Press Release, dated 23-02-2026

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued a press release regarding amendments to the India–France Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC). During the recent visit of the President of France to India, the Governments of India and France signed an Amending Protocol to update and strengthen the existing tax treaty framework between the two countries.

1. Taxing Rights on Capital Gains from Shares

The Amending Protocol provides full taxing rights in respect of capital gains arising from the sale of shares to the jurisdiction in which the company whose shares are transferred is a resident.

Accordingly, capital gains from the transfer of shares will be taxable exclusively in the country of residence of the company, providing clarity and certainty in taxation of cross-border share transfers.

2. Deletion of Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Clause

The Protocol removes the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Clause from the existing DTAC Protocol.

This deletion resolves all interpretational and implementation issues associated with the MFN clause and simplifies the treaty structure between India and France.

3. Revised Taxation of Dividends

The Amending Protocol revises the taxation framework for dividends by replacing the earlier uniform 10% tax rate with a split-rate structure:

• 5% Tax Rate – Applicable where the beneficial owner holds at least 10% of the capital of the dividend-paying company
• 15% Tax Rate – Applicable in all other cases

This change aligns dividend taxation with prevailing international treaty standards.

4. Modification to Fees for Technical Services (FTS)

The definition of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) has been modified to align with the definition contained in the India–US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

This alignment is expected to enhance consistency in treaty interpretation and reduce disputes relating to the characterisation and taxation of technical service payments.

5. Expansion of Permanent Establishment (PE) Scope

The scope of Permanent Establishment (PE) has been expanded by introducing provisions for Service PE.

This expansion reflects the growing importance of cross-border service activities and ensures appropriate taxation of service-based business operations.

6. Strengthening Exchange of Information and Tax Cooperation

The Amending Protocol updates the provisions relating to Exchange of Information in line with international standards. It also introduces a new Article on Assistance in the Collection of Taxes, which will:

• Facilitate seamless exchange of tax-related information
• Strengthen cooperation between Indian and French tax authorities
• Improve enforcement and recovery of tax claims across jurisdictions

These changes are intended to enhance transparency and administrative cooperation between the two countries.

7. Incorporation of BEPS MLI Provisions

The Protocol incorporates the applicable provisions of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Multilateral Instrument (MLI) into the DTAC.

These provisions had already become applicable following the signing and ratification of the MLI by both India and France. Their incorporation into the treaty ensures alignment with global anti-tax avoidance standards and provides greater clarity in treaty application.

8. Conclusion

The Amending Protocol represents a significant update to the India–France DTAC, aligning it with international tax standards, enhancing certainty in cross-border taxation, strengthening administrative cooperation, and supporting a more transparent and robust tax treaty framework between the two countries.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post India–France Amend DTAA | Residence Country Gets Capital Gains Tax Rights appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Press Release; Dated: 20.02.2026

The International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) and the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) at the IFSCA Headquarters in GIFT IFSC. The MoU formalises cooperation between the two institutions across areas relevant to the development and governance of the IFSC ecosystem.

1. Areas of Collaboration

The MoU establishes a framework for collaboration in key domains critical to the growth and regulatory strengthening of IFSC, including:

• Corporate Law
• Sustainable Finance
• Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
• Cross-Border Transactions
• Corporate Restructuring
• Research and policy-oriented activities relevant to IFSC

This collaborative framework is intended to support capacity-building and knowledge development aligned with the evolving needs of the international financial services ecosystem.

2. Training, Knowledge and Advocacy Initiatives

Under the MoU, IFSCA and IICA will jointly undertake a range of initiatives, including:

• Training and capacity-building programmes
• Knowledge-sharing and research initiatives
• Advocacy and outreach events

These initiatives aim to strengthen regulatory processes, enhance governance standards, and support professional and institutional capability within the IFSC framework.

3. Strengthening Regulatory and Governance Standards

The partnership is expected to contribute to improved regulatory effectiveness and governance practices within IFSC by leveraging IICA’s expertise in corporate affairs and policy research alongside IFSCA’s regulatory and institutional mandate.

Overall, the collaboration seeks to reinforce the IFSC ecosystem through structured knowledge exchange, professional development, and policy-oriented engagement.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post IFSCA and IICA Sign MoU to Boost Corporate Governance at GIFT IFSC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Facts

Zenith Manufacturing Limited, hereinafter referred to as “the company”, is engaged in the manufacture of industrial equipment and prepares its financial statements in accordance with Ind AS.

As per its approved Remuneration Policy, the company pays a performance incentive to its senior management team, including the CEO and CFO. The incentive is computed as 4% of annual EBITDA, subject to the condition that EBITDA exceeds Rs. 40 crore.

The policy, however, states only that:

“Incentive shall be calculated at 4% of annual EBITDA.”

The policy does not clarify whether EBITDA is to be computed before or after charging the performance incentive expense.

For the financial year ended 31 March 2026:

• EBITDA before charging performance incentive (as per draft financials) is Rs. 50 crore.
• Estimated incentive at 4% amounts to Rs. 2 crore (if calculated before charging incentive).
• Statutory audit is completed in May 2026.
• Post-audit adjustments reduce EBITDA (before incentive) to Rs. 47 crore.
• The Board formally approves the incentive payout in June 2026.

While finalising financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2026, management faced the following issues:

(a) Whether a constructive obligation exists as at 31 March 2026 despite board approval being pending?

(b) Whether EBITDA for incentive computation should be considered before or after charging the incentive expense, given the policy is silent?

(c) Whether EBITDA can be reliably estimated before completion of audit adjustments?

2. Relevant Provisions

Ind AS 19 – Employee Benefits

Para 11

An entity shall recognise a liability when an employee has provided service in exchange for employee benefits to be paid in the future.

When an employee has rendered service to an entity during an accounting period, the entity shall recognise the undiscounted amount of short-term employee benefits expected to be paid in exchange for that service:

(a) as a liability (accrued expense), after deducting any amount already paid. If the amount already paid exceeds the undiscounted amount of the benefits, an entity shall recognise that excess as an asset (prepaid expense) to the extent that the prepayment will lead to, for example, a reduction in future payments or a cash refund.

(b) as an expense, unless another Ind AS requires or permits the inclusion of the benefits in the cost of an asset (see, for example, Ind AS 2, Inventories, and Ind AS 16, Property, Plant and Equipment).

Para 19

An entity shall recognise the expected cost of profit-sharing and bonus payments under paragraph 11 when, and only when:

(a) the entity has a present legal or constructive obligation to make such payments as a result of past events; and

(b) a reliable estimate of the obligation can be made. A present obligation exists when, and only when, the entity has no realistic alternative but to make the payments.

Ind AS 37 – Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets

Para 14

A provision shall be recognised when:

(a) an entity has a present obligation (legal or constructive) as a result of a past event;

(b) it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation; and

(c) a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation. If these conditions are not met, no provision shall be recognised.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Provision for Performance Incentive Based on EBITDA | Ind AS appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

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

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 Aggarwal, Deepesh Garg & Dr 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

• ITO v. Babita Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi-Trib.)
• S. Sundaramurthy v. Pr. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 341/269 Taxman 107 (Madras).

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

source

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

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

• Rallis India Ltd. v. Central Processing Centre [2026] 183 taxmann.com 176 (Bombay) (para 11).

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

source

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 Karol, Ms Neelakshi Bhadauria, Nitin Kamble & Shushank 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

• Prism Scan Express (P.) Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, Dy. CIT (BPU-2) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 623 (SAFEMA-New Delhi) (para 13) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 389/289 Taxman 177/447 ITR 108 (SC) (para 4)
• Prism Scan Express (P.) Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, Dy. CIT (BPU-2) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 623 (SAFEMA-New Delhi) (para 5).

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

source

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 Dahiya, Pankaj Kumar, Tejas Patel, Naresh Kumar, Prateek K. Chadha, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Tejas Patel, AORs, Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., A.K. Srivastava, Akul Krishnan, Ms Sakshi Apurva, Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Siddhant Juyal, Sreekar Aechuri, Abhishek Jain, Ms Sweksha, Kamal Digpal, Vaibhav Dwivedi, Chitvan Singhal, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Raman Yadav, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ms Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Jagdish Chandra, Madhav Sinhal, Advs., R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India & Ms Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. for the Appellant.
• Dr. N. Visakamurthy, V. Elanchezhiyan, Ms Goldy Goyal, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms Jagrati Singh, Mrs Anjani Aiyagari, AORs, Balraj Ratee, Narinder Kumar Rana, Dinesh Verma, Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Arjun D. Singh, Roshan Kumar, Maitreya Mahaley, Yimyanger Longkumer, Kamei Bestman Kabui, J. Prasad, A.K. Srivastava, C. Arvind, Ms Pradhanti@bharathi, Ms R. Archana, Rajpal, Surendar Kumar, R.S. Meena, G. Jayendra Balaji, Jayanta Kumar Biswas & Ms 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

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

• State of Maharashtra v. Greatship (India) Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 417 (SC)/(2022) 17 SCC 332 (para 11), followed

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