Case Details: Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 8 (SAT - Mumbai)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar, Presiding Officer
• Ms. Meera Swarup & Dr. Dheeraj Bhatnagar, Technical Member
• Sharan Jagtiani, Sr. Adv., Ieshan Sinha, Ms. Dhruvi Mehta & Ms. Janhavi Kapgate, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Sumit Rai, Nitin Jain, MS. Prapti Kedia & Pranav Diya, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The instant case involves Catalyst Trusteeship Limited (the appellant), which became the successor trustee of a trust originally managed by Milestone Trusteeship Services. The trust had launched a scheme with a target corpus of Rs. 500 crores. However, the scheme failed to meet its second and final closing targets. As a result, the SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) conducted an inspection and found that the trust had violated AIF (Alternative Investment Fund) Regulations and SEBI Circulars, specifically for failing to close the scheme as outlined in the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM). The SEBI issued an order barring the appellant from accepting new trustee assignments for one year and restraining it from associating with SEBI-registered intermediaries for three months.

The appellant argued that as the successor trustee, it should not be held responsible for the actions of the predecessor (Milestone). It contended that the failure to close the scheme was a technical issue and did not harm investors, as the fund had been wound up and the assets liquidated after SEBI’s notice. The appellant also argued that the penalties imposed were excessive and disproportionate. SEBI countered that as the trustee, the appellant had a duty to ensure the trust’s objectives were met, and it was still liable for the violations, including failing to meet the closing deadlines.

Tribunal Held

The Tribunal held that the appellant, as the successor trustee, was legally responsible for the failures of the trust, including not achieving the second and final closings as required under the AIF Regulations and SEBI Circulars. While the Tribunal rejected the appellant’s claim that liability rested solely with the investment manager, it acknowledged that the appellant had subsequently taken corrective steps by winding up the fund, liquidating assets, and distributing proceeds to investors. Considering these mitigating factors, the Tribunal found SEBI’s original directions to be excessive and therefore modified the penalty by reducing the restriction on taking new AIF trustee assignments to six months and setting aside the three-month prohibition on associating with SEBI-registered intermediaries.

List of Cases Referred to

• Trafiksol ITS Technologies Limited v. SEBI 2025 SCC OnLine SAT 325 (para 6),
• Price Waterhouse & Co. v. SEBI [2010] 103 SCL 96 (Bombay) (para 6)
• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405 (para 11).

The post Successor Trustee Liability under AIF Regulations – SAT Modifies SEBI Penalty appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Puspa Furniture (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 822 (Calcutta) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Om Narayan Rai, J.
• Himangshu Kumar Ray, Subhasis Podder, Sushant Bagaria, Gaurav Chakraborty and Animitra Roy for the Petitioner.
• N. Chatterjee, Tanoy Chakraborty, S. Sanyal, Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Ms. Hasi Saha, Abhradip Maity & Prithu Dudhoria for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee was a private limited company. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the assessee’s office and residential premises. The proper officer found cash, which was sealed in the assessee’s premises and kept in the custody of the assessee himself. The assessee was unable to explain the source of such cash and thus, it was considered as unaccounted cash against the clandestine supply of taxable goods and services without any bill or invoice. A writ petition was filed to the Calcutta High Court contending that the GST authorities lack any power to seize any amount of cash. The GST authorities can seize goods or documents or books or things if they have reasons to believe that such goods or documents or books or things shall be useful or relevant to any proceeding under this Act and have been secreted in any place. It was not stated with any degree of conviction that the currency notes that had been seized shall be useful or relevant to any proceeding to be undertaken by GST Authorities against the petitioner or that the same could be correlated or traced to any transaction by the petitioner which respondent GST authorities were required to establish.

High Court Held

The Calcutta High Court held that money stands excluded from the purview of goods. The action of the respondent GST authorities in seizing cash and sealing the same in the custody of the petitioners is beyond the power domain of the GST authorities in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the GST authorities were directed to forthwith de-seal the said amount so as to enable the petitioners to use the same in accordance with law.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Commissioner of CGST v. Deepak Khandelwal [SLP NO. 18536 OF 2024, dated 19-08-2025] (supra)(para 21) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Bharatkumar Pravinkumar and Co. v. State of Gujarat [2023] 156 taxmann.com 136/100 GST 756/ 79 GSTL 28 (Gujarat) (para 9)
• B. Kusuma Poonacha v. Senior Intelligence Officer [2024] 162 taxmann.com 414/87 GSTL 330 (Karnataka) (para 9)
• Commissioner of CGST v. Deepak Khandelwal [SLP NO. 18536 OF 2024, dated 19-08-2025] (para 9)
• Nand Kishore Gupta v. Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence [2025] 171 taxmann.com 590/95 GSTL 313 (Delhi) (para 9)
• State Tax Officer (IB) v. Shabu George [2023] 153 taxmann.com 138/99 GST 252/76 GSTL 145 (SC) (para 9)
• Commissioner of CGST v. R.J. Trading Co. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 532 /103 GST 94/84 GSTL 113 (SC) (para 10)
• Santosh Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner, Delhi GST [2024] 158 taxmann.com 226/102 GST 88/ 81 GSTL 341 (Delhi) (para 15)
• Principal DIT (Investigation) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia [2022] 140 taxmann.com 282/446 ITR 18/288 Taxman 361 (SC) (para 15)
• Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372 (para 15) and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) (para 15).

The post GST Authorities Have No Power to Seize Cash – Calcutta HC in Puspa Furniture Case appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Hitesh Nahar – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 34 (Article)

Introduction

For years, Indian businesses with overseas operations have faced uncertainty under cross-border taxation.

The recent ruling of the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Canon India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 306 (Delhi – Trib.), decided on 10 November 2025 (ITAT Delhi – Bench D), has brought much-needed clarity to the long-debated issue of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in India. This decision is expected to influence tax positions adopted by Indian exporters with foreign income streams, which either enjoy tax holiday deductions or have brought forward losses.

This article focuses solely on the FTC mechanism and does not address interest-related aspects of tax refunds arising out of FTC addressed in this case law.

Facts of the Case

Canon India (“Company” or “Assessee”) earned income from Japan, where taxes of Rs. 20.39 crores were withheld in AY 2003-04. However, the company’s Indian tax liability was nil, the Japanese income was claimed as a deduction under Section 10A or absorbed by brought-forward business losses. When Canon claimed FTC, the tax authorities denied it, arguing that since there is no Indian tax liability, no FTC should be available in India. This created a double taxation situation where income was taxed in Japan, but credit was denied in India.

The Controversy in Brief

Revenue’s Stand: The Income Tax Department argued that Section 90 read with Article 23 of the India-Japan DTAA permits FTC only against Indian tax payable. The absence of any Indian tax liability leaves no scope for granting credit under either domestic law or treaty provisions. The Department relied on Bank of India v. Asstt. CIT [2021] 125 taxmann.com 155 (Mum. – Trib.) and other judicial precedent, which held that allowing FTC without Indian tax liability would mean subsidising foreign treasuries from the Indian exchequer, a result wholly impermissible in law.

Assessee’s Stand: Canon India argued that eligibility for FTC should be determined based on whether the income is “chargeable to tax” under Section 4 and forms part of the total income under Section 5 of the Income Tax Act, not whether any tax is ultimately payable in India. The company argued that disallowing FTC would lead to double taxation, defeating the fundamental purpose of tax treaties.

In support of its stance, Canon India placed reliance on key judicial precedents, including the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in Wipro Ltd. [Wipro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 382 ITR 179 (Kar.)], the Delhi High Court’s decision in HCL Comnet Systems (Pr. CIT v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. [IT Appeal NO. 546 of 2022, dated 23-11-2023], and other judicial judgments.

Tribunal’s Final Ruling

A key aspect of the Delhi ITAT’s decision in this matter was its reliance on the recent ruling of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (supra).

In HCL case, which examined with FTC claims relating to income eligible for deduction under Section 10A, the Delhi High Court expressly approved the Karnataka High Court’s view in Wipro Ltd. As a result, the ITAT held that with a binding jurisdictional decision now available of HCL Comet Systems, the issue was “no longer res integra” – no longer open to challenge within the Delhi jurisdiction.

Relying on the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT concluded that Canon India is entitled to full credit of taxes paid in Japan on export revenues from software sales. Such credit cannot be curtailed merely because the domestic tax liability is reduced to nil due to business losses or deductions under Section 10A.

The ruling underscores that the objective of tax treaties to eliminate double taxation must be interpreted purposively so that foreign taxes paid do not become a cost to the assessee.

Click Here To Read The Full Article 

The post Foreign Tax Credit Allowed Despite NIL Indian Tax Liability – Canon India ITAT Ruling appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 701 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Manmohan & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
• Amarjit Singh Bedi, Ms. Surekha Raman, Shreyash Kumar, Harshit Singh & Sidharth Nair, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Ankit Yadav, Ms. Gunjan Rathore, Ms. Shivangi Gulati, Chaitanya Sonkeria, Ms. Aastha Harshwal, Advs., T. Mahipal & Merusagar Samantaray, AORs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The instant case concerns a loan transaction between the appellant-complainant and the accused, wherein the appellant had advanced a loan to the accused. Towards repayment of the said loan, the accused issued cheques in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheques were dishonoured. Consequently, the appellant initiated proceedings against the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Act and that the appellant had successfully proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The contention of the accused that the appellant lacked the financial capacity to advance the loan was also rejected. The Sessions Court, in appeal, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.

However, the High Court, in revision, accepted the defence of the accused that the cheque in question was a signed blank cheque issued only to enable the appellant (a friend of the accused) to obtain a loan from a bank. On this basis alone, the High Court held that the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 stood rebutted and consequently acquitted the accused of the offence under section 138. Notably, the accused had neither produced any documentary evidence nor examined any independent witness, nor led any cogent evidence to establish either the alleged defence or the financial incapacity of the appellant to advance the loan.

Supreme Court Held

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in exercising its revisional jurisdiction by acquitting the accused on the basis of a mere bald explanation, unsupported by any evidence. It was observed that a vague plea of issuance of a signed blank cheque, without any corroborative material, is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court were restored. The accused was directed to pay the outstanding cheque amount to the appellant in 15 equated monthly instalments.

List of Cases Referred to

• Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [2010] 100 SCL 389 (SC) (para 8)
• APS Forex Services (P.) Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers [2020] 114 taxmann.com 367/159 SCL 1 (SC) (para 9)
• Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 (para 15)
• Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019] 103 taxmann.com 228/152 SCL 563 (SC) (para 17)
• P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5535 (para 19)
• Rajaram v. Maruthachalam [2023] 146 taxmann.com 336/177 SCL 22 (SC) (para 22)
• Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GMBH (2008) 14 SCC 457 (para 27)
• Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant [2022] 136 taxmann.com 177/171 SCL 580 (SC) (para 29)
• M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P.) Ltd. [2001] 45 CLA 374/[2002] 108 COMP CASE 48/1 COMP. LJ 58/39 SCL 270 (SC) (para 30)
• Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [2010] 159 COMP CASE 1/101 SCL 27 (SC) (para 33)
• Indian Bank Association v. Union of India [2014] 45 taxmann.com 79/121 CLA 1/184 COMP CASE 377/3 COMP. LJ 277/126 SCL 349 (SC) (para 33)
• Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, In re [2021] 127 taxmann.com 23/167 SCL 103 (SC) (para 33)
• P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat (P.) Ltd. [2021] 125 taxmann.com 39/167 SCL 327 (SC) (para 34)
• Chellammal v. State 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870 (para 35)
• Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh [Criminal Appeal No. 3789 of 2025, dated 11-8-2025] (para 35)
• M.V. Nalinakshan vs. M. Rameshan 2009 All MR (Cri) Journal 273 (para 35)
• Ashok v. Fayaz Aahmad 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 490 (para 36)
• Rajesh Agarwal v. State [2010] 159 COMP CASE 13 (Delhi) (para 36).

The post Signed Blank Cheque Defence Rejected under Section 138 NI Act – Supreme Court Ruling appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification No. 19/2025–Central Tax (Rate), Dated 31-12-2025

1. Introduction

The Central Government has amended the GST rate structure for pan masala, tobacco, and related products through Notification No. 19/2025–Central Tax (Rate), dated 31 December 2025. The revised rates will be applicable to supplies made on or after 1 February 2026.

2. Amendment To Existing GST Notification

The notification amends Notification No. 9/2025–Central Tax (Rate), dated 17 September 2025, by restructuring the applicable GST rate schedules for specified tobacco-related goods. The amendment revises product placement across GST schedules to rationalise the applicable tax rates.

3. Revised Classification Of Goods

Pursuant to the amendment, biris have been inserted under Schedule II, making them taxable at 9% CGST. Further, pan masala and specified tobacco and tobacco-substitute products, including inhalation products, have been placed under Schedule III, attracting 20% CGST.

4. Omission Of Schedule VII And Rate Impact

The amendment omits Schedule VII, which earlier prescribed a 14% CGST rate for certain goods. As a result, the 14% CGST rate is no longer applicable to the notified products, and tax liability will now arise only at the revised rates under Schedules II and III.

5. Conclusion

The revised GST rate schedules will apply to all relevant supplies effected on or after 1 February 2026. Businesses dealing in pan masala, tobacco, and related products should update their tax configurations and compliance processes to align with the revised classification and rates.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post GST Rate Schedules Amended For Pan Masala, Tobacco appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

PRESS RELEASE: 2025-2026/1824, Dated: 01.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has amended the concentration risk management framework applicable to Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) by introducing specific criteria for classifying certain infrastructure lending as high-quality infrastructure projects.

2. Amendment To Concentration Risk Directions

The amendment has been notified through the RBI (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Concentration Risk Management) Amendment Directions, 2026, issued vide Press Release No. 2025-2026/1824 dated 1 January 2026. The changes are aimed at refining exposure norms and aligning risk treatment with project quality.

3. Classification Of High-Quality Infrastructure Lending

The amendment inserts a proviso to sub-paragraph 4(4), laying down the conditions under which infrastructure lending meeting specified criteria shall qualify as lending to high-quality infrastructure projects. This classification allows such exposures to be treated differently for concentration risk purposes.

4. Applicability And Implementation Timeline

The amended provisions will apply when NBFCs implement the capital adequacy amendment directions, or from 1 April 2026, whichever is earlier. NBFCs are required to review their infrastructure loan portfolios in light of the revised classification framework.

5. Conclusion

The RBI’s amendment provides greater clarity on the treatment of eligible infrastructure lending under concentration risk norms. NBFCs should assess compliance readiness and ensure alignment with the revised directions within the prescribed timelines.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release 

The post RBI Amends NBFC Concentration Risk Norms appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Ashok Kumar Dabas vs. Delhi Transport Corporation - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 327 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rajesh Bindal  & Manmohan, JJ.
• Narender Kumar Verma, Aor for the Petitioner.
• Aviral Saxena, AOR, Abhinav Sharma, Paritosh Goyal & Vedant Varshney, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Deceased employee was working with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). He had resigned from his job with the respondent, which is a corporation, after putting in more than 20 years of service. The competent authority accepted his resignation.

Later, his legal heirs claimed the release of the deceased employee’s pensionary benefits. The Respondent informed him that he was found entitled only to the provident fund and no other benefits.

The Tribunal and the High Court upheld the order of the respondent. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that Rule 26 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, clearly shows that the resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service. Further, in terms of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee who had rendered not less than five years of service would be entitled to the payment of gratuity, regardless of the fact that he had retired or resigned from the service.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that since the deceased employee had resigned from service, his legal heirs were not entitled to any pension. Further, since the respondent could not establish that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, did not apply to the Corporation, the legal heirs of the deceased employee were held entitled to receive the gratuity in terms of the provisions of the 1972 Act for the service rendered by him. Therefore, they were also entitled to receive an amount towards their leave encashment.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 13642-2018, dated 20-12-2022 (para 12) reversed

List of Cases Referred to

• Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation [O. A. No. 4645 of 2015, dated 24-9-2018] (para 2)
• Ashok Kumar Dabas v. Delhi Transport Corporation [R. A. No. 207 of 2018, dated 29-10-2018] (para 2)
• Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India [2015] 12 taxmann.com 790 (SC) (para 5.1)
• Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon [2004] 2003 taxmann.com 4421 (SC) (para 5.1)
• Shanti Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation [W. P. (C) No. 4871 of 2010, dated 15-10-2012] (para 5.1)
• Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Kishan [W. P. (C) No. 2627 of 2015, dated 17-3-2015] (para 5.1)
• BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma [2019] 112 taxmann.com 128 (SC) (para 6)
• Raj Kumar v. Union of India 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10877 (para 6).

The post Resigned DTC Employee’s Heirs Not Entitled To Pension | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Notification no. GSR 940(E); Dated: 31.12.2025

1. Introduction

The Central Government has amended the rules governing the removal of company names from the Register of Companies through Notification No. GSR 940(E), dated 31 December 2025. The amendment introduces a specific procedural requirement for Government Companies and their subsidiaries.

2. Amendment To Removal Of Names Rules

The notification brings into effect the Companies (Removal of Names of Companies from the Register of Companies) Amendment Rules, 2025. These amendments modify the existing framework under which companies may apply for or be subjected to removal of their names from the Register of Companies.

3. Special Provision For Government Companies

As per the amended norms, where the company concerned is a Government Company, including its subsidiaries, additional safeguards have been prescribed. The amendment specifically addresses cases involving directors appointed or nominated by the Central or State Government.

4. Indemnity Bond Authorisation Requirement

The rules now mandate that the indemnity bond in respect of one or more Government-appointed or nominated directors must be executed by an authorised representative not below the rank of Under Secretary or equivalent. Such authorisation must be from the concerned administrative Ministry or Department of the Government of India or the State Government, as applicable.

5. Conclusion

The amendment strengthens accountability and procedural clarity in cases involving Government Companies seeking removal of their names. Stakeholders should ensure compliance with the revised indemnity bond requirements while initiating name-removal applications under the amended rules.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification 

The post Govt Amends Rules On Removal Of Company Names appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Press Release; Dated: 01.01.2026

1. Introduction

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has simplified director compliance requirements by replacing the annual Director KYC filing with a once-in-three-years KYC intimation. The change has been notified through a press release dated 1 January 2026.

2. Amendment To Rule 12A

To give effect to this change, MCA has amended Rule 12A of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014. The amendment does away with the mandatory annual KYC filing and introduces a streamlined compliance mechanism aimed at reducing the recurring compliance burden on directors.

3. Revised KYC Intimation Framework

Under the revised framework, directors are required to file a simplified KYC intimation once every three years using a revised KYC form. The form captures essential particulars such as mobile number, email address, and residential address, ensuring that MCA records remain updated without repetitive filings.

4. Verification And DIN Reactivation

The amendment provides for reactivation of Director Identification Number (DIN) through the revised KYC process. Verification and professional certification requirements have been restricted to specified cases only, making the process more efficient while maintaining regulatory safeguards.

5. Conclusion

The replacement of annual Director KYC with a triennial KYC intimation marks a significant step towards ease of compliance. Directors and companies should familiarise themselves with the revised filing requirements to ensure timely and accurate compliance under the amended Rule 12A.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release 

The post MCA Replaces Annual Director KYC With Triennial KYC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Dhl Express (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 697 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
• Rohan Shah, Sr. Adv. & Mohammed Anajwalla, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel, Akash Panwar, Jr. Standing Counsel, Ms Jasleen Kaur Anand, Adv. & Ajay Chowdhary, SPC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-assessee was providing courier and shipment delivery services under a Network Agreement with a foreign entity located in Germany, pursuant to which their respective clients were serviced in India and Germany without any consideration being exchanged between the two entities. The petitioner discharged tax treating the activity as a supply of service under section 7(1)(a) of the CGST Act, despite absence of consideration. It was submitted that since the recipient entity was located outside India, the services qualified as export of services and zero-rated supply under section 16 of the IGST Act, notwithstanding non-receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange. The petitioner contended that the statutory conditions governing zero-rated supply created an incongruity requiring interpretation by the High Court. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that non-receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange does not exempt the assessee from payment of tax on the supply of services, but only disentitles the assessee from availing benefits arising from export of services. It held that section 7 of the CGST Act, read with sections 16(1)(a) and 2(6) of the IGST Act, requires harmonious interpretation to determine taxability and eligibility for zero-rated treatment. The Court observed that absence of foreign exchange realization impacts only export benefits and not the levy of tax. Noting that similar issues were pending before multiple High Courts, the Court observed that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) should examine the issue and place its stand before the High Court.

List of Cases Referred to

• DHL Express India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 3977 of 2025, dated 19-11-2025] (para 11)
• Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 (para 12).

The post Services Without Forex Receipt Taxable | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source