The Daily Tax Law Briefing – 06 August 2026 brings together five significant judicial pronouncements, comprising four GST-related judgments and one Income Tax judgment. This edition covers decisions of the Karnataka High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, addressing important questions concerning judicial review of PMLA proceedings, validity of service through the GST portal, limitation under Section 73 of the CGST Act, personal hearing and timely pronouncement of orders by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
A significant development covered in today’s briefing is the Karnataka High Court’s decision in M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India. The petitioners challenged an ECIR and consequential proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) following allegations concerning fraudulent online gaming. The underlying police investigation had resulted in a ‘B’ report finding no material for prosecution, which had been accepted by the jurisdictional Court and attained finality.
The Karnataka High Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s preliminary objection regarding maintainability. It held that merely describing an ECIR as an internal administrative document does not place it beyond constitutional judicial review. Proceedings carrying coercive consequences affecting liberty, property and reputation remain amenable to scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also observed that PMLA proceedings depend upon the existence of a predicate offence. The preliminary objection was accordingly rejected and the writ petition was directed to be heard on merits.
The briefing next examines two important decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court concerning electronic service under GST. In M/s R.D.A.K.S. Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana and Others and M/s Welcome Corp Health Products v. State of Haryana and Others, the Court considered whether merely uploading a show cause notice and order under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST common portal constitutes sufficient service under Sections 169 and 146 of the CGST Act.
Following its earlier decisions in Luxmi Traders and The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd., the Court held that mere uploading of an SCN or order on the GST common portal does not constitute sufficient service unless its receipt is acknowledged or the assessee participates by filing a reply. The Court further observed that the retrospective amendment made through the Finance Act, 2022 did not alter this conclusion because the CGST Rules do not prescribe the common portal as a substitute for formal service of such notices and orders.
Another important GST ruling comes from the Delhi High Court in Tata Play Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO. Tata Play challenged a show cause notice and consequential demand concerning alleged excess availment of Input Tax Credit for the period April 2020 to March 2021. The demand involved approximately ₹5.64 crore in tax, apart from interest and penalty, and was challenged principally on limitation and denial of adequate opportunity of personal hearing.
The Delhi High Court held that the show cause notice dated 30 November 2024 was within limitation under Sections 73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act, interpreting the expression “three months” as three calendar months. The Court disagreed with the contrary view in Cotton Corporation of India. It further clarified that Section 75(5) permits a maximum of three adjournments on sufficient cause being shown; it does not confer an automatic right to three adjournments. Since an effective statutory appeal was available under Section 107, the writ petition was dismissed while permitting the taxpayer to pursue the appellate remedy.
The Income Tax section features an important judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajesh R. Hemrajani v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr. concerning delay in pronouncement of orders by the ITAT. The petitioner’s appeal had repeatedly been reserved for judgment and subsequently released without pronouncement, ultimately leading to intervention by the High Court.
Interpreting Rule 34 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Bombay High Court held that repeated release of an appeal after it has been reserved for judgment cannot be countenanced. The Court directed the ITAT to pronounce judgment in the petitioner’s appeal by 13 August 2026 and issued broader directions requiring all Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to scrupulously follow Rule 34. Matters heard and closed for judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within 60 days, with extension up to 90 days only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. The order was directed to be circulated to all ITATs for compliance.
The Daily Tax Law Briefing – 06 August 2026 is a useful resource for advocates, chartered accountants, company secretaries, tax consultants, businesses and corporate tax teams seeking concise updates on significant judicial developments. Today’s edition is particularly relevant for professionals dealing with GST litigation, electronic service of notices, limitation disputes, PMLA proceedings, appellate remedies and Income Tax Tribunal practice.
Download the complete Daily Tax Law Briefing (6 August 2026)