Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 13 August 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (3 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| M/s H.M. Steels Limited v. The Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise and Anr. | The petitioner challenged proceedings on the ground that parallel action by Central and State GST authorities concerning the same subject matter was barred by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. State authorities had issued summons dated 12.02.2024 and 13.02.2024 and DRC-01A dated 27.06.2024, while the Central authority had issued summons dated 05.04.2024, 23.04.2024 and 11.05.2024 under Section 70. The petitioner questioned which proceedings could validly continue. | Applying Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, the Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, while bona fide investigative steps such as summons under Section 70 may continue until an impermissible overlap is established. The petitioner was directed to place its contentions and documents before the authorities and comply with lawful summons. The State and Central authorities were directed to communicate and coordinate so that the petitioner is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter, with opportunity of hearing before further adjudication. Petition Disposed Of. |
| Principal, Dayanand College, Ramganj, Byavar Road, Ajmer v. Union of India & Ors. | The petitioner challenged the order dated 08.07.2026 passed by the Director Education, directing it to deposit GST on affiliation fee as a pre-condition for renewal of affiliation for academic session 2025–2026. The petitioner contended that affiliation was not a taxable service and that the proposed levy and demand of GST on affiliation fee was legally unsustainable. The parties agreed that the controversy stood concluded by the Court’s earlier decision in Rajasthan Technical University v. Union of India. | Following Rajasthan Technical University v. Union of India, the Court accepted that grant of affiliation is a statutory and regulatory function and does not constitute supply of service under the CGST Act; affiliation fee is not consideration for a taxable activity. Even otherwise, affiliation services fall within the exemption under Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). Consequently, the levy and collection of GST on affiliation fees is unsustainable in law. The present writ petition was disposed of in terms of the said judgment, and all pending applications were also disposed of. Petition Disposed Of. |
| Union of India v. Sunil Biyani | DGGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit was investigating M/s Alphaneon Techsolutions Pvt. Ltd. and group entities for alleged wrongful availment/passing of ITC without actual supply, circular invoicing and non-payment of GST on import of services. Sunil Biyani was summoned thrice under Section 70 of the CGST Act. His anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court and subsequently by the Bombay High Court, which nevertheless granted one week’s protection from arrest from communication of any Section 69 order. | The Supreme Court held that once a pre-arrest bail application is dismissed as not maintainable, the High Court or Sessions Court cannot grant or extend interim protection from arrest, and accordingly set aside the one-week protection. It further held that an order under Section 69, founded on the Commissioner’s recorded “reasons to believe”, is a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory bail and must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, including electronically or through other permissible modes. Without such communication, arrest cannot arise. The pending investigation was directed to proceed uninfluenced by the observations. Criminal Appeal Disposed Of. |
Income Tax (3 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. Amazon Web Services Inc | The Revenue challenged the Delhi High Court judgment dated 29.05.2025 concerning taxability of amounts received by Amazon Web Services Inc., a US tax resident, from Indian customers for standardised and automated cloud computing services. The High Court had upheld the ITAT’s conclusion that such receipts were neither royalty nor fees for included services under the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the India-US DTAA and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17. | The Supreme Court, after hearing the Revenue and the assessee, held that no case was made out for interference with the Delhi High Court’s judgment and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The High Court had held that AWS customers merely avail cloud computing services and acquire no right to use or commercially exploit AWS’s infrastructure, equipment or intellectual property; nor is technical knowledge, skill, know-how or process made available to them. Accordingly, the receipts were not royalty under Article 12(3) or FIS under Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA. Special Leave Petitions Dismissed. |
| M/s. Vedanta Limited (Successor in Interest to Cairn India Limited) v. The Assistant Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) | The assessee, engaged in petroleum operations in India, was contractually obligated under its Production Sharing Contract with the Government of India to restore sites after cessation of petroleum operations. It made provisions for site restoration costs and claimed deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim as no expenditure had actually been incurred. CIT(A) allowed it, but the ITAT held that the provision was not deductible under the normal provisions, leading to these appeals. | The Court held that site restoration is a mandatory contractual obligation under the Production Sharing Contract and that the provision made therefor, being ascertainable and quantifiable, is deductible under Section 37(1). Section 33ABA, which requires a deposit into a site restoration fund, is an optional incentive provision and neither substitutes nor overrides Section 37(1). An otherwise eligible deduction under Section 37(1) does not become inadmissible merely because Section 33ABA exists. The ITAT’s disallowance of the site restoration provision was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. Appeals Allowed. |
| Vikas Singhal v. Income Tax Officer Ward 52 (1) Delhi and Ors. | The petitioner challenged notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Sections 147/148 for AY 2014-15. His return filed on 06.09.2014 had already been scrutinised under Section 143(3) on 16.12.2016 after examination of books and bank statements. Nearly five years later, reassessment was initiated based on Insight Portal information showing bank credits of ₹23.77 crore, including cash deposits of ₹21.17 crore and corresponding RTGS transactions of ₹23 crore, alleging failure to disclose material facts. | The Court held that the original scrutiny assessment involved conscious examination of the bank accounts and transactions; hence reopening on the same material amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. The assessee had produced the bank statements, negating any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Further, the AO’s failure to mention the completed Section 143(3) assessment while recording reasons was a material jurisdictional defect that deprived the approving authority of relevant facts and demonstrated non-application of mind. The reassessment notice, consequential assessment order dated 30.03.2022 and demand notice were quashed. Petition Allowed; Reassessment Proceedings Quashed. |