Daily Tax Law Briefing – GST & Income Tax | 21 August 2026
Goods & Services Tax (GST) (4 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Mongal Deep Enterprise & Anr. -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
W.P.A 13375 of 2025
Calcutta High Court
|
The petitioners, traders of food products under the “Monginis Snacks”, now “Mio Amore”, franchise, challenged an ex parte assessment order dated 11.12.2023 under Section 73 of the CGST Act and the appellate order dated 01.03.2025. A show-cause notice dated 29.09.2023 for July 2017 to March 2018 raised a demand of Rs. 2,28,241 for alleged ITC mismatch. The petitioners contended that the notice was not served and that the prescribed ITC reconciliation procedure was not followed. | The Court found that the impugned orders appeared to have been passed without following paragraph 4 of Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, which requires the proper officer, before confirming demand for ITC mismatch, to seek invoice details and verify fulfilment of Section 16 conditions. The petitioners were directed to file a comprehensive representation by 30.09.2026, and respondent no. 4 was directed to decide it by a reasoned order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. The authority was left free to decide independently on merits. Writ Petition Disposed Of with Directions. |
| M S Steels v. The Commissioner of Kerala State GST, Thiruvananthapuram
Appeal No. APL/1/TVP/2026
Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram
|
M/s M.S. Steels, a partnership firm dealing in steel goods, transported steel goods on 13 June 2022 under Delivery Challan No. M120 from its own premises to its own godown under the same GSTIN. The vehicle was intercepted and detained for absence of an e-way bill. A penalty of ₹1,34,640 was imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act without any tax demand. The first appellate authority dismissed its appeal, leading to the second appeal before the Tribunal. | The Tribunal held that stock transfer between premises of the same registered person under the same GSTIN, involving neither two distinct entities nor consideration, does not constitute “supply” under Section 7. Consequently, Section 9 is not attracted and no tax is payable on such movement. Since penalty under Section 129(1) is quantified with reference to “tax payable”, such penalty cannot be levied merely because an e-way bill required under Rule 138(1)(ii) was absent. For such document-related contravention, recourse lies under Section 122(1)(xiv). The impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside and consequential relief granted. Appeal Allowed. |
| Sri Surendra Sharma v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors.
WP(C)/3035/2026
Gauhati High Court
|
The petitioner, a tax consultant operating as “M/s Sharma and Associates”, challenged the sealing of his office during a GST search conducted on 01.04.2026 under Section 67 of the Assam GST Act, 2017. Documents, digital signatures and electronic items were seized, an Order of Prohibition in FORM GST INS-03 was issued, and the premises remained sealed for about four months. His representations seeking de-sealing and removal of the prohibition were not considered, leading to the writ petition. | The Court held that Section 67(4) permits sealing or breaking open premises only where access is denied and only in furtherance of an ongoing search. Once search and seizure conclude, such power ceases and premises cannot be used for storing seized material. Further, prohibition under Section 67(2) can extend only to goods liable to confiscation; office items such as laptops, desktops, printers, air conditioners, inverter and refrigerator could not be subjected to the impugned prohibition on the facts. The sealing was declared illegal; immediate de-sealing was directed and FORM GST INS-03 was quashed, while permitting fresh custody of necessary seized material in accordance with law. Writ Petition Disposed Of. |
| M/S Anand And Anand (Law Firm) v. The Principal Commissioner Central Goods & Services Tax And 2 Others
Writ Tax No. 852 of 2026
Allahabad High Court
|
The petitioner law firm, registered under GST at Noida, claimed refund of unutilised ITC under Section 54 of the CGST Act for export of legal services without payment of tax. Refund applications for March–August 2021 were rejected by separate orders dated 31.10.2023. In appeal, although findings were recorded in the petitioner’s favour regarding fulfilment of the condition for export of services, the Appellate Authority remanded the matters to the adjudicating authority for redetermination of the place of supply. | The High Court held that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act expressly bars the Appellate Authority from referring a case back to the adjudicating authority. It can only confirm, modify or annul the order appealed against after making necessary inquiry. Since the Revenue did not dispute the absence of any statutory power of remand, the Court declined to relegate the petitioner to the GST Tribunal. The portions of the appellate orders remanding the matters were set aside and the Joint Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Noida was directed to decide the appeals in accordance with law within two months. Writ Petitions Disposed Of. |
Income Tax (5 judgments)
| TITLE | BRIEF FACTS | RATIO |
| Naik Govinda v. ITO Ward 2.1.1 Bengaluru
ITA No. 1328/Bang/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore
|
The assessee, a retired HMT Watches employee suffering from 100% permanent disability due to complete blindness, did not file his return believing his income was below the exemption limit. Reassessment culminated in an ex parte assessment under Sections 147, 144 and 144B, including additions for ₹27,06,760 cash deposits and ₹3,16,351 as business income. His first appeal, filed 294 days late, was dismissed by the CIT(A) without adjudicating the additions on merits. | The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the assessee’s complete blindness, age and consequent inability to access electronic records and participate effectively in faceless proceedings. The precedents relied upon for refusing condonation were distinguishable on the facts. Considering the circumstances and that the assessment was framed ex parte under Section 144, the entire matter deserved fresh consideration. The assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer with directions to consider the assessee’s submissions and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Appeal Allowed for Statistical Purposes; Matter Remanded. |
| ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDING LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FLEXTRONICS SOFTWARE SYSTEM LTD. v. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI
ITA 1015/2019 & CM APPL. 54663/2019
Delhi High Court
|
The assessee, engaged in export of software through ten units, including six export-oriented units, incurred a loss of Rs. 1,34,24,747 in its Gurgaon Unit V, which was eligible under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2005-06. It claimed set-off of this loss against profits of other undertakings. The Assessing Officer disallowed the set-off; CIT(A) allowed it, but the Tribunal reversed the relief, leading to the present appeal. | The Court held that computation of export profits of each eligible unit under Section 10B is confined to determining the quantum of deduction and does not alter the treatment of profits or losses while computing the assessee’s combined income. Sections 70, 71 and 72 continue to govern set-off and carry-forward; therefore, loss of an eligible undertaking cannot be denied set-off merely because the unit qualifies under Section 10B. Relying on Yokogawa India Ltd. and CBDT Circular No. 7/DV/2013, the Court answered the question in favour of the assessee, set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 21.05.2019 and assessment order dated 31.12.2008. Appeal Allowed. |
| Shri Andheri KVO Seva Samaj v. CIT(Exemption), Ward 2(3), Mumbai
ITA No. 1252/Mum/2026 & ITA No. 1324/Mum/2026
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
The assessee, a charitable trust registered under section 12A under the erstwhile regime and earlier approved under section 80G, filed Form 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB from A.Y. 2022-23. The CIT(E) rejected it for selection of an incorrect provision. Its separate application for approval under section 80G was consequently rejected because the section 12AB registration application had been rejected. The assessee challenged both orders dated 29 November 2025. | The Tribunal held that where the substantive intention to seek re-registration from A.Y. 2022-23 was evident, the application should not be rejected merely because an incorrect section or sub-clause was selected electronically. Such procedural error should not cause a break in registration of an otherwise eligible charitable institution. The CIT(E) was directed to treat the application under the appropriate provision, consider condonation of delay, and examine eligibility on merits. The consequential section 80G rejection was also set aside for fresh adjudication. No opinion was expressed on substantive eligibility. Both appeals allowed for statistical purposes; matters remanded to CIT(E). |
| The Commissioner of Income Tax – International Taxation -3 v. Sri Lanka Cricket
ITA 4/2026
Delhi High Court
|
The Revenue challenged the treatment of payments received by Sri Lanka Cricket for rights to show cricket matches through live telecast. The respondent contended that the issue stood covered by CIT (International Taxation) v. Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd., which followed CIT v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. The Revenue could not demonstrate that the exhibition rights granted by Sri Lanka Cricket extended beyond the live feed or permitted preservation or subsequent re-telecast of the matches. | The Court held that consideration for rights confined to live telecast of cricket matches cannot be treated as royalty. A live telecast does not constitute a copyrightable “work” for Section 9(1)(vi), and royalty presupposes an enduring benefit. Where the licensee has no right to record or preserve the feed and derive future benefit by re-telecasting or showing the matches beyond the relevant events, the payment cannot constitute royalty. Following Fox Network Group Singapore Pte. Ltd., no substantial question of law arose. Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed. |
| Bloomberg LP v. Addl DIT IT (IT) RG 3
ITA Nos. 5529/MUM/2014 & 5530/MUM/2014
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
|
Bloomberg LP, a USA-incorporated non-resident providing Bloomberg Professional Services (BPS), distributed its products/services in India through its subsidiary, Bloomberg Data Service Private Limited (BDS), under a distribution agreement. It received ₹122,59,10,894 and ₹198,85,65,732 from BDS for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively and offered them as royalty under Section 115A. The AO treated BDS as Bloomberg’s dependent agent/service PE and attributed profits after allowing 10% expenses; the CIT(A) sustained the additions. | The Tribunal held that Bloomberg had no PE in India through BDS. The Revenue failed to establish a Service PE under Article 5(2)(l) of the India-USA DTAA, while overseeing the subsidiary constituted auxiliary/stewardship activity. BDS independently contracted with Indian customers, had no authority to contract for Bloomberg, raised its own invoices and operated on a principal-to-principal basis; hence, it was not a DAPE under Article 5(4). Even assuming a DAPE, no further profit was attributable since the transactions were found at arm’s length by the TPO. The AO was directed to accept the returned income for both years. Appeals Partly Allowed. |