The petitioners, Union of India and another, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 12 March 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 114/2025. The matter relates to the interpretation and application of Section 25(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which stipulates that each registration obtained under the Act shall be treated as a distinct person for all purposes of the statute.During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that the Delhi High Court’s decision had failed to give due effect to this statutory provision. It was argued that the High Court’s view disregarded the legislative intent that separate registrations must be considered as distinct taxable entities, which directly impacts the manner in which tax liabilities and compliance are to be determined under the CGST framework.After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable within six weeks, thereby seeking their response to the issues raised in the petition.
Union of India & Anr. v. M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 15-07-2025
The petitioners, Union of India and another, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment and order dated 12 March 2025 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 114/2025. The matter relates to the interpretation and application of Section 25(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, which stipulates that each registration obtained under the Act shall be treated as a distinct person for all purposes of the statute.During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, contended that the Delhi High Court’s decision had failed to give due effect to this statutory provision. It was argued that the High Court’s view disregarded the legislative intent that separate registrations must be considered as distinct taxable entities, which directly impacts the manner in which tax liabilities and compliance are to be determined under the CGST framework.After hearing the petitioner’s counsel, the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents, returnable within six weeks, thereby seeking their response to the issues raised in the petition.
The appeal arose from an interim order of the Karnataka High Court granting interim bail to respondent No. 1, Ritu Nitin Minocha, who was accused under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 of being involved in large-scale tax evasion allegedly exceeding ₹660 crores. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and her husband jointly operated multiple companies to defraud the revenue. The appellant contended that the High Court had granted bail in undue haste, within a day of the writ petition being filed, without disclosing that a bail application was already pending before the Trial Court.The respondent argued that she was a woman and that the alleged tax liability pertaining to her companies was below ₹5 crores, which under the CGST Act would make the offences non-cognizable. It was further contended that the clubbing of liabilities of her husband’s companies was unjustified.The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim bail order granted by the Karnataka High Court. The Court held that the manner and timeframe in which the High Court entertained and disposed of the writ petition raised serious procedural concerns, as the Trial Court was already seized of the matter. It directed respondent No. 1 to surrender before the Trial Court within one week and ordered that the pending proceedings before the High Court be reassigned to another bench by the Chief Justice for consideration on merits.The Court clarified that all questions of law and fact remained open to be argued before the High Court and that the interim protection granted earlier would cease upon surrender. The Supreme Court’s order was directed to be communicated immediately to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court for compliance.
Senior Intelligence Officer v. Ritu Nitin Minocha & Another 15-07-2025
The appeal arose from an interim order of the Karnataka High Court granting interim bail to respondent No. 1, Ritu Nitin Minocha, who was accused under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 of being involved in large-scale tax evasion allegedly exceeding ₹660 crores. The prosecution alleged that the respondent and her husband jointly operated multiple companies to defraud the revenue. The appellant contended that the High Court had granted bail in undue haste, within a day of the writ petition being filed, without disclosing that a bail application was already pending before the Trial Court.The respondent argued that she was a woman and that the alleged tax liability pertaining to her companies was below ₹5 crores, which under the CGST Act would make the offences non-cognizable. It was further contended that the clubbing of liabilities of her husband’s companies was unjustified.The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim bail order granted by the Karnataka High Court. The Court held that the manner and timeframe in which the High Court entertained and disposed of the writ petition raised serious procedural concerns, as the Trial Court was already seized of the matter. It directed respondent No. 1 to surrender before the Trial Court within one week and ordered that the pending proceedings before the High Court be reassigned to another bench by the Chief Justice for consideration on merits.The Court clarified that all questions of law and fact remained open to be argued before the High Court and that the interim protection granted earlier would cease upon surrender. The Supreme Court’s order was directed to be communicated immediately to the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court for compliance.
The petitioners, the Union of India and others, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment dated 5 November 2024 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10940 of 2023. The dispute arose out of a contractual arrangement involving M/s HCC VCCL Joint Venture and issues related to tax liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent in respect of the contested demand and related proceedings, prompting the Union to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment. It held that no ground was made out to warrant the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, clarified that the question of law, if any, arising from the case was kept open for future consideration.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed along with all pending applications.
Union of India & Others v. M/s HCC VCCL Joint Venture 09-07-2025
The petitioners, the Union of India and others, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment dated 5 November 2024 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10940 of 2023. The dispute arose out of a contractual arrangement involving M/s HCC VCCL Joint Venture and issues related to tax liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent in respect of the contested demand and related proceedings, prompting the Union to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment. It held that no ground was made out to warrant the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court, however, clarified that the question of law, if any, arising from the case was kept open for future consideration.Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed along with all pending applications.
The petitioner, Kundan Singh, was accused of offences under Sections 132(1) (a), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion amounting to ₹13.73 crore. He was arrested on 27 March 2025. During the bail proceedings before the Madras High Court, his counsel voluntarily offered to deposit ₹2.50 crore, out of which ₹50 lakh was to be paid before release and the balance ₹2 crore within ten days thereafter. Based on this undertaking, the High Court granted bail on 8 May 2025.Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the bail condition, citing personal and family circumstances. On 14 May 2025, the High Court modified its earlier order, permitting the entire deposit to be made within ten days from release but warned that non-compliance would automatically cancel the bail. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that such a monetary condition was onerous and that his counsel had no authority to make the initial offer.The Supreme Court held that while courts must avoid imposing onerous bail conditions, it could not permit parties to misuse the judicial process by first offering monetary deposits to secure bail and later retracting those undertakings. The Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily offered to deposit the amount, and no claim of lack of authority was raised during the modification proceedings. It found that the conduct of approbating and reprobating undermined judicial sanctity.Accordingly, both the original bail order dated 8 May 2025 and the modification order dated 14 May 2025 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Madras High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations. Interim protection from surrender was granted to the petitioner until the High Court’s decision after remand.
Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise 23-06-2025
The petitioner, Kundan Singh, was accused of offences under Sections 132(1) (a), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion amounting to ₹13.73 crore. He was arrested on 27 March 2025. During the bail proceedings before the Madras High Court, his counsel voluntarily offered to deposit ₹2.50 crore, out of which ₹50 lakh was to be paid before release and the balance ₹2 crore within ten days thereafter. Based on this undertaking, the High Court granted bail on 8 May 2025.Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the bail condition, citing personal and family circumstances. On 14 May 2025, the High Court modified its earlier order, permitting the entire deposit to be made within ten days from release but warned that non-compliance would automatically cancel the bail. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that such a monetary condition was onerous and that his counsel had no authority to make the initial offer.The Supreme Court held that while courts must avoid imposing onerous bail conditions, it could not permit parties to misuse the judicial process by first offering monetary deposits to secure bail and later retracting those undertakings. The Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily offered to deposit the amount, and no claim of lack of authority was raised during the modification proceedings. It found that the conduct of approbating and reprobating undermined judicial sanctity.Accordingly, both the original bail order dated 8 May 2025 and the modification order dated 14 May 2025 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Madras High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations. Interim protection from surrender was granted to the petitioner until the High Court’s decision after remand.
The petitioners, the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and another authority, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 26 November 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15972 of 2024. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent, Super Products, in relation to proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 involving alleged irregularities in tax credit and compliance. The petitioners sought to contest the High Court’s findings, asserting procedural and jurisdictional errors in its order.The Supreme Court, after hearing the Additional Solicitor General representing the petitioners, found no grounds to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but dismissed the SLP, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision.All pending applications, including those for condonation of delay and interim relief, were also disposed of in view of the dismissal of the main petition.
Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence & Another v. Super Products 19-05-2025
The petitioners, the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and another authority, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 26 November 2024 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15972 of 2024. The High Court had granted relief to the respondent, Super Products, in relation to proceedings initiated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 involving alleged irregularities in tax credit and compliance. The petitioners sought to contest the High Court’s findings, asserting procedural and jurisdictional errors in its order.The Supreme Court, after hearing the Additional Solicitor General representing the petitioners, found no grounds to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court condoned the delay in filing the petition but dismissed the SLP, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision.All pending applications, including those for condonation of delay and interim relief, were also disposed of in view of the dismissal of the main petition.
The petitioner, M/s Sriba Nirman Company, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment dated 29 January 2025 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in Writ Petition No. 25826 of 2023. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s plea against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning a tax dispute. The petitioner sought relief on grounds of procedural irregularities and improper adjudication by the appellate authority.The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, declined to interfere with the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court found no merit warranting its intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.The Court also allowed the application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned High Court judgment. All pending applications were disposed of in view of the dismissal of the main petition.
M/s Sriba Nirman Company v. The Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, Central Tax and Customs & Others 16-05-2025
The petitioner, M/s Sriba Nirman Company, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment dated 29 January 2025 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in Writ Petition No. 25826 of 2023. The High Court had dismissed the petitioner’s plea against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning a tax dispute. The petitioner sought relief on grounds of procedural irregularities and improper adjudication by the appellate authority.The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, declined to interfere with the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court found no merit warranting its intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.The Court also allowed the application seeking exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned High Court judgment. All pending applications were disposed of in view of the dismissal of the main petition.
The appellant, Hyeoksoo Son, representing Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd., challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 19 February 2024, which had quashed criminal proceedings and the charge sheet in C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 arising out of Crime No. 287 of 2022 at Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The case involved allegations of financial fraud and criminal breach of trust by company officials and external advisors.The complaint alleged that the company, on the advice of N.K. Associates, transferred over ₹10.18 crore purportedly towards GST payments, which were instead diverted to entities controlled by the accused. An internal inquiry revealed that no GST liability existed and that the funds were misappropriated. The accused included Nikhil K.S., Ritesh Merugu, Vinay Babu Venugopal, and Anushka Singh. The respondent, Moon June Seok, a company executive, was also implicated for having allegedly received ₹1.8 crore in cash from a co-accused.The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the respondent was only a forwarding agent without a substantive role in the misappropriation. It found no prima facie evidence against him and accepted his explanation regarding the money as personal transactions.The Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that both the respondent and co-accused had given corroborative statements acknowledging the transfer of ₹1.8 crore, thereby indicating a prima facie link. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it ruled that quashing was unjustified when material evidence required trial examination.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 to the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 16 April 2025.
Hyeoksoo Son, Authorized Representative for Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Moon June Seok & Anr. 08-04-2025
The appellant, Hyeoksoo Son, representing Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd., challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 19 February 2024, which had quashed criminal proceedings and the charge sheet in C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 arising out of Crime No. 287 of 2022 at Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The case involved allegations of financial fraud and criminal breach of trust by company officials and external advisors.The complaint alleged that the company, on the advice of N.K. Associates, transferred over ₹10.18 crore purportedly towards GST payments, which were instead diverted to entities controlled by the accused. An internal inquiry revealed that no GST liability existed and that the funds were misappropriated. The accused included Nikhil K.S., Ritesh Merugu, Vinay Babu Venugopal, and Anushka Singh. The respondent, Moon June Seok, a company executive, was also implicated for having allegedly received ₹1.8 crore in cash from a co-accused.The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the respondent was only a forwarding agent without a substantive role in the misappropriation. It found no prima facie evidence against him and accepted his explanation regarding the money as personal transactions.The Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating the sufficiency of evidence at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that both the respondent and co-accused had given corroborative statements acknowledging the transfer of ₹1.8 crore, thereby indicating a prima facie link. Relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it ruled that quashing was unjustified when material evidence required trial examination.Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored C.C. No. 8373 of 2023 to the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court on 16 April 2025.
The petitioners challenged the validity of arrests made under the Customs Act, 1962, and the CGST Act, 2017, contending that the offences under these Acts were non-cognizable and bailable, and that officers lacked authority to arrest without a warrant. Reliance was placed on Om Prakash v. Union of India (2011) 14 SCC 1, which had held such offences as non-cognizable.The Supreme Court examined the amendments made to the Customs Act in 2012, 2013, and 2019, which explicitly classified certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable while retaining others as non-cognizable and bailable. The Court held that post these amendments, the ratio of Om Prakash no longer applied, as Parliament had consciously modified the legal position.The Court further clarified that customs and GST officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but they are bound by procedural safeguards enshrined in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Officers must record “reasons to believe” before arrest, inform the arrestee of grounds of arrest, and comply with the procedural safeguards under Sections 41-B, 41-D, 50-A, and 55-A of the CrPC. The right of an arrestee to meet an advocate during interrogation, though not throughout, was reaffirmed.The Supreme Court upheld the power of arrest under the Customs Act and the CGST Act but imposed mandatory procedural compliance to protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary detention.
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. 27-02-2025
The petitioners challenged the validity of arrests made under the Customs Act, 1962, and the CGST Act, 2017, contending that the offences under these Acts were non-cognizable and bailable, and that officers lacked authority to arrest without a warrant. Reliance was placed on Om Prakash v. Union of India (2011) 14 SCC 1, which had held such offences as non-cognizable.The Supreme Court examined the amendments made to the Customs Act in 2012, 2013, and 2019, which explicitly classified certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable while retaining others as non-cognizable and bailable. The Court held that post these amendments, the ratio of Om Prakash no longer applied, as Parliament had consciously modified the legal position.The Court further clarified that customs and GST officers are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but they are bound by procedural safeguards enshrined in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Officers must record “reasons to believe” before arrest, inform the arrestee of grounds of arrest, and comply with the procedural safeguards under Sections 41-B, 41-D, 50-A, and 55-A of the CrPC. The right of an arrestee to meet an advocate during interrogation, though not throughout, was reaffirmed.The Supreme Court upheld the power of arrest under the Customs Act and the CGST Act but imposed mandatory procedural compliance to protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary detention.
The appellant, Rajiv Jindal, along with others, was accused in a financial irregularities case involving misappropriation of funds. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences triable by a Magistrate. The Allahabad High Court had denied bail to the appellants, primarily on the ground that a large amount of public money was involved in the alleged scam. The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking bail, contending that all offences were bailable or triable by a Magistrate, that they had cooperated during the investigation, and that no criminal antecedents were alleged against them.The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to the appellants. It observed that all offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate and that the prosecution had not shown any previous criminal record or antecedents against the appellants. The Court noted that apprehension of witness tampering was speculative and not supported by any material. Considering the nature of the offences and the absence of antecedents, the Court found no justification to deny bail.The Court directed that the appellants be produced before the Trial Court within one week, which shall enlarge them on bail upon appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court was also empowered to impose stringent conditions to ensure fair conduct during the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.
The appellant, Rajiv Jindal, along with others, was accused in a financial irregularities case involving misappropriation of funds. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences triable by a Magistrate. The Allahabad High Court had denied bail to the appellants, primarily on the ground that a large amount of public money was involved in the alleged scam. The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking bail, contending that all offences were bailable or triable by a Magistrate, that they had cooperated during the investigation, and that no criminal antecedents were alleged against them.The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to the appellants. It observed that all offences alleged were triable by a Magistrate and that the prosecution had not shown any previous criminal record or antecedents against the appellants. The Court noted that apprehension of witness tampering was speculative and not supported by any material. Considering the nature of the offences and the absence of antecedents, the Court found no justification to deny bail.The Court directed that the appellants be produced before the Trial Court within one week, which shall enlarge them on bail upon appropriate terms and conditions after hearing the Public Prosecutor. The Trial Court was also empowered to impose stringent conditions to ensure fair conduct during the trial. All pending applications were disposed of.
The appellant, Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, filed appeals challenging the orders of the tribunal relating to the levy of service tax on certain transactions undertaken by M/s Citibank N.A. under the Finance Act, 1994. The issue involved the classification and taxability of banking and financial services, particularly concerning whether certain inter-branch and inter-company financial transactions were liable to service tax. The department contended that the services provided by Citibank fell within the ambit of taxable services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, whereas the respondent maintained that the activities did not amount to a taxable service and were exempted under the relevant provisions.The Supreme Court heard the parties and disposed of the appeals in terms of its non-reportable judgment. The Court upheld the reasoning of the lower forum, thereby settling the dispute in accordance with the findings of the tribunal. All pending applications, including stay applications, were also disposed of as a consequence of the main decision.
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise v. M/s Citibank N.A. 16-10-2024
The appellant, Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, filed appeals challenging the orders of the tribunal relating to the levy of service tax on certain transactions undertaken by M/s Citibank N.A. under the Finance Act, 1994. The issue involved the classification and taxability of banking and financial services, particularly concerning whether certain inter-branch and inter-company financial transactions were liable to service tax. The department contended that the services provided by Citibank fell within the ambit of taxable services under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, whereas the respondent maintained that the activities did not amount to a taxable service and were exempted under the relevant provisions.The Supreme Court heard the parties and disposed of the appeals in terms of its non-reportable judgment. The Court upheld the reasoning of the lower forum, thereby settling the dispute in accordance with the findings of the tribunal. All pending applications, including stay applications, were also disposed of as a consequence of the main decision.
