High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm.
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable.
"A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed.
"Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20.
The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order.
The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department.
It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm.
The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May.
It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks".
The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order.
"In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said.
"This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Income Tax Return: Are capital gains from MFs taxed differently under new & old regime? What taxpayers should know about new LTCG, STCG rules
Capital gains from sale of mutual funds (MFs) are taxable In India, under both the old and new income tax regimes. (AI image) Income Tax Return Filing AY 2025-26: One important aspect of income tax return filing, apart from reporting income from salary, is also filling in details of any capital gains - short-term or long-term - that you have made during the financial year. If you are wondering whether taxation of capital gains made from mutual funds differs between the new and the old income tax regime, we have you covered. Capital Gains From MFs: How Does Taxation Work? Capital gains from sale of mutual funds (MFs) are taxable In India, under both the old and new income tax regimes. The categorization of the MF, method of computation of capital gains, is not impacted by the choice of the income tax regime by an individual. 'All the deductions available while computing the capital gains, including towards reinvestment in the specified new asset, continue to be equally available under both the new and old income tax regimes,' says Parizad Sirwalla, Partner and Head, Global Mobility Services, Tax, KPMG in India. Also Read | ITR e-filing FY 2024-25: What is the benefit of pre-filled ITR forms on the income tax portal? Top points In general, from a taxability perspective, MFs are broadly categorized into equity MFs and non-equity MFs. There is also a special category of specified MFs within the non-equity MFs. Parizad Sirwalla tells TOI, 'Effective 23 July 2024, gains from sale of equity MFs, if held for more than 12 months, are classified as Long-term (LTCG) and gains (exceeding Rs 1.25 lakh) are taxable at 12.50%. Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) from sale of equity MFs are taxable at 20%.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo Gains from sale of non - equity MFs, held for more than 24 months, are considered LTCG and taxable at 12.50%. STCG from sale of non-equity MFs are taxable as per the income tax slab rates. Further, gains from specified MFs are deemed to be STCG irrespective of the holding period and taxable as per the tax slab rates. Applicable surcharge and cess apply on the above tax rates 'The tax slab rates, surcharge rates and applicable rebates, will apply qua the tax regime chosen. The maximum surcharge under the old tax regime is 37% (triggers beyond income of Rs 5 crore) while under the new regime it is restricted to 25% (triggers beyond income of Rs 2 crore). It may be noted that under both tax regimes, surcharge is restricted to 15% on all LTCG and STCG on equity MF,' Parizad Sirwalla adds. Also Read | ITR e-filing AY 2025-25: What is Annual Information Statement (AIS) and how is it different from Form 26AS? Top points for taxpayers Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
High courts not custodian of revenue department, says Supreme Court; stays Bombay HC order
High courts are not the "custodian" of the revenue department, the Supreme Court has said while dealing with a petition challenging a Bombay High Court order that stayed a tribunal's direction for a refund of ₹256.45 crore to a firm. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan observed that prima facie, the High Court could not have stayed the order after holding that the appeal filed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate, was not maintainable. "A high court is not the custodian of the revenue," the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court's June 12 order, observed. "Prima facie, the high court could not have passed the order of stay after holding the appeal to be not maintainable and after recording that the writ petition and the appeal are disposed of as not pressed," the bench said in its order passed on June 20. The Supreme Court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the firm, challenging the High Court order. The bench noted that the high court had disposed of a writ petition as well as an appeal filed by the revenue department. It also noted that the appeal was filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a January 2025 order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Mumbai that allowed the Service-Tax appeal of the firm. The Supreme Court said subsequently, the company filed an application for the release of the amount, which was allowed in May. It noted that the high court had recorded in its June 12 order that both the petition and the appeal were "disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the respondent to prefer appeal before the Supreme Court, the High Court has stayed the direction of CESTAT for refund for a period of eight weeks". The bench issued a notice to the revenue department, seeking its response within six weeks on the firm's plea challenging the high court order. "In the meanwhile, impugned order of the high court dated June 12, 2025 shall remain stayed," the bench said. "This order shall, however, not preclude the respondent from filing appeal before this court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, if not already filed, which shall be decided on its own merits and/or limitation," the bench said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 2.
The Hindu
9 hours ago
- The Hindu
Bike taxi riders stage silent protest at Vidhan Soudha in Bengaluru
A group of bike taxi riders assembled in front of Vidhan Soudha in Bengaluru for a silent protest on June 21 against the government of Karnataka for not supporting their business. They want the government of Karnataka to frame rules for bike taxis. Bike taxi riders protest in Bengaluru On June 16, app-based bike taxi operations were told to stop operations across Karnataka, following the refusal of the High Court to stay an earlier order mandating the suspension of such services unless the State introduces regulatory norms under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On June 13, a Division Bench of the High Court upheld a single judge order dated April 2, which had directed all bike taxi services to wind up operations within six weeks. The move is believed to have affect thousands of riders and commuters. An executive of a leading bike taxi aggregator platform, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed that over six lakh individuals in Karnataka depend on bike taxi gigs for their livelihood. 'Most of them earn around ₹35,000 a month, and this ban could push many families into financial distress,' the official claimed. Adi Narayana, president of the Bike Taxi Welfare Association, said many riders are approaching the association's offices seeking clarity on their future. 'Most of our captains have EMIs to pay, families to feed, and rent to cover. This is not just about losing a job, it's about losing the ability to survive. Will the government offer any support?' On June 21, some of the affected bike taxi riders turned up in front of Vidhan Soudha for a silent protest. Some of them had come from as far as Nelamangala, Hoskote, Mandya, and Ramanagara. One of them told The Hindu, 'I work in Peenya industrial estate in Bengaluru. My wife works as a maid. We have two children. I was working part-time for a bike taxi operator to supplement my income. Bengaluru is an expensive city, and I could not afford to take care of my family with my salary.' The bike riders had come together for the protest on their own, and were not led by any organisation. On seeing bike taxi riders gathering in front of Vidhan Soudha, police advised them to disperse saying they could not stage a protest at the site without permission. Some of the protesters were taken into custody while the others were told to disperse, or risk arrest. One bike taxi rider told The Hindu, 'We were not aware that we needed permission to protest in front of Vidhan Soudha in Bengaluru. We will come again. Police advised us to taken permission and protest at Freedom Park in Bengaluru.' Following the ban on their operations, a Rapido spokesperson had said, 'This is a difficult time for our captains, who depend on us for their main source of income. They have played a key role in enabling affordable, last-mile transportation for millions across Karnataka.' The company stated that it is actively engaging with the Karnataka Transport Department to develop a regulatory framework that is not only lawful, but also viable for all stakeholders involved. It stressed that the safety of commuters and the well-being of gig workers will continue to be at the heart of its approach. 'We remain optimistic that ongoing discussions with the authorities will lead to a balanced policy framework, similar to those in other States and Union Territories,' the spokesperson had added.
