HIGH COURTSAndhra Pradesh HCNotice Under Rule 142(1)(A) Of CGST Rules Must Be Issued Before Issuing Proper SCN: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Sri Durga Granites v. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and OthersCase Number: W.P.Nos.3480 & 6504 of 2020The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that a notice under Rule 142(1)(A) of CGST Rules must be issued before issuing proper show...
HIGH COURTS
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.
Delhi HC
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.
Gauhati HC
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.”
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.”
Kerala HC
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.”
TRIBUNALS
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.”
