TMI Tax Updates - e-Newsletter
May 17, 2025

Case Laws in this Newsletter:

GST Income Tax Customs Insolvency & Bankruptcy Law of Competition Service Tax Central Excise Indian Laws

---

---

Articles

1. RECALLING AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES

   By: DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN

---

2. Neither AAR nor AAAR have jurisdiction to decide on the taxability under the Finance Act, 1994

   By: Bimal jain

---

3. Old Tax Regime vs. New Regime: Which to Choose for Financial Year 2025-26? With Automatic Income Tax Preparation Software in Excel for the F.Y.2025-26 as per Budget 2025

   By: Pranab Bandyopadhyay

---

4. How to Renew Your 80G5 Registration Details?

   By: Ishita Ramani

---

5. Types of Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights and how to protect the each such infringements?

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

6. 🖥️ Cyber Squatting: Meaning, Legal Aspects, and Remedies

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

7. Passing off – An Introduction(Intellectual Property Rights)

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

8. Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR)

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

9. A Brief Note on Corporate Restructuring 

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

10. Unauthorized Plastic/Flex Billboards: Municipal Corporation & MoEFCC’s Role – An Analysis

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

11. 🧾 Advertisement through Flex Boards and Plastic Billboards in India – Legal Framework & Regulatory Requirements

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

12. Modes of Corporate Restructuring and Acquisitions

   By: YAGAY andSUN

---

---

News

1. Centre allows National Recruitment Agency to perform Aadhaar-based authentication

---

2. SEBI Approves Merger of Sumuka Agro Industries Limited with Gujjubhai Foods

---

3. NSEL scam: IBC moratorium does not prohibit property attachment under Maharashtra law, rules SC

---

4. UK HC rejected Nirav Modi's bail keeping in mind sheer quantum of fraud: ED

---

5. ED raids linked to TASMAC case only to tarnish TN govt’s image, says DMK

---

6. QCOs have earned industry support because they have helped Indian manufacturers access global markets: Shri Piyush Goyal

---

7. IIFT Expands Global Footprint with First Overseas Campus in Dubai

---

8. Total Exports (merchandise & services) during April 2025 are estimated at US$ 73.80 Billion, as compared to US$ 65.48 Billion during April 2024, an estimated growth of 12.70%.

---

9. ED conducts fresh searches in Tamil Nadu TASMAC case

---

10. India-US trade agreement talks progressing 'very' well; team visiting Washington: Comm Secy

---

11. Attention - Advisory on reporting values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B

---

12. DGGI officers bust inter-state nexus involving 3 biz; Rs 13-cr GST evasion detected

---

---

Notifications

Customs

1. 34/2025 - dated 15-5-2025 - Cus (NT)

Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver

---

GST - States

2. 04/2025 – State Tax (Rate) - dated 12-5-2025 - Telangana SGST

Amendment in Notification No. 11/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated dated 29.06.2017

---

3. 03/2025 - State Tax (Rate) - dated 12-5-2025 - Telangana SGST

Amendment in Notification No. 11/2017-State Tax (Rate) dated 29.06.2017

---

4. 02/2025 – State Tax (Rate) - dated 12-5-2025 - Telangana SGST

Amendment in Notification No. 2/2017-State Tax (Rate), Dt. 29-06-2017

---

5. 01/2025 - State Tax (Rate) - dated 12-5-2025 - Telangana SGST

Amendment in Notification No. 1/2017- State Tax (Rate), Dt:29.06.2017

---

6. G.O.Ms.No. 52 - dated 9-5-2025 - Telangana SGST

Telangana Goods and Services Tax (Third Amendment) Rules, 2024.

---

7. G.O.Ms.No. 51 - dated 9-5-2025 - Telangana SGST

Errata is issued to G.O.Ms.No.121, Revenue (CT-II) Department, dated: 08.11.2024

---

---

Circulars / Instructions / Orders

SEBI

1. SEBI/HO/AFD/AFD-POD-3/P/CIR/2025/71 - dated 16-5-2025

Extension of timeline for implementation of provisions of SEBI circular dated December 17, 2024 on Measures to address regulatory arbitrage with respect to Offshore Derivative Instruments (ODIs) and FPIs with segregated portfolios vis-à-vis FPIs

---

GST - States

2. PUBLIC NOTICE No. 01/2025 - dated 9-5-2025

Grievance Redressal Mechanism for processing of application for GST registration

---

FEMA

3. 05 - dated 16-5-2025

Exim Bank’s GOI-supported Line of Credit (LOC) for USD 700 million to the Govt. of Mongolia (GO-MNG), for financing construction of Crude Oil Refinery Plant in Mongolia

---

DGFT

4. 07/2025-26 - dated 16-5-2025

Amendments in Standard Input Output Norms (SION) A-1303

---

---

Highlights / Catch Notes

GST

• Legal Challenge Succeeds: Procedural Flaws Invalidate Registration Cancellation Proceedings Under Natural Justice Principles

  ---

• Tax Credit Dispute: Authorities Must Provide Fair Hearing Before Disallowing Input Tax Claims Under Proper Procedural Safeguards

  ---

• Taxpayer Wins Challenge Against Tax Notice Due to Procedural Irregularities in Natural Justice Violation

  ---

• Free Silver Supply by Naval Formations Counts as Non-Monetary Consideration Under CGST Act Sections 15(2)(b) and 15(4)

  ---

• Panchayat's Weekly Market Fee Collection Through Contractors Deemed Non-Taxable Public Service Under Article 243G

  ---

• Input Tax Credit Denied for Imported Warranty Parts When Foreign Supplier Pays Tax Under Section 16 CGST Act

  ---

• ITC Blocked for Immovable Property Construction Under Section 17(5): Limited Exceptions Apply for Plant and Machinery

  ---

• GST Applies to Housekeeping Services for IIITDM, Not Exempt from Standard Tax Rates Under Current Regulations

  ---

• Medicines and Consumables for Inpatients Deemed Integral Healthcare Service, Fully Exempt from GST Under Notification 12/2017

  ---

Income Tax

• Zero Coupon Bond by Indian Railway Finance Corp: Rs. 10,000 Crore Maturity Value with Strategic Tax Designation

  ---

• Trust's Charitable Purpose Upheld: Section 11 and 2(15) Exemption Confirmed Despite Incidental Rental Income

  ---

• Taxpayer Wins Right to Rectify Income Tax Return After Demonstrating Genuine Hardship and Technical Filing Error

  ---

• Tax Dispute Resolved: Foreign Fabrication Charges Not Taxable Under Article 12(3) and 12(4)(a) Provisions

  ---

• Calculating Notional Rent for Unsold Property: Tribunal Sets Precedent for Annual Letting Value Assessment Under Section 23(1)(a)

  ---

• Tax Authorities Cannot Unilaterally Change Taxpayer's Elected Rate Option During Income Tax Return Processing Under Section 115BAA

  ---

• Long-Term Capital Gains Dispute Resolved: Cyprus Entity Validates Genuine Business Presence and Tax Treaty Eligibility

  ---

• Tax Deduction Dispute: ITAT Mandates Precise Expense Allocation and Narrow Interpretation of Export Incentive Income Under Section 80IC

  ---

• Landmark Tax Ruling Provides Critical Guidance on Transfer Pricing, Forex Losses, and Expense Deductibility for Businesses

  ---

• Income Tax Authorities Fail to Prove Accounting Irregularities, Tribunal Upholds Assessee's Books of Accounts Under Section 145(3)

  ---

• Retired Railway Employee Wins Tax Appeal, Validates Income Sources and Marriage Gift Claims

  ---

• Tax Regime Benefits Upheld: Form 10-IE Filing Deemed Directory, Allowing Substantial Relief for Taxpayer

  ---

• Penalty Order Quashed: Tax Authority Fails to Substantiate Misreporting Grounds Under Section 270A

  ---

• Tax Deduction Denied: Late Employees' Provident Fund Contributions Ruled Non-Eligible Under Statutory Guidelines

  ---

Customs

• High Court Grants Exceptional Delay Condonation for Appeal, Mandates Rs. 5 Lakh Deposit and Merit Review

  ---

• Roasted Betel Nuts Import Dispute: Scientific Uncertainty Leads to Conditional Release Under Strict Industrial Use Conditions

  ---

• License Denial Overturned: Pending Tax Litigation Does Not Automatically Disqualify Business from Regulatory Compliance

  ---

• Exporters Win Duty Drawback Challenge: Invalid Notices Quashed After Lengthy Administrative Delay

  ---

• Walnut Importer Wins Duty Exemption Case, Afghan Origin Confirmed Through Robust Documentary Evidence Under SAFTA Rules

  ---

• Fraudulent Duty Free Scrips Exposed: Illegal EDI System Manipulation Leads to Duty, Interest, and Penalties

  ---

• Metal Lease Charges and Insurance Premiums Included in Assessable Value, Extended Limitation Period Overturned

  ---

• SAFTA Importers Win Appeal: Duty Exemption Granted After Reviewing Origin Certificates and Supporting Documentation

  ---

• Aircraft Import Exemption Upheld: Leasing Permitted Under Non-Scheduled Services Without Violating Customs Duty Notification Conditions

  ---

• Gold Smuggling Case: Partial Relief Granted with Selective Confiscation and Penalty Reduction Under Section 123

  ---

• Imported Hydrocarbon Solvent with Xylene Isomers Classified Under CTH 29024400, Penalties Overturned on Consistent Declaration

  ---

• Imported Vehicle Misdeclaration Leads to Full Customs Duty Liability Under Section 125(2) for Vehicle Owner

  ---

IBC

• Subsidiary Shielded: Digital Signature Alone Insufficient to Establish Corporate Liability Under Insolvency Code Section 9

  ---

• Homebuyers' Claims Validated: Resolution Plan Must Include Undisputed Dues from Corporate Debtor's Records

  ---

Indian Laws

• Supreme Court Rejects Bail in Major Narcotics Case, Mandates Expedited Trial and Witness Protection Measures

  ---

• Supreme Court Upholds Comprehensive Arbitration Referral, Affirming Tribunal's Discretion to Evaluate Claim Arbitrability Under Section 11

  ---

• Personal Guarantors Remain Liable for Cheque Dishonour Even During Company Liquidation Under Section 138 N.I. Act

  ---

• Illegal Asset Seizure Invalidated: Section 14(1-A) Violation Exposes Improper Delegation of Possession Powers

  ---

Law of Competition

• Volume-Based Discounts Don't Always Mean Anti-Competitive Conduct: Objective Justification and Functional Rebates Matter Under Section 4

  ---

SEBI

• Municipal Bond Ratings Transformed: SEBI Introduces Expected Loss Scale to Improve Infrastructure Investment Transparency

  ---

Service Tax

• BRPNNL Denied Service Tax Exemption as Non-Governmental Entity, Ordered to Pay Taxes Under Finance Act Section 86

  ---

• Tax Dispute Resolution: Partial Payment Accepted, Remaining Balance to Be Settled with 9% Interest Under SVLDRS Scheme

  ---

• Distributor's Commission Deemed Taxable Business Auxiliary Service Under Performance-Linked Compensation Rules

  ---

• Legal Victory: Advocate Wins Service Tax Challenge with Exemption on Rental Income and Procedural Irregularities

  ---

Central Excise

• Refund Order Stands: Repeated Challenges by Tax Department Rejected, Finality of Original Commissioner's Decision Upheld

  ---

• Taxpayer Wins Relief Under SVLDRS Scheme: Discharge Certificate Issued, Demand of Rs. 84.46 Lakh Stands Discharged

  ---

• Non-Woven Polyolefin Fabrics Classified Under CETH 5603 Based on Fiber Composition and Technical Evidence

  ---

---

Case Laws:

• GST

• 2025 (5) TMI 1117
  HC found the registration cancellation order invalid due to procedural defects. The show cause notice lacked specific allegations, violating natural justice principles. The inspection report was not shared with the appellant, and their response was not considered. The Court set aside the orders, directing the original authority to issue a fresh notice, provide a fair hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with legal requirements.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1116
  Legal Case Summary:HC examined a GST input tax credit (ITC) dispute involving a PDS wholesaler's tax credit claim for Superior Kerosene Oil purchased from Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The court set aside an ex parte assessment order that disallowed the entire ITC claim, finding the Assessing Authority failed to provide proper verification and procedural fairness. The HC directed a fresh assessment, mandating the petitioner be given an opportunity to substantiate the ITC claim with documentary evidence, while emphasizing the importance of natural justice in tax proceedings.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1115
  SC deferred ruling on the validity of GST tax notifications No. 56/2023 and No. 09/2023, recognizing ongoing Supreme Court proceedings. The court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal against the adjudication order by 10th July, 2025, ensuring access to GST portal and preserving all legal remedies. The final determination of notification validity will be subject to the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in S.L.P No. 4240/2025.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1114
  The SC examined the validity of GST tax notifications and procedural fairness in tax adjudication. The Court set aside ex parte demand orders, directed fresh adjudication with proper notice, mandated email communication of hearing notices, and left the notifications' validity open pending Supreme Court review. The ruling emphasized natural justice principles, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard while deferring substantive legal questions to the apex court.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1113
  HC examined GST notifications challenging their validity under Section 168A. The court set aside ex-parte demand orders due to improper service of show cause notices, granting petitioner 30 days to file replies. While deferring the substantive question of notification validity to SC, the court emphasized procedural fairness by ensuring effective notice and opportunity for personal hearing in GST adjudication proceedings.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1112
  The HC addressed the validity of GST Notification No. 09/2023, focusing on procedural compliance with Section 168A of the GST Act. Given conflicting HC rulings and pending SC proceedings, the court deferred definitive judgment. It emphasized judicial discipline by awaiting the SC's ruling in SLP No. 4240/2025, while ensuring procedural fairness for affected parties in ongoing tax adjudication proceedings.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1111
  HC ruled that the Show Cause Notice was improperly communicated, violating natural justice principles. The court set aside the demand order, permitting the petitioner to file replies and receive a personal hearing. The validity of GST notifications remains subject to ongoing Supreme Court proceedings. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and effective communication of legal notices, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard is protected.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1110
  HC ruled on GST notification validity and procedural fairness. While deferring final determination of notification legality to SC, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner be granted a comprehensive hearing. The court emphasized natural justice principles, ensuring the petitioner can present arguments on audit conditions and case merits. All rights and remedies remain open pending SC's ultimate ruling on notification validity.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1109
  HC analyzed the validity of GST tax notifications and related procedural actions. The court set aside the ex-parte adjudication order due to procedural irregularities, directing the petitioner to file comprehensive replies. Recognizing conflicting judicial opinions on notification validity, the court deferred to the pending SC proceedings. The key outcome was granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and preserving all rights pending final Supreme Court determination of the notifications' legal status.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1108
  The HC addressed complex GST tax adjudication issues involving notification validity and time limit extensions. The court deferred final ruling on impugned notifications, recognizing pending SC proceedings (SLP No. 4240/2025). Interim relief was proposed for petitioners unable to participate in ex-parte adjudication proceedings, maintaining judicial discipline by awaiting SC's authoritative decision on notification legality under Section 168A of CGST Act.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1107
  HC ruled that tax authorities violated natural justice by issuing an ex parte order without providing mandatory personal hearing as required under Section 75(4) of CGST Act. The court quashed the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 and directed tax authorities to pass a fresh order after affording petitioner a meaningful opportunity to be heard, with proceedings to be completed within 12 weeks.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1106
  AAAR ruled that free-supplied Silver from old batteries must be included in the taxable value for GST calculation. The court rejected the appellant's arguments about contractual exclusions and job work classification. Applying Sections 7, 15(2)(b), and Rule 27 of CGST Act, the tribunal determined that the non-monetary consideration of free Silver constitutes part of the transaction value, mandating its inclusion in GST computation.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1105
  AAR ruled that a Panchayat's activity of leasing entry fee collection rights for weekly markets is a constitutional function under Article 243G. The Authority determined this activity is exempt from GST under Section 7(2)(b) of CGST Act, 2017. The contractor collecting fees on behalf of the Panchayat is also covered by the exemption as a back-to-back service provider, effectively excluding the transaction from GST taxation.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1104
  AAR, Gujarat rejected the applicant's GST classification request due to procedural deficiencies. The application lacked essential business details and supporting documentation. After personal hearing, the authority invoked Section 98(2) of CGST Act, 2017, to dismiss the incomplete application, citing insufficient information for meaningful tax rate determination.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1103
  AAR rejected the advance ruling application for imported car seats due to lack of specificity and jurisdictional limitations. The ruling found the applicant's queries about GST classification, customs procedures, and parts classification were vague and not sufficiently detailed to warrant a substantive ruling under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. The application was dismissed without addressing the substantive tax questions.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1102
  AAR rejected an application seeking clarification on Input Tax Credit (ITC) refund restrictions. The Authority determined that refund-related questions fall outside the seven specified issues in Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lacking jurisdictional basis, with the ruling emphasizing strict interpretation of advance ruling provisions and limiting the scope of permissible inquiries.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1101
  AAR ruled that a service provider cannot claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid by a foreign supplier for warranty parts. The key determination was that ITC eligibility requires the taxpayer to have paid the tax and included the input's value in a taxable outward supply. Since the warranty services were provided free and parts were not included in the invoice, ITC claim was rejected.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1100
  The SC analyzed ITC eligibility for a Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) and associated crane infrastructure. The Authority ruled against proportionate Input Tax Credit on construction inputs, services, and capital goods. Applying CGST Act provisions and precedent, the court determined that the PEB constitutes a civil structure, thus blocking ITC under Section 17(5)(c) and (d). Capital goods embedded in the structure lose separate identity, rendering them ineligible for tax credit.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1099
  AAR analyzed GST exemption for housekeeping services provided to a national research institute. The ruling determined that the institute does not qualify as a "Governmental Authority" under relevant notifications. The services are not exempt from GST, and the applicant cannot raise invoices without charging GST. The decision clarifies narrow interpretations of exemption criteria for government and educational institutions.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1098
  AAR analyzed GST treatment of medicine supplies by a clinical establishment. For in-patients, medicines are part of a composite healthcare service exempt from GST when supplied by a hospital pharmacy with a common GSTIN. Out-patient medicine supplies are considered independent and taxable. The ruling distinguishes between in-patient and out-patient medicine supplies based on their bundling and integration with healthcare services.

  ---

• Income Tax

• 2025 (5) TMI 1097
  SC dismissed Revenue's SLP due to inexcusable 646-day delay in filing, finding no satisfactory explanation provided. The petition was rejected on procedural grounds, with all associated applications also disposed of, effectively upholding the lower court's previous ruling.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1096
  The SC resolved two tax appeal issues: (1) validity of a notice under Section 143(2) and (2) applicability of Section 2(15) to a charitable trust. The court held the notice validly served on the next working day after a holiday and found the trust's activities charitable, allowing depreciation and rejecting the revenue's claim of commercial activity. Both substantial questions were decided in favor of the appellant trust, setting aside the income addition.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1095
  The SC examined a tax return dispute involving a clerical error in audit information checkbox. Despite an incorrect tick mark, the Court found the taxpayer was not required to file a Tax Audit Report due to meeting cash receipt/payment thresholds. The SC allowed the petitioner to file a revised ITR within two weeks, condoning the delay and emphasizing that the technical error did not impact substantive tax liability.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1094
  The SC examined the scope of Section 143(1)(a) in tax assessment, focusing on whether the AO could disallow deductions for delayed ESI and EPF contributions during prima facie processing. The Court held that highly debatable issues cannot be adjudicated under Section 143(1)(a), requiring instead detailed scrutiny under Sections 143(3) or 147. The AO's disallowance was deemed procedurally incorrect, and the impugned orders were set aside, with liberty granted to the Revenue to proceed in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1093
  The HC considered a case involving unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- based on the non-retrospective applicability of source verification provisions for AY 2011-12. The HC declined to interfere, noting the limited tax effect, but left open substantial legal questions regarding the evidentiary requirements for establishing the genuineness of cash credit transactions.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1092
  The ITAT examined penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act regarding losses declared in a belated return. The Tribunal found no concealment of income when the assessee did not carry forward losses from a belated return and voluntarily adjusted reassessment findings. The penalty was deleted, emphasizing that reduction in non-carried forward losses does not constitute intentional tax evasion or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1091
  Tribunal addressed three key issues regarding taxation of fabrication charges for a Singapore-based enterprise. The core legal question centered on whether these charges constitute "fees for technical services" (FTS) under the Income-tax Act and India-Singapore DTAA. After analyzing precedents and treaty provisions, the Tribunal held that the fabrication charges do not qualify as FTS. The appeal was allowed, the tax demand was deleted, and consequential issues of tax rate and interest became academic.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1090
  The Tribunal addressed tax treatment of notional rental income from unsold construction flats. It held that notional rent on unsold stock-in-trade is taxable under Section 23(1)(a) and 23(4)(b) for AY 2015-16. The amendment inserting Section 23(5) applies prospectively from AY 2018-19, not retrospectively. Notional rent must be determined based on municipal rentable value, consistent with existing legal precedents. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the tax addition with specific computational guidelines.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1089
  The Tribunal invalidated an assessment order against a partnership firm on multiple grounds: (1) the order was barred by limitation, as it was dispatched after the prescribed period, (2) the assessment was made against a non-existent entity after firm reconstitution, (3) cash deposits during demonetization were adequately explained, and (4) the special tax provision under section 115BBE applied only prospectively. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the assessment order.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1088
  Tribunal ruled on two key tax issues involving a conduit company's bank entries and commission income. For unexplained bank credits under Section 68, the court upheld deletion of protective additions, finding that once beneficiaries were identified, the conduit company could not be held liable. On commission income, the tribunal rejected double taxation, confirming that income already taxed in accommodation entry providers' hands cannot be re-added for the conduit company. Appeals by Revenue were dismissed for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2017-18.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1087
  The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's and assessee's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of two key additions: Rs. 8.49 crores for alleged bogus hotel construction expenses and Rs. 42.08 crores for alleged fictitious share sale losses. The Tribunal applied the principle of finality in tax proceedings, ruling that issues conclusively decided in original assessment cannot be reopened without fresh material. The reopening challenge was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1086
  The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal challenging a tax reassessment. The key issue involved an addition of Rs. 26,21,000/- as undisclosed income based on peak credit analysis. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's calculation flawed by not considering the opening cash balance, thereby rejecting the addition. Procedural challenges were dismissed as not pressed, and the appeal was partly allowed, deleting the contested income addition.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1085
  The SC/Tribunal addressed multiple tax-related issues, primarily focusing on procedural and substantive tax law. The key ruling condoned an 81-day delay in appeal filing due to non-service of order. The court found the CPC exceeded its jurisdiction by unilaterally changing the assessee's tax option under Section 143(1)(a), invalidating automated processing that disallowed Section 10AA deductions. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, directing restoration of the original tax treatment and deduction claim.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1084
  The SC/HC Tribunal addressed treaty benefits under the India-Cyprus DTAA for capital gains and dividend income. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's allegations of treaty abuse, affirming the assessee's Cyprus residency based on a valid Tax Residency Certificate, regulatory approvals, and substantive commercial presence. The ruling upheld treaty benefits under Articles 10 and 13, dismissing procedural challenges to interest and penalty proceedings. The decision emphasized the credibility of regulatory approvals and the importance of genuine commercial substance in determining treaty eligibility.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1083
  Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a tax deduction case under section 80IC. The key issues involved allocation of common expenses between eligible and non-eligible industrial units and classification of indirect income. The Tribunal remanded the expense allocation matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination and upheld the disallowance of non-operating income items like export incentives, affirming that only income directly derived from the industrial undertaking qualifies for tax deduction.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1082
  AT allowed assessee's appeal on two key grounds: (1) condonation of 640-day delay, finding the delay unintentional and caused by oversight, and (2) deletion of ad hoc Rs. 10 lakh expense disallowance due to lack of specific documentary evidence by the Assessing Officer. The appeal was ultimately decided in favor of the assessee, emphasizing principles of substantial justice and procedural fairness.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1081
  AT quashed combined approval under Section 148B for reopening tax assessments across multiple years. The tribunal found the single approval order for three assessees covering six assessment years invalid, citing judicial precedents mandating independent consideration for each assessment year. Consequently, all impugned assessments for 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were invalidated without examining substantive merits.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1080
  The SC Tribunal quashed reassessment proceedings under section 148 of Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10 due to procedural irregularities. The AO failed to properly record reasons for reopening the assessment, specifically not noting the prior filing of return. The Tribunal held that mechanical issuance of notice without proper application of mind invalidates the reassessment, emphasizing jurisdictional defects that render the entire proceeding null and void.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1079
  Tribunal addressed tax dispute involving additions under Section 68 of Income Tax Act despite presumptive taxation under Section 44AD. While rejecting complete dismissal of additions, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence regarding purchases from a purported supplier. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further investigation, directing verification of transaction genuineness and payment channels, with an opportunity for the appellant to present additional evidence.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1078
  Tribunal partially allowed the appeal concerning foreign life insurance policies. The AO's penalty under Section 43 of Black Money Act was upheld for non-disclosure of foreign assets in the Assessee's name, with two key exceptions: (1) RL 360 policy penalty deleted due to lack of beneficial ownership, and (2) Zurich policy penalty removed as the policy had lapsed before penalty provisions. The ruling emphasized strict disclosure requirements regardless of beneficial interest, with penalties leviable for each assessment year of non-disclosure.

  ---

• Customs

• 2025 (5) TMI 1058
  The SC quashed an FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating, finding the dispute was purely civil. The Court determined that goods were entrusted to an export intermediary, not directly to the appellant, and non-payment of sale price did not constitute criminal intent. The investigation was deemed an abuse of legal process, emphasizing the distinction between civil contractual disputes and criminal offenses.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1057
  SC allowed exemption application but dismissed the appeal due to 402-day delay in filing, which the appellant failed to adequately explain. The court found the delay inexcusable and disposed of all pending applications, effectively terminating the legal proceedings.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1056
  SC dismissed appeals due to 471-day delay in filing, finding no satisfactory explanation. The court upheld the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, rejecting the appeals both on procedural grounds of delay and substantive merits.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1055
  SC dismissed the special leave petition as misconceived, despite condoning delay. The court's two-judge bench, led by Chief Justice and Justice Kumar, rejected the petition and disposed of any pending associated applications.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1054
  The SC reviewed a case involving revaluation of seized foreign liquor goods by an ACMM. The court held that the Magistrate exceeded jurisdictional limits by ordering revaluation during criminal proceedings, particularly after customs adjudication had already conclusively settled the valuation. The court quashed the revaluation order, affirming that Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act permits only inventory certification, not substantive revaluation. The decision emphasized the primacy of prior adjudication proceedings in determining goods' value.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1053
  In this customs appeal case, the SC condoned a 1610-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The court considered extraordinary circumstances including COVID-19 pandemic, director's medical condition, and ongoing investigations. While accepting the delay, the SC imposed conditions of Rs. 5 lakhs cost and restrictions on unnecessary adjournments, restoring the appeal to CESTAT for merit-based adjudication.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1052
  The HC addressed a complex customs dispute involving roasted areca nuts. The court provisionally released the consignment subject to a Rs. 5 lakhs security deposit, based on conflicting quality reports from FSSAI and CRCL. While initial tests were inconclusive, subsequent analysis found the goods substandard under food safety regulations. The court mandated a Show Cause Notice and directed that the goods not be used for human consumption, balancing regulatory compliance with the importer's commercial interests.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1051
  SC dismissed review petitions challenging customs classification of arecanuts. The court upheld the original ruling classifying goods under Chapter 21 of Customs Tariff Act, finding no error in the advance ruling. Laboratory reports confirmed moisture content parameters, and the review petition was deemed an impermissible attempt to re-argue a settled matter. The classification was affirmed as binding and conclusive.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1050
  HC addressed service validity under Customs Act, 1962. Respondents affixed order on Notice Board, but petitioner challenged non-service at updated address. Court directed respondents to provide Order-in-Original and Show Cause Notice within one week, allowing petitioner to file appeal. Coercive recovery actions were restrained temporarily. HC emphasized Appellate Authority's role in deciding merits and limitation, without expressing opinion on substantive issues.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1049
  HC analyzed the legal interpretation of "penalised for an offence" in private warehouse licensing regulations. The court distinguished between offences and contraventions in indirect tax laws, ruling that pending litigations involving mere contraventions do not disqualify an applicant. The HC quashed the license rejection orders, directing respondents to grant the license within two weeks, provided other regulatory conditions are met.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1048
  SC upheld CESTAT's decision regarding customs refund claim limitation period. The Court ruled that in provisional assessment cases, the one-year time limit for filing refund claims begins from the date of final assessment, not provisional payment. The refund claim was deemed timely, as it was filed within one year of assessment finalization, consistent with Section 27(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1047
  Merchant exporters challenged duty drawback recovery and penalties related to de-oiled cake exports. HC ruled in exporters' favor, finding no intentional wrongdoing. The court quashed recovery orders and penalties, determining that drawback claims were valid for customs portion. Procedural delays and lack of evidence of deliberate misconduct invalidated the original orders, protecting the exporters from financial penalties.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1046
  Tribunal allowed importer's appeal challenging CVD assessment on mobile phones. The case centered on entitlement to 1% concessional duty rate under a Supreme Court precedent. The Tribunal found the original rejection of reassessment improper, holding that importers can seek duty modification through legal appeals if Supreme Court rulings support their claim. The matter was remanded for reassessment, directing adjudicating authority to apply the concessional rate in line with judicial interpretations.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1045
  The SC/Tribunal resolved a complex customs duty exemption dispute involving imported walnuts from Afghanistan. The key outcome affirmed the importer's right to SAFTA-based duty exemption based on a valid Certificate of Origin (COO). Despite departmental challenges involving isolated stickers and procedural allegations, the Tribunal held that a verified COO conclusively establishes goods' origin. The department failed to substantively prove mis-declaration, and thus the exemption claim was upheld, with the appeal allowed and duty demands dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1044
  CASE SUMMARY:The SC Tribunal addressed the validity of a one-year limitation period for Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund claims. Resolving conflicting HC judgments, the Tribunal held that the limitation period commencing from duty payment is invalid, as the refund right accrues only after subsequent sale completion. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to evaluate the refund claim on merits, without applying the restrictive limitation condition.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1043
  SC/Tribunal analyzed customs duty recovery involving forged duty-free scrips. The court held importers liable for fraudulent duty payment despite claiming non-involvement, invoking extended limitation under Section 28(4) of Customs Act. Penalties were imposed on the partner for negligence and collusion, emphasizing the principles of caveat emptor and that fraud vitiates legal instruments. Appeals were dismissed, confirming duty demand and penalties.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1042
  The Tribunal partially allowed an appeal involving customs duty assessment. Key findings include: (1) rejecting extended limitation period and penalty due to lack of willful misstatement, (2) upholding inclusion of metal lease charges and insurance premiums in assessable value, and (3) setting aside penalty provisions. The SC affirmed that mere differences in provisional and final invoices do not constitute intentional duty evasion, emphasizing procedural fairness in customs valuation.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1041
  Tribunal case involving customs duty penalty under Section 112(a)(ii). SC rejected penalty imposition against CFO due to absence of conscious duty evasion. Court emphasized that penal provisions require strict interpretation and mental element of fraud. Provisional valuation and final assay reconciliation do not constitute deliberate evasion. Penalty was set aside, affirming that mere value discrepancy without fraudulent intent cannot trigger statutory penalties.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1040
  Tribunal resolved three key issues in customs dispute: (1) Country of Origin certificates' validity under SAFTA, (2) clearance requirements under Customs Act, and (3) confiscation justification. The SC found COO certificates valid, removal of goods without formal clearance order a technical violation, and rejected confiscation. Tribunal set aside demand order, allowed appeal, and refrained from imposing penalties, emphasizing procedural fairness and absence of revenue loss.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1039
  SC Tribunal ruled in favor of appellant in customs valuation dispute. The case centered on allegations of undervaluation of imported machinery spares. Tribunal invalidated the penalty due to lack of admissible evidence, specifically: unauthenticated electronic documents, uncorroborated statements, and absence of proof of deliberate undervaluation. The Department's case failed to meet evidentiary standards under Customs Act, resulting in the appellant's penalty being set aside.

  ---

• Insolvency & Bankruptcy

• 2025 (5) TMI 1032
  Appellate tribunal reversed lower tribunal's dismissal of insolvency application. Despite absence of written loan agreement, court found debt and default established through demand notice, NeSL report, and corporate debtor's admission. The tribunal held that lack of formal agreement does not negate debt existence. The court reinstated insolvency proceedings, emphasizing that subsidiary's separate legal identity does not prevent holding company from initiating action. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1031
  Appellate Tribunal examined a Section 9 IBC application against a subsidiary company where no direct contractual relationship existed with the operational creditor. The Tribunal rejected the application, emphasizing the distinct legal personality of holding and subsidiary companies. Digital signatures by a subsidiary's employee on behalf of the holding company were deemed insufficient to establish privity of contract. The Section 9 application was ultimately dismissed, affirming the principle of separate legal entities.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1030
  The SC/Tribunal addressed a homebuyer's belated claim during corporate insolvency resolution. Despite filing claims after CoC approval, the Tribunal allowed the claim due to its documentation in the Information Memorandum. The court distinguished between commercial and non-commercial creditors, emphasizing equitable treatment for homebuyers. The Resolution Professional was directed to submit the claim details to the Resolution Applicant for potential plan addendum, balancing procedural compliance with fairness to vulnerable creditors.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1029
  Financial Corporation's pre-CIRP asset possession under State Financial Corporation Act does not confer absolute ownership. SC upheld IBC's primacy, allowing Resolution Professional to take possession during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Tribunal determined that possession under Section 29(5) is custodial, not transferring complete ownership. IBC provisions override State Financial Corporation Act, enabling RP to control assets for resolution proceedings.

  ---

• Law of Competition

• 2025 (5) TMI 1028
  The SC comprehensively analyzed allegations of market abuse against a glass manufacturer. The court rejected claims of discriminatory pricing, functional discounts, margin squeeze, and product tying under the Competition Act. Critically, the SC held that effects-based analysis is mandatory and found procedural defects in the CCI's investigation, particularly the denial of cross-examination. All allegations were dismissed, the CCI's order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to pay costs.

  ---

• Service Tax

• 2025 (5) TMI 1027
  HC ruled that a government-owned construction company does not qualify as a "government authority" for service tax exemption. The court held that the company's 'centage' income constitutes taxable services, and penalties from contractors are not taxable. The extended limitation period was justified due to willful suppression of tax information. The writ petition was dismissed, with the company liable to pay service tax on centage income but exempt from tax on contractor penalties.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1026
  The HC addressed a voluntary disclosure scheme dispute involving tax payment delays. The court permitted the petitioner to pay outstanding dues with 9% interest, despite missing the original 30-day deadline. While upholding the recovery notice's validity and the garnishee notice's legality, the HC balanced statutory compliance with equitable relief, allowing payment to resolve the legacy tax dispute while rejecting claims of unawareness due to a partner's death.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1025
  CESTAT Tribunal ruling on service tax and Cenvat credit for export cargo handling. The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, finding that export cargo handling is excluded from service tax, not an exempted service requiring credit reversal. Multiple departmental audits with no adverse findings precluded invoking extended limitation period. The demand for service tax, interest, and penalties was held unsustainable, effectively rejecting the department's claims.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1024
  Tribunal addressed three key issues: (1) limitation period for review order during COVID-19, (2) Cenvat Credit eligibility for services, and (3) remand order validity. The court held the review order timely due to pandemic-related limitation extension, denied Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services based on precedent, and dismissed the appeal against the remand order as infructuous. The appellant was directed to challenge the subsequent adjudication order in the appropriate forum.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1023
  TRIBUNAL CASE SUMMARY:The HC/Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the service tax demand from gross receipts to Rs.6,44,227/- by applying Rule 2C valuation rules. The court recognized exemptions for catering services to premier medical institutions, set aside penalties due to lack of deliberate suppression, and directed appropriation of previous payments against the revised demand. The ruling emphasized correct tax calculation methods and proper return disclosures.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1022
  Tribunal Case Summary:The SC examined service tax liability for multi-level marketing distributors. The key ruling held that commissions earned by distributors constitute Business Auxiliary Service under Finance Act, 1994. While service tax should technically apply only to immediate sales group commissions, the appellants' failure to provide evidence led to tax being levied on gross commission. The extended limitation period was justified due to perceived tax suppression. The Tribunal upheld service tax demand against the distributors.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1021
  The SC/Tribunal resolved a service tax dispute involving a rent-a-cab operator. The key ruling confirmed that under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM), the service recipient (GAIL) had paid the entire service tax, thus absolving the appellant from additional tax liability. The Tribunal rejected department's claims of suppression, found third-party data insufficient for demand confirmation, and set aside penalties. The appeal was allowed, establishing that once tax is paid, no duplicate taxation can be imposed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1020
  Tribunal ruled in favor of appellant on multiple service tax issues. Key holdings include: service tax on professional fees was correctly discharged on reverse charge basis, rental income from residential property is exempt, and tax authorities cannot confirm demands exceeding show cause notice amounts. The appeal was allowed, with demands dropped due to procedural and substantive legal deficiencies in the department's approach.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1019
  Tribunal addressed multiple service tax issues for a construction company. Key outcomes include: partial reversal of CENVAT credit for post-completion flat sales; confirmation of service tax on parking area development; setting aside demands on liquidated damages from agreement cancellations; disallowing penalties due to absence of deliberate tax evasion. The SC emphasized that self-assessment differences do not constitute intentional suppression, and extended limitation periods require concrete proof of fraud.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1018
  Public sector unit challenged Service Tax liability for constructing residential complexes for government employees. SC held that tax paid under mistaken notion is not subject to one-year limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Court found revenue's rejection improper, as tax was paid erroneously based on initial misunderstanding. Appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication, directing authorities to process refund claim within three months.

  ---

• Central Excise

• 2025 (5) TMI 1017
  HC ruled that the Commissioner (Appeals) improperly reversed prior refund orders by disregarding binding precedent from a coordinate authority's 2009 order. The court held that refund computation must be based on total duty paid collectively for products under Serial No.16 at 36% rate. The impugned order was quashed, restoring the original refund orders. Writ jurisdiction was upheld due to violation of judicial discipline, despite available alternative remedies.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1016
  SC reviewed a case involving duty demand against an appellant for non-submission of re-warehousing certificates for Export Oriented Units and Special Economic Zones. The court found insufficient evidence to confirm the duty demand, highlighting procedural failures by both the department and the appellant. The duty demand was set aside due to lack of conclusive proof of non-receipt of goods, emphasizing the need for cooperative verification and substantive evidence in customs proceedings.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1015
  The SC analyzed the appellant's refund claims for CVD and SAD paid post-01.07.2017 under CGST Act's transitional provisions. The Court held that: (1) refund claims were valid under Section 142(3), (2) rejection without show cause notices was procedurally invalid, and (3) the appellant had not unjustly enriched itself. The SC allowed refund claims, setting aside earlier rejection orders and directing cash refunds totaling approximately Rs. 21.4 lakhs.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1014
  Tribunal addressed key legal issues regarding excise duty on cement clearance. The case centered on whether packaged cement sold to institutional consumers with retail sale price (RSP) should be taxed under Entry 1A or 1C of Notification No. 4/2007-CE. The Tribunal ruled that physical packaging determines duty entry, not RSP or buyer type. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding Entry 1A applicable for packaged cement sales, dismissed the demand under Entry 1C, and set aside penalties and interest as time-barred.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1013
  Tribunal ruled in favor of appellant regarding Cenvat credit claim. The case involved disputed receipt of mechanical appliances and machine tools. Despite absence of supplier's logo on goods, the Tribunal found sufficient documentary evidence and physical presence of equipment to validate credit claim. The department's disallowance was deemed unsupported, resulting in setting aside credit denial, interest, and penalties.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1012
  The SC/Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the central excise duty demand and penalties. The Revenue failed to prove clandestine removal of Sponge Iron, relying on insufficient evidence like expert opinions and computer printouts. The court found the demand unsustainable due to lack of direct evidence, procedural irregularities, and violation of natural justice principles. The penalties were consequently quashed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1011
  Tribunal addressed the reopening of proceedings after a discharge certificate was issued under the Sabka Vishwas Legacy Dispute Resolution Scheme. The SC held that once a discharge certificate is issued under Section 129(1) of the Finance Act, 2019, the adjudicating authority cannot reopen proceedings or confirm additional duty, interest, or penalty. The Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs. 84,46,631/- and directed the unargued show cause notice to be placed before a Division Bench.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1010
  The Tribunal addressed two key issues: (1) CENVAT credit eligibility for input services related to factory setup after rule amendment, and (2) binding nature of prior Tribunal decisions. The court ruled that input services used for factory establishment remain eligible for CENVAT credit under the broad definition of "input service," even after the phrase "setting up of factory" was deleted from Rule 2(l). The Tribunal also confirmed that its prior decisions remain binding unless overturned by a higher court, thus supporting the Principal Commissioner's approach.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1009
  Tribunal addressed CENVAT credit eligibility for input services used in factory setup after statutory amendment. Despite deletion of "setting up of factory" phrase from Rule 2(l), the court held that input services remain creditable if they have direct nexus to manufacturing process. Relying on precedent cases, the Tribunal affirmed broad interpretation of input service definition, dismissing department's appeal and upholding credit admissibility.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1008
  The SC affirmed a tea manufacturing unit's eligibility for tax exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E. despite delayed claim filing. The court held that monthly RT-12 returns constituted procedural compliance, substantial capacity expansion was proven, and technical delays should not defeat substantive benefits. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, with the court emphasizing liberal interpretation of industrial growth notifications and rejecting procedural objections that would cause injustice to the taxpayer.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1007
  Tribunal resolved a complex classification dispute regarding coconut oil, holding that small-pack coconut oil should be classified under Heading 1503 (Fixed Vegetable Oils), not Chapter 33. The Revenue's rejection of refund claims was deemed unjustified, as the claims were filed during a genuine classification dispute with interim judicial stay orders. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing that Revenue must follow binding judicial rulings and cannot ignore constitutional principles when adjudicating tax disputes.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1006
  Tribunal resolved a classification dispute under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, concerning a non-woven fabric made of polypropylene fibers. The SC upheld classification under Chapter 56, Heading 5603 for non-woven fabrics of man-made filaments, rejecting Revenue's claim under Chapter 39. The decision was based on laboratory reports, manufacturing process analysis, and prior judicial precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and confirming the product's textile classification.

  ---

• Indian Laws

• 2025 (5) TMI 1005
  The SC examined whether a non-public servant could be convicted for abetting her husband's acquisition of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court affirmed that non-public servants can be liable for abetment by intentionally aiding or concealing corrupt assets, even if the assets are in their name. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, upholding her conviction for abetting her husband's corruption offence during their marriage.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1004
  The SC examined bail application under UAPA for alleged involvement in transnational drug smuggling. Despite challenging the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, the Court denied bail, finding prima facie case established. Key considerations included high evidentiary threshold under Section 43D(5), potential witness tampering risks, and complex smuggling network. Bail dismissed with liberty to reapply after six months, with directions for expedited trial.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1003
  The SC analyzed the scope of Section 195 CrPC regarding offences involving court documents. The Court held that once a civil suit is withdrawn, subsequent tampering with court records does not fall under Section 195, as no active judicial proceeding exists. The bar on cognizance applies only to offences directly affecting live court proceedings. The HC's direction to file an FIR was valid, and the prosecution could proceed without a complaint from the presiding judicial officer.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1002
  The SC clarified the scope of judicial inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court held that at the arbitrator appointment stage, courts must strictly examine only the existence of an arbitration agreement, without determining arbitrability of claims. The HC erred by excluding certain claims as non-arbitrable. The arbitral tribunal should decide such issues, maintaining minimal judicial interference in the arbitration process.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1001
  SC upheld that IBC moratorium does not shield a director/guarantor from criminal prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act for cheque dishonour. The Court ruled that liquidation of the company does not relieve personal criminal liability, and the appellant must comply with the HC's condition to deposit 25% of cheque amount. Criminal proceedings can continue despite insolvency moratorium, with a final opportunity granted for deposit to avoid custody.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 1000
  Trial court directed to expeditiously conclude a pending cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. SC emphasized strict adherence to statutory timelines, mandating trial completion within six months. Court authorized trial court to employ coercive measures under Cr.P.C. to ensure accused's presence and prevent unnecessary procedural delays, aligning with previous judicial precedents on expeditious case disposal.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 999
  The HC examined the legality of possession under the SARFAESI Act, focusing on procedural compliance and constitutional rights. The Court found significant violations in the possession-taking process, including improper delegation of authority and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the possession and directing respondents to re-take possession strictly in accordance with legal mandates, thereby protecting the petitioners' constitutional property rights.

  ---