This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court & High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from March 23, 2026 to March 28, 2026.

SUPREME COURT

Unexplained Delay Of 600 Days Not Justified: SC Dismisses SLP Against Mphasis Ltd

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR vs M/S MPHASIS LIMITED CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 162

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue

Department due to the unexcused delay of 600 days. This dismissal sustains the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that the proceedings under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act cannot be instituted after an unreasonable period of time even if no such time limit is prescribed for non resident cases.

The Bench comprising Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra and Hon'ble Justice Manmohan, noted that "The explanation given by the Revenue for the delay is not satisfactory. This special leave petition is reported to be beyond time by 600 days. We do not find a satisfactory explanation to condone the delay. The special leave petition is dismissed on grounds of delay."

Supreme Court Directs ₹3.5 Cr Deposit Against ₹159 Cr GST Assessment, Bars Coercive Recovery Till Appeal Hearing

M/S SIMLA GOMTI PAN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX U.P. CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 163

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India directed the deposit of ₹3.5 crore as a condition for interim relief in a high-stakes tax dispute, where the company faces a total liability of approximately ₹159 crore.

The Allahabad High Court had earlier declined to entertain the company’s writ petition, citing the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods andServices Tax Act, 2017, which requires a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount

The Supreme Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan ordered a reduced deposit of ₹3.5 crore within two weeks. The Court further directed that no coercive steps be taken against the company pursuant to the assessment orders once the deposit is made.

Supreme Court Clarifies ‘For Use’ Test: Eligibility for Excise Duty Exemption Determined at Time of Procurement, Not Actual Use

M/S. RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX (LTU) CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 165

The Supreme Court of India clarified that tax exemptions linked to the phrase “for use” must be evaluated based on the intended purpose at the time of procurement, not the actual or incidental use during manufacturing, and settled a long-standing dispute about a public sector undertaking, over its eligibility for duty-free Naphtha under central excise notifications.

The Court found the revenue’s insistence on “exclusive use” unsupported, since the notifications never required exclusivity, and as a public sector undertaking receiving subsidies, RCF had no motive to evade duty, and any duty impact was revenue‑neutral.

The Supreme Court concluded that Rashtriya Chemicals must succeed both on the merits and on limitation. As a result, the Court set aside the orders‑in‑originally dated 27 January 2010 and 4 February 2010, as well as the CESTAT’s order dated 27 March 2012.

SC Rejects Recall Plea Against SLP Order, Upholds Subsequent OTS & CIRP Withdrawal Cannot Reopen Concluded Proceedings

M/S.LAMBA EXPORTS PVT. LTD vs M/S.DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES AND ORS CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 164

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Miscellaneous Application filed by a party seeking to recall a previous order of the Court dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP), holding that subsequent events such as One Time Settlement (OTS) and withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) cannot be relied upon to reopen concluded cases.

While dismissing the application, a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “An application for recall of a judgment dismissing a SLP, if made after the dismissal of the SLP, is not maintainable except in rare cases.”

SC Dismisses Income Tax Dept’s SLP against VIVO Mobile on Accomodation Entries of Rs. 7.35cr

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 30 & ANR. vs VIVO MOBILE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 166

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the income tax department against VivoMobile India Private Limited on alleged bogus transactions of more than Rs. 7.5 crore with fictitious entities.

The Delhi High Court observed that a chance to explain the non-existence of the said entity at the address has not been given to Vivo Mobile and the procedure was deemed violative of the principles of natural justice as the show cause notice never mentioned the conclusion by the Revenue that a bogus entity was used by the assessee-petitioner. The High Court thus, set aside the orders under Section 148.

The Supreme Court, through Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, concurred with the earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court and dismissed the SLP filed by the income tax department

No TDS Obligation on Cross-Border Payments for Imported Business Information Reports u/s 195: SC upholds Bombay HC’s decision

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) MUMBAI vs M/S DUN AND BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 167

The Supreme Court of India dismissed two applications filed by the Income TaxDepartment reaffirmed that payments made for importing business information reports from overseas do not attract tax deduction at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The Tribunal had relied on prior rulings by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) involving identical transactions with Dun & Bradstreet subsidiaries in Spain, Europe, and the UK.

The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan condoned the delay, citing the Court’s established leniency toward procedural lapses by government agencies, it found no merit in the plea to revisit the final order.

HIGH COURT

Investigations in Fake GST ITC case of Rs.21 Cr Completed: Telangana HC Grants Conditional Bail to Other Accused

Sri Jagadish Upadhyay vs The Superintendent of Central gst CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 502

The Telangana High Court at Hyderabad granted conditional bail as investigations had concluded for another accused in a fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) case wherein the subject was Rs.21.89 crores.

The High Court observed that the investigation is completed and petitioner can be granted regular bail subject to conditions. These conditions include execution of bond with sureties, weekly appearances and the conditions stipulated in Section 480(3) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Draft Assessment Order Not Enforceable without Timely Final Order: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Income Tax Demand for Delay u/s 144C(13)

ALMATIS ALUMINA PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 503

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a tax demand and penalty notice and ruled that a draft assessment order cannot give rise to enforceable liability unless followed by a final order within the mandatory one-month window under Section 144C(13).

After considering the submissions, the high court observed that the Assessing Officer was legally bound to pass the final assessment order within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP’s directions were received, but no such order was passed.

GST appeal of LIC rejected as ‘Wrong Jurisdiction’ Set Aside: Orissa HC Directs Transmission to Proper Authority

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. vs Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Appeal), Bhubaneswar and others CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 501

The Orissa High Court has recently ruled in favor of the Life Insurance Corporationof India (LIC), setting aside a decision by tax authorities to reject a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal based on a "wrong jurisdiction" argument.

LIC challenged an order issued in May 2025 by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Bhubaneswar. The GST authorities had rejected LIC’s appeal under Section 107 ofthe GST Act because they claimed it had been filed in the incorrect office.

The bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman observed that LIC should not be deprived of its right to appeal due to a procedural mistake or a lack of administrative coordination.

Uttarakhand HC Quashes Ex-Parte GST Assessment for Lack of Valid Notice: Fresh Hearing Ordered u/s Section 75(4)

A.S. Traders vs State of Uttarakhand and Others CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 320

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed an ex parte assessment order and recovery proceedings, citing a lack of valid notice, and ruled that an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) is mandatory before passing any adverse order.

The high court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 23.02.2024 and the consequent citation of recovery dated 23.02.2024. Also directed the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks. The Revenue was granted liberty to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law, ensuring an opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4).

Gauhati HC Permits ITI Ltd to Rectify Mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, Quashes Order For Denying ITC Claim

M/s ITI Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 504

The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, quashed the order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to ITI Ltd and held that the assessee must be permitted to rectify discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and avail the benefit of Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act,2017.

Justice Devashis Baruah noted that under Rule 88C of the CGST Rules, in case of mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the proper officer is required to issue an intimation and provide the assessee an opportunity either to pay the differential tax or furnish an explanation

The Court held that denial of ITC on the ground of delay was no longer sustainable in view of the retrospective amendment and that substantive rights cannot be defeated by procedural constraints.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates