SUPREME COURTSupreme Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of S.5A, Kerala General Sales Tax Act and S.7A, Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax ActCase Title: C.T. KOCHOUSEPH VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 941 – 945 OF 2004 (and connected cases)Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala...
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: C.T. KOCHOUSEPH VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER ETC., CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 941 – 945 OF 2004 (and connected cases)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 554
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
"The challenge to the constitutional validity must be rejected on the basis of the ratio elucidated by this Court in Kandaswami (supra), Hotel Balaji (supra) and Devi Dass (supra)...Hotel Balaji (supra) specifically upholds the constitutionality of the impugned provisions, disagreeing with the opinion/ratio expressed in Goodyear (supra)", said a bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar, R Mahadevan.
HIGH COURTS
Calcutta HC
Case title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata v. Wise Investment Private Limited
Case no.: ITAT/238/2024
The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the Delhi High Court decisions in NR Portfolio and Navodaya Castles will hold no value where an assessee-company establishes the identity of its shares subscribers, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions.
In CIT v. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) and in CITA v. Navodaya Castles Private Limited (2014), the Delhi High Court had held that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the fact that third persons or company had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paperwork or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive.
Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/9/2020
The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit.
The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules.
Delhi HC
Case title: M/S Mahesh Fabrinox Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6006/2025
The Delhi High Court has criticized the “pattern” of persons, who either availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit or enabled the availment of fraudulent ITC, invoking Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge orders imposing penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Act 2017, on technical grounds.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta further observed, “This Court also takes note, with some consternation, that such large scale fraudulent availment of ITC without actual passing of goods or services may, if left unchecked, can lead to severe damage to the GST framework itself, which is meant to encourage legally entitled persons and businesses to avail of ITC and other similar facilities such as drawbacks etc.”
Case title: Mukesh Kumar Garg v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 5737/2025
The Delhi High Court has once again flagged concerns over rampant misuse of Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by traders, for wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that while the provision is meant to enable ease of doing business, it has been coming across many cases where this facility under Section 16 of the CGST Act has been misused by various individuals, firms, entities and companies to avail of ITC even when the output tax is not deposited or when the entities or individuals who had to deposit the output tax are themselves found to be not existent.
Gujarat HC
Case Title: M/s Sopariwala Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise & Ors.
Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6701 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court has referred a matter to the GST Council to decide on whether the compensation cess is leviable on goods supplied to merchant exporter.
The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray observed that “…no notification is issued by the Central Government or State Government under the Compensation Cess Act and therefore, the assessee is made liable to pay Compensation Cess at normal rate i.e. 160% on the supply of goods to merchant exporters for export…”
Himachal Pradesh HC
Case Name: M/s Himalaya Wellness Company v/s Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: CWP No. 9239 of 2024
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that when a show cause notice is issued under Section 74 Of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, the matter is still at a preliminary stage, and objections can't be raised on the ground that it was issued with a preconceived notion or that it violates the principles of natural justice.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja: “Merely because the petitioner has been served with the show cause notice would not mean that the same has been issued with the pre-conceived mind and in violation of natural justice”.
Jharkhand HC
Case Title: Jharkhand Private School Association vs. The State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 5455 of 2019
The Jharkhand High Court has partly allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Jharkhand Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (First Amendment) Rules, 2019. The Court struck down as unconstitutional the provisions requiring private schools to pay application and inspection fees and to maintain a security deposit for recognition, holding that the State lacked legal authority under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. However, the Court upheld the rules relating to land ownership or long-term lease and minimum land area requirements for private schools.
Case Title: M/s Sri Ram Stone Works v. State of Jharkhand
Case Number: W.P. (T) No. 5535 of 2024
The Jharkhand High Court stated that sale of goods at concessional rates alone does not constitute a sham transaction.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan observed that “notices under Section 61 have been issued to assessees and instead of pointing out discrepancies in the returns filed by assessees, the competent officer has embarked upon an exercise of comparing the price at which assessees have sold their stone-boulders/stone-chips with that of prevalent market price and, thereafter, accordingly, issued notices to assessees asking them to show cause as to why appropriate proceedings for recovery of tax and dues be not initiated against them.”
TRIBUNALS
Case Title: HIM Logistics Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs Export (ICD TKD), New Delhi
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.53566 Of 2018
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that penalty can't be imposed under Section 114AA Customs Act on customs broker merely for failing to physically verify the importer's premises.
The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the allegations that the appellant did not physically verify the premises of the importer, are not sufficient to fasten the appellant with the penalty. It has not been established that the appellant handled this consignment with any malafide motive. It is essential to establish an intentional or deliberate act or omission and to the act of abetment for imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act.”
12% IGST Is Leviable On Imported 'Lemoneez' Drink: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Dabur India Limited v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No. 75364 of 2025
The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 12% IGST is leviable on imported 'Lemoneez'.
The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) was addressing the issue of whether 'Lemoneez' is appropriately classifiable under residuary item 2106 90 19 as a soft drink concentrate [under miscellaneous edible preparations, not elsewhere specified], or under Tariff Item 2009 31 00 (juice of a single citrus fruit).