Centaxonline’s Tax Gazette
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Centaxonline's Tax Gazette – Where Complexity Meets Clarity.
Today, we draw the definitive line between being informed and uninformed, empowering you with the latest and most essential tax insights.
Statutory Scope
Time period for export of Broken Rice to Senegal through NCEL extended by 1 month: Notification
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY? |? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The DGFT has issued notification to provide that the time period for export of Broken Rice to Senegal through NCEL extended by 1 month up to 28th February, 2025.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION NO. 57/2024-25
Date of Statute: 06-02-2025
Export of De-Oiled Rice Bran is 'Prohibited' up to 30th September, 2025: Notification
FOREIGN TRADE POLICY? |? CIRCULARS & NOTIFICATIONS
The DGFT has issued notification to provide that export of De-Oiled Rice Bran is 'Prohibited' up to 30th September, 2025.
Key Details:
Statute Number: NOTIFICATION 56/2024-25
Date of Statute: 04-02-2025
Case Chronicle
Matter remanded as order was passed without considering several grounds raised by the assessee: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where authority relied upon and almost verbatim reproduced contents of another order and had even not allowed assessee to confront with impugned adjudication order, following CBIC Circular No. 230/24/2024-GST, dated 10-9-2024, matter was to be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Key Details:
Case Name: Mediacom Communications Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 403 (Bom.)
Matter remanded as assessee was not given opportunity to explain discrepancies: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: There petitioner-assessee challenged assessment order passed by respondent-department, on ground that petitioner-assessee was not provided with opportunity of hearing to explain identified discrepancies, however, in Sree Manoj International Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer, matter was remanded back, subject to payment of 10% of disputed taxes by petitioner-assessee, therefore, relying upon aforesaid judgment, matter was to be remanded back to respondent-department, and impugned order was to
Key Details:
Case Name: Tvl. S.S. Enterprises Electricals vs. State Tax Officer-1
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 407 (Mad.)
SCN and order to be set aside as both DGGI and State GST proceedings could not be carried out simultaneously: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: In view of DLF Home Developers Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II (2024) 24 Centax 169 (Del.), both DGGI and State GST proceedings could not be carried on simultaneously; SCN and orders of assessment passed in pursuance to same were to be quashed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Metalax Industries vs. GST Officer Ward 66
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 404 (Del.)
Order confirming reversal of ITC to be set aside as same supplies were already dealt with in earlier proceedings: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner-assessee challenged subsequent assessment order dated 18.07.2024 on ground that respondent-department had initiated two simultaneous assessment proceedings for same supplies for Assessment Year 2019-2020, with preceding assessment order dated 21.08.2024 dropping proposal to reverse ITC, while, subsequent assessment order dated 18.07.2024 confirmed reversal of ITC, consequently, impugned order was set aside, furthermore, respondent-department was directed to verify, if
Key Details:
Case Name: Damro Furniture Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 417 (Mad.)
Order to be stayed subject to deposit of 10 percent of disputed tax amount as tribunal had not been constituted: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee aggrieved by order passed by first appellate authority wanted to file appeal before Tribunal, however same had not yet been constituted, appellate order was to be stayed subject to deposit of 10 percent of disputed tax amount.
Key Details:
Case Name: Rajesh Swain vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) CT and GST
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 422 (Ori.)
Order of High Court was not to be interfered with as there was no jurisdictional challenge: SC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where petitioner-assessee filed a writ petition challenging order passed under Section 73 by respondent-department, and same was dismissed on ground that petitioner-assessee had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal, there being no jurisdictional challenge, there was no good reason to interfere with order passed by high court.
Key Details:
Case Name: Classic Decorators vs. Sales Tax Officer
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 356 (S.C.)
Order rejecting refund claim to be set aside as authorities could not insist on levy of IGST on amount of ocean freight: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee filed application of refund of IGST paid on ocean freight and same was rejected, in view of judgement of Apex court in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 331 (SC), wherein it was specifically held that respondent authorities could not insist for levy of IGST on amount of ocean freight, order passed by respondent authority rejecting refund claim was to be set aside.
Key Details:
Case Name: Torrent Power Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 409 (Guj.)
HC granted stay on order which held corporate guarantee to subsidiary as taxable supply of service
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where assessee challenged adjudication order and notices on ground that activity of providing corporate guarantee to its subsidiary or related party was not supply and at most it was interstate supply, matter was to be listed for reply and operation of adjudication order was to be stayed.
Key Details:
Case Name: Schloss HMA Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 382 (Bom.)
No penalty for mismatch in goods if no samples drawn or test report obtained on difference of goods: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where goods of assessee were intercepted and detained and impugned order was passed under section 129, however no samples were drawn or any test report were obtained for taking a view on difference of goods and authorities also failed to record any finding with regard to intention of assessee to evade tax, impugned order could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Shivaji Udhyog vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 Appeal-II
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 383 (All.)
GST paid on advance amount for supply of goods or services is not to be retained by government if contract is cancelled: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where refund of tax paid by assessee to its supplier, who paid same to exchequer, was rejected and Single Judge allowed same on ground that contract in question having been breached, amount remitted to Exchequer by way of GST component in contemplation of discharge of contract by execution could not have been retained by State when contract failed, such order of single Judge could not be faltered with.
Key Details:
Case Name: Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals-1) vs. Nam Estates Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 377 (Kar.)
SLP against High Court order disposed of holding that assessee had an alternate remedy of appeal: SC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: SLP against High Court decision disposed holding that assessee should avail alternate appeal remedy against summary of assessment cum penalty and interest order issued by Assistant Commissioner in Form GST DRC-07.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bakshi Motors vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 395 (S.C.)
Proceedings under Section 130 of CGST Act are not permissible against a registered dealer if excess stock is found during a survey: HC
GST? |? CASE LAW
GST: Where pursuant to an inspection under section 67 at premises of assessee excess stock was found and impugned order was passed under section 130, since instant court on various occasions held that if excess stock is found, proceedings under section 73 or 74 will come into play rather than section 130, impugned order could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Dee Control And Electric Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 399 (All.)
Personal jewellery is not subject to monetary limit under Baggage Rules; confiscation order to be quashed
CUSTOMS? |? CASE LAW
Customs: ‘Jewellery’ in Rule 2(vi) of Baggage Rules, 2016 must be read (a) in conjunction with previous versions of Baggage Rules and CBEC’s clarificatory Circular No. 72/98-Cus., dated 24-9-1998; and (b) as inclusive of articles newly acquired as opposed to used personal jewellery which may have been borne on person while exiting country or carried in their baggage; hence, personal jewellery, not acquired on overseas trip and used personal effect of passenger, would not be subject to monetary
Key Details:
Case Name: Saba Simran vs. Union of India
Citation: (2025) 27 Centax 34 (Del.)
Conviction quashed due to failure to prove compliance with statutory provisions for search and seizure: HC
CUSTOMS? |? CASE LAW
Customs: Conviction of a person, from whose possession unauthorized gold bars were seized, could not be ordered merely because value of such gold bars was beyond Rupees One Lakh if search and seizure was not recorded before Gazetted Officer of Customs/Magistrate and independent panch witnesses and neither such panch witnesses were examined by prosecution nor seized gold was produced during trial and such person had also retracted his confessional statement subsequently.
Key Details:
Case Name: Sudershan Laxman Teddu vs. Union of India
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 477 (Bom.)
No service tax on commission received in foreign exchange for providing market information to foreign entities: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Intermediary services related to goods excluded from definition of “intermediary” under Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 prior to 01.10.2014 amendment qualify as export of services when payment received in foreign exchange.
Key Details:
Case Name: Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 413 (Tri.-All)
No denial of CENVAT credit on diesel & electricity used in providing output service under AMC with BSNL: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Issue for redetermination of admissibility of CENVAT Credit on amount indicated in invoice but not paid by service recipient BSNL to service provider is remanded for verification from end of service provider.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 474 (Tri.-All)
CENVAT credit cannot be denied without a finding regarding supply of original invoices for credit claim: CESTAT
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
ST: Credit taken on strength of Advice of Transfer Debit but Assessing Officer failed to record any finding that original invoices were ever supplied or produced to claim Cenvat credit; hence, matter remanded.
Key Details:
Case Name: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur
Citation: (2025) 27 Centax 17 (Tri.-All)
SLP dismissed due to lack of evidence that duty paid under protest was passed on to buyers: SC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
Excise: Supreme Court dismissed SLP on limitation against order of High Court holding that refund of Central Excise duty paid under protest under Compounded Levy Scheme on branded chewing tobacco, which was claimed by Revenue to be jarda scented tobacco, could not be rejected by applying principles of unjust enrichment if classification of goods as chewing tobacco as ordered by CESTAT had finality and there was no evidence that assessee had charged higher value/MRP on branded chewing tobacco
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Kanpur vs. Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2025) 26 Centax 457 (S.C.)
Order allowing refund upheld due to lack of evidence that duty paid under protest was passed on to buyers: HC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
Excise: Refund of Central Excise duty paid under protest under Compounded Levy Scheme on branded chewing tobacco that was claimed by Revenue to be jarda scented tobacco could not be rejected by applying principles of unjust enrichment if classification of goods as chewing tobacco by CESTAT had finality and there was no evidence that assessee had charged higher value/MRP on branded chewing tobacco and passed on incidence of duty to buyers.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner, Central Gst and Central Excise Commrt vs. Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2024) 25 Centax 440 (All.)
No NCCD on a dumper without a load body if it is captively consumed in manufacture of dumper trucks: SC
EXCISE & SERVICE TAX? |? CASE LAW
Excise: Supreme Court dismissed appeal on limitation as well as on merits against order of CESTAT holding that dumper without body having all essential features of a dumper could not be treated as chassis of a dumper, an identifiable and marketable intermediate product for captive consumption and demand of NCCD in respect thereof could not be sustained.
Key Details:
Case Name: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai vs. Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2025) 27 Centax 4 (S.C.)
As we conclude this issue of Tax Gazette, we hope you've gained clarity and insights on the critical legal and tax matters that shape our world. Remember, with Centaxonline. You're not just informed. You're insightfully empowered.
????????????????????????.??????—Blending 50+ years of editorial excellence and 20+ years of research expertise with cutting-edge technology.
?????? ????????????????:
— ???????????????????? ???????????? with real-time updates
— ???????????????? ????-?????????? ???????????? ???????????? inspired by R.K. Jain’s GST ExCus
— ????????-???????? ??????????????????of Case Laws and Statutes
— ??,????,??????+ ???????? ???????? with expertly drafted headnotes and judicial analysis
— ???????????? ?????????????? Acts, Rules, Circulars, Notifications, GST & Customs Tariffs
— ????,??????+ ?????????????????? & ??????????????????????????covering GST, Customs, Excise, and FTP
— ???????????? ???????? featuring historical and current GST/Customs Tariffs with HSN/SAC codes
— ???????????????? ????-?????????????? ???????????? ????????????????
? Autocomplete Predictions
? Two Search Modes
? Refined Filters
? Dynamic Search Options
— ????????-???????????????? ??????????
? Split-Screen Interface
? Hyperlinked Navigation
? Bookmarks & Notes
? Export Options
— ???????????????????? ??????????????????, including Finance Acts & Bills, GST Council Meetings, and Expert Commentaries
— ?????? ???????????????????????? ??????????, Includes GST, Customs, Excise, Service-Tax and FTP
???????????????? ?? ???????????? ???? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??-?????? ???????? ??????????! https://centax.one/neefy