Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 28 August 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (6 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| D.S TRADERS Versus COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT LUCKNOW UTTAR PRADESH., COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT & ORS.
APL/52/LCK/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow
|
The appellant challenged a penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act and affirmed by the First Appellate Authority. On 18.07.2025, an excavator valued at approximately ₹9,00,000 was intercepted while being transported from a project site at Trans Ganga City, Unnao, to Kanpur under a delivery challan but without an e-way bill. A total penalty of ₹3,24,000, comprising ₹1,62,000 CGST and ₹1,62,000 SGST, was imposed. | The Tribunal held that Section 68 read with Rule 138 requires prescribed documents/e-way bill for movement of goods, including movement for reasons other than supply, subject to specified exemptions. Mere return of the appellant’s own excavator did not exempt it from the e-way bill requirement. The appellant failed to establish the tax treatment of consideration received for use of the excavator or any applicable 20-kilometre exemption. The lapse could not be treated as merely procedural and without revenue implications. The original and appellate orders were upheld. Appeal Rejected. |
| MAPAEX CONSUMER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8895 of 2025
Gujarat High Court
|
The petitioner, engaged in merchant export and contract development, had declared “nil” turnover in GSTR-3B for its Surendranagar office for 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2024. Its GST registration was cancelled under Section 29(1) of the GGST Act on the premise that business had ceased. The petitioner applied for revocation with documents showing continuing business activities, but the application was rejected on 29.10.2024 for failure to reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time. | The High Court held that mere declaration of “nil” turnover in GSTR-3B cannot establish discontinuance of business. Under Section 29, the Proper Officer must independently satisfy himself, on cogent and tangible material, that circumstances specified in Section 29(1) or 29(2) exist before cancelling registration. The show cause notice, founded solely on nil turnover, did not disclose a circumstance warranting cancellation under Section 29(1). The proceedings arising from the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 were quashed, with liberty to verify whether the petitioner’s business continues and proceed according to law. Petition Allowed. |
| M/S NEPTUNE SALES CORPORATION Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GR-2 APPEAL-IV LUCKNOW, ADDL. COMMR., LUCKNOW & ORS.
APL/33/LCK/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow
|
The appellant challenged the appellate order dated 30.10.2024 affirming an order dated 19.01.2024 under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act imposing penalty of ₹2,51,196. Goods being transported under an invoice, e-invoice and valid e-way bill were intercepted on 14.01.2024. Based on an earlier verification/location of the e-way bill and subsequent vehicle location, the department presumed that the same goods were being transported again using previously used documents. | The Tribunal held that the department failed to establish through cogent evidence that the goods were being re-transported or that the e-way bill was reused. The inference based on earlier verification/location was insufficient, as suspicion and presumption cannot substitute legal proof. The department also failed to establish contravention of the GST law or intention to evade tax. The appellate and original orders were set aside and refund of ₹2,51,196 deposited pursuant to the detention/penalty proceedings was directed in accordance with law. Appeal Allowed. |
| M/s New Godara Trading Co. Versus State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12145/2026
Rajasthan High Court
|
The petitioner challenged the order dated 09.12.2025 concerning FY 2021-22 and sought permission to avail the statutory appellate remedy despite the limitation under Section 107(4) of the CGST/RGST Act. The appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period because of lack of timely communication by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and consideration of its appeal on merits. | The High Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, the delay deserved to be condoned because lack of timely communication by the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant was beyond the petitioner’s control and non-adjudication on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice. The order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and it was directed to decide the appeal on merits, subject to payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits. Petition Allowed; Matter restored to Appellate Authority. |
| M/S. MOBILE CITY COMMUNICATION v. THE STATE TAX OFFICER & ORS.
WP(C) No. 25450 of 2026
Kerala High Court
|
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer under the CGST/KGST Act, challenged the Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 whereby ITC relating to January, February and March 2019 was denied for failure to furnish returns within the time prescribed under Section 16(4). Its subsequent rectification application was also rejected. The petitioner relied upon Section 16(5), pointing out that the relevant returns had been furnished on 31.10.2019. | The High Court held that the record showed that the petitioner had furnished the returns for the relevant months on 31.10.2019 and was therefore entitled to invoke the benefit provided under Section 16(5). The Order-in-Original and the order rejecting rectification were quashed to the extent they denied ITC for non-filing of returns within the period stipulated under Section 16(4). The competent authority was directed to reconsider the matter and grant ITC under Section 16(5), if the petitioner was otherwise entitled. Matter Remanded. |
| RODMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF KARNATAKA STATE GST, BENGALURU
APL/8/BUR/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru
|
The appellant challenged the appellate order dated 20.01.2026 affirming interest and penalty arising from excess ITC of ₹5,62,067 claimed in GSTR-3B for December 2020. The tax amount had been paid through DRC-03 on 09.01.2025. The appellant contended that the underlying transactions/debit notes pertained to FY 2018-19 and therefore sought waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the CGST/KGST Acts. | The Tribunal held that eligibility under Section 128A depends upon the period to which the demand pertains. The disputed ITC was actually availed for the first time in December 2020 and was not ITC availed in FY 2018-19 and carried forward. Hence, the demand fell outside the statutory period of 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2020 prescribed under Section 128A. The statutory period could not be enlarged by an adjudicating or appellate authority. Interest and penalty under Section 73(9) were upheld. Appeal Dismissed. |
Income Tax (4 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. Bhavna Bharat Daftary
ITA No. 9520/Mum/2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s deletion of additions aggregating ₹97,02,60,256. The assessee had transferred 5,95,500 unlisted shares of Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited to Aksipro Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. on 30.09.2019 at ₹265 per share, against Rule 11UA fair market value of ₹257.20. The Assessing Officer substituted ₹1,894.09 per share, being the price associated with a subsequent transfer on 07.02.2020, and recomputed capital gains. During the proceedings, original assessee Bharat Vinod Daftary died and his legal heir Bhavna Bharat Daftary was substituted. | The Tribunal held that under Sections 45 and 48, capital gains must ordinarily be computed with reference to the consideration actually received or accruing from the particular transfer; substitution is permissible only where expressly authorised by statute. Section 50CA was inapplicable because ₹265 per share exceeded the Rule 11UA fair market value of ₹257.20. The two share transfers were independent transactions under materially different commercial circumstances, and subsequent consideration could not retrospectively replace the consideration of the earlier completed transfer. Newspaper reports could not override contemporaneous documentary evidence. The CIT(A)’s deletion was upheld. Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed. |
| OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. (ONGC) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE, TDS, VADODARA & ANR.
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6494 of 2026 with R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 6497, 6538 & 6542 of 2026
Gujarat High Court
|
ONGC filed the writ petitions seeking interest on refunds arising under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Form-5 had been issued on 24.05.2021, but the consequential order was passed only on 17.06.2022; the refund order followed on 07.02.2024 and the refund was credited on 02.03.2024. During pendency, interest at 6% was granted only from 01.07.2022 to 07.02.2024, leaving the commencement and terminal dates in dispute. | The High Court held that Clause 9 of CBDT’s Central Action Plan 2021–22 required consequential orders/refunds by 31.07.2021 where Form-5 was issued up to 30.06.2021, and Revenue could not disown that timeline. Section 153 could not be invoked to extend the period for giving effect to Form-5. Interest compensates an assessee for the Department’s undue retention of money. Revenue was directed to pay interest at 6% from 01.08.2021 to 02.03.2024 within six weeks; default would attract further interest at 9% recoverable from the erring officers. Writ Petitions Partly Allowed. |
| Rameshwar Fakirchand Totala Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad
ITA No.1303/PUN/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune
|
The assessee, an individual and practising lawyer, was reassessed following a search under Section 132 in the cases of Manjeet Pride Group, Gadiya Group and associated entities. WhatsApp data recovered from Shri Prakash Motwani’s mobile allegedly reflected cash payments of ₹10,52,450 towards “Bhisi” transactions. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as unexplained investment under Section 69, which was upheld by the CIT(A)/NFAC. | The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) against the person searched cannot bind a third party. The Department had no independent evidence against the assessee apart from WhatsApp chats recovered from Shri Prakash Motwani’s mobile. The authenticity of the electronic data was not established through the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and compliance with Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was also not demonstrated. The CIT(A)/NFAC’s order was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the ₹10,52,450 addition. Appeal Allowed. |
| Researchco Reprints Vs. DCIT, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan, Delhi-110055
ITA No. 673/Del/2025
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
|
The assessee’s original assessment for AY 2013-14 was completed under Section 143(3) on 08.02.2016. Following search, seizure and survey proceedings concerning Anand Jain and Naresh Jain group cases, the assessee was alleged to have obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases aggregating ₹1,04,33,780. The assessment was reopened under Sections 147/148 after obtaining sanction under Section 151, resulting in additions for bogus purchases and alleged commission. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. | The Tribunal found that the Section 151 approval proforma did not mention the earlier assessment completed under Section 143(3), while the recorded reasons referred only to processing under Section 143(1). The Principal CIT merely recorded that he had perused the reasons and was satisfied that it was a fit case for notice under Section 148; the approval was also undated. This demonstrated mechanical sanction without application of mind. Following Anil Kumar Jain v. DCIT, arising from the same search action, the Section 151 sanction was held invalid and the consequential reassessment was quashed. Assessee’s Appeal Allowed. |