Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-Up
A Round-Up of the Supreme Court and High Court Cases That Were Reported at Taxscan Last Week
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 April 18, 2026 to April 24, 2026.
SUPREME COURT
Offshore Supply Not Taxable and No PE in India: SC dismisses SLP against Nokia Corporation on Grounds of Delay
THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX 2 vs NOKIA CORPORATION CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 189
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SPL) filed by the Commissioner Income Tax against Nokia Corporation holding that the delay of 286 days in filing the SLP was not satisfactorily or sufficient in law.
The Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, upon hearing the parties, observed that the reasons assigned for delay were neither satisfactory nor sufficient to meet the legal threshold for condonation.
HIGH COURT
Chhattisgarh HC Permits Taxpayer to Avail Stay on GST Recovery by Compliance with CBIC Guidelines
Maa Kali IndustriesProprietorship Firm vs State Of Chhattisgarh CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 581
The Chhattisgarh High Court permitted a taxpayer to avail the benefit of staying GST recovery by filing an undertaking and making a pre-deposit, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs(CBIC).
The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the Petitioner to comply with the conditions of the Circular. The Court directed that if the Petitioner files the undertaking regarding the pre-statutory deposit and pays the pre-deposit amount within 15 days, the recovery of the remaining demand shall remain stayed as per sub-section (9) of Section 112 ofthe CGST Act.
Uttarakhand HC Allows Revocation of GST Registration for Bar Upon Deposit of Tax and Interest
M/s King Kong Blue Bar And Restaurant vs Commissioner,State Goods and Services Tax Act CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 586
The Uttarakhand High Court permitted a bar and restaurant to apply for the revocation of its cancelled Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration, subject to the condition that it files pending returns and deposits the due tax, interest, and penalty.
The Bench of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay disposed of the petition in the same terms as WPMB No. 39 of 2025. The Court directed that if the Petitioner files an application for revocation within two weeks and furnishes all pending returns along with the unpaid tax, interest, and penalty, the Competent Authority must consider the prayer for revocation in accordance with the law within four weeks of receiving the application.
No GST Liability If Tax Already Remitted: Madras HC Sets Aside ₹14.63 Cr SCN Against GAIL
Gail (India) Ltd. vs The Additional Commissioner CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 587
The Madras High Court has quashed a ₹14.63 crore Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued to GAIL (India) Ltd. under Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, holding that the provision was not applicable since the GST component had already been remitted to the government by GAIL’s transmission vertical.
The court observed that the Tamil Nadu GST Department’s own inquiry confirmed the same facts. The Court stated that Section 76 of the CGST Act applies only when tax is collected but not remitted. Also, the court rejected the Revenue’s argument that separate GST registrations made the trading and transmission verticals “distinct persons.” It held that this was an internal reimbursement arrangement, not wrongful retention of tax.
Custodial Interrogation Not Needed as Investigation Complete: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail in Rs. 11.44 Crore Fake GST ITC Case
Santosh Wadhwani vs Directorate General of Goods AndService Tax Intelligence CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 585
The Chhattisgarh High Court granted regular bail to an accused involved in a Goods and Service Tax (GST) fraud case involving the alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 11.44 crores.
The Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that the allegations pertained to offences under the CGST Act, which were primarily based on documentary evidence already in the possession of the prosecution. The Court noted that the complaint had been filed and the investigation, insofar as the Applicant was concerned, appeared to be substantially complete.
Adjustment of Income Tax Refund Against Disputed Demand During Stay is Illegal: Orissa HC Orders Release
Saurav Chachra vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) andothers
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 583
the Orissa High Court held that the adjustment of a tax refund against a disputed demand, during the subsistence of a stay order, is illegal and arbitrary.
The Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman observed that the action of the authorities in adjusting the refund against a stayed demand was perfunctory. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's contention that such recourse was illegal.
Calcutta HC Allows Criminal Prosecution Against Jute Mill Directors for Alleged Non-Payment of Tax Invoice Dues
M/S. Sarada Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs M/S. P.G.Electricals CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 592
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues. The Court held that a prima facie case had been made out against the petitioners, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
The Court found that the allegations did disclose the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the revisional application was dismissed. Regarding a connected application filed by the complainant seeking action against the petitioners for alleged false statements made in affidavits, the Court held it was premature to initiate such proceedings at this stage but kept the application open for future consideration after the trial's adjudication.
No Arbitrary Denial of RoDTEP on Quota‑Based Sugar Exports: Bombay HC Orders Refunds with 6% Interest
Rika Global Impex Limited vs Union Of India And Ors CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 589
The Bombay High Court held that exporters of white refined sugar are entitled to claim refunds under the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products (RoDTEP) scheme, declaring the government’s denial of benefits on quota‑based exports as arbitrary and unsustainable. The Court also directed authorities to process the exporters’ claims and release refunds with 6% interest.
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to RoDTEP benefits on quota‑based sugar exports made with specific permissions under the Directorate of Sugar’s guidelines. It directed the authorities to grant rebates to those exporters who had not yet received them, and to refund amounts already recovered from petitioners within four weeks, together with 6% annual interest.
Duplicate GST Orders for Same Tax Period Unsustainable: Madras HC quashes Duplicate Order, Remands for Fresh Adjudication
M/s.Abarna Enterprises vs The Deputy State Tax Officer -1 CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 593
The Madras High Court has held that the issuance of two separate Goods and Services Tax (GST) assessment orders for the same tax period is legally unsustainable, striking down the duplicate proceedings.
The Court found the assessee’s explanation regarding the unseen portal notices and consultant errors to be reasonable. Also, it noted that the assessee had already voluntarily deposited approximately 46% of the disputed tax amount, showing bona fide intent.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned ex parte order and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing that the taxpayer be given a fair and proper opportunity to present their case.
Service Tax Not Leviable on Forex Profit: Madras HC sets aside Demand Against SBI
State Bank of India vs Deputy Commissioner CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 602
The Madras High Court held that profit earned by a bank from foreign exchange transactions is not liable to service tax and set aside the demand and penalty against the State Bank of India. The court observed that tax paid by mistake cannot be kept by the department just because of limitation.
The bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that the tax was paid only because of department audit instruction. The court pointed out that once it is clear that the income is not taxable, the department should have refunded the money.
The court explained that rejecting refund only on limitation will lead to unfair gain to the department. It also observed that the bank correcting its mistake by adjusting the amount cannot be treated as wrong, especially when there was no bad intention.
Uttarakhand HC Allows Revocation of GST Registration Cancellation Relying on Precedent
AYUSH SHARMA vs COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 596
The Uttarakhand High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to relief concerning the cancellation of their Goods andService Tax (GST) registration when the controversy is squarely covered by a precedent established by a Division Bench of the same Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah observed that since the factual and legal controversy was identical to the decided matter, the instant petition required to be adjudicated in line with the said judgment.
Calcutta HC allows Deduction u/s 80IA on Full Power Tariff, holds Sales Tax Remission as Capital
M/S. GRAPHITE INDIA LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 600
The Calcutta High Court held that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) erred in disallowing the deduction under Section 80-IA by excluding the electricity duty component from the transfer price of captive power and erroneously treated a sales tax remission subsidy as revenue receipts.
the High Court allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee, setting aside the Tribunal’s order and directing that the deduction under Section 80-IA be computed based on the full tariff, including electricity duty, and that the sales tax remission be treated as a capital receipt excluded from book profits.
Bombay HC Orders Denovo Adjudication on GST Refund Application by K Line India Pvt Passed Without Deficiency Memo or Hearing
K Line India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors. CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 605
The High Court of Bombay disposed of a batch of writ petitions filed by K Line India Pvt. Ltd., a shipping company, challenging the rejection of its Integrated Goods and Services Tax ( IGST ) refund claim. It was held that a refund application cannot be rejected without issuing a deficiency memo and provision of hearing opportunity.
The Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the orders of both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority. It directed the Designated Officer to decide the petitioner's refund application dated February 12, 2020 (and subsequent applications) de novo in accordance with the law, specifically complying with Rules 90 and 92 of the CGST Rules, within a period of six weeks. All contentions of the parties were kept open.
Tata Steel Gets Relief on Limitation: Jharkhand HC Allows Filing of Appeal Against GST Order Within 4 Weeks Despite Dismissing Writ Plea
M/s. Tata Steel Limited vs Union of India CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 604
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s. Tata Steel Limited challenging an Order-In-Original passed under Section 74 of theCentral Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The Court held that the petition did not fall within the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies, as the order was neither "wholly without jurisdiction" nor did it involve a patent breach of natural justice.
However, accepting the request of the petitioner's Senior Counsel, the Court granted a significant relief on limitation. It directed that if the petitioner files a statutory appeal within four weeks, the Appellate Authority must consider the appeal on merits without adjudicating on the delay, since the petitioner was bona fide pursuing the writ petition.
In view of this, the High Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within four weeks, with all contentions kept open to be raised before the Appellate Authority.
1kg Ganja Seized by Customs at Rajiv Gandhi Airport: Telangana HC grants bail to accused, Treats it Intermediate Quantity
Smt. Divya Naresh Ramchandani vs The Superintendent ofCustoms (Preventive) CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 606
The Telangana High Court has granted bail to an individual arrested by Customs officials after 1 kilogram of suspected ganja was seized from his possession at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (RGIA) in Hyderabad.
Justice K. Sujana, after considering the matter, observed that the petitioner had been languishing in custody since his arrest on April 10, 2026. It noted that since the seized ganja was classified as an intermediate quantity, it does not attract the stringent bail restrictions usually applied to commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.
Patna HC allows Construction Firm to approach GST Appellate Tribunal against Ex-Parte Registration Cancellation
M/s Vaishnavi Builder and Developer vs Union of India CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 607
The Patna High Court, recently has disposed of a writ petition challenging an ex-parte cancellation of a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) registration. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge the cancellation before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax(CGST) Act, 2017.
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Arun Kumar Jha granted the petitioner the full liberty to pursue their statutory remedy before the Tribunal. With this observation, the writ petition was officially disposed of, leaving the doors open for the assessee to fight the case on its merits at the appropriate appellate forum.
‘Eyewash Hearing’ Not Enough: Uttarakhand HC Sets Aside GST Demand u/s 74, Orders Fresh Hearing
M/s Poddar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs Office of the DeputyCommissioner & another CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 608
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed ₹8.49 crore GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) demand order passed without granting proper personal opportunity of hearing. The court said that the department's procedural compliance was a mere "eyewash."
The High Court noted Section 75(4) of the GST Act and said that granting a personal hearing is a strict, mandatory statutory requirement when requested by the taxpayer, not a mere formality to be checked off a list.
The bench directed the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, instructing them to issue a proper advance notice for a hearing and pass a fresh and reasoned order only after giving the assessee opportunity to be heard.
Telangana HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail in Alleged ₹167 Lakh Misappropriation Linked to IBC Liquidation
Sanjay Kumar Makhariya vs The State of Telangana CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 609
The Telangana High Court granted pre‑arrest bail to a former director of G.S. Biotech Limited, who was accused of misappropriating ₹167 lakh in government compensation after the company entered liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The court held that the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Station House Officer, CCS (DD) Police Station, Hyderabad, within two weeks and be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties. He must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. for eight weeks or until the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Gauhati HC Sets Aside ₹10.13 Cr Service Tax Demand on Hospital:Rules Healthcare Services Exempt Under Notification
Green Valley Diagnostics & Hospitals Pvt Ltd vs Unionof India CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 610
The Gauhati High Court set aside a ₹10.13 crore service tax demand raised against Green Valley Diagnostics & Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Dibrugarh, holding that healthcare services rendered by a clinical establishment are exempt under Notification No. 25/2012‑Service Tax dated 20 June 2012
The High Court quashed the Order‑in‑Original dated 25.03.2022, which had confirmed the ₹10.13 crore demand, equal penalty, and interest. it declared the demand unsustainable, illegal, and without jurisdiction, since the petitioner’s receipts were from exempt healthcare services.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
