Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 12 August 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (2 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Ashish Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27267 of 2026
Allahabad High Court
|
The applicant, Ashish Kumar Sharma, sought bail in Case Crime No. 142 of 2026 under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act. He contended that he was merely an employee of Unity Small Finance Bank, had no involvement in the alleged GST fraud, and that no money trail or other connectivity linked him to the matter. He had no criminal history and was in custody since 30 April 2026. | Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of the parties and evidence on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found prima facie that the applicant had made out a case for bail. It directed his release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification and conditions that he would not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and would appear before the trial court as required. Breach of any condition would entail cancellation of bail, and the observations would not affect the trial on merits. Bail Application Allowed. |
| M/s Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of CGST, Jaipur
Service Tax Appeal No. 50092 of 2022
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
|
The appellant, engaged in general insurance services, had paid service tax on insurance premiums but subsequently cancelled or altered certain policies during the GST regime due to cheque dishonour, client requests or reduction of risk. After refunding proportionate premium and tax amounts, it claimed refund of Krishi Kalyan Cess and Swachh Bharat Cess aggregating ₹28,57,192 under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act. The claim was rejected as time-barred and on the ground of unjust enrichment, leading to the present appeal. | The Tribunal held that refund claims under Section 142(5) of the CGST Act in respect of services not provided cannot be rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. It further held that unjust enrichment was inapplicable where the amounts relating to cancelled insurance policies had ultimately reached the insured. Since KKC and SBC formed components of the levy and the refund of service tax was already held admissible, they could not receive different treatment. The impugned order was set aside and refund of KKC and SBC was held admissible. Appeal Allowed. |
Income Tax (2 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi v. Paul Wurth Italia SPA / Paul Wurth Italia SPA v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi
ITA Nos. 5254/Del/2017, 5164/Del/2017, 2370/Del/2018, 2696/Del/2018, 883/Del/2018, 948/Del/2018, 2950/Del/2019, 3005/Del/2019 & 9252/Del/2019
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
|
Paul Wurth Italia SPA, an Italian tax resident, supplied equipment, designs, drawings and spare parts from outside India and rendered supervisory and technical services for Indian blast-furnace projects. The AO treated offshore receipts as taxable by alleging a fixed-place PE and attributing profits thereto. The CIT(A) rejected the fixed-place PE but re-characterised supervisory receipts as FTS and, in relevant years, receipts for indigenous-equipment and civil-work designs as royalty/FTS. Both Revenue and assessee appealed. | The Tribunal held that Paul Wurth India did not constitute a fixed-place PE and the admitted supervisory PE could not justify attribution of profits from offshore supplies where title and relevant operations were outside India; consequently, Revenue’s appeals on offshore supplies were dismissed. Supervisory activities exceeding the prescribed duration constituted a supervisory PE under Article 5(2)(j), making effectively connected supervisory receipts taxable as business profits under Article 7 rather than FTS under Article 13. Designs and drawings were treated as copyrighted articles generating business income rather than royalty/FTS. The Revenue’s four appeals were dismissed; assessee’s appeals were allowed or partly allowed according to the respective assessment years. |
| M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others
Writ Tax No. 77 of 2024 (Along with Writ Tax Nos. 177 and 178 of 2024)
Allahabad High Court
|
A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the petitioner’s premises on 4 October 2018, followed by notices for relevant assessment years. The petitioner filed a settlement application on 23 March 2021, which was treated as pending and allotted to IBS-III, Delhi. After IBS-III called for a Rule 9 report, CBDT transferred the application to IBS-VII, Chennai, which rejected it on 30 October 2023. The consequential rectification applications were also rejected on 15 December 2023. | The Court held that the 18-month limitation prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii), read with Sections 245D(9)(iii) and 245M(2), is mandatory and commences when the settlement application is first allotted to and acted upon by the Interim Board. A subsequent administrative transfer from one Interim Board to another cannot restart or extend the statutory limitation. Since IBS-III, Delhi had already assumed jurisdiction and acted upon the application before its transfer to IBS-VII, Chennai, the order dated 30 October 2023 was beyond limitation and a nullity. The orders dated 30 October 2023 and 15 December 2023 were quashed and set aside. Petition Allowed. |
