Categories
Blog Updates

HC Quashes GST Demand for Failure to Serve SCN via RPAD

GST demand quashed

Case Details: Tvl. C. Ragupathi Contractor vs. Deputy State Tax Officer - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 556 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
  • Sudalai Muthu N. for the Petitioner.
  • R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the impugned assessment order. He submitted that he was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice (SCN) uploaded on the GST portal and that the original of the said notice was not furnished. It was further contended that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner relied on Section 169 of the CGST Act and submitted that the lack of effective service rendered the proceedings and order unsustainable. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that sending a notice by uploading it on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service; however, where there was no response from the taxpayer, the jurisdictional officer under CGST should have strictly explored alternative modes of service, preferably by way of RPAD. The Court observed that the failure to provide such opportunities resulted in ineffective service to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned assessment order confirming the demand was set aside, and the matter was remanded. It directed that the assessment be reconsidered in accordance with the provisions of Section 169 of the CGST Act and the Tamil Nadu GST Act.

The post HC Quashes GST Demand for Failure to Serve SCN via RPAD appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

ITAT Allows Section 54B Relief on Sale of Agricultural Land

Section 54B agricultural land exemption

Case Details: Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Bhupinder Singh Bhalla - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 465 (Delhi-Trib.) (TM)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Mahavir Singh | Vice President (As a third Member), Vimal Kumar | Judicial Member & Brajesh Kumar Singh | Accountant Member
  • Jitender Singh, CIT-DR for the Appellant.
  • Somil AggarwalDeepesh GargDr Rakesh Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee-individual sold agricultural land and invested sale proceeds in the purchase of three agricultural lands. While filing the return of income, the assessee claimed exemption under section 54B. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) denied the exemption on the ground that the land was not used for agricultural purposes.

The matter reached the Delhi Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established that the land was assessed to land revenue, as was evident from the Khasra/Girdawri and Halqa Patwari report. Even the land was assessable under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, and the competent authorities, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalkaji District, and the Deputy Commissioner/Collector (South) Saket, passed an order that the land was primarily used for agricultural purposes.

Further, it was noted that the Assessing Officer and the revenue relied on the report of the Inspectors who visited the premises and reported that no agricultural activity was carried out. These Inspectors clicked photographs of the property, but they never informed the assessee of the visit, and it appeared to be a discrete enquiry conducted by them without informing the party. The authenticity of this report and the photographs reproduced in the assessment order were specifically discarded by the assessee. Even otherwise, the Inspectors’ Report was dated 28-12-2018, whereas the point of transfer of land was dated 07-12-2015. Thus, the report of the Inspectors and consequent photographs cannot be taken into consideration while adjudicating this issue, as it was without any evidence contrary to the facts on record.

In the instant case, the character of this land, as on the date of transfer, was agricultural land, and the revenue records also prove that the agricultural land was put to use. Moreover, this is supported by the assessee consistently declaring agricultural income, and the quantum of agricultural income cannot be the reason for disallowing the claim of deduction under section 54B. The assessee proved that the land is agricultural in nature and was used for agricultural activity as per the records. The revenue had not discharged the onus of disproving the same.

List of Cases Referred to

The post ITAT Allows Section 54B Relief on Sale of Agricultural Land appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

HC Quashes GST Cancellation for SCN Without Hearing Details

GST registration cancellation

Case Details: Nairson Multiventures (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 369 (Chhattisgarh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.
  • Siddharth Dubey, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Ms Anuradha Jain, Dy. G.A. & Ms Pallavi Das, P.L. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners were issued show cause notices (SCNs) for cancellation of GST registrations. The SCNs did not specify the date and time for the personal hearing. Physical verification of the premises was conducted, but the verification report was not uploaded to the common GST portal. The petitioners were denied the opportunity to file a response to the SCNs. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the authority is under an obligation to afford an opportunity of personal hearing by specifying the date and time, and that the SCNs and final orders issued in contravention of this requirement were not sustainable. The Court observed that the physical verification report was not uploaded as required under Rule 25 of the CGST Rules and that the petitioners were denied the right to file a reply to the SCNs. Consequently, the SCNs and final orders were quashed, and the authority was directed to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with Section 29 of the CGST Act and Chhattisgarh GST Act.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Institute of Chattered Accountants v. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537 (para 16)
  • CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2013] 217 Taxman 143 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 357 (SC) (para 16)
  • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer cum-Assessing Authority 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 (para 16), followed
  • Shubham Sales v. State of Chhattisgarh [WPT No. 130 of 2025] (para 19)
  • Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay) (para 17), distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

  • Institute of Chattered Accountants v. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537 (para 3)
  • CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2013] 217 Taxman 143 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 357 (SC) (para 5)
  • Shubham Sales v. State of Chhattisgarh [WPT No. 130 of 2025] (para 5)
  • Viswaat Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2024] 167 taxmann.com 450 (Bombay)/[2024] 91 GSTL 114 (Bombay)/[2024] 106 GST 818 (Bombay) (para 6)
  • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer cum-Assessing Authority 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 (para 16).

The post HC Quashes GST Cancellation for SCN Without Hearing Details appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

No Section 143(1) Adjustment Without Prior Intimation to Assessee | HC

Section 143(1) adjustment without intimation

Case Details: Bax India Ventures (P.) Ltd. vs. Central Processing Centre - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 395 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • B.P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
  • P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. & Jeet Kamdar, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Vikas T. Khanchandani, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed its return of income and claimed the benefit of section 115BAA. To avail the benefits of this section, it was mandatory for the assessee to file Form 10-IC by the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1). Admittedly, the return was filed by the assessee belatedly under section 139(8A), along with Form 10-IC.

Since Form 10-IC was not filed by the due date as contemplated under section 139(1), the adjustment was made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a). The assessee filed an instant writ petition seeking to quash the intimation issued under section 143(1)(a) on the ground that no such intimation was given prior to making the adjustment.

High Court Held

The Bombay High Court held that before any adjustment is made under section 143(1)(a), an intimation is to be given to the assessee of such adjustment, either in writing or in electronic mode. This is clearly stipulated by the first proviso to section 143(1)(a). The second proviso to section 143(1)(a) further stipulates that the response received from the assessee, if any, to any intimation issued under the first proviso, has to be considered before making any adjustment. If no response is received from the assessee within 30 days, the department may make the adjustment.

In the present case, admittedly, no intimation was given to the assessee as contemplated in the first proviso to section 143(1)(a). The first proviso is clearly mandatory in nature, as it clearly stipulates that no adjustment ‘shall be made’ unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustment either in writing or in electronic mode. Once this is a mandatory provision, no intimation order under section 143(1)(a) can be passed, making any adjustment in the return of income filed by the assessee, unless such proposed adjustment is first intimated to the assessee and he has been given a chance to respond thereto.

Since no intimation as contemplated under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) was ever issued to the assessee, the intimation was to be quashed.

List of Cases Referred to

The post No Section 143(1) Adjustment Without Prior Intimation to Assessee | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Property Bought in Others’ Name With Company Funds Held Benami | SAFEMA

Benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A)

Case Details: Kaluram Berva vs. Initiating Officer, Pune - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 459 (SAFEMA-New Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman & Gopal Chandra Mishra, Member
  • Sarthak KarolMs Neelakshi BhadauriaNitin KambleShushank Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Mohit Kumar, Adv. & Anish Dhingra, SPP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a private limited company, purchased agricultural land in the name of a reserved caste individual. The assessee contended that the purchase of the property in the name of the Reserved caste candidate was entered prior to the amendment in the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short “the Act of 1988”).

Also, the property was purchased in the name of the Reserved caste candidate, as the assessee, being a general caste candidate, could not purchase the land under the provisions of the Revenue Laws of the State of Rajasthan. Considering the rider under the laws, the land existing in the name of the Reserved caste candidate was purchased by the company in the name of a candidate of the same caste under a business arrangement.

It has been treated as a case of a benami transaction, ignoring the sequence of events and even the reason for purchasing the property in the name of a Reserved caste candidate. The transfer of consideration by the appellant company to the employee was in a fiduciary capacity; hence, interference in the impugned order is warranted.

SAFEMA Held

The Tribunal held that the facts of the case fulfil the ingredients of Section 2(9(A) of the Act of 1988. The land has been registered in the name of the benamidars of which consideration was paid by the beneficial owner for its future benefit. It is for this reason that the property was registered in the name of the benamidars, and consideration of which was paid by the appellant company. It was for the future benefit of the beneficial owner, because after the conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use, it was taken over by the appellant company.

Thus, the case in hand squarely falls within the definition of Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988, defining “benami transaction”. The contention of the assessee that the property was purchased in the name of the employee of the company due to the bar under the Revenue Laws of the State of Rajasthan for a transaction of the agricultural land in the name other than of the Reserved caste candidate was raised to give justification for entering into the transaction. However, it was ignored that it became a benami transaction by operation of law, and thereby, the argument cannot be accepted.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Property Bought in Others’ Name With Company Funds Held Benami | SAFEMA appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Disability Pension Arrears Can’t Be Limited to Three Years | SC

Disability pension arrears

Case Details: Union of India vs. SGT Girish Kumar - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 412 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Alok Aradhe & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
  • Rakesh DahiyaPankaj KumarTejas PatelNaresh KumarPrateek K. ChadhaMukesh Kumar MaroriaTejas Patel, AORs, Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., A.K. SrivastavaAkul KrishnanMs Sakshi ApurvaSimarpal Singh SawhneySiddhant JuyalSreekar AechuriAbhishek JainMs SwekshaKamal DigpalVaibhav DwivediChitvan SinghalAbhishek Kumar PandeyRaman YadavKartikay AggarwalMs Ameyavikrama ThanviJagdish ChandraMadhav Sinhal, Advs., R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India & Ms Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. for the Appellant.
  • Dr. N. VisakamurthyV. ElanchezhiyanMs Goldy GoyalGaichangpou GangmeiMukesh Kumar MaroriaMs Jagrati SinghMrs Anjani Aiyagari, AORs, Balraj RateeNarinder Kumar RanaDinesh VermaSudhanshu S. PandeyArjun D. SinghRoshan KumarMaitreya MahaleyYimyanger LongkumerKamei Bestman KabuiJ. PrasadA.K. SrivastavaC. ArvindMs Pradhanti@bharathiMs R. ArchanaRajpalSurendar KumarR.S. MeenaG. Jayendra BalajiJayanta Kumar BiswasMs Vandana Khanorkar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the question before the Supreme Court was whether, after having taken a conscious policy decision that arrears of disability pension were payable from a specified cut off date, the State could subsequently contend that such arrears should be confined to a period of three years preceding the claim.

Supreme Court Held

The Court held that once the State itself had determined, by a conscious policy decision, that arrears were payable from 01.01.1996 or 01.01.2006, as the case may be, it was not open to it to resile from that position and restrict payment to three years prior to the filing of the Original Application before the Armed Forces Tribunal by invoking the Limitation Act, 1963 or Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.

It was further held that arrears of disability pension which had become due to ex-servicemen pursuant to judicial determination as well as the policy decision of the Union of India constituted accrued rights. Any deprivation of such accrued arrears would amount to deprivation of property and would infringe Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, in the absence of any compelling reason to take a different view, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification to depart from its consistent position that the right to receive disability pension is a valuable right. Once such pension is found due, the benefit must be granted from the date it became due and cannot be curtailed by restricting arrears to three years preceding the filing of the original application.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA-1677-2016, dated 30-08-2017 (para 23) set aside
  • Union of India v. Ram Avtar 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 (para 18)
  • K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429
  • Davinder Singh v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 9946 of 2016, dated 20-9-2016]
  • EX. SIGMN. MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA v. Union of India [2019] 4 taxmann.com 1892 (SC)
  • Union of India v. Piyush Bahuguna [Diary No.10713 of 2021, dated 25-3-2022]
  • Bijender Singh v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online SC 895 (para 20) followed
  • Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [2008] 2008 taxmann.com 10982 (SC) (para 22) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

  • Union of India v. Ram Avtar 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 (para 3)
  • Davinder Singh v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 9946 of 2016, dated 20-9-2016] (para 6)
  • Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2016) 13 SCC 797 (para 6)
  • K.J.S. Buttar v. Union of India (2011) 11 SCC 429 (para 6)
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava (2010) 12 SCC 538 (para 6)
  • P. K. Kapur v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 425 (para 6)
  • M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das [2019] 111 taxmann.com 191 (SC) (para 6)
  • Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [2008] 2008 taxmann.com 10982 (SC) (para 6)
  • Shiv Dass v. Union of India 2007 taxmann.com 1901 (SC) (para 6)
  • M.R. Gupta v. Union of India [1996] 1995 taxmann.com 1574 (SC) (para 6)
  • P. L. Shah v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 546 (para 6)
  • Anand Swarup Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 4 SCC 744 (para 6)
  • Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore 1961 taxmann.com 93 (SC) (para 6)
  • Union of India v. SGT Girish Kumar [CIVIL APPEAL Diary No (s). 21811 of 2018, dated 13-7-2018] (para 6)
  • Bijender Singh v. Union of India 2025 SCC Online SC 895 (para 7)
  • Union of India v. Reet MP Singh [Civil Appeal No.11311 of 2025, dated 1-9-2025] (para 7)
  • Ex Sigman Dharam Singh v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3882 of 2009] (para 7)
  • EX. SIGMN. MADAN PRASAD SINHA @ SANATAN BABA v. Union of India [2019] 4 taxmann.com 1892 (SC) (para 7)
  • Union of India v. Piyush Bahuguna [Diary No.10713 of 2021, dated 25-3-2022] (para 7)
  • Harbans Lal v. Union of India [OA No. 1789 of 2018, dated 24-5-2018] (para 7)
  • D.S. Nakara v Union of India [1983] 1982 taxmann.com 519 (SC) (para 15)
  • State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [2013] 8 taxmann.com 654 (SC) (para 15)
  • Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India [2025] 176 taxmann.com 499 (SC) (para 15).

The post Disability Pension Arrears Can’t Be Limited to Three Years | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

GST Audit and SCN Challenge Not Maintainable in Writ | HC

GST writ petition

Case Details: KCC Dhangaon Boregaon Expressway (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 322 (Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Vivek Rusia & Pradeep Mittal, JJ.
  • Harsh Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Gajendra Singh Thakur, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a construction company, was taken under audit by issuance of Form GST ADT-01 and a spot memo. It submitted detailed replies and participated effectively before the competent authority. Subsequently, the final audit report in Form GST ADT-02 was issued, and a personal hearing was conducted, following which a final order under Section 74 of the CGST Act and Madhya Pradesh GST Act was passed. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of appeal, it filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the show cause notice and the audit report on the ground that the final audit report was time-barred. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioner had effectively participated before the competent authority, and a final order under Section 74 had been passed; therefore, the validity of the show cause notice and the audit report could not be challenged by way of a writ petition. The Court observed that writ petitions under Article 226 against assessment orders are not maintainable, and the statutory remedy of appeal must be availed. All grounds raised by the petitioner were required to be presented before the Appellate Authority under Section 65 read with Section 74 of the CGST Act, with any further remedy lying before the GST Tribunal. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition in favour of the Department of Revenue.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

  • Shree Bhawani Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P [Writ Petition (Tax) No.255/2012 of 10-9-2015] (para 8)
  • Whilpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 (para 9)
  • Isha Beebi v. Tax Recovery Officer (1976) 1 SCC 70 (para 9)
  • Feldohf Auto & Gas Industries Ltd. v. UOI (1998) 9 SCC 710 (para 9)
  • Paradip Port Trust v. Sales Tax Officer 1998 taxmann.com 2004 (SC) (para 9)
  • Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. JT (2006) 12 SC 92 (para 9)
  • State of HP v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. 2006 taxmann.com 1823/[2005] 142 STC 1 (SC) (para 9)
  • State of M.P. v. Sanjay Nagaich (2013) 7 SCC 25 (para 9)
  • Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill (2012) 2 SCC 108 (para 9)
  • UOI v. Tantia Construction (P.) Ltd. (2011) 5 SCC 697 (para 9)
  • UOI v. Mangal Textile Mills (I) (P.) Ltd. (2010) 14 SCC 553 (para 9)
  • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (AA) (2009) 14 SCC 338 (para 9)
  • Mumtaz Post Graduate Degree College v. University of Lucknow (2009) 2 SCC 630 (para 9)
  • Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. UOI (2008) 5 SCC 632 (para 9)
  • BCPP Mazdoor Sangh v. NTPC (2007) 14 SCC 234 (para 9)
  • Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2007) 8 SCC 338 (para 9)
  • M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan (2007) 10 SCC 88 (para 9)
  • A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani 1961 taxmann.com 4/[1983] 13 ELT 1327 (SC) (para 9)
  • Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 403 (para 9)
  • Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin v. A.S. Bava AIR 1968 SC 13 (para 9)
  • L.K. VERMA v. H.M.T. Ltd. 2006 taxmann.com 2325/[2006] 108 FLR 1101 (SC) (para 9)
  • State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty (2001) 10 SCC 740 (para 9)
  • Guruvayur Devasworn Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546 (para 9)
  • State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 417 (SC) (para 10).

The post GST Audit and SCN Challenge Not Maintainable in Writ | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

No Right to Appointment After Reserve List Expiry | SC

Waitlisted candidates reserve list

Case Details: Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vs. Yati Jain - [2026] 182 taxmann.com 479 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Dipankar Datta & Augustine George Masih, JJ.
  • Yuvraj SamantMs Neha AmolaKeshav Thakur, Advs. & Rajesh Singh Chauhan, AOR for the Petitioner.
  • K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv., Ronak KaranpuriaS. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AORs, N. Sai KaushalAbhimanyu YaduvanshiPrasad HegdeVeda Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was the State Public Service Commission. The Respondents were wait-listed candidates from the three recruitment cycles: the Junior Legal Officer (JLO)–2019, the Assistant Statistical Officer (ASO)–2020, and the JLO–2013-14.

Under Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1981 and Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, the Commission could keep a reserve list up to 50% of the advertised vacancies and, on requisition, recommend names from the reserve list within six months from the date the original list was forwarded to the Appointing Authority.

The disputes arose when selected candidates did not join, and the respondents, being on reserve lists, sought appointment against those non-joining vacancies. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the petitioner to select the respondents’ names from the reserve list for consideration for appointment. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s directions.

It was noted that the right of a wait-listed candidate to be considered for appointment accrues only when a selected candidate does not join and, in such cases, a six-month period for operating reserve list is to be counted from the date the original list is forwarded to the Appointing Authority, not from the date of non-joining.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that, unless the Appointing Authority makes a requisition to the Public Service Commission, the Commission is not bound to recommend any candidate from the waiting list.

The Supreme Court held that, where writ petitions were presented after expiry of the six-month time period during which the reserve list would have been alive and effective, no benefit could accrue in favour of the writ petitioners.

Further, the Supreme Court held that a mandamus cannot be issued when the reserve list is no longer alive. Thus, the directions of the Single Judge and the Division Bench were legally unsustainable and were to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

  • Order of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW-34-2024, dated 02-05-2024 (para 120) set aside.
  • Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996) 3 SCC 52 (para 50)
  • Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 (para 89) followed
  • A.P. Public Service Commission v. P. Chandra Mouleesware Reddy (2006) 8 SCC 330 (para 77)
  • Manoj Manu v. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 171 (para 112)
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sat Pal (2013) 11 SCC 737 (para 114)
  • State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Swarup Saroj (2000) 3 SCC 699 (para 116)
  • Purshottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. (1996) 6 SCC 49 (para 119) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

  • STATE OF ORISSA and another v. RAJKISHORE NANDA and others [2010] 6 taxmann.com 137/126 FLR 441 (SC) (para 36)
  • State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra (1996) 9 SCC 309 (para 36)
  • State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra (2006) 12 SCC 561 (para 36)
  • Purshottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. (1996) 6 SCC 49 (para 36)
  • STATE OF U.P. v. RAM SWAROOP SAROJ 2000 taxmann.com 3084/[2000] 85 FLR 119 (SC) (para 36)
  • State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sat Pal (2013) 11 SCC 737 (para 36)
  • MANOJ MANU and another v. UNION OF INDIA and others [2013] 8 taxmann.com 644/139 FLR 475 (SC) (para 36)
  • RPSC v. Dr. Harish Nagpal [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 554/2017] (para 39)
  • State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Shri Kishan Joshi [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 81/2020] (para 39)
  • Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 (para 48)
  • Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple (1996) 3 SCC 52 (para 50)
  • Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service Commission (2018) 17 SCC 106 (para 52)
  • Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College v. Sree Kumar Tiwary (1997) 4 SCC 388 (para 57)
  • Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar (1975) 2 SCC 702 (para 59)
  • Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671 (para 60)
  • A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath (2009) 5 SCC 1 (para 61)
  • Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi 2023 SCC OnLine SC 17539 (para 62)
  • Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd. (1970) 3 SCC 573 (para 63)
  • State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (1974) 2 SCC 70 (para 64)
  • Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 182 (para 72)
  • A.P. Public Service Commission v. P. Chandra Mouleesware Reddy (2006) 8 SCC 330 (para 77)
  • Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 (para 81)
  • Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 8 SCC 488 (para 82)
  • Rakhi Roy v. High Court of Delhi (2010) 2 SCC 637 (para 83)
  • M.P. Electricity Board v. Virendra Kumar Sharma (2002) 9 SCC 650 (para 84)
  • U.P. Public Service Commission v. Surendra Kumar (2019) 2 SCC 195 (para 85)
  • Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 (para 89)
  • Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [2014] 41 taxmann.com 504/222 Taxman 184 (SC) (para 95)
  • Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh (1995) 1 SCC 745 (para 99)
  • State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati (2019) 19 SCC 626 (para 100)
  • TINKU v. STATE OF HARYANA and others [2025] 11 taxmann.com 1281/184 FLR 196 (SC) (para 101).

The post No Right to Appointment After Reserve List Expiry | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

NCLT Rejects Bankrupt’s Foreign Travel Plea Over Non-Return Risk

NCLT denies travel abroad to bankrupt

Case Details: Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad vs. Samir Ganeshbhai Marathe - [2026] 183 taxmann.com 461 (NCLT-Ahmedabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Mrs Chitra Hankare, Judicial Member & Dr Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy, Technical Member
  • Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Mohit Gupta, Adv. for the Applicant.
  • Nipun SinghaviMs Nalini LodhaRahul Bhavasar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the applicant was declared bankrupt and was directed to submit his statement of financial position to the bankruptcy trustee in the prescribed form. He was also restrained from travelling abroad without prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority. The applicant filed an application seeking permission to travel to the UAE for exploring business opportunities.

Further, the Committee of Creditors was of the view that there was a high risk of non return, considering the applicant’s exposure of over Rs. 2,500 crores, coupled with minimal income and negligible realisable assets.

It was unanimously decided not to permit the applicant to travel abroad in view of the substantial debt exposure and negligible net worth. It was also noted that the applicant had not fully complied with the requirement of submitting complete statements of his financial position.

Upon verification, the process relating to the bankrupt’s assets and liabilities remained incomplete. Certain financial records, including bank statements and confirmations, were still pending submission and verification. The regular presence of the bankrupt was considered essential to facilitate examination and cooperation as mandated under sections 132, 133 and 138 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

NCLT Held

The National Company Law Tribunal observed that the bankruptcy process is time-bound and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed limits. Therefore, the applicant’s presence was necessary for further inquiry and day to day progress of the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that if the applicant remained unavailable for more than fifteen days in a month, it would be difficult to continue the process smoothly within the statutory timelines.

The Tribunal further observed that the applicant had not provided his residential address in the UAE.

Accordingly, the application seeking permission to travel abroad was rejected.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post NCLT Rejects Bankrupt’s Foreign Travel Plea Over Non-Return Risk appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Opinion] Navigating the Nexus | A White Paper on Permanent Establishment in Indian Taxation

Permanent Establishment in India

Aman Garg & Anshi Bhatia – [2026] 183 taxmann.com 581 (Article)

1. Executive Summary

The concept of Permanent Establishment (PE) is the bedrock for the taxation of foreign enterprises’ business profits in India. It functions as the critical threshold of economic nexus that grants India, as a source country, the right to tax income generated within its borders. Historically rooted in physical presence, the definition and interpretation of PE have become exceptionally dynamic and subjective, leading to significant litigation and creating a landscape of uncertainty for foreign investors and multinational corporations.

This white paper provides an exhaustive analysis of the PE concept under Indian tax law, detailing two transformative shifts that are fundamentally reshaping this landscape.

First is the judicial evolution towards a “substance over form” doctrine. The Indian Supreme Court, in a series of landmark rulings culminating in Formula One World Championship Ltd. and, most recently, Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd., has decisively moved beyond contractual formalities. It now prioritises functional control and economic reality in its PE analysis. This means that foreign enterprises can no longer rely on the mere absence of a formal office or carefully worded contracts to avoid a taxable presence in India.

Second is the parallel evolution in legislative and global policy. India has been at the forefront of adopting global anti-avoidance measures under the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, primarily through the Multilateral Instrument (MLI). Concurrently, it has unilaterally expanded its domestic law nexus to address the challenges of the digital economy by introducing the concept of “Significant Economic Presence” (SEP).

The core message of this report is unequivocal: a holistic, substance-based assessment of Indian operations is now critical for effective tax risk management. This paper is structured to guide foreign investors and tax professionals with a structured understanding of this evolving terrain. The paper opens with the conceptual foundations of PE, exploring its various forms and the determination tests applied by Indian Courts. It then examines the complex interplay between India’s domestic tax legislation and its extensive network of tax treaties, before delving into the landmark judicial precedents that are defining the new PE paradigm in India. The report further dissects the principles of profit attribution and the impact of emerging global tax trends. The report concludes by presenting the practical compliance considerations and offering insights into the policy trajectory and future outlook of this rapidly evolving domain.

2. Conceptual Foundation

2.1 Global Taxation Principles

International taxation operates on two primary principles: residence-based taxation, where a country taxes its residents on their worldwide income, and source-based taxation, where a country taxes income generated within its borders, regardless of the recipient’s residence. India employs a hybrid model, taxing its residents on their global income while taxing non-residents on income sourced or deemed to be sourced in India. Within this framework, the PE concept is the principal mechanism under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) for establishing a country’s right to tax the active business income of a foreign enterprise.

2.2 Definition and Philosophy of PE

The modern definition of PE is primarily derived from Article 5 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations (UN) Model Tax Conventions. Both models define a PE as a “fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on”. The existence of a PE is the prerequisite for the application of Article 7, which governs the taxation of business profits in the source state.

India’s tax treaty policy has historically and consistently shown a preference for the UN Model Convention. The fundamental geopolitical tension in international tax policy lies between the interests of capital-exporting nations (typically developed countries favoring residence-based taxation) and capital-importing nations (typically developing countries favoring source-based taxation). The OECD Model has been largely influenced by its member countries, which are predominantly capital exporters. In contrast, the UN Model grants more expansive taxing rights to the source country, reflecting the priorities of developing, capital-importing nations. As a major capital-importing economy, India’s alignment with the UN Model is a deliberate policy choice aimed at securing taxing rights over income generated from its vast consumer market and economic activities. Consequently, the unique and broader PE clauses found in many of India’s DTAAs—such as comprehensive Service PE provisions or limited “Force of Attraction” rules—are not anomalies but direct expressions of this foundational economic and policy stance.

2.3 The Shift to Economic Nexus

The traditional PE concept, anchored in physical presence, is proving increasingly insufficient in the context of the digital economy. Modern business models enable companies to achieve “scale without mass,” generating substantial revenue from a market jurisdiction without a significant physical footprint. This has catalysed a global policy shift toward establishing a taxable nexus based on “significant and sustained engagement” with a country’s economy, regardless of physical presence.

This paradigm shift is centered on the principle of taxing profits where economic activities are performed and value is created. This philosophy, which gained significant momentum through the OECD’s BEPS project, underpins India’s legislative push for the SEP concept and its assertive posture in international tax forums, advocating for a greater share of taxing rights for market jurisdictions.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Navigating the Nexus | A White Paper on Permanent Establishment in Indian Taxation appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source