Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 04 - August 10, 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.HIGH COURTSBombay HCIncome Tax | S.194C & S.194LA Would Not Apply When TDR Certificates Are Issued In Lieu Of Compensation: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Pune Municipal Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle, Pune and Ors.Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.9551 OF 2025The Bombay High Court held that Section 194C and Section 194LA of the Income Tax Act would not apply when TDR Certificates are issued in lieu of compensation.Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla agreed with the assessee that the words “or by any other mode” appearing in Section 194C would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”. Similarly, in Section 194LA, the words “or by any other mode” would have to be read ejusdem generis to the words “payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft”.Serving Order On Chartered Accountant Doesn't Count As Service On Assessee: Bombay High CourtCase Title: Mrs. Neelam Ajit Phatarpekar v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCase Number: MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.491 AND 492 OF 2024The Bombay High Court held that serving order on chartered accountant doesn't count as service on assessee. The issue before the bench was whether the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal when served upon the Chartered Accountant is sufficient service and whether it can be construed as 'copy received by the assesse/applicant'.Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita P. Mehta stated that the Chartered Accountant since is not also authorised specifically to accept copy of the order, cannot be said to be a recognised agent of the Assessee.Chhattisgarh HCITC Not Available On Cess For Electricity Supplied To Residential Township: Chhattisgarh High CourtCase Title: Bharat Aluminium Company Limited v. State of ChhattisgarhCase Number: WPT No. 14 of 2021The Chhattisgarh High Court held that input tax credit is not available on cess for electricity supplied to residential township.Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal stated that the electricity generated is used in the course of or furtherance of his business, which is evident from Form G provided by the taxpayer(assessee), hence, the assessee would not be entitled for ITC to electrical energy consumed for maintenance of its township.Delhi HCS.74 CGST Act | Consolidated SCN For Multiple Financial Years Necessary To Establish Wrongful Availment Of ITC: Delhi High CourtCase title: Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi NorthCase no.: W.P.(C) 4853/2025The Delhi High Court has held that consolidated show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST is not only permissible but necessary, to unearth wrongful availment of ITC over a span of period.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year. It is only when either are found to be fabricated or the firms are found to be fake that the maze of transactions can be analysed and established as being fraudulent or...

Tax Weekly Round-Up: August 04 - August 10, 2025

Kapil Dhyani

Tags