The CESTAT held that tobacco pouches of small quantities (such as 4 grams and 9 grams) do not attract excise duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Tribunal noted that such small packages are exempt from the requirement of declaring Maximum Retail Price (MRP) under the Packaged Commodities Rules.

Since Section 4A applies only to goods assessed on the basis of MRP, its provisions cannot be invoked where MRP declaration itself is not mandatory.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ruled that these tobacco products must be assessed under Section 4 instead, setting aside the duty demand raised by the department.

[M/s Shiva Tobacco Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that State GST authorities have no jurisdiction to assess or recover Integrated GST (IGST) on imported goods, as such powers lie exclusively with customs authorities under the Customs Act.

The case arose from a show-cause notice issued to Avanti Feeds Ltd., which the Court quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

It clarified that IGST on imports is levied and collected along with customs duty at the point of import, making customs authorities the competent forum for assessment and recovery.

The Court also rejected reliance on cross-empowerment provisions, holding they do not apply in such cases.

[Avanti Feeds Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax]

The Supreme Court held that courts have no discretion to impose a penalty lower than ten times the deficient stamp duty on unstamped or insufficiently stamped documents under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.

Interpreting Section 34, the Court emphasised that once such a document is sought to be admitted in evidence, payment of the deficit duty along with a mandatory 10x penalty is compulsory.

It clarified that judicial discretion cannot override statutory mandates, and any relaxation is impermissible.

However, if the document is sent to the Deputy Commissioner under Sections 37–39, limited discretion on penalty may be exercised.

[Krishnavathi Sharma v. Bhagwandas Sharma & Ors.]

The Supreme Court dismissed the Income Tax Department’s appeal against a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings against RRPR Holdings Private Limited, NDTV's holding company.

The Bench dismissed the Revenue's plea primarily on the ground of delay. The dispute involved the 2009–10 assessment year, where tax officers attempted to disallow over ₹66 crore in expenses linked to minimal exempt income.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal previously ruled that such disallowances cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

The High Court held this finding binding, striking at the root of the reassessment.

[Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. RRPR Holdings Pvt. Ltd.]

The ITAT Ahmedabad has set aside an addition of ₹97.35 lakh made on account of unexplained cash deposits, giving the assessee another opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was largely due to the assessee’s non-compliance and failure to submit documents earlier, and held that the matter required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The assessee had claimed that the deposits were business-related transactions as a sub-dealer.

While granting relief, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the assessee for lack of cooperation, stressing the importance of timely compliance in tax proceedings.

[Firoj Sabbirmohmmad Moravala v. Income Tax Officer]

The Supreme Court has ruled that tax concessions granted by the government do not create an "indefeasible right" for recipients to claim them indefinitely.

The Bench held that the government maintains the statutory power to withdraw such benefits in the public interest, particularly for revenue augmentation or addressing fiscal constraints.

The Court clarified that while industries can enjoy concessions while they are in force, this right is "defeasible" and subject to the same power that granted it.

However, the Bench emphasized that such withdrawals must adhere to principles of fair play and reasonableness to avoid causing undue hardship to businesses.

[State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd & Ors.]

A special CBI court in Chennai has sentenced seven people, including a former Senior Tax Assistant of the Income Tax Department and a police inspector, to four years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a total fine of ₹2.4 lakh in an income tax refund fraud case.

The court found that the accused had fabricated income tax refunds by manipulating systems using forged documents and fake identities between June 2015 and August 2019, causing a loss of about ₹2.38 crore to the government.

The CBI had registered the case in 2019 and filed multiple charge sheets before trial.

The CESTAT Mumbai held that customs authorities cannot increase the value of imported goods without proper proof of undervaluation.

In this case, Flipkart imported power banks and declared their price, but the department increased the value based on data from other imports and imposed penalties.

The Tribunal found that authorities relied on a single unrelated transaction and did not follow proper valuation rules. 

It also noted there was no evidence of mis-declaration or extra payment. Therefore, the enhanced valuation, confiscation, and penalties were set aside, and Flipkart’s appeal was allowed.

[Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import)]

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a challenge to the constitutional validity of search and seizure powers under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Section 247 of the new Income Tax Act, 2025.

The Bench observed that since judicial review by High Courts remains available, the provisions cannot be deemed unconstitutional.

The petitioner flagged concerns over "anticipatory searches" and the expansion of powers into "virtual digital spaces" without prior judicial oversight.

While acknowledging concerns regarding potential misuse, the Court declined to "second-guess the wisdom of Parliament" and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea to represent before the Government.

[Vishwaprasad Alva v. UOI]

The New Delhi Bench of the CESTAT held that "Ready Roti" manufactured by Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. is classifiable as bread rather than packaged food.

The Tribunal set aside the demand for 12.5% excise duty, ruling that the product is chargeable at a nil rate. It observed that rotis are a form of unleavened bread, and requiring further heating does not alter their essential character.

Applying the General Rules for Interpretation, the bench held that incomplete goods possessing the essential character of the finished article must be classified accordingly.

Consequently, the product falls under Tariff Heading 1905, covering bakery items.

[Ready Roti India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax & Central Excise, Alwar]

The Supreme Court held that Rooh Afza is classifiable as a fruit drink under the UPVAT Act and taxable at the concessional rate of 4%, rejecting the State’s decision to tax it at 12.5% under a residuary entry.

The dispute arose after tax authorities treated the product as a “non-fruit syrup/sharbat” based on its regulatory description.

The Court observed that marketing or licensing labels do not determine tax classification. It held that the product’s composition, essential character, and commercial identity must guide classification.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the Allahabad HC judgments.

[M/s Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P.]

The Kerala High Court has held that a bona fide mistake in revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms cannot justify the denial of transitional Input Tax Credit when no tax evasion is alleged.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. said courts should adopt a liberal approach under Article 226 in such matters.

The petitioner had disclosed only incremental credit while revising forms pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court of India. Authorities treated the revised forms as superseding the originals and denied the credit.

The Court quashed the assessment order and recovery notice, granting relief to the assessee.

[Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner]

The Delhi High Court held that mere non-declaration of gold at the Green Channel does not automatically amount to smuggling, warranting absolute confiscation.

A Division Bench of Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Ajay Digpaul ruled that redemption upon payment of fine, penalty, and applicable duty can be appropriate where the lapse is not organised smuggling.

The Court dismissed Customs’ challenge to appellate orders allowing the release of 300 grams of gold under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

Upholding the exercise of discretion, the Court stressed proportionality and clarified that permitting redemption does not condone violation but calibrates consequences.

[The Commissioner Of Customs v. Ms. Shabnam Parveen]

The Supreme Court directed a telecom operator to pay spectrum usage charges (SUC) from the date its 2G licence was quashed, not from the date of re-auction or grant of a fresh licence.

The Court observed that once a licence is declared invalid, the operator continues to use the spectrum and must compensate the exchequer accordingly.

It noted that allowing payment only from re-auction would unjustly benefit the operator at the cost of public revenue.

The Bench issued the direction while hearing an appeal arising from disputes over the consequences of quashing 2G licences issued in the controversial 2008 spectrum allocation exercise.

[UOI v. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.]