Supreme Court & High Courts Weekly Round-Up

The Bombay High Court directed that an income tax appeal involving Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. be placed before another Bench after Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla recused himself from hearing matters pertaining to the Mukesh Ambani Group.

The Income tax department filed an appeal against the Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd., the assessee and a company belonging to Mukesh Ambani. The matter was placed before the division bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla of the Bombay High Court.

The Kerala High Court has set aside an adjudication order in a landmark ruling on procedural compliance for GST deciding tax liability for seven different financial years in a single order.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. gave the judgement, stressing the need for tax authorities to follow the legislative obligation of providing separate notices for each assessment year.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that interest under Section 234D of the Income TaxAct, 1961 can be levied on excess refunds which was granted before 1 June 2003. The provision applies retrospectively.

The Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna allowed the Revenue’s appeal and held that the issue was already settled by binding precedent.

The Bombay High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging an order of the National Company Law Tribunal ( NCLT ), holding that alleged procedural irregularities must be raised before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ( NCLAT ) as per IBC provisions and said that merely questioning the process behind the NCLT’s findings cannot be a good ground for invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that “Merely stating that the petitioner is not challenging the finding and only the process by which such finding was reached by NCLT, cannot be a ground for maintaining the Writ Petition before this Court.”

GSTAT Appeal Filing Available Till June 30, 2026 for GST Orders Communicated Before April 1, 2026: Calcutta HC Allows Writ Withdrawal

Novartis HealthcarePvt. Ltd vs State of West Bengal and Ors. CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 807

the Calcutta High Court permitted to withdraw its writ petition and approach the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), noting that the statutory forum appeal filing is available till June 30, 2026 for GST orders communicated before April 1, 2026.

Justice Smita Das De adjudicated the application filed by Novartis seeking to withdraw the writ petition filed in 2022. The writ had challenged an order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioner sought withdrawal to avail the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI, ED, NIA Probe into BYJU’S Insolvency Irregularities, Holding Prior Litigation Bars Fresh Petition

INCOME TAX OFFICER vsSRI BEVINAKUPPE NINGEGOWDA CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 810

The High Court of Karnataka has disposed of a Writ Appeal filed by the Income Tax Department after noting that the core issue raised by the Revenue had already been considered and answered by the same Court in a previous ruling. The Bench observed that in the previous judgement, the court held that notice under Section 148A(b) would be unsustainable if the period provided for compliance is less than seven days.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K, heard the intra-Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appellants, including the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 & TPS Bengaluru and the National Faceless Assessment Centre, had challenged an order passed by the Single Judge in favour of Bevinakuppe Ningegowda Ramalingegowda. The Revenue sought to overturn the Single Judge’s decision, arguing for a different interpretation of the law.

Calcutta HC Directs PWD to Consider Representation for Reimbursement of Differential GST

Indo Nabin ProjectsLimited & Anr vs The Superintending Engineer, Health Electrical Circle,PWD, Govt. of West Bengal & Ors CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 811

The Calcutta High Court has directed the Superintendent, Health Electrical Circle, PWD and other respondent authorities to consider and decide the claim of a contractor seeking refund of differential GST due to change in rate of taxes in 2022.

Justice Smita Das De disposed of the writ suit brought by Indo Nabin Projects Limited and directed the authorities to hear the petitioner and deliver a reasoned ruling within six weeks.

Order Giving Effect to CIT(A) Directions Passed Beyond Limitation u/s 153(5) is a Nullity: Calcutta HC Quashes Income Tax Assessment

NOMURA RRESEARCHINSTITUTE FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 812

The Calcutta High Court has set aside an assessment order passed by the Assistant CommissionerofIncome Tax after a delay of over three years. The Court held that the orders passed beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 153(5) of the Income Tax Act are "non est" and without jurisdiction.

Justice Smita Das De stated that the department cannot be allowed to line its pockets unjustly by retaining revenue due to such procedural failures.

The court stated that the facts were not in dispute and that the ruling was passed after a long gap beyond the statutory limit. The Court emphasised the established law that the period provided under Section 153(5) is mandatory. The giving-effect order shall not be passed within this period, the appellate order shall become final.

GST SCN Uploaded Under 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab Denies Fair Opportunity: Calcutta HC Allows Petitioner to File Reply, Sets Aside Adjudication Order

The Calcutta High Court has set aside a GST adjudication order on the grounds of procedural fairness, ruling that the revenue department cannot rely on an order passed ex-parte when the Show CauseNotice (SCN) was not properly communicated to the taxpayer.

The Court was informed that the intimation regarding the SCN was uploaded under the "Additional Notice and Orders" tab on the GST portal. The petitioner argued that due to this placement, he missed the notification and consequently failed to file a reply.

Justice Smita Das De held that uploading a notice in a less-visible tab on the portal without specific intimation deprives the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court accepted the petitioner's submission that the failure to respond was not willful but due to a lack of proper intimation.

"Since the petitioner has not been able to receive the show cause notice and file a reply to the same, the petitioner must be given an opportunity to do so," the Court observed.

Municipality cannot retain excess tax without the authority of law: Calcutta HC Quashes Retrospective Property Tax Enhancement

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the enhancement of Annual Valuation of a property by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), holding that the revision was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the KMC acted without the authority of law by retrospectively enhancing valuation based on an undisclosed "city-wide policy" rather than following the individual assessment procedure mandated by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that the KMC failed to produce any resolution, circular, or statutory instrument authorising this "city-wide policy." The Court emphasised that under Article 265 of the Constitution, no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law. It held that an administrative decision or internal policy cannot create a tax burden or alter the taxable base without a clear statutory source.

Income Tax Dept Mandated to Issue Form 5 Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Upon Rectification of Portal Error in Clubbing Payments Across Assessment Years: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court ordered the Income Tax Department to issue Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, stating that revenue authorities cannot deny the benefits of the scheme to an assessee due to a technical glitch on the official portal which caused erroneous clubbing of payments across different assessment years. The Court held that Form 5 is a legislative requirement, not a discretionary function, when the conditions of the plan are fulfilled.

The High Court urged the respondents to correct the error and delink the payment of Assessment Year 2015-16 from 2014-15 within a fortnight. Also, the designated body was directed to issue Form 5 to the petitioner for Assessment Year 2015-16 within four weeks of the judgement.

The Court clarified that on issuing of Form 5, all procedures for the relevant assessment year shall stand ended under Section 5(3) of the Scheme, save and except any future recovery proceedings for tax, interest or penalty.

Undue Long Incarceration and Delay in Seeking Sanction: Calcutta HC Grants Bail to 62-year-old para-teacher in School Recruitment PMLA Case

The Calcutta High Court has granted bail to 62-year-old para teacher Chandan Mondal in a money laundering case related to the suspected illegal recruitment of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ workers in West Bengal schools.

Justice Jay Sengupta ordered the release of the petitioner, stating that while the charges are serious and the strictures of Section 45 of thePrevention of MoneyLaundering Act (PMLA) were insurmountable on merits, the long period of incarceration of the accused and the delays in investigation were in favour of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Foreign National on Business Visa is 'Person Resident in India: Karnataka HC Upholds Tribunal Order Quashing FEMA Confiscation

The Karnataka High Court has rejected an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and affirmed the verdict of the Appellate Tribunal that dismissed a Confiscation order against a Korean citizen and his partnership firm. The Court concluded that a foreign national who enters India on a business visa and stays for more than 182 days during the previous financial year is a “person resident in India” within the meaning of Section 2(v) of FEMA unless he is covered by the particular exclusion clauses.

The Division Bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice T.M. Nadaf held that the respondents were “persons resident in India” at the time of purchase of immovable property and hence not in breach of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999.

Karnataka HC Grants Bail in PMLA Case, Rules Rigour of Section 45 Inapplicable After Accused Serves Half of Maximum Sentence

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case linked to organised crime, stating that the statutory right to default bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is superior to the restrictive provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) once the accused completes half of the maximum sentence.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted bail to Jagadeesh Chandra Raj Urs, who has been in detention since December 2021 in connection with crimes under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The petitioner is serving a life sentence for the predicate offence of murder and organised crime under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act.

GIA India Not a PE of GIA US: Bombay HC Dismisses Revenue’s Challenge on Royalty Taxation

The Bombay High Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against Gemological Institute of America Inc. (GIA US), holding that its Indian subsidiary, GIA India Laboratory Private Limited (GIA India), does not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) of the US entity in India.

Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla upheld the reduction of royalty income taxable in India following an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) entered into between GIA India and the CentralBoard of DirectTaxes (CBDT).

The division bench noted that the excess royalty had actually been refunded to GIA India and therefore could not continue to be treated as income in the hands of GIA US. It noted that tax must be based on actual income rather than sums that the assessee had lawfully returned in accordance with an Income Tax Act, 1961.

Bombay HC Revives Appeal against Income Tax Reassessment Post-SC Remand in Section 151A Cases

The Bombay High Court has directed the revival of an appeal filed by a against an income tax reassessment order after the Supreme Court remanded a batch of cases involving the Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla also protected the assessee from coercive recovery action during the pendency of the appellate proceedings.

The Division Bench ordered Revenue authorities to immediately revive the appeal pending at the NFAC. Additionally, the Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the matter freshly, providing the assessee is given a fair opportunity to be heard.

The bench permitted the trust to raise additional legal and factual grounds, including limitation issues for AY 2015-16. The Court stayed the March 22, 2023 reassessment order pending the appeal as an interim protection.

Reassessment Notice Issued by Jurisdictional AO Instead of Faceless AO u/s 151A Scheme is Invalid: Bombay HC Quashes Reassessment Orders

The Bombay High Court has held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) in breach of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and the scheme framed thereunder is invalid and bad in law.

The Court decided that such jurisdictional deficiency would render the notice subject to be quashed along with all reassessment orders granted pursuant thereto and all consequential demand notices and penalty notices.

Bombay HC sets aside Customs Broker Licence Revocation, Holds Denial of Cross-Examination Vitiates Proceedings

The Bombay HighCourt has upheld an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) setting aside the revocation of a Customs Broker Licence for not granting cross-examination under Regulation 17(4) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

the Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla found that there was a clear violation of Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR, 2018.

The Court noted that after issuance of the show cause notice dated April 27, 2022, the customs broker had submitted a written request before the Inquiry Officer seeking permission to cross-examine two crucial witnesses, Rajesh Dilip Gihar, proprietor of M/s G.R. Creation, and Mohammad Yusuf, Manager of M/s Manjunatha Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC Dismisses Tax Appeal Over 8-Year Delay in Filing Before CIT(A), Says Filing s. 264 Revision Petition Showed Knowledge of Demand

The Karnataka High Court dismissed an income tax appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings of the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which refused to condone an approximately eight-year delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

The division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that the assessee, Shri Prakash Ramchandra Prabhu himself filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act on 14.07.2015 for cancellation of the same demand arising out of the intimation dated 20.03.2009. Thus, the assessee was aware of the demand at least by 2015. The Court ruled that this behaviour was contrary to the assessee’s contention that he had come to know about the intimation under Section 143(1) only on 20.01.2017.

No Evidence of Customs Broker Advising Importer to Violate Customs Law: Bombay HC Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Customs Department against a customs broker, holding that there was no evidence to establish that the broker had advised the importer to violate customs laws.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, upholding the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), ruled that findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal could not be interfered with in the absence of perversity or any substantial question of law.

‘Appears to Be an Attempt to Evade or Defer Tax Payment’: Madras HC Rejects Challenge to GST Assessment Order

The Madras High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) assessment order, observing that the conduct of the assessee indicated an attempt to evade or defer payment of tax.

Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala refused to condone a delay of 15 days in filing the appeal and said that the belated challenge appeared to be an effort to evade or postpone tax liability.

Karnataka HC Grants Bail to Games Kraft Directors; Arrests by ED Declared Illegal in PMLA Case

The Karnataka High Court grants bail to Deepak Singh, Vikas Taneja and Prithvi Raj Singh, directors and office bearers of M/s GamesKraft Technologies Private Limited and declared arrest made under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA) Act by enforcement Department (ED) as illegal.

the Court of Justice M. Nagaprasanana had ordered earlier, an observation central to the petitioners’ argument that the current arrest is an attempt to circumvent this judicial order.

Karnataka HC Sets Aside Order Waiving GST Interest and Penalty for Sadguru Infratech

The Division Bench of the KarnatakaHigh Court headed by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha has overruled an earlier single-judge order allowing contractors to submit updated GST reports without levy of interest or penalty. The Court held that there is no option for waiver under the mandatory assessment of interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act.

The Division Bench concurred with the contentions of Revenue. The Court held that the issue as to who would shoulder the incremental tax burden is basically a civil dispute between the parties to the contract and does not affect the statutory responsibility to pay tax under the GST framework.

“The liability to pay interest on delayed payment of tax under a fiscal statute is well settled to arise by operation of law and the authority has no discretion to waive the interest or reduce the same if the statute makes no such provision (See Pratibha Processors v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 101),” the Court said.

Personal Appearance Only if Representative Unable to Answer: Calcutta HC Directs 76-Year-Old PMLA Noticee to Appear Before ED

Justice Krishna Rao Single Judge Bench was hearing WPA 12453 of 2026 filed by Kishori Lal Jaiswal. The petitioner has sought direction from the Court to attend either through virtual mode or at the Zonal Office of the ED, Kolkata.

Accused Cannot Remain in Jail Indefinitely When PMLA Case Trial is Unlikely to Conclude Soon: Delhi HC Grants Bail

the Delhi High Court held that an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The court granted bail to the accused, observing that he had already spent nearly five years in custody and that continued detention would be unjustified.

Justice Prateek Jalan observed that the prosecution proposed to examine 311 witnesses and that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future. The court observed that if bail was denied, there was a real possibility that the accused could spend a substantial part or even the maximum period, of the prescribed sentence in custody before the trial ended.