Tax Monthly Digest: June 2025
Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court Rejects Patanjali’s Plea Against ₹273.5 Crore GST Penalty
Case Title: M/s Patanjali Ayurved restricted v. Union of India and Others
Case no.: WRIT-TAX NO. 1603 OF 2024
The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom has directed continuation of proceedings underneath Part 122 of the Central Items and Providers Tax Act, 2017 in opposition to M/s Patanjali Ayurved restricted’s 3 crops though proceedings underneath Part 74 of the Act have been dropped in opposition to them.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held, “Below the current GST regime, individuals who usually are not liable to pay tax underneath Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act could very nicely be responsible for penalties as described within the twenty-one sub-sections of Part 122(1) and underneath sub-sections 122(2) and 122(3).”
Bombay HC
Case Title: Financial institution of India v. Deputy Commissioner of Earnings Tax, Particular Vary-15, Mumbai
Case Quantity: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.425 OF 2003
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom held that the quantity of subsidy acquired by the Assessee from RBI can’t be handled as ‘curiosity’ chargeable underneath Part 4 of Earnings Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne said that “the quantity of subsidy acquired by the Assessee just isn’t relatable in mortgage or advance given by the assessee to the RBI and subsequently, the quantity of subsidy can neither be handled as dedication fees nor low cost on promissory notes on invoice of change drawn or made in India.”
Case Title: Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal 1 Raigad Division
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2025
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said that money credit score account can’t be handled as property of account holder which might be contemplate underneath Part 83 of GST Act.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain noticed that the phrase ‘together with checking account’ following the phrase, “any property” would imply a non-cash-credit checking account. Due to this fact, a “money credit score account” wouldn’t be ruled by Part 83 of the MGST Act.
Case Title: Purple Merchandise Personal Restricted v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO. 2831 OF 2018
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said that treaty provisions do not override customs legislation and upheld the present trigger notices issued for alleged misuse of import exemptions.
The Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain noticed that primarily based on a treaty provision that’s not remodeled or integrated into the nationwide legislation or statute, the provisions of the present Customs Act can’t be undermined, or the powers and jurisdiction of the customs authorities questioned.
Case Title: Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Earnings Tax
Case Quantity: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2018
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has requested the Commissioner of Earnings Tax to determine whether or not fee for transponder companies constitutes ‘royalty’ underneath Part 9(1)(Vi) of Earnings Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain noticed that “the authorities have held the fee to represent ‘royalty’ underneath the home legislation in addition to underneath the Treaty, however by holding the stated fee is in the direction of ‘royalty’ underneath the Treaty, the income has relied upon the definition of ‘course of’ underneath the home legislation. Due to this fact, to say that the income has solely held in opposition to the Assessee on the bottom of home legislation and never the Treaty just isn’t appropriate.”
Case Title: Fcbulka Promoting Pvt Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Earnings Tax Circle 16(1)
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO.3442 OF 2022
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said {that a} breach of Article 265 of the structure can’t be alleged or sustained primarily based upon a tentative or inconclusive opinion fashioned by assessing officer.
The Division Bench consists of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain said that “If the communication dated 29 November 2018 is an order, it being like a preliminary, prima facie, or interlocutory order and never a last order, the Petitioner can not base their declare on this communication to allege breach of Article 265 of the Structure. The communication dated 29 November 2018 relies on preliminary verification and is topic to processing, and subsequently, it’s within the nature of a preliminary/prima facie/interlocutory order.”
Case Title: M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Commissioner of Earnings-tax
Case Quantity: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2003
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said that assessing officer wouldn’t have the jurisdiction to go behind web revenue in revenue and loss account besides as per clarification to Part 115J Of Earnings Tax Act.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik noticed that “Part 115J of the 1961 Act mandates that in case of an organization whose whole earnings as computed underneath the provisions of the Act 1961 is lower than 30% of the e book revenue, the entire earnings chargeable to tax might be 30% of the e book revenue, as proven within the revenue and loss account ready in accordance with the provisions of Half II and III of Schedule VI of the Firms Act 1956, after sure changes.”
Case Title: Sundyne Pumps and Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO.15228 OF 2023
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said that design and engineering companies to overseas entities are zero-rated provides; assessee eligible for refund of unutilized ITC U/S 54 CGST.
The Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla noticed that assessee just isn’t an company of the overseas recipient and each are impartial and distinct individuals. Thus, situation (v) of Part 2(6) is absolutely happy within the case. The assessee is eligible for refund of unutilized ITC on account of zero-rated provides when it comes to Part 54 of the CGST Act and the identical shall be granted to them together with statutory curiosity underneath Part 56 of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India
Case Quantity: WRIT PETITION NO.872 OF 1994
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said that profit of money compensatory scheme profit can’t be denied on castor oil exports primarily based on subsequent check change.
The Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain has noticed that contracts executed previous to the cutoff day wouldn’t be ruled by the following change within the scheme granting the profit.
Case Title: M/s. Carona Restricted v. Deputy Commissioner of Earnings Tax
Case Quantity: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2003
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom said that the assessee can’t be penalised underneath Part 271(1) (c) of earnings tax act for merely elevating a believable declare.
The Division Bench consists of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne opined that “the declare raised by the Assessee for claiming deduction in respect of the crystalised legal responsibility in the direction of further bonus was a believable declare. Whether or not such declare is tenable in legislation or not is an altogether completely different problem. What’s related to notice is the place that the declare made by the Assessee can, by no stretch of creativeness, be handled as malafide act of concealment of earnings in order to draw the provisions of Part 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.”
Calcutta HC
Case Title: THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS.
Case Quantity: APO/248/2016 WITH WPO/2662/1996 IA NO: GA/2/2021
The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda has held that with out framing Rules or with out the finances estimate prescribing the charges at which commercial tax could also be levied by Kolkata Municipal Company (KMC), computation and imposition of such tax could be arbitrary. It might don’t have any rational foundation. It might then be open to KMC to quantify such tax as per its candy will, which can’t be countenanced underneath the rule of legislation.
Case title: Edelweiss Rural & Company Providers Restricted & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Taltala Cost, WBGST & Ors.
Case no.: WPA 3033 OF 2025
Calcutta Excessive Courtroom lately directed the correct officer underneath the GST Act to contemplate ordering refund of the unutilised ITC of an Assessee to his private checking account, as his enterprise was closed and its GST registration stood cancelled.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by a path of the correct officer, although permitting the refund sanction to the tune of Rs. 68,66,238/- however, directing the quantity to be paid to the checking account of the enterprise— Edelweiss Rural & Company Providers Restricted.
Delhi HC
Case title: M/S Atmosphere Metcorp Personal Restricted By way of Its Director Sh Sandeep Agarwal v. Central Board Of Oblique Taxes And Customs By way of Its Chairman & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5901/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that an order in rectification proceedings have to be reasoned, handed after affording a possibility of listening to to the social gathering.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta made the commentary whereas coping with a petition in opposition to rejection of Petitioner’s utility in search of rectification of impugned demand order.
Case title: U.Okay. Paints (Abroad) Ltd v. Asstt.Commissioner Of Earnings Tax, Central Circle.8, & Ors. (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2068/2015 (and batch)
A bigger bench of the Delhi Excessive Courtroom will determine whether or not Part 149(1)(c) of the Earnings Tax Act 1961, inserted vide a 2012 modification to offer an prolonged interval of reassessment for circumstances involving overseas belongings, applies retrospectively.
The bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia expressed disagreement with a coordinate bench choice in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Earnings-Tax & Others (2018) the place it was held that provisions of Part 149(1)(c) of the Act wouldn’t have any retrospective operation. It was of the view that the above choice was handed in ignorance of Clarification to Part 149, which clarified that the supply could be relevant for “any evaluation yr” starting on or earlier than 1st day of April 2012.
Case title: M/S Lala Shivnath Rai Sumerchand Confectioner Personal Restricted v. Further Commissioner, Cgst Delhi-West, New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 8028/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has noticed that demand raised in opposition to an assessee qua reversal of availed Enter Tax Credit score (ITC) and qua utilisation of ITC prima facie constitutes double demand.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta thus granted liberty to the Petitioner-assessee to strategy the Appellate Authority in opposition to such demand, and waived predeposit qua demand of ineligible ITC.
Case title: Principal Chief Commissioner Of Earnings Tax-1 v. A.H. Multisoft Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 9/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately rejected the enchantment most popular by the Earnings Tax Division in opposition to an ITAT order permitting the valuation of a software program firm’s unquoted fairness shares by discounted money circulate [DCF] methodology.
In doing so, a division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia held that DCF methodology “is without doubt one of the strategies that may be adopted by the Assessee underneath Rule 11UA(2)(b) of the [Income Tax] Guidelines for figuring out the FMV of unquoted fairness shares in an organization through which public usually are not considerably .”
Case title: Sanjay Kaul v. The Earnings Tax Officer Ward 24 (4), New Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11198/2019
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that the Earnings Tax Division can not problem reassessment discover to an assessee primarily based on common info shared by its Investigation Wing, till the Assessing Officer types particular ’cause to imagine’ escapement of earnings.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia noticed, “It’s clear from the data acquired from the Investigation Wing…that the identical was common in nature and didn’t level in the direction of the involvement of the Petitioner within the association of offering lodging entry by contriving bogus brief time period capital loss. From the aforementioned info, it can’t be concluded that each one the transactions…had been sham in nature.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Earnings Tax (Central)-2 v. M/S Okay.R. Pulp And Papers Ltd.
Case no.: ITA No. 529/2023
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom lately rejected Income’s enchantment in opposition to deletion of additives made to the earnings of an assessee-company alleged to have evaded tax, observing that the AO had already scrutinised the identification and creditworthiness of the shareholders and within the absence of any further materials coming to gentle, reassessment motion couldn’t have been initiated.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia noticed, “In the course of the unique proceedings, the AO had issued a questionnaire…The Assessee had furnished the response to the stated questionnaire and had submitted the share utility cash, share utility type, proof of identification, copy of PAN and duplicate of ITR in addition to the financial institution statements of the share candidates. Thus, the identification in addition to the creditworthiness of the candidates was duly scrutinized…Due to this fact, the AO was required to have some further info, past what had already been examined, to be able to type causes to imagine that the Assessee’s earnings had escaped evaluation.”
Case title: Sandeep Garg v. Gross sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 66 Zone 4 Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5846/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that if an assessee fails to reply to a present trigger discover duly communicated to it on the GST portal, the Division can’t be blamed for passing an order elevating demand, with out listening to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noticed, “For the reason that Petitioner has not been diligent in checking the portal, no reply to the Present Trigger Discover has been filed by the Petitioner. Thus the division can’t be blamed.”
Case title: SS Enterprises Vs Workplace of the Commissioner, Central Tax Delhi West & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5684/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has held that the supply of most three adjournments that may be granted to a taxpayer through the course of adjudication proceedings, can’t be construed to imply that the taxpayer have to be given a minimal of three hearings.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noticed, “A perusal of Part 75(5) of the Central Items and Service Tax Act, 2017 would present that the stated provision merely contemplates that the utmost adjournments shall be given for thrice however doesn’t in impact imply that three hearings should be given.”
Case title: Pret Research by Janak Fashions Personal Restricted Vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5878/2025
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has refused to intrude with a requirement order handed by the GST Division with out listening to the assessee, after noting that the assessee itself was not diligent in responding to the present trigger discover or attending the non-public listening to regardless of discover.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noticed, “Contemplating the truth that (i) The Division has given the present trigger discover and the non-public listening to notices to the Petitioner; (ii) The Petitioner has not been diligent; the Division can’t be held guilty for not giving a correct listening to.”
Gauhati HC
Case Title: Shahima Khatun v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Case Quantity: WP(C)/3300/2025
The Gauhati Excessive Courtroom said that the restoration of cancelled GST registration is permissible if the taxpayer clears dues and recordsdata returns.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi noticed that “proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 of the CGST Guidelines 2017 supplies that if an individual, who has been served with a present trigger discover underneath Part 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is prepared and prepared to furnish all of the pending returns and to make full fee of the tax itself together with relevant curiosity and late charge, the officer, duly empowered, can drop the proceedings and go an order within the prescribed Kind i.e. Kind GST REG-20.”
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/s Addwrap Packaging Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Quantity: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22519 of 2019
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom said that omission of Rule 96(10) Of CGST Guidelines, 2017 operates prospectively however applies to all pending proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray was addressing the problem the place a bunch of petitions have challenged the vires of Rule 96(10) of the Central/State Items and Providers Tax Guidelines, 2017 as substituted by the Central Items and Providers Tax (twelfth Modification) Guidelines, 2018 with impact from 9.10.2018.
State Tax Authorities Not Mandated To Issue DIN With Orders Or Summons: Gujarat High Court
Case Title: M/s NRM Metals (India) Personal Restricted & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Quantity: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4910 of 2025
The Gujarat Excessive Courtroom said that state tax authorities not mandated to problem din with orders or summons.
The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia andP.M. Ravalobserved that “there isn’t a mechanism of issuance of DIN on any of the communication, discover, summons, orders issued by the State Tax Authorities. In such circumstances, the rivalry raised on behalf of the assessee, that the DIN just isn’t talked about in any of the summons and the beforehand attachment order being with none foundation, is rejected.”
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Identify: Neena Singh Thakur v/s Pr. Commissioner of Earnings Tax & Anr.
Case No.: CWP No. 3681 of 2024
Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom held {that a} discover underneath Part 148 of Earnings Tax 1961 for initiation of reassessment proceedings, cannot be issued by the assessing officer with out giving correct causes.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja : “The Assessing Officer wants to grasp that discover underneath Part 148 does have severe civil or evil penalties and can’t be handed so flippantly and causes for a similar should be recorded within the order itself.”
Case Identify: M/s Jaypee College of Data Know-how v/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Revision Nos. 41 to 44 of 2015
Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom held that the Assessing officer should present the college a good alternative to current its case and may’t take legislation in his personal hand by performing as a Prosecutor, Decide and Executor on the identical time.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Justice Sushil Kukreja: “The Assessing officer took the legislation into his personal hand and performed as a Prosecutor, Decide and Executor on the identical time.”
Case Identify: Shyama Energy India Ltd. v/s State of HP & others
Case No.: CWP No.6990 of 2025
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Courtroom has held that when a taxpayer deposits an quantity “underneath protest”, it doesn’t quantity to an admission of tax legal responsibility.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja noticed as follows: “As soon as the petitioner had deposited the quantity ‘underneath protest’, the identical couldn’t have been thought-about to be an admission of legal responsibility as a result of the required corollary of deposit underneath protest is that the quantity in the direction of the alleged legal responsibility has been deposited with out admitting the legal responsibility and inherent therein is his proper to problem the order.”
Kerala HC
Case Title: Vinu Koshy Abraham v. Company of Cochin
Case Quantity: WA NO. 2085 OF 2023
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that absence of a proper demand discover for property tax throughout pendency of litigation doesn’t absolve assessee’s obligation to pay such tax.
The Division Bench of Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj said that “The legal responsibility to pay the tax as soon as assessed is on the assessee and in a scenario the place the assessee constantly pays the tax primarily based on the evaluation that’s carried out, the mere undeniable fact that the Company didn’t select to problem a requirement discover for a interval when the assessee kept away from paying the tax on account of pending litigation between the events, and within the absence of any order staying the demand of such tax, can’t be a cause to forestall the Company from gathering the tax quantities at a later stage of the proceedings.”
Case Title: M/s Solgen Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: CUS.APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2024
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that import of inverter element with out photo-voltaic cell not eligible for customs responsibility exemption.
“Inasmuch because the import was solely of the inverter element, with out the photo-voltaic cell – a element that was important for harnessing photo voltaic power, which might then be routed by means of the inverter system for the provision {of electrical} power to the grid, the assessee can’t be seen as eligible for the advantage of the exemption notification…” said the Division Bench of Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj.
Case Title: The Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Asean Cableship Pvt. Ltd.
Case Quantity: CUS. APPEAL.NO.1 OF 2021
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that vessel engaged underneath SEAIOCM settlement certified as ‘overseas going vessel’ for exemption underneath part 87 Of Customs Act.
The Bench consists of Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj was addressing the problem of whether or not within the backdrop of the phrases of engagement of the vessel underneath the SEAIOCM Settlement, the vessel might be categorized as a overseas going vessel for the needs of claiming exemption underneath Part 87 of the Customs Act.
Case Title: Anandan N. v. The Commissioner of Earnings Tax (Appeals)
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 11709 OF 2023
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that there isn’t a provision of rejecting the enchantment merely on non-appearance of assessee and the appellate authority should determine an enchantment by strictly following the mandate contemplated underneath Part 250(6) of the Earnings Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. noticed that “evidently, going by Subsection 6 of Part 250, no different which means might be assigned to the phrases “factors for dedication” because it clearly results in the query that arises for consideration primarily based on the contentions raised within the enchantment. Due to this fact, it was compulsory on the a part of the appellate authority to consult with the factors raised within the enchantment, and to find out the identical by supplying causes for such dedication.”
Case Title: M/s Varsha Contemporary Meat Merchandise Personal Restricted v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 19159 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has directed the customs division to get rid of seized buffalo meat consignments inside one month as a result of perishability.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was addressing the problem pertaining to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which had been proposed to be exported to a overseas nation. On examination, it was discovered that there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained sure gadgets which had been prohibited to be exported.
Two Contradictory GST Orders On Same Allegations Not Sustainable: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Winter Wooden Designers & Contractors India Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 9086 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has said that two contradictory GST orders on the identical allegations usually are not sustainable, and the second order can not exist if the primary one already dropped the proceedings.
The Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. noticed that the proceedings had been dropped within the first order after accepting the reason by the assessee, but a second order was handed on the identical allegations.
Case Title: Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: CUS. APPEAL NO.2 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that ‘decalcified fish scale’ import lined underneath advance authorization scheme; customs can not deny profit. The advance authorization scheme allows responsibility free import of inputs/uncooked supplies required for manufacture of export items.
Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj noticed that through the interval subsequent to the interval lined by the present trigger discover, the assessee has obtained advance authorization for importing the identical product this time underneath the nomenclature ‘decalcified fish scale’ and no objection has been taken by the Income to such import.
Case Title: Union of India v. Aayana Charitable Belief
Case Quantity: W.A.NO.2042 OF 2024
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom said that Part 245C of Earnings Tax Act doesn’t require prior closing date; pending 153A/153C discover adequate for settlement utility.
Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj opined that “when Part 245C doesn’t prescribe any prior closing date for an assessee to fulfill the necessities for submitting an utility earlier than the Interim Board for Settlement, and the one statutory requirement is that the assessee ought to have a pending ‘case’ on the time of submitting the applying for settlement, then as long as the assessee had a ‘dwell and un-adjudicated’ discover underneath Sections 153A/153C as on the date of submitting the applying, the applying needed to be thought-about on deserves by the Board.”
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Earnings Tax v. M/s Ayyappa Curler Flour Mills Ltd.
Case Quantity: ITA NO. 9 OF 2024
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom held that evaluation primarily based on DVO’s (Division Valuation Officer) valuation can’t be revised underneath Part 263 of Earnings Tax Act in absence of concrete materials.
Justices A.Okay. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj noticed that “as on the date of invoking his energy underneath Part 263 of the IT Act, the Commissioner couldn’t have had a ’cause to imagine’ that the evaluation was misguided and prejudicial to the curiosity of the Income for the reason that materials to tell that ’cause to imagine’ didn’t exist on the date of issuance of the present trigger discover. His train of energy underneath S.263 was subsequently clearly unjustified”.
Case Title: Nikhil Ayyappan v. State of Kerala
Case Quantity: WP(C) NO. 19789 OF 2025
The Kerala Excessive Courtroom has said that items confiscated underneath Part 130 GST Act might be launched throughout pendency of enchantment if not but auctioned.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was addressing the case the place the grievance of the assessee/petitioner is in opposition to confiscation order handed by the Enforcement Officer/2nd respondent, underneath Part 130 of the GST Act.
Patna HC
Assessee Is Permitted To Rectify GSTR 3B On Par With Contents Of GSTR 1: Patna High Court
Case Title: Om Merchants v. Union Of India
Case Quantity: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16509 of 2024
The Patna Excessive Courtroom said that the assessee is permitted to rectify GSTR 3B on par with contents of GSTR 1.
The Division Bench of Justices P.B. Bajanthri and S.B. PD. Singh noticed that within the authorities, there isn’t a system of rectification of any return as soon as it’s filed. Nevertheless, the assessee had submitted utility to rectify GST 3B on par with the GSTR 1 regarding sure whole taxable worth, whole built-in tax, whole CGST, whole SGST. He had dedicated error insofar as mentioning whole taxable worth whereas submitting GSTR 3B and it’s not in accordance with the GSTR 1.
Sikkim HC
Assessee Entitled To Refund Of Unutilized ITC Claimed On Closure Of Business: Sikkim High Court
Case Title: SICPA India Personal Restricted and One other v. Union of India and Others
Case Quantity: WP(C) No.54 of 2023
The Sikkim Excessive Courtroom said that the assessee is entitled to the refund of unutilized ITC claimed on the closure of enterprise.
The Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai was addressing the problem of whether or not the refund of ITC underneath Part 49(6) of the CGST Act is simply restricted to corporations carved out underneath Part 54(3) of the CGST Act or does each registered firm have a proper to refund of ITC in case of discontinuance of enterprise.
Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s. Modi Builders & Realtors (P) Ltd. and Others v. Asst. Commissioner of Earnings Tax Circle-16 (2), Hyderabad, and Others
Case Quantity: Earnings Tax Tribunal Attraction No.167 of 2012
The Telangana Excessive Courtroom said that open terrace/portico excluded whereas computing build-up space for figuring out eligibility for deduction underneath part 80-IB of Earnings Tax Act.
The Bench consists of Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda was addressing the problem of whether or not the terrace / balcony that’s within the type of open to sky or portico / porch space with out partitions may very well be added whereas computing the built-up space for the aim of figuring out the eligibility for deduction underneath Part 80-IB of the Earnings Tax Act, 1961.
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: Commissioner, Customs (Preventive)-Jaipur v. M/S Pelican Quartz Stone
Case Quantity: Customs Attraction No. 50196 OF 2025
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that no exporter has an obligation to both anticipate or to adapt to views of DRI in classifying items in delivery payments.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has noticed that, “no exporter has any obligation to anticipate any views of DRI, audit or preventive officers concerning the classification of the products or to adapt to them. The exporter fulfils his obligation as soon as he recordsdata the Delivery Payments classifying items as per his understanding.”
Case Title: Kalpakaaru Tasks Pvt Ltd v. Principal Commissioner, CGST-Delhi South
Case Quantity: Service Tax Attraction No. 50302 OF 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that precise figures might be thought-about for figuring out service tax payable by assessee if books of accounts present larger figures than statutory returns.
The Bench of Justices Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has noticed that, “If the books of accounts present larger figures than the statutory returns the precise figures might be thought-about for figuring out the service tax payable by the appellant. Nevertheless, earlier than contemplating the figures within the statutory returns and different data, what must be ascertained is whether or not the figures therein symbolize the worth of the taxable companies supplied or not.”
Case Title: M/s. Roy’s Institute of Aggressive Examination Personal Restricted v. Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata
Case Quantity: Service Tax Attraction No. 75230 of 2016
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that service tax just isn’t leviable on hostel charges acquired for non-residential programs in teaching institute.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and Okay. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has noticed that “the stand-alone hostel fees collected for non-residential programs, don’t have any reference to Industrial Coaching and Teaching companies as outlined underneath part 65(105)(zzc) of the Finance Act, in as a lot as, even when any pupil, who don’t avail this service, would proceed to avail the course supplied by the assessee and subsequently, the query of fee of service tax doesn’t come up.”
Case Title: Evergreen Delivery Company India Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Export)
Case Quantity: CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 51117 of 2022
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that data and intention have to be there to impose penalty underneath Part 114AA of Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has noticed that “Information and intention is sine qua non for imposing penalty underneath part 114AA of the Customs Act. The division has not been capable of set up data on a part of the assessee or intention on the a part of the assessee to assist the exporter in acquiring the alleged undue export benefit. In such circumstances, penalty underneath part 114AA of the Customs Act can’t be imposed upon the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s. Artifacts India v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi- II
Case Quantity: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO.55777 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that financial institution fees paid to overseas banks usually are not liable to service tax underneath the reverse cost mechanism.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has said that “there may be direct nexus of the client with the Overseas Financial institution, and it’s held that when the supplier of service i.e. ‘the Overseas Financial institution’ and recipient of service i.e. ‘the Purchaser’ are each positioned exterior India, there isn’t a query of taxing such service in India because the stated service has been supplied exterior the taxable territory and out of doors the purview of Part 66B the charging part for levy of service tax.”
Royalty Paid For Exclusive Trademark License Is Not Taxable As A Service: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Bajaj Sources Restricted v. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Udaipur
Case Quantity: Service Tax Attraction No. 53227 of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that royalty paid for unique trademark license just isn’t taxable as service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has noticed that “the assessee was restrained to make use of the stated trademark through the stated interval in any territory of the world and as such the transaction was a transaction of ‘Deemed Sale’ inviting no service tax legal responsibility. Therefore, the quantity paid by the assessee for which refund has been claimed was the quantity not in the direction of the responsibility however was an quantity wrongly deposited by the assessee.”
Case Title: M/s Hewlett Packard Gross sales Pvt. Restricted v. Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import) Commissionerate
Case Quantity: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50203 OF 2021
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that re-determination worth of CDs imported by HP India invalid with out rejection of transaction worth underneath Rule 12 Customs Valuation Guidelines 2007.
The bench said that except the correct officer rejects the transaction worth underneath Rule 12, the valuation must be primarily based on transaction worth as per Rule 3 with some additions, if essential, as per Rule 10.
Assessee Liable To Pay Redemption Fine For Seized Goods Missing From Their Custody: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive)-New Delhi V. M/S Akay Cones Pvt. Ltd.
Case Quantity: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2008
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that assessee liable to pay redemption tremendous for seized items lacking from their custody.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the problem of whether or not when the products had been seized handed over the assessee for protected custody they usually went lacking whereas of their custody, whether or not such items might be confiscated or not.
Transferor Not Liable U/S 56(2) Of Income Tax Act For Undervalued Property Sale To Spouse: ITAT
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Earnings Tax, Central Circle, Chennai v. M. Mahadevan
Case Quantity: ITA No.1824/Chny/2024
The Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai said that transferor not liable underneath Part 56(2) Of Earnings Tax Act for undervalued property sale to partner.
The Bench of SS Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) noticed that “the speculation propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and never supported by the statutory stipulations governing the matter. It’s true that the spouse of the assessee has acquired a property for an quantity considerably decrease than its precise reported worth. Nevertheless, the stated transactions would make the spouse of the assessee liable for extra taxation throughout the meanings of Part-56(2). Stretching the transaction and implicating assessee into it doesn’t seems to be the proper line of motion”.
Case Title: M/s Case New Holland Building Tools (India) Personal Restricted v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax
Case Quantity: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 1455 OF 2012
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that packing/re-packing of components of vibrator compactor just isn’t manufacture underneath Part 2(f)(iii) Of Central Excise Act and therefore no excise responsibility is leviable.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the problem of whether or not the 2 constructions equipments specifically Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Vibratory Compactor are “Cars”, as a result of solely then the exercise of packing/repacking of components of the WTLB and VC would quantity to fabricate underneath part 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act.
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Items and Service Tax, Excise and Customs, Bhopal v. M/s. Akansha Gross sales Promoters
Case Quantity: Excise Attraction No. 50135 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that proceedings in opposition to assessee unsustainable as soon as discharge certificates is issued underneath SVLDRS [Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019] Scheme.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) was addressing the problem that in case the place the assessee opts for SVLDRS Scheme and obtained discharge certificates can the proceedings by the use of enchantment by the Income is sustainable or not.
Statement Recorded U/S 108 Of Customs Act Is Not Valid Evidence U/S 138B Of Customs Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Shanti Swaroop Sharma, Director v. The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Case Quantity: Customs Attraction No. 50071 of 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that assertion recorded underneath part 108 of the Customs Act not legitimate proof underneath part 138B of the Customs Act.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) was addressing the problem of whether or not the assertion recorded underneath part 108 of the Customs Act may very well be thought-about as proof underneath part 138B of the Customs Act.
Service Tax Payable On Service Charges Collected From Client For Printing: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Chhattisgarh Samvad v. Principal Commissioner
Case Quantity: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 51826 OF 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that service tax payable on service fees collected from shopper for printing.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has noticed that the assessee engaged another person to do the job of printing after making ready content material utilizing its in-house experience. The assessee was, by no stretch of creativeness a job employee to a printer. The printer, the truth is, was the assessee’s sub-contractor. The assessee is liable to pay service tax on the service fees which it had collected from the shopper departments in the direction of printing work however solely throughout the regular interval of limitation.
Case Title: Sistema Good Applied sciences Restricted v. Commissioner of Central Items & Service Tax, Gurugram
Case Quantity: Service Tax Attraction No. 60295 of 2023
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that service tax not leviable on license charge/spectrum fees payable for interval previous to 01.04.2016.
The Bench consists of S.S. Garg (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has said that “as per the precept of ejusdem generis, the phrase “every other doc issued by the Authorities demanding such fee” ought to solely embody paperwork of comparable nature to an bill, invoice or challan. If we apply this precept, then the phrase “every other doc issued by the Authorities demanding such fee” can’t be an settlement as thought-about by the division within the case as a result of the identical just isn’t issued within the nature of an bill, invoice or challan.”
Case Title: M/s Balajee Structural India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax
Case Quantity: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50124 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has said that revenue earned in GTA service (Items Transport Company Service) by means of sub-contractor not taxable as enterprise auxiliary service.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has noticed that “income’s try to cost service tax on the revenue calling it enterprise auxiliary service can’t be accepted as a result of the service which the assessee supplied to Jhakodia Minerals was GTA service. A part of the consideration acquired can’t be handled as a separate service as a result of there isn’t a proof of every other service being supplied”.
