Tax Monthly Digest: August 2025

SUPREME COURTLet GST Council Look Into Tracking Of GST Paid On Foreign OIDAR Services : Supreme CourtCase Title – Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.Case no. – Writ Petition No. 258 of 2021The Supreme Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation seeking directions for setting up a mechanism to track services provided by foreign entities in India under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan passed the order after briefly hearing Advocate Charu Mathur, who appeared for the petitioner. During the hearing, Advocate Mathur submitted, “If Facebook provides some services or OpenAI provides some services, there is no way to track those by the Indian Government and we are losing out on a lot of revenue.”Income Tax Act | Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Timelimit For Assessments Under S.144CCause Title: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. VERSUS SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITEDThe Supreme Court on Friday (Aug. 8) delivered a split verdict on the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), governing the timeline for passing assessment orders by the Assessing Officer in cases involving eligible assessees, such as foreign companies and transfer pricing matters.Justice BV Nagarathna ruled that Section 153(3)'s twelve-month cap still governs even in Section 144C proceedings, rendering the assessments time-barred. However, Justice SC Sharma held that the timelines in Section 144C operate independently of Section 153(3) and exclude its outer limit for DRP cases, stating that applying Section 153 could impact tax recovery.S.6(2)(b) CGST Act | Central Authority Can Issue Summons Despite State Authority Initiating Proceedings : Supreme CourtCause Title: M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE & ANR.In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 14) held that a summons issued by the Central GST authorities under Section 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act does not constitute “initiation of proceedings" under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. Therefore, there's no bar to issuing a summons where the State GST authorities have already issued a show cause notice on the same subject matter.The Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, to avoid duplicity of proceedings, would be applicable only when the Central and State GST authorities initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The Court reasoned that since the summons served are meant to be investigative, not adjudicative, they fall outside the bar Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.Is Merchant Navy Officer's Salary Credited In Indian Bank Account Exempt From Income Tax? Supreme Court To DecideCause Title: VANDANA & ORS. VERSUS KESHAV & ORS.The Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 18) agreed to decide whether the income credited in an Indian bank account while working with a Foreign Entity would be exempted from the payment of Income Tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961..The issue arose before the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing the appeal filed against the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (“MACT”) decision to deduct 30% towards tax liability while computing the compensation claim of the Appellant's deceased husband, who was employed with British Marine PLC, London as Merchant Navy Officer earning 3,200 USD monthly income.Supreme Court Directs DGFT & CBIC To Update Tech Systems To Ensure Genuine Exporters Don't Lose Benefits Over Clerical ErrorsCause Title: M/S SHAH NANJI NAGSI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.The Supreme Court observed that an exporter cannot be denied legitimate entitlements under the government's incentive schemes merely because of an inadvertent clerical error that was later corrected through statutory processes.Holding thus, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria ruled in favour of an exporter who was denied a claim for benefits under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) just because the column declaring “intent to claim MEIS” in the shipping bills was incorrectly marked “No” instead of “Yes due to oversight of the customs broker.Supreme Court Pulls Up Income Tax Dept For Launching Prosecution For Tax Evasion Without ITAT Confirmation, Imposes Rs 2 Lakh CostCause Title: VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)The Supreme Court on Thursday (Aug. 28) imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs cost on Income Tax Department for 'grossly abusing its position' to continue a prosecution against an assessee alleging willful tax evasion.The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Madras High Court's decision, which refused to quash the prosecution case initiated by the department. The Court criticized the department's action of launching the prosecution...

Tax Monthly Digest: August 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags