to Clear Violation of Natural Justice Principles: Madras HC sets aside order

Tvl Jai Nidhi Automation vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1471

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order passed on the ground that the final order included five additional issues that were not part of the original show cause notice and without providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that such procedural irregularity required judicial interference, particularly when the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to defend itself. The Court, therefore, quashed the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for fresh consideration.

Gauhati HC Condones 265-Day Delay in GST Appeal: Cites Procedural Delay by Govt Justified

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFCENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIBRUGARH vs M/S NUMAL SAIKIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1472

The Gauhati High Court has condoned a 265-day delay in filing an appeal by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Dibrugarh, against a CESTAT ruling in favour of a service provider.

The Division Bench comprising Chief JusticeMr. Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, while acknowledging the prolonged lag in filing the appeal, held that the reasons stated by the department were sufficient to justify condonation in this case. It was further observed that for the reasons stated in the application, the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed.

Reply Must Be Considered Before Passing GST Order: Madras HC grants Relief Despite Reply filed beyond Time Limit Granted by Dept

Tvl.Saraswathi Traders vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1473

The Madras High Court sets aside a GST ( goods and services tax ) order passed without consideration of the reply submitted by the assessee, which was filed beyond the time limit granted by the GST department.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, acknowledged the slight delay in submission of the reply but stated that the principle of fairness required the authority to consider any reply that existed on record before passing an adverse order, even if submitted late.

Relief to Aircel Ltd: Madras HC quashes Income tax Penalty Proceedings as No hearing Granted, Hardly 24 Hrs Granted to Furnish Reply

M/s.Aircel Limited vs DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1474

While granting the relief to Aircel Limited, the Madras High Court has quashed the income tax penalty proceedings initiated against the company under Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court, comprised of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, observed that the show-cause notice dated 27th March 2024 was uploaded on the income tax portal (in the order it is mentioned as GST portal, might be a clerical error) at 8:29 PM, granting the petitioner less than 24 hours to respond, with a reply deadline set for 6:09 PM on the very next day.

Only Marginal Delay in GST Appeal Filing: Madras HC Allows to file Appeal with 25% Pre-Deposit in Cash or ECL

M/s.Shami Industries vs TheDeputy State Tax Officer-II CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1475

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has permitted the assessee to file a delayed appeal against a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order, subject to a 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount in cash or electronic cash ledger.

Justice C. Saravanan, acknowledging that the delay in filing the appeal was only marginal, invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend an opportunity to the petitioner.

ITC Cannot Be Denied to Bona Fide Purchaser Solely Because Seller Fails to Remit Tax: Kerala HC

S.P.FAIZAL vs STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1476

In a recent ruling, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that input tax credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer solely because the selling dealer failed to remit the tax to the government.

The Full bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran, Gopinath P., and Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that the purchasing dealer had fulfilled all legal requirements. The court found no provision in the KVAT Act that imposes a duty on the purchaser to verify the seller’s tax payment.

AA Can Allow Additional Evidence for Fair Disposal of GST Appeal Even If Rule 112(1) Conditions Are Not Met: Calcutta HC

Suchismita Maji vs AssistantCommissioner of CGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1477

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that the appellate authority under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law can allow additional documents to be submitted during appeal proceedings if it helps ensure fair disposal of the case, even if the strict conditions under GST Rule 112(1) are not met.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that while the appellate authority had referred to Rule 112(1), it had not considered the wider powers available under Rule 112(4), which permits the production of additional evidence to decide the appeal fairly. The judge held that the rejection of the certificate was mechanical and not based on a full reading of the applicable rules.

Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in ₹48.79 Crore GST Fraud Case as Accused Spent Over 6 Months in Custody

Manoj Gupta vs Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1478

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a man accused in a Rs. 48.79 crore GST fraud case, stating that he had already spent over six months in custody and further detention was not justified.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Manisha Batra observed that the allegations were serious, the offence was punishable with a maximum of five years, the evidence was mostly documentary in nature, and the prosecution had not sought custodial interrogation. The court also observed that the risk of tampering with evidence was minimal as the documents were official and the witnesses were mostly government employees.

Madras HC Quashes Consolidated GST Order for Multiple Years, Says Each Year Requires Separate Notice and Assessment

Ms R A And Co vs The AdditionalCommissioner Of Central Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1479

The High Court of Madras,quashed a consolidated Good and Service Tax (GST) assessment order covering six financial years, holding that separate show cause notices and assessment orders are required for each year under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act,2017.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy considered arguments from both sides and examined Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The main issue was whether a single assessment order could be passed for multiple financial years.

GST Appeal Filed After 6 Months of Cancellation Order: Patna HC Refuses to Condone Delay as No Procedural Error Found

M/s Lord’s Bhaskar Ventures vsThe Union of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1480

In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal against a GST registration cancellation order that was challenged more than six months after it was passed, holding that no procedural error was committed by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal.

The division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that the Appellate Authority had acted within its jurisdiction and committed no procedural error in rejecting the appeal as time-barred. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, which held that statutory authorities cannot extend limitation periods beyond what is expressly allowed.

Customs Denies Self-Sealing Licence Citing Settled Past Violations: Madras HC Orders Reconsideration

M/s.Pennar Industries Limited vsThe Commissioner of Customs (Export) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1481

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that the customs department must reconsider an exporter’s application for renewal of a self-sealing licence when earlier violations have been settled and the exporter has not been given a chance to explain their case.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Abdul Quddhose observed that the customs authorities had not taken into account important facts, such as the dropping of one case and the payment of dues in the other.

₹1.5 Cr Property Funded by Immoral Trafficking of Women & Crime: Delhi HC Upholds ED’s PMLA Attachment due to No Proof of Legit Income Source

SHIV MURAT DWIVEDI vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1482

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the attachment of properties valued at approximately ₹1.5 crore by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that were in the ownership and possession of a person accused of accruing the assets through proceeds of immoral trafficking of women and other criminal activities.

The Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the nature and extent of the materials on record, including personal diaries, receipts, and testimonies, pointed to a pattern of systematic criminal behaviour.

NFRA Retrospective Jurisdiction: Telangana HC Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Show Cause Notices for Pre-2018 Professional Misconduct

Mr. Ayyagari Krishna Rao VSNational Financial Reporting Authority CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1483

The Telangana High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to issue show cause notices for alleged professional misconduct by auditors for financial years prior to its constitution on October 1, 2018.

The Bench comprising Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, in a common order, observed that the core issue was whether NFRA could investigate misconduct for financial years prior to 2018.

GST Appeal Restored With Direction to File Certified Copy within 15 Days: Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Appellate Authority Upon Filing to Decide On Merits

M/S YAKULT DANONE INDIA PVTLIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1484

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside an order dismissing a GST ( Goods and Services Tax) appeal on the grounds of non-submission of a self-certified copy of the order appealed against and allowed the petitioner to file the required document within 15 days and directed the Appellate Authority to restore the appeal and adjudicate it on merits.

A division bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sudeepeti Sharma observed that the facts aligned with the previous rulings. The court also observed that the respondent was unable to deny or raise any distinction in the present case.

GST Payer Not a Defaulter If Appeal Filed with Pre-Deposit: Delhi HC Directs to Process Fresh Registration and NOC Issuance

SHRI SARABJEET SINGH vs THECOMMISSIONER OF SGST CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1485

The Delhi High Court has directed to process a taxpayer's application for fresh GST registration and issue a No ObjectionCertificate (NOC) and held that the taxpayer cannot be deemed a defaulter while an appeal against the demand order is pending with pre-deposit paid.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the order in original dated 28th December 2023 was under challenge in appeal with pre-deposit paid, invoking an automatic stay on recovery under Section 107(7) of the CGST Act.

Delhi HC upholds Bail of ₹61 Crore GST ITC Fraud Accused, Notes Fulfilment of Triple Test Conditions of Bail

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GSTINTELLIGENCE vs RAKESH KUMAR GOYAL CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1486

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a petition filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) challenging the grant of bail to an accused who was deemed to have orchestrated a scheme to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹61.02 crore under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The respondent, represented by Shadman Ahmed Sidiiqui asserted that the grant of bail was justified as it followed the filing of the complaint, thus constituting a substantial change in circumstances from earlier bail rejections.

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

Warehoused Goods Dispute: Madras HC Directs Customs to Consider Representation u/s 68 for Clearance of Imported Dry Cashew Nuts

M/s. Sai Srinivasa Industries vsThe Commissioner of Customs CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1487

The Madras High Court has directed to consider the representation dated 23.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, for clearance of warehoused dry cashew nuts.

A single bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan observed that prima facie, the petitioner has a case for recovering the advanced amount through legal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and there are no clear indications of remedy under Section 68 of the Customs Act.

Relief for Hyundai Motors: Madras HC Rules Reopening Income Tax Assessment on Same Issue After Prior Query and Reply Invalid

The Commissioner of Income Taxvs Hyundai Motor India Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1489

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that reopening an income tax assessment on an issue that was already raised and answered during the original assessment amounts to a change of opinion, which is not permitted under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that once a query is raised and answered during assessment, reopening the same issue later is a change of opinion.

“Massive Fraudulent Availment of the ITC”: Delhi HC upholds Penalty against GST Consultant in Rs. 285 Cr Fake ITC Scam

BHUPENDER KUMAR vs ADDITIONALCOMMISSIONER ADJUDICATION CGST DELHI NORTH & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1490

In a surprising move, the Delhi High Court has upheld a Penalty against a GST Consultant for alleged fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit through 54 fake firms.

The Bench of Justices Prathiba MSingh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that, “A perusal of the SCN reveals the malaise of availment of fraudulent ITC from and passing on of the same to non-existent firms and entities. A perusal of the SCN clearly contains all the allegations against the four individuals, including the Petitioner. The statement of the Petitioner was also recorded and the gist of the said statement is also set out in the said SCN.”

AA Can Allow Additional Evidence for Fair Disposal of GST Appeal Even If Rule 112(1) Conditions Are Not Met: Calcutta HC

Suchismita Maji vs AssistantCommissioner of CGST & CX, Bankura Division, Bolpur Commissionerate &Ors. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1491

In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held that the appellate authority under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law can allow additional documents to be submitted during appeal proceedings if it helps ensure fair disposal of the case, even if the strict conditions under GST Rule 112(1) are not met.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that while the appellate authority had referred to Rule 112(1), it had not considered the wider powers available under Rule 112(4), which permits the production of additional evidence to decide the appeal fairly. The judge held that the rejection of the certificate was mechanical and not based on a full reading of the applicable rules.

Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in ₹48.79 Crore GST Fraud Case as Accused Spent Over 6 Months in Custody

Manoj Gupta vs Union of Indiaand others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1493

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to a man accused in a Rs. 48.79 crore GST fraud case, stating that he had already spent over six months in custody and further detention was not justified.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Manisha Batra observed that the allegations were serious, the offence was punishable with a maximum of five years, the evidence was mostly documentary in nature, and the prosecution had not sought custodial interrogation. The court also observed that the risk of tampering with evidence was minimal as the documents were official and the witnesses were mostly government employees.

GST Fraud via Fake Firms and Ineligible ITC u/s 132(1) of CGST Act: Jharkhand HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused

Raaj Jaiswal vs DirectorateGeneral of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1494

The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail in a case alleging GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) fraud through the creation of fake firms and availing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC), stating that the investigation was complete and no tampering of evidence was likely.

A single bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen observed that custodial investigation was no longer necessary, and there was no scope for evidence tampering. The court further observed that rejecting the anticipatory bail would serve no useful purpose.

Cash Transactions above ₹20,000 in Violation of Income Tax S. 269SS Not Legally Enforceable Debt Under NI Act: Kerala HC

P.C. HARI vs SHINE VARGHESE CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1495

In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court held that any debt arising out of a cash transaction exceeding ₹20,000, in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be treated as a "legally enforceable debt" for the purpose of prosecuting under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, referring to the government’s vision of promoting a digital economy and curbing cash transactions, stated that legitimizing such large cash dealings through judicial pronouncements would defeat the legislative intent behind the Income Tax provisions.

Professional Misconduct during Statutory Audit of Religare Finvest: Delhi HC Directs Petitioner to File Objections towards NFRA SCN

SUNIL WAHAL vs NATIONALFINANCIAL REPORTING AUTHORITY NFRA & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1496

The Delhi High Court recently directed a petitioner who challenged a Show Cause Notice issued by the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) in relation to alleged professional misconduct during the statutory audit of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., to file their objections towards the same.

The Delhi High Court Bench presided by Justice Sachin Datta allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the NFRA and directed that the petitioner be entitled to file objections to the NFRA Show Cause Notice within the stipulated period, which shall be duly considered by the authority in accordance with law

41 km Route Deviation Not Justified: Madras HC says rerouting ‘Malafide Intention’ to Deliver goods Illegally, Upholds GST Detention Order

J R Metal Chennai Limited vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1497

The Madras High Court has upheld a detention order issued by the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) authorities and dismissed the company’s plea challenging the proceedings.

The Court noted that the vehicle transporting TMT bars had deviated from the standard delivery route by over 41 kilometers, and this deviation could not be justified on technical or logistical grounds.

GST SCN issued in Name of Deceased Despite intimating Death : Madras HC sets aside order and Remands matter

Nisha Nandakumar vs TheAssistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1498

The Madras High Court has set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order passed in the name of a deceased assessee, despite the department being informed of his demise.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, hearing the case, stated that any legal order passed against a dead person is “non-est in law” and unenforceable. He noted that once the death was brought to the notice of the department, the officials ought to have issued the show cause notice to the legal heirs, rather than proceeding mechanically against the deceased.

“Your Reply Not Accepted" Is Not Enough: Madras HC sets aside GST Order for Mindless Dismissal of Taxpayer’s Submission

M/s.Lakshmi Road and Infra vsThe Deputy State Tax Officer-2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1499

The Madras High Court has quashed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order passed stating a complete lack of application of mind and failure to consider the taxpayer’s detailed submissions.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that a cryptic remark such as “Verified the reply details to Your reply not accepted” cannot be a valid substitute for a reasoned order, particularly when replies and documents have been furnished by the taxpayer.

200% Penalty on Expired E-Way Bill for Zero-Rated Export to UAE: Gujarat HC reduces Penalty to Rs. 25k

MARCOWAGON RETAIL PVT. LTD vsUNION OF INDIA CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1500

In the matter of 200% penalty on the expired e-way bill under Goods and Services Tax (GST) for the zero rated exports to UAE, the Gujarat High Court reduced the penalty amount from 200% to Rs. 25,000.

Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice D.N. Ray observed that “Considering the scheme and the scope of the GST Act and the Rules when there is a contravention of Rule 138 which is procedural in nature, without intention to evade tax, Section 129 provides for levy of penalty whereas in the facts of the case though there is a contravention computation of penalty would fail in absence of any tax payable by the assessee - the petitioner.”

 Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand - Click here 

Taxation of Category III Alternative Investment Funds: Delhi HC reads down CBDT Circular 13/2014

EQUITY INTELLIGENCE AIF TRUST vsTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ANR CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1501

The Delhi HighCourt delivered a major decision holding that CBDT Circular 13/2014 must be read down under Section 164 of the Income Tax Act. The Court clarified that Explanation 1’s requirement for beneficiaries to be expressly stated and identifiable must be read in light of SEBI regulations and the principle of determinability of investor shares.

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 of the respondent no.2/Board for Advance Rulings was quashed and set aside and simultaneously, the clarification contained in CBDT Circular No.13/2014 dated 28.07.2014 was directed to be read down to conform to the above analysis and conclusion.

GST SCN Reply filed beyond Time Limit but Before Disposal of Proceedings: Calcutta HC quashes S. 73 Order

Nanda Kishor Saha vs The Unionof India & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1502

The Calcutta High Court has quashed an order passed under Section 73(9) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, holding that a Goods and Services Tax (GST) show cause notice (SCN) reply even if submitted after the prescribed time limit must be considered if filed before final disposal of the proceedings.

Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury disposed of the writ petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order covering the period July 2017 to March 2018, and the subsequent rejection of his appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act on limitation grounds.

Calcutta HC Sets Aside Arbitration Order Due to Lack of Jurisdiction: Stresses Adherence to Commercial Court Roster

Garden Reach Shipbuilders &Engineers Limited vs Marine Craft Engineers Private Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1503

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a 2023 order that had earlier annulled an arbitral award. The case arose with a contractual dispute between Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Limited (GRSE) and Marine Craft Engineers Pvt. Ltd., which had undertaken repair work at GRSE's shipyard. Although the respondent completed the job, payments were allegedly not made by GRSE. Marine Craft filed a writ petition and later approached the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council, seeking redress under the MSME Development Act, 2006.

The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated April 5, 2023. It directed that the case be freshly placed before the Commercial Division Bench of the High Court having jurisdiction over arbitration petitions. Noting that the matter dates back to 2018, the Court also permitted the parties to seek expeditious disposal.

GST order Passed Just One Day Before Personal Hearing Date: Madras calls out Clear Violation of Natural Justice

Tvl.Shri Bharathi Weaves vsCommercial Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1504

The Madras High Court set aside a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order that was passed a day before the scheduled personal hearing.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, presiding over the matter on July 21, 2025, ruled that the premature issuance of the assessment order amounted to a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting a complete remand of the matter for reconsideration.

Auditor Mistakenly Mentioned Wrong AY while Withdrawing GST Appeal to opt Amnesty Scheme: Madras HC restores Appeal

M/s.The EIMCO KCP Ltd vs TheState Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1505

The Madras High Court restored the GST ( Goods and Services Tax) appeal which was wrongly withdrawn due to an inadvertent mistake by the petitioner’s auditor.

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy held that the error was bona fide and warranted judicial intervention in the interest of justice.

ECRL of ITC Blocked without Hearing: Rajasthan HC refuses to Intervene

M/s Jai Bajrang Steel vs Stateof Rajasthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1506

The Rajasthan High Court has refused to intervene directly against the blocking of the electronic credit ledger ( ECRL ) of input tax credit ( ITC ) without prior hearing, but has directed the taxpayer to approach the statutory appellate authority under GST ( Goods and Services Tax ).

The Division Bench led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Anand Sharma noted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal under the statutory scheme.

AAAR Cannot Exceed Appeal Limits: Rajasthan HC Expunges ITC Views on Valuation of Refurbished Used Cars under GST Notification

Mr. Tej Jain vs ChiefCommissioner Of Cgst (Jaipur Zone) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1507

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling ( AAAR ) cannot go beyond the specific grounds raised in an appeal, and accordingly expunged remarks made by the authority on Input Tax Credit ( ITC ).

The Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Anand Sharma agreed with the petitioner’s contention, observing that an appellate authority cannot expand the scope of an appeal or decide questions not raised before it.

Double Taxation of Income Already Offered to Tax in Subsequent Assessment Year: Orissa HC Overrides Appellate Remedy and Remits Order

Antarjyami Mohapatra vs CentralBoard of Direct Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1508

The Orissa High Court recently set aside an assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing plausibility of double taxation of the same income upon finding that the petitioner had already disclosed the concerned income in a subsequent assessment year.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman found merit in the petitioner’s plea of procedural unfairness and observed that the assessment had been completed without giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to substantiate that the transaction had already been taxed in the subsequent year.

Chhattisgarh HC Restores Dismissed Tax Case Against SECL, Grants 7 Days to Cure Procedural Defaults

The Deputy Commissioner OfIncome Tax vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1509

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously dismissed tax case against South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL). The case, Tax Case No. 216 of 2024, was dismissed due to procedural defaults under a peremptory order dated 2-4-2025, and the bench granted a period of 7 days to cure the procedural defaults.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCC) seeking the restoration of a previously dismissed tax case against South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL). The case, Tax Case No. 216 of 2024, was dismissed due to procedural defaults under a peremptory order dated 2-4-2025, and the bench granted a period of 7 days to cure the procedural defaults.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict in Technical Textiles Case

Prakash Chand Jadaik vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1510

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against Prakash Chand Jadaik under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related matter.

Following judicial discipline, the bench refrained from expressing its own opinion on the matter. The HC stated that continuing the reassessment proceedings during the pendency of the Supreme Court case could lead to unnecessary litigation and complications. Consequently, the court stayed all further proceedings before the competent authority until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict.

GST Portal works Differently for Dept. & Taxpayer: Delhi HC sets aside “Invisible” SCN under Additional Notices Tab

"NEELGIRI MACHINERY THROUGHITS PROPRIETOR MR. ANIL KUMAR vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ANDOTHERS"

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1511

The Delhi High Court set aside two demand orders holding that the Show Cause Notices (SCN) were not directly visible to the appellant on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) portal, and there was lack of clarity on part of the Department in ensuring due service of notices.

The bench further observed that the GST portal functions differently for the department and for taxpayers. Consequently, the petitioner was given an opportunity to file its reply and be heard on merits while the demand orders were liable to be set aside.

Customs Seizure Memo on Detention of Goods Issued Post-Writ Filing: Delhi HC Rejects Delayed Petition, directs Provisional Release of Goods

Mr.ChinmayaSeth vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1512

The Delhi High Court in its recent ruling, directed the Customs Department to provisionally release export goods that had been detained since 13 January 2025, noting that the delay in issuing the seizure memo and holding the goods without proper procedure as “completely unacceptable”.

The bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted the concern of the Department but stated that if such apprehension existed then suitable steps should have been taken by the Department but cannot hold up export goods in this manner.

Delhi HC Clarifies Limitation Period for Reassessment Notices Issued under Amended Section 149 after TOLA Extensions

KANWALJEET KAUR vs ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (34) 1 DELHI & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1513

The Delhi High Court in its recent ruling clarified the limitation period for issuing reassessment notices under the amended Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, following relaxations under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA).

The Bench comprising Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar rejected the Revenue’s contentions and clarified that the effect of the TOLA was merely to extend the life of proceedings which were alive and subsisting on 20 March 2020. It cannot be construed as reviving the right to initiate proceedings which stood barred by limitation on that date.

Delhi HC Interprets GST Rule 101(4): Audit Cannot Be Finalised Without Reply from Taxpayer Being Duly Considered

DHRUV MEDICOS PVT LTD vs DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST CIRCLE 5, AUDIT-I, DELHI & ORS. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1514

The Delhi High Court has ruled that finalising an audit report without duly considering the taxpayer's reply violates the mandate of Rule 101(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The court provided clarity on the rule.

The Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, took cognizance of this procedural lapse. The bench noted that “A perusal of the said provision would show that the same uses the language ‘may inform the registered person’ and ‘the said person may file his reply’. The question would be whether the information and the furnishing of the reply is mandatory or not.

885 gm Gold Held Despite Redemption Relief due to Pending Appeal of Customs Dept: Delhi HC Directs Commissioner (Appeals) to Expedite Hearing

VIJAY KUMAR SAND vs THECOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1515

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) of the Customs Department to expedite the adjudication of an appeal filed against an Order-in-Original that had allowed redemption and re-export of confiscated gold.

The Court instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to conclude the appeal proceedings within three months, following a personal hearing for the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Customs Cannot Detain Gold Without Issuing SCN: Delhi HC Orders Release of 3 Gold Bars Detained from Saudi Resident in 2021 Subject to Duty Payment

KURBAN vsTHECOMMISSIONEROFCUSTOMS&ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1516

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that Customs Authorities cannot detain goods without issuing a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ), and ordered the release of three gold bars seized from a passenger subject to duty payment, avoiding penalty and redemption fine. The court limited the warehouse charges to 50%.

The Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, relying on its previous decisions in Amit Kumar v. Commissioner of Customs and Makhinder Chopra v. Commissioner of Customs, reiterated that detention of gold without issuing an SCN is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.

GST Authorities empowered to Drop Cancellation Proceedings on Intimation of Compliance of Payment Dues: Gauhati HC

SMTI JINNY DAIMARY vs THE STATEOF ASSAM CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1517

While granting relief to taxpayer facing cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns, the Gauhati High Court has clarified that GST authorities are well within their powers to drop such proceedings if the taxpayer furnishes pending returns and clears all dues, including applicable interest and late fees.

Justice N. Unnikrishnan Nair said that “this Court is of the considered view that in the event, the petitioner approaches the Officer, duly empowered, by furnishing all the pending returns and make full payment of the tax dues, along with applicable interest and late fee, the Officer so empowered, has the authority and jurisdiction to drop the proceedings and pass an appropriate order in the prescribed Form.”

GST Appellate Authority Ignored ITC Claim Based on Bank Misclassification: Calcutta HC orders Authority to Reconsider Appeal

Eastern Metec Pvt. Ltd vs Stateof West Bengal & Ors CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1518

In an important ruling, the Calcutta High Court has set aside an order passed by the GST Appellate Authority after it failed to consider a taxpayer’s input tax credit (ITC) claim arising from a bank’s misclassification.

The court after noting the nature of the disclosure and its potential impact on the merits of the ITC claim, held that the matter warranted fresh adjudication.

Anticipatory Bail Sought for GST Appearance Notice: Gauhati HC says No Apprehension of Arrest, Directs to Appear

KAMAL KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS vsTHE STATE OF ASSAM CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1519

In a recent order, the Gauhati High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail plea filed by three individuals who had sought protection from arrest after receiving a notice to appear following a search and seizure operation GST Act directing them to appear on a new date.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, while disposing of the anticipatory bail application, held that the nature of the notice did not indicate any immediate threat of arrest. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' apprehension and stated that the statutory process should be followed without assuming coercive consequences where none are indicated.

GST Act Does Not Permit Duplicate Proceedings: Madras HC Permits to Include Differential Amount in Original Proceedings if Provision Allows

Tvl Sri Ramakrishna Agencies vsThe Commissioner of Commercial Taxes CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1520

The Court quashed the second assessment order issued under Section 73 of the GST Act, observing that an earlier order had already been passed under Section 74 for the same period, and directed that any differential tax liability must be addressed through the original proceedings, subject to statutory permissibility.

The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Ramakrishna Agencies, challenged the impugned assessment order dated 20.08.2024, issued under Section 73 for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The grievance stemmed from the fact that the petitioner had already been subjected to an assessment order under Section 74 of the Act for the same period on 16.12.2023.

Retired Partner Liable for Firm's GST Dues if No Timely Intimation about Date of Retirement to Commissioner: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Writ

Harvinder Singh vs State ofPunjab and others CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1523

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition and upheld the liability of a retired partner for GST dues of the firm M/s Foreigners Auto Zone due to failure in providing timely intimation of retirement to the Commissioner.

A division bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sudeepeti Sharma observed that the petitioner admitted no intimation was given upon retirement in 2021. The court rejected the argument that intimation was solely the firm's duty, emphasizing Section 90's clear provision for joint and several liability.

Calcutta HC Upholds DRAT Order dismissing Appeal of MSME against action of Bank under SARFAESI Act

M/s. Untag Fashions PrivateLimited vs UCO Bank CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1524

In a recent case, the Calcutta High Court upheld the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) order dismissing the appeal of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) against the action of the bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. It was viewed that MSMEs could not be permitted to misuse the process of law for thwarting the actions taken under the SARFAESI Act by raising the plea at a belated stage.

A division bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the appellants chose not to avail of the Circulars governing the field in relation to restructuring of credit facilities of MSME. They allowed the securitization proceeding to run its full course upto the DRAT stage. DRAT passed the order of dismissal of the appeal on November 15, 2022.

PMLA proceedings against Director of Newsclick studio: Delhi HC Grants Anticipatory bail considering prolonged investigation

PRABIR PURKAYASTHA vsDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1525

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court granted bail, considering prolonged investigation of offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) against director of Newsclick studio.

A single bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna viewed that even though, the investigations are pending since 02.09.2020, no prosecution Complaint has been filed by the ED in the Court. Considering the prolonged investigations, and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the Applicant/Accused shall be admitted to Anticipatory Bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer.

Failure to provide Personal Hearing even after 6 Months u/s 110(2) of Customs Act: Delhi HC directs to file statutory appeal

MOHAMMAD ANAS THROUGH SPAMOHAMMAD SARFARAZ vs THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1526

In a recent case, the Delhi High Court directed the filing of a statutory appeal on finding a failure to provide a personal hearing even after 6 months under section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta considering the fact that in this case the items are not jewellery of personal use or a personal effect, but is instead, a gold bar, which may be used for commercial purposes, the Court is not inclined to release the same to the Petitioner.

Challenge on notice issued u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act: Punjab & Haryana HC Directs to approach DRAT

Paramhans vs Religare HousingDevelopment Finance Corporation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1527

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana relegates the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal for a challenge on the notice issued under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(SARFAESI).

A bench of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice and Justice Sanjiv Berry declines interference on merits in view of the decision of the Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, 2010; Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, (2022) and PHR Invent Educational Society vs. UCO Bank and others, (2024).

Challenge against invoke and encashing Bank Guarantee during Period of moratorium u/s 14 of IBC: Chhattisgarh HC dismisses petition citing pending Arbitration Proceedings

M/s Educomp Solutions Limited vsState of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 1528

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the petition that challenged the invocation of encashing a Bank guarantee during the period of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The dismissal was on finding pending active arbitration proceedings before the competent forum.

A division bench of Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru observed that taking into consideration the fact that fresh arbitration proceedings have already been initiated in pursuance to the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in ARBA No.67/2021 and the said arbitration proceedings are currently pending and are under active consideration before the competent Arbitral forum, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the present petition. The court dismissed the petition.

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