The Kerala High Court ruled that printing digital images or letters on paper constitutes a service, which attracts an 18% GST rate, not 12%.
The Court found that the activity is a composite supply involving both goods (ink and paper) and services (printing digital content).
The predominant element is the printing service, classifiable under SAC 998386 for photographic and videographic processing.
Dismissing the plea for a 12% GST, the Court confirmed that printing from digital media constitutes a taxable service at 18%.
[M/s Stark Photo Book v The Assistant Commissioner]
KavyanjaliBookmark
The Supreme Court has held that ink and chemicals used in the printing of lottery tickets are taxable under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, characterising their transfer as a “deemed sale” concurrent with the lottery sale.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan dismissed appeals by Aristo Printers Pvt. Ltd., affirming that when these materials are incorporated into lottery tickets, the property in them is transferred under a works contract.
The Court clarified that even if the materials lose their original form during printing, the taxable event occurs upon their incorporation, making them liable under Section 3F(1)(b).
SoumyaBookmark
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that notice pay recovered from employees who leave without serving the stipulated notice period is not subject to service tax.
The Tribunal observed that such amounts are in the nature of compensation for breach of contract and cannot be treated as consideration for any service. It clarified that service tax is leviable only on payments made for rendering services, not on compensatory recoveries.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the service tax demand raised through the show cause notice.
9 days ago
SoumyaBookmark
The Delhi High Court clarified that increasing product quantity without proportionately reducing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) after a GST rate cut amounts to an offence of deception.
The Court further held that the authority under the anti-profiteering mechanism has the power to cancel the registration of any organisation that fails to pass on the GST reduction to consumers.
It emphasised that the intent of GST rate cuts cannot be undermined, noting that selling at the declared maximum price is permissible, but charging above it or failing to pass on the benefit is unacceptable and attracts liability under anti-profiteering provisions.
KhushaliBookmark
The Delhi High Court has stayed a letter issued by the Outdoor Advertisement Department of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) which demands Rs.100 crore as advertisement license fees from the developer of the Delhi-Noida-Delhi flyover.
The Court has held that the developer prima facie has the right to display advertisements and thus, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner.
It also clarified that no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner till the next hearing and directed the NOIDA authority to submit a reply within 4 weeks. The case is listed for further hearing on January 16, 2026.
[Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited v New Okhla Industrial Development Authority].
KhushaliBookmark
The Supreme Court has ruled that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable even for a cash loan exceeding ₹20,000, setting aside the Kerala High Court's contrary judgment.
The apex court clarified that the limitation under Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act (which restricts cash transactions above ₹20,000) does not invalidate the underlying debt or the cheque issued for its repayment.
The NI Act's purpose is to protect the sanctity of negotiable instruments, independent of tax law compliance. The Court also issued elaborate guidelines to trial courts to reduce the backlog of cheque bounce cases.
[Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr.]
YashashviBookmark
The Delhi High Court has ruled that proceeds of crime in money laundering cases cannot be treated as taxable income under the Income Tax Act, as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) takes precedence.
The ED said that over two lakh investors were cheated of nearly ₹494 crore, and the seized money was part of the criminal proceeds under investigation.
It further stressed that the PMLA, enacted after the Income Tax Act, overrides earlier laws in cases involving money laundering.
After considering the case, the High Court ruled in favour of the ED. The court held that allowing taxation would legitimise illegal gains and undermine the PMLA’s objective of confiscating illicit wealth.
[Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax v. State & Ors]
YashashviBookmark
The Rajasthan High Court has extended the deadline for filing the Tax Audit Report by one month (October 31, 2025) under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
It was argued that the e-filing portal faced recurring glitches, which disrupted filings and that extensions had been granted previously.
Therefore, to refuse extension in the present case would be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
[Tax Bar Association, Bhilwara v Union of India & Anr.]
KhushaliBookmark
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Airports Authority of India’s (AAI) appeal challenging the service tax levy on export cargo handling.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale held that while export cargo is excluded from the definition of “cargo handling service” under Section 65(23), it is still taxable under Section 65(105)(zzm) read with Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, effective from September 10, 2004.
The Court ruled that all services provided by AAI qualify as taxable services and rejected AAI’s reliance on departmental circulars.
The appeal was dismissed.
[Airports Authority of India v. Commissioner of Service Tax]
SoumyaBookmark
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a pending tax case alone is not sufficient grounds to impose foreign travel restrictions on an individual.
The court emphasised that such restrictions must be justified by evidence of flight risk or intent to evade legal obligations, not merely by the existence of ongoing proceedings.
To address concerns that he may tamper with evidence, the Court suggested he undertake not to contact any exporters during his trip.
The Court ordered Shroff to give this undertaking to the trial court before he left India to attend the furniture fair.
[Sruti Vijaykumar v Falgun Yogendra Shroff and Anr.]
YashashviBookmark
The Orissa High Court has held that Clause 18 of the Vivad se Vishwas II Scheme is mandatory, binding procuring agencies to settle claims that meet the dual requirements of eligibility and proper documentation.
The Court observed that the scheme was introduced to resolve long-pending disputes and provide relief to contractors, and therefore agencies cannot reject claims arbitrarily.
Emphasizing that unilateral refusals defeat the scheme’s purpose, the Court directed authorities to ensure fair and transparent implementation, safeguarding contractors’ rights and reinforcing the government’s intent behind the dispute resolution mechanism.
a month ago
YashashviBookmark
The Delhi High Court has barred GST officials from accessing or seizing a lawyer’s computer device without his presence or consent, warning that such action could breach confidentiality and attorney–client privilege.
The order came on a plea by advocate Puneet Batra, who alleged that officials seized and accessed his CPU during a search in connection with alleged GST evasion by his client.
A Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Shail Jain directed that the CPU be examined only under court-mandated safeguards, with cloned copies shared with the lawyer.
No coercive steps will be taken pending the next hearing listed on October 30.
[Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors.]
UjjwalBookmark
The Allahabad High Court pulled up GST officials for disregarding binding precedents while initiating proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the GST Act. J
Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that while citizens are expected to know only general law, officers must follow higher court rulings to prevent arbitrary action and judicial chaos.
The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Institutional Finance), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit and mandated the creation of a structured system to keep officers updated on judicial pronouncements.
The court mandates that officers undergo regular legal training and adhere to judicial directives to uphold constitutional governance.
[Rajdhani Udyog v. State of U.P. & Ors]
YashashviBookmark
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) assessment orders issued without the mandatory Document Identification Number (DIN) are invalid but not void ab initio and remain operative unless annulled by a competent court.
A Division Bench of Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Sumathi Jagadam clarified that while CBIC’s DIN circulars are binding to ensure transparency, violation makes an order invalid rather than automatically null.
The Court dismissed writ petitions filed belatedly against such orders, noting that taxpayers had accessed them through the GST portal and could not plead ignorance.
YashashviBookmark
The Supreme Court will hear next week the Airports Authority of India’s (AAI) appeal against a CESTAT order confirming its service tax liability on airport services provided to airlines under the pre-GST regime.
AAI has argued that certain charges levied on airlines are exempt and do not fall within the scope of “airport services” as defined under the Finance Act.
The outcome could significantly affect operational costs and pricing in the aviation sector. The case will turn on the interpretation of taxable services prior to GST implementation.
a month ago
YashashviBookmark