Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 19 August 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (5 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Commissioner, CGST Appeal 1, Delhi Etc. v. Bharti Airtel Limited Etc.
Review Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 10915/2026, in SLP(C) Nos. 22060–22062 of 2025
Supreme Court
|
The Commissioner, CGST Appeal 1, Delhi and others filed review petition(s) arising from the Supreme Court’s final judgment and order dated 08.08.2025 in SLP(C) Nos. 22060–22062 of 2025 involving Bharti Airtel Limited and others. The review petitions were accompanied by applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing certified copies. The matter was considered by circulation, and the delay in filing the review petitions was condoned. | The Supreme Court carefully considered the review petitions and the grounds raised therein and examined the impugned order in their light. It held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order which could justify its reconsideration. Finding no merit in the review petitions, the Court dismissed them. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of. Review Petitions Dismissed. |
| M/s Lucknow Automotives v. Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Gonda, Raj Kumar & Ors.
APL/8/LCK/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow
|
M/s Lucknow Automotives, a registered proprietorship engaged in purchase and sale of motorcycles and spare parts, was transporting motorcycles covered by challan/invoices when its vehicle was intercepted by the Mobile Squad at about 7:25 A.M. on 20.01.2025. The E-Way Bill had not then been generated but was generated at 7:34 A.M., approximately nine minutes later. Proceedings under Section 129 resulted in penalty of Rs.2,63,330, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. The assessee approached GSTAT challenging both orders. | The Tribunal held that generation of the E-Way Bill after interception constituted a procedural lapse, but the surrounding circumstances established a genuine and fully identifiable transaction. The motorcycles were supported by invoices and challans and identifiable through engine and chassis numbers, with no discrepancy in quantity, value or classification and no evidence of suppression, undervaluation, fake documentation, unaccounted goods or intent to evade tax. Treating the lapse as bona fide, the Tribunal set aside the Rs.2,63,330 penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act and the appellate order confirming it, and directed refund of the deposited amount subject to verification and statutory requirements. Appeal Allowed; Penalty Orders Set Aside. |
| M/s Teesta Rangit Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Union of India and Others
WP(C) No. 35 of 2024
Sikkim High Court
|
The petitioners filed the writ petition raising substantive challenges concerning levy of GST in relation to online gaming/betting and gambling transactions. During its pendency, similar issues were under consideration before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently delivered its judgment dated 27.05.2026, reported as 2026 INSC 595, deciding the constitutional and statutory issues concerning GST on actionable claims arising from betting, gambling and online gaming. The High Court thereafter considered whether any issue survived independently in the writ petition. | The High Court held that all substantive contentions and prayers raised by the petitioners had already been decided by the Supreme Court and no issue remained requiring independent consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed in terms of the Supreme Court judgment and the interim order was vacated. Following the Supreme Court’s directions, the petitioners were permitted eight weeks from the High Court’s order to reply to the show cause notice, and the competent authority was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law and the Supreme Court’s findings within twelve weeks thereafter. Writ Petition Dismissed and Disposed Of; Interim Order Vacated. |
| The Pr. Commissioner, CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited
APL/10/KLK/2026 & APL/14/KLK/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
|
M/s Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited exported goods and claimed refund of accumulated ITC of Rs.11,41,828 and Rs.27,65,697 for January and February 2025. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims, inter alia, questioning goods movement based on toll data and cancellation of registrations of suppliers upstream of its direct supplier, M/s KS Metals Pvt. Ltd. The first Appellate Authority allowed the refunds and set aside the original orders. Revenue challenged those appellate orders before GSTAT. | The Tribunal held that the respondent satisfied the conditions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. In a Bill-To Ship-To transaction, GST law does not require goods necessarily to originate from the supplier’s registered premises, and toll-plaza receipts are not mandatory to establish transportation where tax invoices, e-way bills, bilty, banking records and export documents substantiate the transaction. Irregularities of second-line suppliers could not disentitle the respondent when its direct supplier had a valid registration. New grounds/evidence raised by Revenue were also barred under Rule 45(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 and Rule 112(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The impugned Orders-in-Appeal were upheld. Revenue Appeals Dismissed. |
| Tvl. Cargotec India Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Manali Assessment Circle & Others
W.P. No. 13104 of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 12870 of 2023
Madras High Court
|
The petitioner challenged recovery of amounts pursuant to assessment orders dated 28.12.2022 for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. It contended that, despite the three-month period contemplated under Section 78 of the TNGST Act, recovery was initiated and amounts were debited from its Electronic Cash and Credit Ledgers in February 2023. The petitioner sought re-credit/refund of Rs.3,76,35,138 and Rs.28,27,654 to its Electronic Credit Ledger and Rs.19,297 and Rs.93,83,396 to its Electronic Cash Ledger. | The High Court held that the proviso to Section 78 of the TNGST Act, 2017 permits recovery before expiry of the prescribed three-month period only where the proper officer considers such early recovery expedient in the interest of revenue and records reasons in writing. No material was placed on record justifying invocation of the proviso. Since the respondents failed to satisfactorily explain the premature recovery, the petitioner was entitled to refund. The first respondent was directed to refund the recovered amount or re-credit it to the respective Electronic Cash/Credit Ledgers within one month from receipt of the order. Writ Petition Allowed. |
Income Tax (4 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited (Formerly Known as Century Textiles and Industries Limited) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai
ITA 3476/MUM/2025 & ITA 4378/MUM/2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
The assessee, engaged in diversified businesses, filed its return declaring nil income under normal provisions and book profit of ₹8,10,14,65,373 under Section 115JB. Scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) resulted in various additions/disallowances. The CIT(A), by order dated 31 March 2025, partly sustained additions, restored certain issues for verification and granted partial relief. Both the assessee and Revenue filed cross-appeals before the Tribunal. | The Tribunal held that entries recognised under Ind AS do not by themselves determine taxable income; computation must follow the Income-tax Act and applicable ICDS. It granted relief on the impugned ICDS adjustments, observing that differences arising from prescribed accounting and tax-computation methodologies cannot be disallowed without establishing double deduction, and that consistency assumes relevance where identical treatment was accepted in other years. It also held that weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) could not be denied merely because Form 3CL was not furnished by the prescribed authority where the R&D facility had valid Form 3CM approval. Certain issues requiring factual verification were restored to the AO. Assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals allowed as indicated in the order. |
| Interactive Television Private Limited v. Asst. CIT-Circle 16(1)
ITA No. 4862/Mum/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
The assessee, a resident corporate entity, distributed dividend of ₹1,92,21,481 to GroupM India Holding BV, a tax resident of the Netherlands, and paid Dividend Distribution Tax at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O. During assessment, it claimed that DDT should instead be charged at the beneficial 10% rate under Article 10 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. The AO did not consider the claim and the first appellate authority declined to interfere. | The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT had held that where the dividend tax rate under the relevant DTAA is lower than the DDT rate under Section 115-O, the treaty rate would prevail. However, since the Department’s SLP against that judgment had been admitted and the Supreme Court had advised High Courts to consider staying proceedings involving similar issues, the Tribunal considered it appropriate, in judicial propriety and discipline, not to decide the issue presently. The impugned order was set aside and the issue restored to the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with the Supreme Court’s eventual decision. Appeal Allowed for Statistical Purposes; Matter Remanded. |
| Manohar Ramabtar Jhunjhunwala v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai and Ors.
Writ Petition No. 2063 of 2025 with connected Writ Petitions
Bombay High Court
|
The petitions concerned TDS actually deducted from the income/payments of assessees but not deposited with the Central Government by the deductors, resulting in denial of TDS credit and demands against the deductees. In the lead petition, the petitioner’s employer, Uniply Décor Limited, deducted TDS from salary for AY 2019-20 but failed to deposit it, due to which it did not appear in Form 26AS. The return was processed under Section 143(1) without full TDS credit and revision under Section 264 was rejected. | The Court held that once actual deduction of TDS is established, the Department cannot deny credit merely because the deductor failed to deposit the tax. Sections 199 and 205 must be harmoniously construed; the deductee cannot be made to bear consequences of the deductor’s default. Absence of Form 16/16A is not fatal, and deduction may be proved through other cogent evidence such as salary slips, bank statements, invoices, ledgers and correspondence. The impugned orders/intimations were set aside to the extent of TDS-related demands and matters remanded for verification, grant of TDS credit and consequential refund/rectification. The ruling is confined to domestic transactions. Petitions Allowed; Matters Remanded for Verification and Consequential Relief. |
| The Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation – 3 v. Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GMBH
ITA Nos. 1/2025 & 3/2025; SLP(C) Diary No. 27540/2026
Supreme Court
|
Springer Nature Customer Service Centre GMBH, a German tax resident, earned commission income under a Commissionaire Agreement and subscription fees from customers for e-journals and content. For AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22, the AO treated these receipts as fees for technical services (FTS). ITAT set aside the assessments, following the assessee’s earlier case. On 16.04.2025, the Delhi High Court dismissed Revenue’s appeals, holding that commission income was already covered in the assessee’s favour and standardized subscription content was not FTS. Revenue thereafter approached the Supreme Court. | The Delhi High Court held that FTS under Section 9(1)(vii) requires consideration for managerial, technical or consultancy services construed narrowly, ordinarily involving specialized services rendered for the recipient; mere access to standardized technical databases, literature, e-magazines or content does not constitute technical services. The subscription content was not customized for particular customers and therefore was not FTS. The commission issue was already covered in the assessee’s favour. On 17.08.2026, the Supreme Court condoned the delay but declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment and dismissed Revenue’s SLP. Revenue’s SLP Dismissed; Delhi High Court Judgment Left Undisturbed. |