IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 02.02.2026
| Relevant Act | Section | Case Law Title | Brief Summary | Citation |
| IGST Act, 2017 | Section 13(8)(b) | Commissioner of Delhi GST v. Global Opportunities (P.) Ltd. | [Landmark SC Victory for Consultants] The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s SLP, confirming that education consultants are not intermediaries. Providing counseling to students for foreign universities on a principal-to-principal basis is an Export of Service, entitling the company to GST refunds. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 73 / 74 | Madeena Steels v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes | [No Multi-Year Clubbing] A single composite assessment order covering multiple financial years (July 2017 to Jan 2022) is impermissible. The Department must initiate separate proceedings and pass independent orders for each financial year. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 73 / 74 | Mahashay Marketing v. Union of India | [Composite Notice Quashed] Reaffirming the “Year-wise” principle, the Court quashed a composite SCN that clubbed multiple tax periods. Such “bunching” violates the statutory limitation scheme which is linked to individual annual return due dates. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 75(4) | Aarti Enterprise v. State of Gujarat | [Mandatory Hearing] An order passed without intimating the date, time, or venue of a personal hearing is a violation of natural justice. Reminders alone are insufficient; specific hearing details must be communicated to the taxpayer. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 171 | DGAP v. Arkade Developers (P.) Ltd. | [Anti-Profiteering Closure] Even if profiteering initially arose from a project’s pricing structure, if the developer voluntarily and fully passes the benefit to the applicant before the final order, the proceedings shall be closed. | Click Here |
| CGST Act, 2017 | Section 69 | Jitender Saharan v. DGGI, Chandigarh | [Anticipatory Bail Denied] Anticipatory bail was denied in a ₹8.24 crore fake ITC case involving non-existent entities. The Court held that latitude in such cases might enable the accused to manipulate records or tamper with evidence. | Click Here |
For More :- Read IMPORTANT INCOME TAX CASE LAWS 31.01.2026