Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-Up
A Round-Up of the Supreme Court & High Court Cases That Were Reported at Taxscan Last Week
This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from May 16, 2026 to May 22, 2026. SUPREME COURT Compounding Fee Recovered from Illegal Miners without Lease or Licence Not Liable for TCS u/s 206: SC upholds Chhattisgarh HC Decision THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX...
This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Supreme Court and High Courts reported at Taxscan.in during the previous week from May 16, 2026 to May 22, 2026.
SUPREME COURT
Compounding Fee Recovered from Illegal Miners without Lease or Licence Not Liable for TCS u/s 206: SC upholds Chhattisgarh HC Decision
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs COLLECTOR MINING KANKER
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 205
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which held that TaxCollected at Source (TCS) under Section 206C(1C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied on compounding fees or fines recovered from persons engaged in illegal mining without any lease, licence or contractual rights.
The Chhattisgarh High Court accepted the assessee’s contention and held that Section 206C(1C) specifically applies only to leaseholders, licensees or persons to whom mining rights or interests are lawfully transferred. The Court observed that compounding fees recovered from illegal miners are penal in nature and cannot be equated with royalty payments.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the Revenue’s SLP and upheld the relief granted to the mining authorities.
"Step-up" of pay to senior Income Tax Gazetted Officers can be granted on par with juniors: Supreme Court Dismisses UOI's Plea
UNION OF INDIA &ORS. vs INCOME TAX GAZETTED OFFICER ASSOCIATION RAJASTHAN & ANR.
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (SC) 206
The Supreme Court has upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision directing the government to grant a "step-up" of pay to senior Income Tax Gazetted Officers to place them on par with their juniors.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India, a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale found no good ground to entertain the challenge against the High Court's order. The Supreme Court also condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal had relied on precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the principal bench of the CAT to hold that when a junior’s increment results in higher pay than a senior who earlier earned an advance increment, the senior is entitled to have his pay stepped up to match the junior’s, subject to verification of individual entitlements.
HIGH COURT
Khajna Receipts & Municipal Tax Records Sufficient to Establish Better Title: Calcutta HC Dismisses Eviction Appeal
Saraswati Das and others vs Shib Narayan Das and another
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 686
The Calcutta High Court, in dismissed a second appeal challenging an eviction decree passed against the appellants, who were deemed licensees, holding that khajna receipts & municipal tax records sufficient to establish better title.
The Court observed that the respondent had successfully exhibited documentary evidence, including original records of rights, Khajna receipts, and municipal tax receipts, demonstrating that the property was recorded in the name of the plaintiff's mother. In contrast, the appellants failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish their own claim of ownership or tenancy.
Gratuity Rules Approved by Income Tax Commissioner Prevail Over HR Manual: Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea for Higher Death Gratuity
AKANSHA AGARWAL vs UNION OFINDIA AND ORS.
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 687
The CalcuttaHigh Court dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of her claim for higher death gratuity, holding that gratuity rules approved by the Income Tax Commissioner prevail over the HR manual. The dispute originated from the death of her husband, an employee of Balmer Lawrie, a Public Sector Undertaking.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Shampa Sarkar and Ajay Kumar Gupta, first condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Bench rejected the appellant's contention that the HR manual would prevail over the Gratuity Rules.
The Court upheld the Single Judge's finding that Balmer Lawrie had never accepted the specific Office Memorandum regarding COVID-19 relief. Consequently, the Court found no legal error in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the gratuity payment as per the applicable rules.
Non-Availability of DRAT Chairperson Cannot Defeat Restoration Plea: Bombay HC Grants Temporary Relief Against Secured Asset
Dipen Dhirajlal Doshi &Anr vs Bank of India & Anr
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 688
The Bombay High Court has granted temporary protection to borrowers against coercive possession proceedings initiated by the secured creditor observing that the non-availability of the Chairperson of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) cannot render a restoration application infructuous.
Subsequently, after appointment of a new Chairperson in February 2026 the appeal was listed on March 16, 2026. Due to lack of knowledge regarding the listing there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and the appeal came to be dismissed for default, leading to vacation of interim protection.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Farhan P. Dubash held that the petitioners deserved a limited protective window to pursue restoration remedies before the appropriate DRAT forum.
Tax Liability Arises Only Upon Valid Counter-Signature of Inter-State Permit: Calcutta HC Quashes Motor Vehicle Tax Demand
Sunandita Sarangi vs TheState of West Bengal & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 689
the Calcutta High Court quashed a motor vehicle tax demand notice issued to an inter-state permit holder, holding that the liability to pay additional tax is inseparably linked to the grant of a counter-signature by the reciprocating State.
The Court ruled that a State Transport Authority cannot demand tax for a period during which the permit was not countersigned, as fiscal liability must operate coextensively with the statutory privilege to ply the vehicle.
The State Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 9 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979.
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned demand letter and directed the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal, to immediately grant counter-signature to the petitioner’s permit within 10 days, while clarifying that the Authority retains the right to realise any legally due taxes following the grant of counter-signature.
Refixation of Pension Permissible if Promotion as Tax Inspector not Ratified by DPC: J & K and Ladakh HC Quashes Recovery of Excess Pay from Retired Employee
SAJAD ALI MISGAR vs UT OFJ&K AND OTHERS
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 690
the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that recovery of excess pay from a retired employee is impermissible in law, especially when the overpayment arose from administrative errors and not fraud. However, the Court ruled that the department is entitled to refix the pension based on the correct pay scale if the placement in a higher post of Tax inspector was not ratified by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Punjab & Ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), which categorises situations where recovery is impermissible. The Court noted that recovery from retired employees, or when the excess payment was made over five years prior, falls under the category where recovery is barred.
the High Court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the recovery order to the extent it sought to recover excess emoluments, while permitting the Respondents to refix the pension in accordance with the correct rules.
"Necessary and Proper Parties” : Gauhati HC Allows Impleadment of CBIC & Customs Authorities in Writ Petition
SMTI. NEPFUSALU ROSE vsTHE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 7 ORS
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 691
The Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) allowed an application seeking the impleadment of senior tax and customs officials, including the Chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), as parties in a pending writ petition.
The writ petition involves issues related to Customs and taxation (indicated by the presence of the Customs Preventive Division and the Land Customs Station). The CBIC and Customs Commissioners are the statutory authorities responsible for implementing these laws.
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair passed the order on an Interlocutory Application, permitting the applicant to add the Chairman CBIC, the Commissioner of Customs (Siliguri Commissionerate), and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Fulbari Land Customs Station) as respondents nos. 6, 7, and 8.
Duplicate GST Orders Passed for Same Tax Period: Karnataka HC directs fresh hearing on GST cancellation
M/S TECH DESIRE INFRAPRIVATE LIMITED vs THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 692
The Karnataka High Court set aside a series of ex-parte GST orders after finding that the authorities had passed two separate adjudication orders for the same tax period on identical grounds, terming it a case of order duplication. The court directed fresh hearing on the GST registration cancellation.
The bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that the orders were indeed ex-parte and that the contention regarding the duplication of orders (Annexures A and C) for the same tax period required reconsideration. The Court observed that the matter should be remitted to the adjudicating authority to allow the Petitioner to demonstrate their case on merits.
The Court observed:
“It is the contention of the petitioner that orders at Annexures-A and C series are passed regarding the same tax period and amounts to duplication of orders... it would be appropriate to remit the matter for reconsideration by putting the petitioner on terms.”
Tripura HC Rules GST Order Service Defective Absent Delivery Proof: Uploading on Portal Alone Insufficient
Nikhil Debnath vs The Unionof India & others
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 693
the Tripura High Court held that a GST order cannot be deemed properly served without proof of delivery, observing that mere uploading on the GST portal does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswa jit Palit noted that sub‑clause (b) of Section 169(1) requires Speed Post “with Acknowledgement Due.” While the respondents produced a dispatch register and a postal receipt, they failed to furnish the signed acknowledgment card confirming receipt by the petitioner.
the Court held that prima facie there was no compliance with Section 169(1)(b) and made the interim order dated 17 December 2025 absolute, continuing protection to the petitioner. The matter has been listed for a detailed hearing in due course.
Bank Attachment Fails to Consider Section 80P(2) Exemption: Karnataka HC Quashes Ex-Parte Income Tax Assessment Order
PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATHINASAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 694
the Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte income tax assessment order after finding that the authorities failed to consider the Petitioner's claim for exemption under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act and wrongly treated farmer deposits as unexplained income.
The bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav perused the assessment order and noted that the Petitioner had not participated in the proceedings, leading to additions on the head of unexplained sales and the denial of the Section 80P(2) exemption.
The Court observed:
“Noticing the assertion of the petitioner that it is a Credit Co-operative Society and that they have material to demonstrate under Section 80P(2) as well as material to demonstrate and meet the grounds raised in the show-cause notice... and noticing the financial prejudice that may be caused to the petitioner if order is allowed to remain, the petition requires to be allowed, while affording an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the assessment proceedings.”
Tick mark in Form GST DRC-06 Shows Intention to Avail Opportunity of Hearing : Orissa HC Quashes GST Order Passed Without Considering Personal Hearing
Janardan Panda vs The Commissioner, Commercial Tax &GST, Odisha and others
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 695
The Orissa High Court quashed a GSTassessment order after finding that the adjudicating authority passed the order without considering the assessee's reply or granting a personal hearing despite a specific request for one.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that the authority's actions were in "flagrant violation of principles of natural justice." The Court noted that the points raised in the reply did not find a place in the impugned order, indicating that the authority had mechanically proceeded to adjudicate the transactions.
"Reply to show cause notice cannot be said to be empty formality or useless lumber... In absence of independent application mind, this Court cannot sustain the impugned order," the Court stated.
Challenge against GST Order: Orissa HC Directs Assessee to Approach GSTAT, Mandates Pre-Deposit u/s 112(8) for Filing Appeal
Sri. Chandrakanta Parida vs The State Tax Officer, CT& GST Circle Jajpur and another
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 696
The Orissa HighCourt disposed of a writ petition directing the assessee to approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), mandating that the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) of the GST Act must be complied with, even though the Tribunal was not functional when the petition was initially filed.
The Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed,
“Since the forum has already been provided in the statute, which is now made functional and the period for filing the appeal has been extended in a fragmented manner, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending as the dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be adjudicated by the said forum and, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
I. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount if not already deposited, as required under sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the GST Act before the GSTAT to file the appeal within the period specified in the timeline mentioned above.
II. The petitioner, as undertaken, shall file appeal as per the timeline given in the “User Advisor for the GSTAT e-Filing Portal”.
III. In the event the appeal is filed and the same is found to be in order as per the requirement of Section 112 of the GST Act read with relevant Rules framed thereunder, the same shall be entertained by the GSTAT.”
Karnataka HC Quashes Service Tax Order, Remands Matter Citing Failure to Consider Exemption Notification and Reliance on TDS Statements/ITR
MR. G N KRISHNA vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 697
the Karnataka High Court set aside a Service Tax adjudication order passed against a PWD contractor, holding that the authorities must verify exemption applicability rather than relying solely on TDS statements or Income Tax returns to determine tax liability.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that the issue was covered by the Court's earlier order, which had laid down specific parameters for authorities to consider in such cases. The Court directed the authorities to examine:
1. Whether the petitioner qualifies under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Whether the services are covered under the negative list.
3. Whether the services are covered under the exemption list (Notification No. 25/2012-ST).
4. Whether the person is liable to pay service tax under the relevant rules.
5. Whether the claims are barred by limitation.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the stage of the reply to the show cause notice.
Non-Delivery of GST Notice Due to Lapsed Email Subscription: Karnataka HC Restores Cancelled GST Registration
ANISH J. DASS PROPRIETOR OFM/S. IDEA TRADERS vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 698
The Karnataka High Court held that an ex-parte assessment order passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard caused by the non-delivery of notices due to a lapsed paid email subscription is liable to be set aside. The Court stated that procedural lapses preventing communication should not permanently deprive a taxpayer of their rights, especially when they possess relevant evidence to contest the demand.
The bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav noted that the demand quantification was a small amount and that the Petitioner had a plausible explanation for the non-communication of proceedings.
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the stage of the show cause notice. The Court directed the Petitioner to appear before the respondent on 25.05.2026 to file a reply. Furthermore, noting that the GST registration had been cancelled, the Court ordered the immediate restoration of the registration in light of the assessment order being quashed.
No Personal Hearing, No Valid Dismissal: Karnataka HC Quashes Order against Central Tax Superintendent
K.ANANTHAPADMANABHA RAO vsTHE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 699
the KarnatakaHigh Court quashed a dismissal order passed against a Superintendent of Central Tax after finding that the disciplinary authority violated the principles of natural justice by failing to grant a personal hearing just three days before passing the final order.
JusticeS.R. Krishna Kumar observed that the respondent was not justified in declining the request for a personal hearing, especially since the petitioner had informed the authority of the pending discharge application in Special CC No.29/2023. The Court highlighted that the Sessions Court/Special Court had subsequently discharged the petitioner on 14.01.2026. Furthermore, the Customs Appellate Authority had also remanded the related adjudication matter for fresh consideration on 30.12.2025.
Rejecting the Revenue's contention that the petitioner should approach the Central AdministrativeTribunal (CAT), the Court held that the violation of natural justice nullified the need to exhaust alternative remedies.
'Substance Over Form' Overrides Lack of Formal Sanction of post of Customs Officer : Calcutta HC Upholds Cost Recovery Charges Demand
Appejay Infra LogisticsPvt. Ltd vs Anr vs Union of India & Ors
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 700
the CalcuttaHigh Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the demand for cost recovery charges, holding that the doctrine of "substance over form" overrides the lack of formal sanction of posts for Customsofficers. The Court ruled that a Container Freight Station (CFS) operator cannot evade liability for charges when they have actually availed the services of Customs supervision and clearance.
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that the petitioner's argument based on the absence of formally sanctioned posts was an "over-technical reading divorced from the substance and object of the statutory framework." The Court noted that the CFS could not have functioned without the active supervision, examination, and clearance support provided by Customs officers.
Only One Day to Reply to GST Show Cause Notice: Karnataka HC Quashes GST Order against Trader
LEADINGLY TRADING LLP vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIALTAXE
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 701
The KarnatakaHigh Court held that an ex parte assessment order passed without granting sufficient time to the taxpayer to reply to a GST show cause notice is liable to be quashed, relying on the principles of naturaljustice that require an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned assessment order. The matter was remitted to the competent authority to consider the case afresh from the stage of issuing the show cause notice. The Court directed the Petitioner to appear before the authority on 25.05.2026, with a clarification that failure to appear would result in the automatic recall of the present order.
No Bar under GST Act to Issue Common SCN for Different Tax Period: Karnataka HC Upholds Revenue's Power to Issue Consolidated GST SCN
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALTAX vs CHIMNEY HILLS EDUCATION SOCIETY
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 702
The Karnataka High Court upheld the Revenue Department’s power to issue consolidated show cause notices (SCNs) under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, covering multiple financial years. The Court held that there is no statutory bar against issuing a common SCN for different tax periods, ruling that proceedings under these sections are neither strictly financial year-specific nor confined to a single tax period.
The Court comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K.V. Aravind clarified that the issuance of a consolidated SCN does not dilute the protection under sub-section (10). Each period covered in the notice must independently satisfy the limitation test; if any part is time-barred, it will be excluded, but the entire notice will not be invalidated. The Court also dismissed fears regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, noting that an assessee has no right to choose the adjudicating authority based on the demand quantum.
Banks' Eligible for CENVAT Credit on Service Tax Paid for Deposit Insurance Premium: Karnataka HC
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALEXCISE AND SERVICE TAX vs CORPORATION BANK
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 703
the Karnataka High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue and affirmed that banks are eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the Service Tax paid on premiums to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC).
The bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. V. Aravind observed that the Kerala High Court had extensively analyzed the issue, taking into account the regulatory framework of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee.
Polypropylene Leno Bags Classifiable as Plastic Articles Under Chapter 39, Not Textiles: Calcutta HC Dismisses Appeal
Mega Flex Plastics Limited& Anr. vs The Union of India & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 704
the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mega Flex Plastics Limited, holding that polypropylene leno bags are classifiable as plastic articles under Chapter Heading 3923, not as textiles under Chapter Heading 6305 33 00.
The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the decision of the Single Judge and the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), confirming that the bags attract 18% GST as plastic goods.
The Court analyzed the arguments and observed that for a product to be classified as a synthetic textile, it must meet specific parameters, including the cross-sectional diameter and deniers of the strips used for weaving. The Court noted that concurrent findings by the Appellate AAR and the Writ Court had already established that the strips used by Mega Flex Plastics did not qualify as synthetic textiles.
The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the bags could not be classified as textiles under Section XI of the tariff schedule, thereby affirming their classification as plastic goods.
Income Tax Liability Must Be Deducted While Assessing Loss of Dependency: Punjab and Haryana HC Directs Tata AGI to pay Enhanced Compensation
Rekha Gupta and others vs TATA AIG General InsuranceCompany and others
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 705
The Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court held that income tax liability must be deducted while assessing the loss of dependency in motor accident claims. The Court directed Tata AIG General Insurance Company to pay enhanced compensation to the claimants after recalculating the income by factoring in the tax deductions.
Justice Deepak Gupta perused the income tax returns on record and noted that the return for Assessment Year 2021-22 was indeed filed after the death of the deceased but covered a limited period. The Court calculated the average monthly income by taking the cumulative income of 21½ months from two assessment years and deducting the tax component.
Failure to receive SCN not fatal: Gauhati HC grants GST restoration on payment of dues and Return Filing
Smti Bina Taipodia vs The Union of India and 2 Orsrepresented by the Secretary
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 706
The Gauhati High Court directed restoration of GST registration proceedings after finding that non-receipt of a show-cause notice and delayed filing were not absolute bars to relief.
A single bench of Justice Kardak Ete disposed of the petition at the motion stage. The petitioner was directed to file an application to respondent authorities within 20 days seeking restoration. On receipt, the authorities shall verify and decide in accordance with law and, if requirements are met, restore the GST registration within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Rs 540 Cr Coal Levy Scam, Citing Applicant's Role in Illegal Levy Collection via Misuse of GST Machinery
Sh. Anil Tuteja vs State of Chhattisgarh Through ACB (EOW)
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 707
The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the anticipatorybail application of Sh. Anil Tuteja in connection with the Rs. 540 crore Coal Levy Scam. The Court held that the applicant, a senior administrative officer, prima facie played an active role in facilitating the collection of illegal levies by influencing the switch from online to manual transport systems and misusing the GST machinery to coerce traders.
The bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas noted that the evidence, including the statement of the co-accused and digital records, prima facie reflected the applicant's involvement in the offence.
The Court observed:
“From perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, is prima facie reflected... to confront these memorandum statements of Sameer Vishnoi and other material collected by the prosecution against the applicant, his custodial interrogation is very much necessary, therefore, the application for grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.”
Money-lender fails to produce license under Bengal Money Lenders Act: Calcutta HC dismisses Suit, relying on Income Tax returns
SMT. SUDHA KANKARIA vs SMT. BHAVYA BOTHRA
CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 708
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a suit for recovery of money relying on the Income Tax Returns, holding that the failure of a money-lender to produce a license under the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940, is fatal to their claim.
The Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice MD. Shabbar Rashidi perused the records and noted that the respondent had taken a specific stand in prior applications, acknowledging the applicability of the Act and applying for a license. The Court found that the respondent could not retract this admission at a later stage. Relying on the Income Tax returns, the Court concluded that the respondent was carrying on money lending business.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
