Voluntarily Filed Returns Cannot Be Revised Through Additional Evidence Under Rule 29 ITAT Rules: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised through additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules (Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963). Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that since returns have been presented by the respective appellants, declaring the respective figures as...

FIRC Need Not Match Each Transaction, Periodic Certificate Sufficient If Total Forex Benefit Proven: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) need not correspond to each individual transaction and it may reflect a period as a whole, provided that the overall benefit being claimed is fully substantiated by the total foreign exchange remittance.FIRC is issued by bank as proof of international payments for exports.A division bench comprising ​​justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed,“FIRCs need not match transaction by transaction and could even...

[S.6 CGST Act] J&K&L High Court Upholds GST Show Cause Notices Based On Intelligence Inputs

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that intelligence-based enforcement actions can be initiated by either the Central or the State tax authorities, irrespective of taxpayer assignment, and such actions do not require a separate notification for cross-empowerment.The court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several companies challenging show cause notices issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. A...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rejection Of AAI's ₹9.34 Crore CENVAT Credit

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the GST authority rejecting CENVAT Credit to the tune of Rs.9.34 crores claimed by the Airport Authority of India.A division bench comprising ​​justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain noted that the central authority had failed to furnish documents in support of its claim and said, “there is no jurisdictional error or arbitrary exercise of power in the passing of the adjudication order which warrants interreference under writ...

Tax Monthly Digest: September 2025

SUPREME COURTCustoms Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee's S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme CourtCause Title: ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL ADJUDICATION, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS SURESH KUMAR AND CO. IMPEX PVT. LTD. & ORS.The Supreme Court recently held that electronic evidence seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (“DRI”) can be admissible even without a certificate under Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, if...

Who Is Prescribed Authority For Appeal U/S 54 U.P. Water Supply & Sewerage Act? Allahabad High Court Asks State

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has asked the State to clarify as to who is the prescribed authority under Section 54 of the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975 to decide appeal against the assessment order passed by JaI Sansthan or any other agency under sub-section (2) of Section 53 of the Act. Petitioner, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Transport Aircraft Division Chakeri, Kanpur is engaged in the manufacture, repair and overhauling of sophisticated Aircrafts and other Defence...

Delhi High Court Flags Glitch In GST Portal Generating Notice For Personal Hearing After Decision On Appeal

The Delhi High Court recently came across a peculiar case relating to Input Tax Credit refund claim, whereby a notice for personal hearing was issued to the trader, after the Appellate Authority rejected its plea.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain flagged the glitch in the Department's portal, which generated a personal hearing notice after the passage of the final order.“At the time of the uploading of the order, a date is again fixed for personal hearing by a...

Assessments U/S 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act Must Be Finalised Within Reasonable Time Despite Absence Of Limitation Period: High Court

The Kerala High Court stated that the assessments under Section 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act must be finalised within a reasonable period despite the absence of a limitation period. Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions...

After Delhi High Court Nudge, Customs Dept Finalises Amendments To Baggage Rules, Seeks Time For Infrastructure Upgrade

The Customs Department recently informed the Delhi High Court that the Draft Baggage Rules (amending Baggage Rules, 2016) have been finalized and are ready to be issued.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta were further informed that the Department is awaiting upgradation of IT infrastructure, for effective implementation of the new rules.“Issuance of amended Baggage Rule without proper regulation and IT Infrastructure will again give rise to litigation thus...

Penalty Can Be Imposed On Courier Agency For Not Reporting Suspicious Consignment To Customs: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Commissioner of Customs can impose a penalty on a courier service which fails to report suspicious consignments being sent or received from abroad.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that courier agencies have a responsibility to ensure that whenever there are any suspicious courier packets being delivered or being transacted through them, due diligence ought to be exercised and if there is any suspicion, the same...

S.171 GST Act | Businesses Registration Can Be Cancelled Over Non-Reduction Of Prices After GST-Rate Cut: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an authority constituted under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 can order businesses to reduce their prices following reduction in GST rates applicable to their products.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain further held that such authority can also impose penalty or cancel GST registration of those in default, in extreme cases.“In the event the 'authority' confirms there is a necessity to apply anti...

After GST Rate Cut, Non-Reduction Of Price Can't Be Justified By Secretly Increasing Product Quantity At Same MRP : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that when GST rates applicable on a given product are reduced by the GST Council, its benefit should trickle down to the end consumer by reduction in prices of such products.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that letting manufacturers increase the quantity of the product while charging the same MRP will defeat the purpose of rate-cuts.“The benefits extended to the consumer are also of utmost importance. The purpose of...