High Court of Karnataka
Dhariwal Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
For assessee
WRIT PETITION NOS. 3157, 4331, 100634, 100636, 100637, 100638, 100657 AND 200402 OF 2026 (T-RES)
High Court of Karnataka
WRIT PETITION NOS. 3157, 4331, 100634, 100636, 100637, 100638, 100657 AND 200402 OF 2026 (T-RES)
Where pan masala manufacturers using pouch machines were subjected to a monthly machine-wise cess based on maximum rated capacity under a single slab up to 500 pouches per minute, and abatement was restricted to stoppages exceeding fifteen days, such levy disregarded actual production, ignored genuine shorter shutdowns, created arbitrary classifications and was declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14.
Where pan masala manufacturers challenged legislative competence of Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 for levying cess on machines/processes, since taxable event was possession or operation of machines and not supply of goods or services, Parliament had power under Article 246(1) and Entry 97 List I to impose such cess, but manner of execution violated Article 14, rendering Act and Rules void
Section 4, read with section 5 of Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 - Rule 15, read with rule 16 of Health Security se National Security Cess Rules, 2026 - Schedule II of Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 - Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950; Article 246(1), read with Article 246A and Article 271 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Entry 97 of List I of Seventh Schedule to Constitution of India, 1950 - Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
Where SCN and penalty proceedings were initiated against legal representative of deceased alleged to have fraudulently availed ITC and IGST refunds, in view of fact that section 93 permitted post-death determination of tax, interest and penalty liability accruing to extent of deceased's estate, investigation and recovery actions were jurisdictionally valid against legal heirs. GST: Where department, after assessee's death, proceeded against legal representative for tax penalty based on alleged fraudulent refunds by deceased, while provisions of section 93(1)(b) was challenged under Article 14 as arbitrary and denying defence, since liability was limited to estate of deceased, representative was not deemed to be a wrongdoer, particularly when effective hearing and appeal safeguards existed; thus, constitutional challenge to Section 93(1)(b) was untenable and was rejected. GST: Amount seized during search could not be retained indefinitely merely on alleged voluntary deposit; Department was required to establish lawful basis for retention/appropriation, furnish complete account of principal and FD interest, and release any amount lacking statutory basis with interest actually earned after reasoned adjudication
Delhi High Court
Where assessee availed ITC on purchases from suppliers whose registrations were cancelled prior to invoice dates and ITC was denied due to suppliers’ non- payment of tax, challenge to Section 16(2)(c) as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) failed, since Supreme Court upheld validity of provision which only requires recipient to establish deposit of tax by supplier; petitioner relegated to appellate remedy
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where registered person deposited self-assessed tax belatedly and interest was demanded by authority without initiation of section 73 proceedings, waiver of interest under section 128A was not available since circular permitted waiver only where section 73 was invoked, and self-assessed tax interest liability under section 50 read with section 75(12) was directly recoverable with no scope for waiver in such cases. GST: Where petitioner sought waiver of interest for delayed deposit of self-assessed tax citing discrimination under Article 14, since benefit under waiver scheme applied only to disputed tax arising from section 73 proceedings and not to self-assessed tax, classification between disputed and self-assessed tax was valid, denial of waiver to petitioner was justified and Article 14 challenge was not sustainable