Tax Monthly Digest: March 2025
Kapil Dhyani
1 April 2025 1:45 PM
SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Upholds Allahabad HC Decision That Chargers Sold With Cell Phones Cannot Be Taxed Separately Under UP VAT Act 2008Case title: COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXCase no.: U. P. LUCKNOW vs. M/S SAMSUNG (INDIA) ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.| Diary No. - 20066/2021The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a...
SUPREME COURT
Case title: COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
Case no.: U. P. LUCKNOW vs. M/S SAMSUNG (INDIA) ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.| Diary No. - 20066/2021
The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court which observed that the charger sold with a cell phone under the MRP cannot be taxed separately under the UP VAT Act 2008.
The bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma was hearing a challenge to the order of the Allahabad High Court which held that a mobile charger contained in a composite package with the cell phone cannot be taxed separately under Entry 28 Part B Schedule II U.P. VAT Act 2008.
Case title : CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS v. M/S ABERDARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6332/2025
The Supreme Court recently underscored the need for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to fix realistic timelines for correcting bonafide errors by the assesses in forms when filing GST returns.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar was hearing a challenge to the Bombay High Court order which allowed an assesee to rectify its form GSTR-1 after missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act. The order was challenged by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Case title: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. BRIJ SYSTEMS LTD & ORS.
Case no.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 6334/2025
The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) over the recurrent issue of not allowing rectification of bonafide errors made after the lapse of prescribed deadlines under the CGST Act.
The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan was hearing a challenge by the Union against the decision of the Bombay High Court which allowed the rectification of bonafide errors by the assessee in GSTR-1 Form despite missing the deadline under S. 39(9) of the CGST Act 2017. Here the assessee wanted to rectify the returns filed for Financial Year 2017-2018 in Form GSTR-1. The application to rectify was rejected on the ground that the time to rectify had ended.
Case Title: GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA
In a key decision, the Supreme Court today overturned the confiscation of imported goods labelled as "Base Oil SN 50," which customs authorities had classified as High-Speed Diesel (HSD), which only the State entities can import.
The Court found that the Customs Department failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the goods were High-Speed Diesel (HSD), due to inadequate laboratory testing and conflicting expert opinions.
Supreme Court Issues Notice In Challenge To West Bengal Taxes On Entry Of Goods Act
Case Title – Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7295/2025
The Supreme Court is set to examine the constitutional validity of the West Bengal Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Local Areas Act, 2012, as amended by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, along with related Rules and notifications.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan recently issued notice returnable on April 22, 2025 in a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The Finance Act amended various provisions of the Entry Tax Act with retrospective effect.
HIGH COURTS
Allahabad HC
Case Title:- M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commercial Tax And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1177 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court has held that the intention to evade tax is established by the fact that the goods in transit were not accompanied by e-way bill and the goods taxable at 18% were taxed only at 5%.
The Court held that after 2018, it was mandatory for the assesee to download e-way bill with goods in transit. “It is mandatory on the part of the seller to download the e-way bill once the goods are put in transit. Subsequent downloading of e-way bill would not absolve the liability under the Act.”
Case Title: M/S Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another
Case no.: WRIT TAX No. - 1022 of 2021
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act are summary proceedings where the burden to prove the actual physical movement of goods is on the assesee transporting the goods. It further held that authorities have the power to seize goods on grounds of undervaluation.
Justice Piyush Agrawal held, “Under the taxing statute, in the original proceeding or in the summary proceeding, the primary burden is to be discharged by the assessee by bringing on record the cogent material. The burden of proof is shifting to the department only in the re-assessment proceeding or subsequent proceeding not being the original proceeding. In other words, the assessee in the original proceeding is duty bound to bring the material on record in support of its claim but in the subsequent proceeding i.e. re-assessment proceedings, the burden shifts on the revenue.”
Andhra Pradesh HC
Case Title: Sri Durga Granites v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Others
Case Number: W.P.Nos.3480 & 6504 of 2020
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that a notice under Rule 142(1)(A) of CGST Rules must be issued before issuing proper show cause notice.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and K Manmadha Rao was addressing a case where notice under Rule-142(1)(A) of the CGST Rules was not issued to the assessees/petitioners, prior to the Orders of assessment.
Bombay HC
Case Title: M/s. Himesh Foods Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.718 OF 2025
The Bombay High Court is to decide whether the donuts and cakes should be classified as restaurant service or a bakery product under Goods and Services Tax. The Division Bench of Justices B.P Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla were addressing the issue of whether the supply of donuts falls within the ambit of restaurant services under Service Accounting Code (SAC) 9963 or should be categorized as a bakery product subject to separate tax treatment under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
If the donuts and other bakery items classified under restaurant services they would be taxed at 5% and if they classified under bakery product, they would be subjected to tax upto 18%.
Calcutta HC
Case Title: Ashok Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: FMA 136 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that customs department cannot seize the goods if the quantity or weight of the goods is found correct on physical verification.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the quantity or the weight of the goods, which were carried in the vehicle, has been found to be correct by the department on physical verification and there is no discrepancy.
Delhi HC
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)- 3 v. M/S Ridgeview Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case no.: ITA 618/2019
The Delhi High Court has held that even though Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 did not in its original form prescribe two-tier satisfaction of Assessing Officers of both the searched and non-searched entity for initiating reassessment, the same cannot be deemed absent.
“In our considered opinion, while and undoubtedly Section 153C as it stood at the relevant time did not contemplate a two tier recordal of satisfaction and the AO of the searched person was merely obliged to transmit the material belonging or pertaining to a third person gathered in the course of a search, proceedings under the said provision could not have been triggered mechanically absent the formation of opinion by the AO of the non-searched person that the material was likely to impact an assessment made,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Suparshva Swabs (I) v. National Faceless Appeal Centre & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 356/2025
The Delhi High Court has expressed grave concern over the pendency of over 5.4 Lakh appeals before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The body was created for faceless assessment under Section 143 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the insertion of Section 144B via the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, “This court is cognizant of the large number of statutory appeals pending for disposal before the NFAC and express concern over the delay in disposal of such appeals, for which the NFAC was envisaged.”
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 320/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertains to appeals to High Courts, does not envisage the filing of cross-objections by the opposite party, unlike Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “The Legislature appears to have consciously desisted from adopting principles akin to Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code or specifically introducing provisions enabling the respondent in an appeal under Section 260A to prefer cross-objections.”
Case title: Interglobe Aviation Ltd v. Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc (Import) New Custom House New Delhi & Ors. and batch
Case no.: W.P.(C) 934/2023
In big relief to Indigo airlines, the Delhi High Court has held that an additional levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and cess under Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on re-import of aircraft parts that were repaired abroad, is unconstitutional.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja observed that “additional duty even after the transaction has been subjected to the imposition of a tax treating it to be a supply of service would be clearly unconstitutional and cannot be sustained.”
Case title: Tata Teleservices Limited v. The Commissioner CGST Delhi East & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1142/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide whether levy of tax on the services purchased by a prepaid subscriber of Tata Teleservices, using the existing mobile balance on which tax was already paid, would amount to double taxation.
Considering that the matter would involve factual evaluation of the manner in which services are provided and charged by the company, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta relegated it to the Tribunal.
Case title: M/S DD Interiors v. Commissioner Of Service Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 877/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because a pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for preferring an appeal is made in the wrong account, that too when the integrated portal might not have been fully functional, cannot result in rejection of appeal on the ground of defects.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta was dealing with a petitioner preferred by M/s DD Interiors, challenging the return of its appeal by CESTAT, stating that since the deposit was in a wrong account, credit cannot be given.
Case title: GE Grid (Switzerland) GMBH v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1294/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that the existence of a foreign entity's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is required to be determined in law for each year separately on the basis of the scope, extent, nature and duration of activities in each year.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja made the observation while dealing with a Swiss company's case, which was aggrieved by various reassessment notices issued for AYs 2013-18 for alleged escapement of income generated by its alleged PE, namely, GE T&D India Ltd.
Case title: Sentec India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Delhi & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 868/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD. Section 27 deals with a person/entity's claim for a refund of Customs duty in certain circumstances.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of Section 27 would show that the same deals with refund of customs duty. It is abundantly clear that EDD is not in the nature of customs duty. The deposit of the EDD was itself to secure any customs duty which may have been later on found to be payable, due to the allegation of underdeclaration. However, when the said allegation has been disproved and the Department has taken a view that there was no under-declaration, the substratum of the deposit of EDD itself no longer exists.”
Case title: Rahul Vattamparambil Remesh v. Union Of India & Ors
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2690/2025
The Delhi High Court recently expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters. A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,
“It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear lack of coordination between the Department and the learned panel of Standing Counsels. Such a practice is highly undesirable and leads to gross wastage of judicial time.”
Case title: M/S Kashish Optics Ltd. v. The Commissioner, CGST Delhi West & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7741/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that the period of seizure cannot be extended under Section 67)7) for a further six-month period without giving notice to the accused.
Case title: Fasttrack Tieup Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15237/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the Income Tax Department cannot, suspecting escapement of tax on income by an assessee, indefinitely attach its properties without taking further steps to resolve the matter.
Single judge Justice Sachin Datta observed that Section 222 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed with “attachment and sale of assessee's movable property” to recover the due taxes, explicitly states “attachment and sale,” signifying a sequential process where the property, once attached, must subsequently be sold to recover the arrears.
Case title: PCIT-1, New Delhi v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt.Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 155/2022
The Delhi High Court has held that before the Income Tax Department commences transfer pricing benchmarking analysis of an assessee's international transactions, the very existence of such 'international transaction' must be determined.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while dealing with the case of an Indian entity producing liquor for brands like Jim Beam, observed, “the commencement of a benchmarking analysis would have to necessarily be preceded by the Revenue identifying the existence of a transaction as defined and which undoubtedly constitutes a sine qua non. This clearly flows from the plain text of Section 92B(1), which proceeds to define an “international transaction” as being a “transaction” between two or more AEs.”
Case title: JSD Traders LLP v. Additional Commissioner, GST
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2608/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an order cancelling GST registration of a trader with retrospective effect will not sustain unless the show cause notice preceding such decision reflects both the reasons and the authority's intent for retrospective cancellation.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “in the absence of reasons having been assigned in the original SCN in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned action.”
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. WGF Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 184/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that allowance in respect of bad debts as an expense under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible only if: (a) the debt was taken into account for computing the income of the assessee in the previous year in which the amount is written off or prior previous years; or (b) represents money lent in the ordinary course of business of banking or money lending.
Case title: Cargill India Private Limited v. Central Board Of Direct Taxes.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 399/2022
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the power of the Central government to relax conditions prescribed under Rule 9C of the Income Tax Rules 1962, read with Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1962, is exceptional, discretionary and cannot ordinarily be subject to judicial review.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the power to relax a Rule or a condition is by way of an exception, and the scope of such power cannot be construed in an expansive manner.
Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15199/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, “Based on the set of facts as they presented themselves, both parties are entitled to make contesting claims. However, a genuine disagreement, as in the present case, of the classification of the goods cannot possibly be elevated to 'suppression'.”
Case title: M/S Ismartu India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India And Others
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15199/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.
Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices: One under Section 28(4) where elements of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression are made out in assessee' conduct. The other under Section 28(1) where the elements of Section 28(4) of the Act are absent. “Meaning thereby that it is only in those circumstances where Section 28(4) of the Act is not attracted that a Notice under Section 28(1) of the Act is issued,” a division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed.
Case title: Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Case no.: ITA 660/2018
The Delhi High Court has allowed Vodafone Mobile, engaged in providing telecommunication services, to claim depreciation of ₹5.10 crores in respect of fixed assets over provisioned expenditure to discharge its contractual obligation of restoring mobile tower sites to their original condition at the end of the lease period.
Though Asset reconstruction Cost (ARC) was laid out by Vodafone, the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim, stating that the same is not 'ascertained liability'.
Case title: Amirhossein Alizadeh v. The Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3002/2025
The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed. Further, no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, who sought the release of his jewelry, and no final order was served on him till date.
Case title: M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 114/2025
The Delhi High Court recently came to the rescue of a Company engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices, holding that it could not be denied Input Tax Credit on purchases merely because its supplier had mentioned a wrong GST number on the invoices.
In the facts of the case, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN. Substantial loss would be caused to the Petitioner if the credit is not granted for such a small error on behalf of the supplier.”
Case title: Gopika Vennankot Govind v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2784/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction after perusing a photograph, depicting that she used to wear the said pieces of jewelry since childhood. It observed, “This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, following various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, wherein it has been held clearly that if the gold items seized are personal jewellery, the same would not be liable to be confiscated.”
Case title: Muhammad Nazim v. Commissioner Of Customs & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3042/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.
Traditionally, correspondence related to any violation of the Act is made via post. However, with advent of technology and to avoid delays, Court had in Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2024) called upon the Department to send notices via email, in addition to service by speed post, registered post or courier.
Case title: Mea Ame Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), New Delhi
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3200/2025
The Delhi High Court is set to examine the extent of jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Customs Department under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have sought the authority's response on a private company's petition challenging seizure of its imported “empty atomizer devices” purportedly to be put to use for smoking de-addiction.
Case title: M/S Saha Traders Zonal Joint Director General Of Foreign Trade(Cla)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7295/2021
The Delhi High Court recently quashed a Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) communication cancelling the license issued to a trader involved in import and export of goods, citing almost fifteen years delay in culminating the show cause notice.
Justice Sachin Datta cited Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) where the Delhi High Court had emphasized that matters which have the potential of casting financial liabilities of penal consequences, cannot be kept pending for years and decades together.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Delhi v. D Light Energy P. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 53/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that where the distributor of an imported product makes no value addition to it before sale, Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method to determine the arm's length price in relation to its business with an Associated Enterprise.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela thus dismissed the appeal preferred by Revenue against a Solar products distributor, which imported goods from an Associated Enterprise (AE) for resale.
Case title: Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.
Case no.: ITA 61/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' cannot be made applicable to Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which enables an assessing officer to open an assessment if he has 'reason to believe' that an assessee's income escaped assessment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “It is trite that the concept of “proving beyond reasonable doubt” applies “strictu senso” to penal provisions/statutes. It is also trite that in taxing statutes, in particular, section 148 of the Act, the “reason to believe”, must be based on objective materials, and on a reasonable view.”
Case title: Amal Krishna v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2957/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that a non-resident Indian is fully entitled to the benefit provided to an “eligible passenger” under the Baggage Rules, 2016 for the purposes of Customs on arrival to India.
Eligible passenger was defined by the Finance Ministry via a Notification dated June 30, 2017, to mean a passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid Indian passport, coming to India after not less than six months of stay abroad. Baggage Rules allow duty-free clearance of certain items, including used household articles, professional equipment, and personal effects to eligible passengers.
Case title: Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 530/2025
The Delhi High Court recently took a critical view of the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for repeatedly passing contradictory orders in an appeal, which should have been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.
“This order reveals a complete comedy of error…The petition reveals an unfortunate situation wherein the CESTAT while intending to correct an error in its initial order…continued to make repeated errors resulting in the impugned order and the present challenge,” a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta remarked at the outset.
Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release 'Name Engraved' Gold Jewellery Of Indian Tourist
Case title: Sai Kiran Goud Tirupathi v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3347/2025
The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the gold kada of an Indian tourist, which was seized upon his return to the country after a visit to the Republic of Mali.
Petitioner had argued that the jewellery was a personal effect, as evident from engraving of his first name on the same, and was thus exempted from duty. A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta ordered that the jewellery be released within four weeks.
Case title: Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Indian Broadcasting Foundation
Case no.: ITA 469/2023
In an order bringing relief to the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), which was incorporated to protect the interests of various stakeholders in the field of television broadcasting, the Delhi High Court allowed the body to claim exemption from payment of tax under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “BARC, being a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, is legally prohibited from distributing any dividends or profits to its shareholders. Additionally, in the event of liquidation, Memorandum of Association of BARC mandates that any surplus must be transferred to another company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act with similar objectives, thereby negating any possibility of personal gain or profit for the Assessee from its deployment of funds.”
Case title: Paras Products v. Commissioner Central Gst, Delhi North (and batch)
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6235/2023 and batch
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944, which empowers taxing authorities to recover duties not levied/ short-levied or short-paid, is pari materia to corresponding provisions of the Customs Act, the Finance Act and the CGST Act.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus held that the High Court's judgment in M/S VOS Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Additional Director General & Anr. (2024) is applicable to the said provision.
Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3431/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by Directorate General of Trade Remedies are maintainable however, since the determination is a time bound process, Courts will not readily interfere in the process.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, "while the writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable at the stage of the disclosure statement, the Court would be hesitant and reluctant in exercising jurisdiction as determination of anti-dumping duty is a time bound process which is to be exercised by the designated authority."
Case title: Mohammad Arham v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 2760/2025
The Delhi High Court has held that detention of goods by the Customs Department cannot continue beyond a period of one year, if a show cause notice was not issued to the assessee within such period.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta cited Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 which prescribes a period of six months. Further, subject to complying with certain formalities, a further extension for a period of six months for the Department to issue a show cause notice can be given in terms of Section 110(5).
Case title: Huawei Telecommunications India Company Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2 & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10867/2024
The Delhi High Court has held that when an appellate authority has asked the Income Tax Department to not take any coercive steps against an assessee for recovery of outstanding demands, the same can in some cases interdict the Department from adjusting the outstanding amount from refunds due to the assessee.
A division bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tejas Karia took note of a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held that an adjustment would amount to 'coercive proceedings'.
Case title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. DRI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11518/2024
The Delhi High Court has called upon the Customs Department to clone the required data from seized electronic devices of persons allegedly involved in smuggling and other violations under the Act, instead of retaining such devices throughout prosecutions.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that such a practice will not only ensure that the Department does not lose the data due to the seized device getting outdated but it will also provide make the data readily accessible to the investigation officers.
Case title: The Commissioner Of Central Tax, CGST Delhi East v. M/S Simplex Infrastructure Limited
Case no.: CEAC 3/2024
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal interdicting the GST Department from invoking extended period of limitation for recovery action against a sub-contractor who did not pay service tax amid confusion as to his liability to pay the same.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta upheld the CESTAT order which held that bonafide belief of the sub-contractor that he was not required to discharge service tax liability cannot be ruled out amid prevailing controversy.
Case title: Vedanta Limited v. CBIC
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3675/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to pass a “reasoned order” on Indian multinational mining company- Vedanata's plea claiming duty drawbacks on clean energy cess, paid between the year 2010-17.
The plea was rejected by CBIC through a “cryptic order” citing limitation despite its own Instruction clearing air on eligibility of drawbacks on clean energy cess, with retrospective benefit to pending cases, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted.
Case title: Backbone Overseas v. Assistant Commissioner Of Customs, Foreign Post Office , New Delhi And Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3711/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticised the Customs Department for acting against its own Circular for expeditious clearance of goods, by detaining the export goods of a trader for over two months.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “This position is completely unacceptable to the Court…consignment cannot be held up in this manner…expedited steps are not taken for clearing of goods.”
Case title: Shiv Parkash Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-14 Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 394 Case no.: W.P.(C) 11156/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme of Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not envisage the discovery of a connection or interrelationship between the searched and the non-searched entity.
A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the trigger for Section 153C is the discovery of articles in the course of a search which pertain or belong to a third party, and which may have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person.
Case title: Lufthansa Cargo AG v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 11376/2024
In a relief to German cargo airline Lufthansa, the Delhi High Court set aside the Revenue's order denying nil TDS certificate to the company for the financial year 2024-25.
“Where the petitioner has been granted certificate at nil withholding tax for prior assessment years and there is no issue to the chargeability of the petitioner's income to tax under the Act, the impugned certificate requiring withholding tax at reduced rate instead of nil rate, cannot be sustained,” Court said.
Gauhati HC
Case title: M/S High Tech Ecogreen Contractors LLP v. Joint Director, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Inteligence (DGGI)
Case no.: WP(C)/4787/2024
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The provision stipulates documentary requirements and conditions for a registered person claiming input tax credit (ITC).
A division bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed that the provision was enacted based on powers derived from Section 16 of the CGST Act and the general rule-making powers under Section 164, not from the unenforced Section 43A.
Carbonated Fruit Drinks Qualify As Fruit Beverages, Taxable At 12% GST: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: X'S Beverage CO. v. The State of Assam
Case Number: W.P(C) NO. 5347/2022
The Gauhati High Court stated that carbonated fruit drinks qualify as fruit beverages and are taxable at 12% GST.
The Bench of Justice Soumitra Saikia opined that “where the subject product contains soluble solids and fruit content as per the report of the State Food Laboratory, it cannot be said to be akin to water, mineral water or aerated water. Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated water. The classifications by the petitioner of the items under the subject head Fruit Pulp or Fruit Based Drink appear to be correct.”
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rohit Karan Jain
Case Number: ITA/5/2023
The Gauhati High Court stated that retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material and no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the ITAT were of the view that the said piece of evidence, i.e. retracted statement cannot be termed as incriminating material, noted the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/s Total Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20804 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court stated that the assessee is entitled to the interest on refund under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
“it is true that the assessee is not entitled to interest under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, when the assessee has opted for direct tax for Vivad se Visvas Scheme 2020 and filed the application which was approved by the designated authority and refund order is also passed as per the said scheme on 12/05/2022 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the assessee was entitled to the interest on the amount of refund till the same was paid to the assessee” stated the bench consists of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: Limra Traders v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P.(T) No. 6027 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court directed the state tax authorities to follow due procedure while passing adjudication orders.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan stated that “despite directions issued by the Court, it appears that State Tax authorities are continuing to conduct adjudication proceedings in utter disregard to the mandatory provisions of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice.”
Karnataka HC
Case Title: The PR. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court stated that fair market value of shares determined by statutory methods can't be rejected by the income tax department.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar was addressing a case where the revenue has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal where the Tribunal held that the valuation report on DCF Method produced during assessment proceedings was a valid report justifying valuation of shares.
Case Title: The State Of Karnataka v. Tractor And Farm Equipment Limited
Case Number: STRP NO.26 OF 2023
The Karnataka High Court while laying down vital guidelines on Input Tax Credit stated that if the Assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings makes a claim for Input Tax Credit, the same cannot be disallowed only on the ground that the claim of the Assessee is disadvantageous to the State Exchequer.
The Division Bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and G. Basavaraja observed that ordinarily, the claim for Input Tax Credit has to be made in the Return or Revised Return only. A claim otherwise is an exception and bona fide of the same has to be demonstrated.
Case Title: B G Parmeshwara AND Bangalore Development Authority & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.51001 OF 2019 (BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION No.7028 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that if the transaction of booking a residential house is entered into before the completion of construction and the consideration was paid (partly or fully) before issuance of completion certificate, the same would amount to supply of services requiring payment of the service tax (GST) by the purchaser.
Justice M G S Kamal recently dismissed a batch of petitions filed by B g Parmeshwara and others which had challenged the endorsement issued by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) calling upon the petitioners to pay amount towards the service Tax (GST) under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before registration of the apartment.
Kerala HC
Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23872 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'.
“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner
Case Number: WA NO. 712 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“…As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry
Case Number: ITA NO. 20 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”
Case Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 1 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”
Case Title: Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Case Number: WA NO. 2129 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.”
Case Title: Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)
Case Number: WA NO. 709 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court stated that ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to facilities provided by assessee in a resort, hence liable to be taxed.
“the main activities of the assessee as per the brochures produced before the assessing officer, are canoeing, motor boat cruises, houseboat stay, trekking, Alleppey beach visit, coir factory visit, elephant ride, Kathakali, temple dance, dramas, Mohiniyattam and Kalaripayattu. Therefore, the main activities of the assessee are not running the hospital but providing a resort and other facilities and the Ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to that of the facilities” observed the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: Sajeer A v. State of Kerala
Case Number: OT.REV NO. 3 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court stated that Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 56 of the KVAT Act against assessment order passed pursuant to remand.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “when the fresh assessment order was passed consequence to the remand, the original assessment order ceased to exist in law and thereafter the only assessment order that survived for the purposes of exercise of the power of revisions under Section 56 was the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
Case Title: The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: O.T.REV. NO.106 OF 2021
The Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report. The Division Bench of Justices A.Y. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed,
“there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the “lawfulness” of an audit objection.”
Customs Department Can't Invoke Expired Bank Guarantees: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: WA NO. 2183 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court stated that invocation of the expired bank guarantees by Customs Department is not permissible under law.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. were addressing the issue of whether the customs department can invoke expired bank guarantees.
Case Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA NO. 11 OF 2025
The Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.
Madras HC
Case Title: Gillette Diversified Operations vs. Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Case Number: W.P.Nos.6524, 6527, 6531, 6537 and 6541 of 2022
Finding that the refund claim was filed within two years from the “relevant date” as defined in Explanation 2(a) to Section 54(14) of CGST Act , the Madras High Court recently clarified that a refund claim cannot be denied on the basis of retrospective operation of the Proviso to Rule 90(3) pf the CGST Rules.
The High Court clarified this upon finding that the refund claims filed in the portal on Sep 21, 2018, Oct 09, 2018 and Oct 10, 2018, were within two years from the date of exports made during July 2017, August 2017 and September 2017, in time in terms of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST.
Rajasthan HC
Case Title: Sharda Devi Chhajer v. Union of India and others
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11787/2024
The Rajasthan High Court stated that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks jurisdiction to issue income tax reassessment notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman observed that “the JAO shall not have the jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, as it would not only render Section 151A weak, but may also lead to its diminishing activation.”
Sikkim HC
Case title: Dr. Doma T. Bhutia v. Union Of India & Another
Case no.: WP (PIL) No. 01/2025
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the definition 'Sikkimese' under the Income Tax Act, which was slightly expanded by way of an amendment in terms of the Finance Act, 2023.
A division bench of Chief Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai upheld the vires of Explanation (v) contained under clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Telangana HC
Case Title: M/s Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The State of Telangana and others
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 21101 of 2024
The Telangana High Court stated that the show cause notices and the orders which are not pregnant with the signature of the Proper Officer cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara observed that “since Rule and prescribed Forms mandate requirement of signature of Proper Officer, its violation makes the notice/order vulnerable. Any contrary view taken by Court about DRC-07 having no signature without considering the above rule and prescribed Form must be held as per incuriam.”
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: OYO Hotels vs Principal CIT
Case Number: ITA No.2611/Del/2024
The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib) in absence of any benefit arising from such transactions.
Referring to the Coordinate Benchs, the Bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) reiterated that Sec 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the present case where the transaction is between the assessee (subsidiary company) with its 100% holding company as issuance of share.
Service Tax Liability Can't Be Levied On Freight And Cartage Expenses Under GTA Services: CESTAT
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax - Delhi III V. M/s. Globe Civil Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54328 of 2015
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax liability cannot be levied on freight and cartage expenses under GTA (Good Transport Agency) services.
“The said amount/expenses/charges were not paid by the assessee directly to the transporter for transportation of any goods. Thus, the said activity cannot be covered under GTA Services, hence, no service tax liability can be levied on the aforesaid amount/expenses/charges under GTA services” stated the bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical).
Legal & Consultancy Services Under RCM Is Liable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: Saisun Outsourcing Services Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Tax, Jabalpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54991 Of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that legal & consultancy services under RCM is liable to service tax.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has stated that “in absence of any reply or any supporting documents, Legal fees expense incurred by the assessee are expenses towards Legal services. Accordingly, Service Tax on Legal Fee expense incurred by the assessee is upheld.”
Case Title: Shah Rukh Khan vs Deputy CIT
Case Number: ITA No.6312/MUM/2024
The Mumbai ITAT has quashed the reopening of assessment proceedings against the Assessee/ Appellant i.e., Shah Rukh Khan for AY 2012-13.
The tribunal held that the reasons recorded while initiating the re-assessment, were completely silent as regards the allegation that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Case Title: M/s Akanksha Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51269 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that customs broker not responsible if client moves to new premises once verification of address is complete.
“The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client to ensure that he continues to operate from that address and has not changed his operations. Therefore, once verification of the address is complete, if the client moves to a new premises and does not inform the authorities or does not get his documents amended, such act or omission of the client cannot be held against the Customs Broker” stated the Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member).
FOB Value Of Goods Can't Be Modified By Anyone Including Any Customs Officer: CESTAT
Case Title: JBN Apparels Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50127 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no stranger to the contract, including any Customs officer has any right to interfere with the Free on Board (FOB) value of the goods.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has stated that “there is a privity of contract between the buyer and the seller and they alone can decide the terms of contract and in case of non-compliance by one, the other can seek to enforce it. The consideration or the transaction value cannot be modified by any stranger to the contract including any officer.”
Case Title: M/s Spain Electronics v. Commissioner (Appeals-I)
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50585 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that installation and commissioning of goods after sale is not a “works contracts”, hence service tax is not leviable.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “merely because the goods were installed and commissioned after sale, the contract would not become a works contract services.”
Service Tax Is Leviable On Renting Of Immovable Property: CESTAT
Case Title: Satnam Kaur v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 53769 OF 2014
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is leviable on renting of immovable property.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has opined that unless the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property service is held to be ultra vires by any constitutional court, it will continue to be a valid levy.
Case Title: M/s Essjay Telecom and IT Services Private Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50853 OF 2024
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount deposited as service tax, if refundable, should not be treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
“Section 11B provides for refund of duty or service tax. If an amount is already paid as duty or service tax, it is reckoned while computing if any further amount needs to be paid to meet the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under section 35F. Merely because such adjustment is made, the amount paid as service tax or fine or penalty does not become pre-deposit under section 35F” stated the bench of P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member).
No Service Tax On Services By Organizer In Respect Of Business Exhibition Held Outside India: CESTAT
Case Title: Aksh Optifibre Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Alwar
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 50810 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that no service tax on services by organizer in respect of business exhibition held outside India. The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that
“…the Business Exhibition for which the appellant received services from the foreign agencies, were held outside the taxable territory. Resultantly, the Place of Provision of Services received by the appellant from the foreign service provider shall be outside the territory of India. Accordingly, appellant is not liable to pay service tax even under RCM.”
Activity Of “Chilling Of Milk” Is A Service, Leviable To Service Tax: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Jai Durge Ice Factory v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Udaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 52965 of 2018 [DB]
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that activity of chilling of milk is leviable to service tax.
The Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that “the activity of chilling of milk during the post negative period amounts to rendering 'services' as defined in section 65B (44) and is therefore, leviable to service tax.”
Case Title: M/s. Raj Kumar Jain v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – Jodhpur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 54671 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the advertising agency being a pure agent is not liable to pay service tax on amount payable to media companies on behalf of their clients.
The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “The assessee has conceded about their liability to pay service tax on the amount of commission received by them while rendering the advertising agency service to the print media. However, still has contested the same on the ground of limitation.”
Case Title: M/s The Indure Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51192 Of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that if an assessee fails to discharge his tax liability under the bonafide belief that tax did not need to be paid, no penalty is leviable.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that, “even if payment is made through CENVAT for GTA services, which is impermissible, it cannot be stated that the assessee had misstated or suppressed any information or evaded tax in as much as the details of the payment were available in the return.”
Service Tax Leviable On RIICO And RASMB For Commercial And Industrial Construction Services: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Gokulnath Construction Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Central GST, Jaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 53032 OF 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that there is a service tax liability on RIICO and RASMB for commercial and industrial construction services.
The Bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) was addressing the issue of the tax liability of the service provider providing “Commercial and Industrial Construction Service” to the public authorities.
Amount Recovered Towards Penalty Is Not A Service, Service Tax Not Leviable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. AVVNL V. Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51973 of 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the amount recovered towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity and as a result there is no 'service'. Therefore, no service tax is leviable.
The Bench of Bintu Tamta (Technical) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “the amount recovered by the assessee towards penalty is not a consideration for any activity which has been undertaken by the assessee and as a result there is no 'service' in terms of Section 65B (44) of the Act.”
Service Tax Not Leviable On Excess Transportation Charges Recovered From Buyers: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No. 51587 of 2017
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax is not leviable on excess transportation charges recovered from the buyers.
The activity of arranging transportation of goods till the dealer's premises cannot be classified under “Business Auxiliary Service” and, therefore, no service tax is payable on transportation related expenses recovered in excess by the assessee from their buyers, stated the Bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical).
Customs Broker Cannot Be Faulted For Trusting Government-Issued Certificates: CESTAT
Case Title: Ravi Dhanwariya v. The Commissioner of Customs-New Delhi -Airport And General
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 54889 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that when a government officer issues a certificate or registration with an address to an exporter, the Customs Broker cannot be faulted for trusting the certificates so issued.
The Tribunal opined that “If there are documents issued by the Government Officers which show that the client is functioning at the address, it would be reasonable for the Customs Broker to presume that the officer is not wrong and that the client is indeed, functioning at that address.”
Case title: Kapil Dev Nikhanj v. ACIT
Case no.: ITA No. 1770/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi allowed renowned cricketer Kapil Dev to claim exemption on Rs. 1.5 crore one-time benefit granted to him by the BCCI in 2013, in recognition of his services.
Noting that the cricketer had offered the amount for tax under ignorance, bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and MS Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) said, “It is trite law that right amount of tax should be collected from the right person in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax could be collected except by an authority of law. When a statute specifically provides a particular exemption of a particular receipt from tax, the said receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because the assessee had offered erroneously in the return of income.”
Student Almanac And Teacher Planner Not Exigible To Excise Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s Sona Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Appeal
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 55542 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that Student Almanac and teacher planner not exigible to excise duty.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the submission of the assessee that since Student Almanac is used only by students of a particular school, it becomes a product of printing industry cannot be accepted.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Rajasthan GST Department Mandates Virtual Hearing In All Tax Matters, Issues Guidelines
The Rajasthan GST Department on 20.02.2025 issued guidelines on virtual hearing. The Guidelines have been issued in pursuance of the para 143 of the Budget Speech 2025-26 and in exercise of power conferred under Section 168 of the RGST Act, 2017.
The circular highlights that in Rajasthan, provisions have also been made for faceless scrutiny as well as carrying out of Business Audit and Enforcement pertaining to the taxpayers not just by the jurisdictional Proper Officers bit also by the officers posted in the Business Audit and Enforcement Wings. In such a scenario, it becomes increasingly difficult for the taxpayers or their authorized representative to appear in person for submission of documents or for personal hearing.
Recently, the new Income Tax Bill 2025 was introduced in Parliament. Although touted as a step to make Income tax law in India simpler, the Bill contains some provisions which may disturb taxpayers by infringing on their right to privacy. One such provision in the new Bill would allow the Income tax department to access the email, trading account, social media profiles and other personal data of assesses during tax investigation. However, it has been clarified that before the law is enacted, a committee will review it.
Such a provision causes great concern as it allows the infringement into "virtual digital space" of the assessee by extending the scope of the tax probe. So far, according to the old law, the tax officer has the right to demand access to laptops, hard drives and emails, but has no right to demand passwords of any social media account.
The Ministry of Finance has told the Parliament that the Income Tax officials cannot access the personal emails, social media accounts and bank accounts of all assesses.
However, there is a provision in the new Income Tax Bill 2025, which allows Income Tax officals, in certain cases of search and seizure, to access the computer systems of the assesses by "overriding the access code", if the assesse is not cooperating.