SUPREME COURT
Customs Act | Electronic Evidence Admissible Without S.138C(4) Certificate If Assessee’s S.108 Statement Admits Contents : Supreme Court
Cause 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 the assessees has acknowledged these the documents in the devices in their statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The Court clarified that where obtaining such a certificate is impossible, and the Record of Proceedings has been duly acknowledged by the assessee, the evidence collected cannot be treated as inadmissible merely for want of the formal certificate. If there is due compliance otherwise, the electronic evidence can be admitted.
HIGH COURTS
Bombay HC
AO Can Determine Annual Value Of Property Higher Than Municipal Rateable Value U/S 22 Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Tivoli Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and another
Case Number: INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004
The Bombay High Court stated that the assessing officer (AO) can determine the annual value of the property higher than the municipal rateable value under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.
The issue before Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was whether it is permissible for the Assessing Officer to determine annual value of the property for the purposes of taxation under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1960 higher than the rateable value determined under the Municipal laws.
Chhattisgarh HC
Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Not ‘Unexplained Money’ If Traceable To Previous Year’s Balance: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Nanakchand Agrawal v. The Income-tax Officer
Case Number: TAXC No. 8 of 2024
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that cash deposits during demonetisation are not unexplained money if traceable to previous year’s balance.
Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Deepak Kumar Tiwari stated that the factum of liquidation/refund of short-term loans and advances and its consequential accumulation as cash-in-hand as on 31-3-2016 could have been examined in the assessment year 2016-17 only particularly when the Assessing Officer has not discharged the burden cast upon him to implicate the assessee into the sweep of Section 69A.
Delhi HC
Govt Is Promoting Start-Up Culture, Customs Should Be Sensitive In Proceedings Against Them: Delhi High Court
Case title: Mitraj Business Private Limited Through Its Director Mr Manoj Kankane v. Union Of India Represented By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 12907/2025
The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to consider whether some “preferential treatment” ought to be given to Start-ups and MSMEs in terms of timelines, warehousing and provisional release in cases of misdeclaration of goods, especially in case of low value consignments.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed that considering the prevailing policy in India to encourage start-ups and MSMEs, the Customs Department also needs to be sensitized to ensure that such parties are given some consideration, especially, when the goods are not prohibited goods.
Passenger’s Non-Appearance For Appraising Seized Goods Doesn’t Stop Limitation For Issuing SCN: Delhi High Court Tells Customs
Case title: Gurpreet Singh Sonik v. Commissioner Of Customs
Case no.: W.P.(C) 13229/2025
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that the Customs Department cannot exceed the limitation period prescribed for issuance of show cause notice after detention of goods, merely on the ground that the person from whom goods were seized did not appear for appraisement.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain observed, “non-appearance for appraisement does not stop the limitation for the issuance of the SCN in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.”
TDS Default | Higher Compounding Fees On Second Plea Not Applicable If First Application Was Rejected: Delhi High Court
Case title: Sangeet Seth v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case no.: W.P.(C) 16569/2023
The Delhi High Court has held that the higher rate of 5% interest to be paid when an assessee moves second plea for compounding the offence of failure to pay Tax Deductible at Source (TDS), is not applicable if their first plea was simply rejected.
A division bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar observed, “5% is only chargeable when the earlier offence has been compounded. This means that the compounding order should have been passed, and also the conditions stipulated in the said order should have been complied with (like payments), for the respondents to claim 5% charges on the second application, which necessarily has to be for a second offence.”
TRIBUNALS
Refund Claim On Service Tax For Cancelled Property Bookings Maintainable: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Tax Goods And Service Tax and Central Excise
Case Number: Service Tax Appeal No.54979 of 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund claim on service tax for cancelled property bookings maintainable.
The Tribunal stated that the assessee had issued credit notes in respect of service which is not rendered to the customers on account of cancellation of the agreement and hence there was no scope of rendering any services on which the service tax could be levied.
Service Tax Not Leviable On Deposits Made Under Interim Orders: CESTAT
Case Title: Principal Commissioner v. M/s Micromax Informatics Limited
Case Number: SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 50318 OF 2019
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that service tax can’t be levied on deposits made pursuant to interim orders.
Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) were dealing with the issue of whether service tax can be levied on the amounts paid or deposited during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court as per interim orders.
ADG DRI Does Not Have Power To Declare DEPB Scripts Issued By DGFT Null And Void: CESTAT
Case Title: Pankaj Chordia v. The Commissioner of Customs, Cargo Complex
Case Number: CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50453 OF 2023
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that ADG DRI (Additional Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) does not have power to declare DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) scripts issued by DGFT Directorate General of Foreign Trade) null and void.
Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) stated that the customs officers who cleared the goods also must have also accepted the DEPB scrips in good faith. At any rate, the DEPB scrips were validly issued by the DGFT and neither the Commissioner nor the DRI has the power to overrule the decision of the DGFT and hold that the DEPB scrips were ab initio null and void.
Refund Of CVD & SAD Paid After GST Introduction Maintainable U/S 142(3) Of CGST Act: CESTAT
Case Title: Rashtriya Metal Industries Limited v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Surat
Case Number: EXCISE APPEAL NO. 10388 OF 2020-SM
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that refund of CVD (Countervailing Duty) & SAD (Special Additional Duty) paid after GST introduction maintainable U/S 142(3) CGST Act.
Dr. Ajaya Krishna Vishvesha (Judicial Member) was addressing the issue of whether refund claim is admissible under Section 142 (3) of CGST Act, 2017 in lieu of CENVAT credit of CVD & SAD, where such CVD & SAD are paid after introduction of GST due to non-fulfilment of export obligations against the goods imported duty free, prior to introduction of GST.
Assessee Liable To Pay Interest On Short Reversal Of Common Cenvat Credit Used For Exempted Services: CESTAT
Case Title: IBM India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax
Case Number: Final Order No. 21279/2025
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that assessee liable to pay interest on short reversal of common cenvat credit used for exempted services.
The question before P.A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) was whether interest liability arises on the short reversals of the cenvat credit availed by the assessee on the exempted services.
Preloaded Software On Imported Navigation Devices Liable To Customs Duty: CESTAT
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmi Access Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Customs Appeal No.2006 of 2012
The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that value of preloaded software to be included in assessable value of imported navigation devices and is liable to customs duty.
Dr. D.M. Misra (Judicial Member) and Pullela Nageswara Rao (Technical Member) were addressing the issue of whether the value of software preloaded/ etched into the imported navigation systems, be included in the assessable value of the said navigation systems and confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties sustainable.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
GST Council Announces Revised Slabs Of 5%, 18% And 40% , Cuts Rates On Small Cars, ACs
The 56th meeting of the GST Council was held on 3rd September, 2025. The GST Council inter-alia made the recommendations relating to changes in GST tax rates.
The changes in GST rates on services will be implemented with effect from 22nd September 2025. The changes in GST rates of all goods except pan masala, gutkha, cigarettes, chewing tobacco products like zarda, unmanufactured tobacco and bidi, will be implemented with effect from 22nd September 2025.
