Supreme Court
Source-reviewed notes, original decisions and individual AKHB PDFs.
Supreme Court repositoryKnowledge Hub · Case law & analysis
Judicial Pronouncements
Find the decision, then read its context. Browse the same published collections by court, issue or section, with source orders and AKHB analysis clearly distinguished.
2,212 indexed entries across the existing published collections. AKHB Intelligence Notes and AKHB Case Notes share one analysis view. Source extract briefs are labelled separately; they are not complete analytical notes. Judgment Watch sorts indexed, dated decisions newest first and is not a complete or live court feed.
Court-wise repositories
High Courts
Patna judgments and source extract briefs from other High Courts.
Patna High Court repositoryAll indexed High CourtsHon’ble ITAT
Separate tribunal source discovery from selected AKHB analysis.
Hon’ble ITAT RepositorySelected AKHB ITAT Case NotesAll indexed ITAT notes and briefsJudicial Pronouncement Under GST Law
GST judgments and rulings, organised as a dedicated topical collection.
Judicial Pronouncement Under GST LawBrowse all source extract briefs · Act, Rules & Forms correspondence
Find case law
2,212 indexed entries · Showing 24 newest dated entries.
Section, issue and date filtering uses existing indexed metadata. Missing metadata is not evidence that no relevant decision exists; read the court repository and original order before relying on a filtered result.
M/s. Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai
Civil Appeal No. 8694 of 2012
Why it matters. Purpose test for electricity subsidy: the operative scheme reimbursed running costs rather than capital outlay.
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: retain the scheme notification and amendments, then map the eligibility trigger, computation basis, use restrictions and the cost or capital purpose supported. Reconcile the receipt with power bills and ledger entries. A policy label such as backward-area development is insufficient. Equally, avoid treating the payment date as a standalone test. For a current incentive, separately assess the applicable statute and assessment year before adopting the historical capital/revenue analysis.
Sree UGCL Projects Ltd. (earlier known as United Global Projects Ltd.) & Anr. v. The Additional Director (Directorate General of GST Intelligence) & Anr.
SLP (C) No. 30756 of 2025; Diary No. 59848 of 2025
Why it matters. Alleged overlapping State and Central GST proceedings; interim protection and pending section 6(2)(b) dispute
Practical takeaway. AKHB REVIEW POINT: Use this case history to identify an unresolved dispute and its precise interim protection. For a section 6(2)(b) objection, assemble a document-led chronology comparing each authority's action, subject matter, tax period, alleged contravention, demand and stage. The comparative-chart direction shows the practical importance of an accurate factual comparison; it does not establish that the Court found complete identity or unlawful duplication.
Supreme Court classifies GRD powder and mix in the form sold, not by a possible later use
Civil Appeal Nos. 9788–9789 of 2013 · Diary No. 25495/2012
Why it matters. The judgment is a useful classification discipline: identify the taxable event, read the precise entry in context and resist substituting a possible downstream use for the supplied article's actual form.
Practical takeaway. Preserve the product specification and sample, map the competing entries word by word, document the taxable event, and identify whether the relied-on authorities concern materially different schedule wording or goods sold in liquid form.
Union of India & Anr. v. Mahickra Chemicals Limited
SLP(C) Diary No. 37003/2026, as printed in the order.
Why it matters. CGST Rule 96(10) omission and proceedings pending at the date of omission
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Use this order as a subsequent application in litigation concerning omission of Rule 96(10). For any wider proposition, read and identify the earlier 6 August 2026 ruling separately rather than attribute its full reasoning to Mahickra.
MS Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi South and Others
W.P.(C) 15557/2024
Why it matters. A pre-existing investigation and supported Commissioner opinion can justify withholding without a separate judicial stay
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Examine the complete withholding order, hearing record and evidence that the investigation existed when withholding began. Test the Commissioner’s reasons and the connection between that proceeding and the refund, rather than treating either a proposed appeal or an unspecified inquiry as automatically sufficient.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Mangalbela Real Estates Pvt. Ltd.
NAPA/58/PB/2025
Why it matters. Atri Green Valley: reinvestigation and limitation objections rejected; Rs. 31,20,542 plus interest for 66 buyers
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Separate a pending investigative remand from reopening a concluded adjudication. Preserve the original reference, remand, methodological directions and hearing record before applying the Tribunal’s reasoning to another case. An election to contest only jurisdiction does not supply documentary proof that the ITC benefit was passed on.
Parag Garg v. Commissioner, Adjudication, CGST Delhi West and Another; with nineteen connected writ petitions
W.P.(C) 13883/2026 and nineteen connected writ petitions (common judgment)
Why it matters. Personal GST penalties under Section 122(1A): non-taxable persons, cumulative conditions and prospective operation
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: For each proposed personal penalty, map the specified contravention, transaction date, retained benefit and evidence that the individual caused the transaction. Preserve invoices, communications, fund-flow records and appointment or resignation records; neither a directorship nor non-registration answers both statutory tests.
Principal Commissioner CGST, Delhi South Commissionerate v. M/s Micromax Informatics Limited
SERTA 2/2026
Why it matters. Interim patent-dispute deposits, royalty consideration and the service-tax to GST transition
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Preserve the interim orders, deposit terms, settlement, release directions and tax-payment records. Distinguish a contingent security deposit from consideration already earned or vested in the recipient. The ledger label alone cannot settle that question.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Alankar Cinema
NAPA/124/PB/2025
Why it matters. Cinema-ticket tax reduction: maximum-price regulation did not excuse retention of the benefit
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: A maximum permitted admission price does not itself establish that a cinema must retain that price after a GST reduction. For a comparable historical dispute, examine the actual licence and orders, the pre- and post-change base and gross prices, ticket volumes and contemporaneous evidence of benefit passed on. The Tribunal’s rejection of this theatre’s unsupported explanation should not be expanded into a universal prohibition on commercial repricing.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Devi 70MM
NAPA/10/PB/2025
Why it matters. Cinema-ticket rate reduction: evidence of pass-through, commercial pricing defences and a confined liability period
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Keep the two limbs of Section 171 separate. A service provider's absence of stock or fresh ITC does not, by itself, answer an allegation that a tax-rate reduction was retained through higher base prices. Test the consumer's actual pre- and post-change price, the corresponding tax and base amounts, the dates, ticket categories and volumes, and contemporaneous evidence of the benefit passed on. A claim that the correct tax rate was charged needs reconciliation with the gross price actually paid.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Shreeji Infra
NAPA/163/PB/2025
Why it matters. Shree Two: Rs. 16,54,056 profiteering theory rejected; separate excess-GST refund direction to tax authority
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Keep three questions separate: whether a Section 171 saving arose, whether the correct GST rate/option and ITC conditions were applied, and whether an excess-tax refund is available through the directed authority. The failure of DGAP’s particular computation does not answer every tax-compliance question.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Maruti Developers
NAPA/156/PB/2025
Why it matters. Maruti Tower: reversed unutilised credit reduces computation; recipient liability and interest remain
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Reconcile availed, utilised and reversed ITC with the project accounts and DRC-03 before assessing the pass-through calculation. The accepted reversal here was fact-specific; the judgment is not a rule that every later reversal automatically extinguishes historical benefit.
M/s Samtex Fashions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Civil Appeal No. 11063 of 2017 / Civil Appeal No. 12449 of 2017
Why it matters. Whether the CBDT memorandum equating export-quota premium with specified export incentives required allowance under section 80HHC notwithstanding the statutory classification accepted by the High Court.
Practical takeaway. Identify the exact statutory incentive category rather than assuming commercial similarity is sufficient. A beneficial administrative direction must be evaluated with the controlling judicial interpretation and the provision it purports to apply. Keep this quota-premium decision separate from Orient’s section 263 reasoning, and do not lift the lower-court discussion of margin-money interest as an independently decided Supreme Court rule.
Manpar Icon Technologies v. Assistant Commissioner CGST Division & Anr.
SLP (C) No. 33412 of 2026; Diary No. 51495 of 2026 (the original prints the diary number; the registered SLP number is from the official Court search)
Why it matters. Alternative remedy and an individual extension to 16 October 2026
Practical takeaway. AKHB REVIEW POINT: Read the deadline as a case-specific direction. For this petitioner, any proposed filing should be checked against the 16 October 2026 date stated in the order and any later orders. The Supreme Court's extension of time does not on its face waive applicable filing, pre-deposit or other requirements, and it does not establish that the remedy was actually invoked. Obtain the underlying High Court order and relevant statutory materials before advising on the proper forum, conditions of appeal or the tax merits. Other taxpayers should not cite this order as automatically extending their own appeal periods. The note records the original relief; present compliance or litigation status requires a separate docket and filing check.
Orient Crafts Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi
Civil Appeal Nos. 143-144 of 2013 / Civil Appeal Nos. 139-140 of 2013 / Civil Appeal Nos. 141-142 of 2013 / Civil Appeal Nos. 137-138 of 2013
Why it matters. Whether the High Court had properly sustained section 263 revision and considered the Tribunal’s contrary view in the export-quota deduction dispute.
Practical takeaway. For a revision challenge, identify both statutory conditions and the precise inquiry or legal view taken in the original assessment. Distinguish an argument that the High Court failed to consider the Tribunal’s reasons from a fresh substantive deduction claim. The case concerns the old statutory regime and does not certify present section 263 standards or revive section 80HHC deductions. Read the separate Samtex judgment only for the issues actually argued there.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited
Civil Appeal No. 9190 of 2013
Why it matters. Settlement finality bars reassessment of a deduction covered by the settlement order
Practical takeaway. The practical point is to identify the scope and operative computation of the final settlement before assessing a later reopening notice. Here, a deduction embedded in the settled taxable-income computation could not be isolated merely because it was not itself the additional disclosure. The decision should be indexed principally under settlement finality and reassessment jurisdiction, with section 80-IB(10) as the underlying issue. It should not be presented as a blanket validation of housing-project deductions or as immunity for settlements established through the proper statutory process to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Judgment, paras. 21, 23-26, PDF pp. 22-30
M/s Ambey Constructech Company & Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Bathinda & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 41863 of 2026
Why it matters. Procedural order — no final tax-merits ruling
Practical takeaway. This is an interim prosecution order. It does not establish that disclosure of a receipt invariably bars section 276C prosecution or that the underlying complaint was quashed. Verify subsequent orders before describing the stay as current.
Sodexo India Services Private Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
SLP (C) No. 30419 of 2026; Diary No. 49695 of 2026
Why it matters. Section 107 alternative appellate remedy and four-week appeal liberty for the petitioner
Practical takeaway. AKHB REVIEW POINT: Identify and preserve every legal and factual contention for the section 107 appeal rather than treating this SLP dismissal as a decision on the disputed liability. The appellate submissions should draw attention to the express direction to decide independently of the High Court's observations. The four-week opportunity belongs to Sodexo alone and cannot be transferred to other taxpayers as a general limitation relaxation. For Sodexo, verify the actual filing date, compliance with applicable appeal prerequisites and any subsequent order before advising that a valid appeal is pending. As at the 12 October 2026 source check, the original four-week interval had elapsed; this note does not establish whether an appeal was filed within it or whether any later relief was granted. The order does not itself waive filing conditions or confer an express recovery stay. If additional evidence or documents are needed, their admission must be evaluated under the governing appellate rules and the actual case record; this order supplies no separate permission or substantive ruling on that question.
Spherion Solutions Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication CGST Delhi North and Others
W.P.(C) 3418/2026 with CM APPL. 16397/2026 and 16398/2026
Why it matters. Blocked electronic credit, appeal pre-deposit and correction of a demand summary
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Check the adjudication order against the DRC-07 tax, penalty and year fields before calculating pre-deposit. Keep portal errors, grievance receipts, filing attempts and correction dates.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Bengal Emami Housing Ltd.
NAPA/141/PB/2025
Why it matters. Swan Court: fact-specific LIG/MIG pricing distinction limits liability to HIG buyers; no cross-buyer set-off
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Identify the precise statutory pricing instrument, permissible cost components and actual category-specific records before relying on this decision. A maximum price alone is insufficient to reproduce the result. Obtain the underlying West Bengal notification: paragraphs 4 and 12–13 identify No. 738-H1/1M-2/2007 (Pt.) and 17 August 2015, while paragraph 8 instead prints a 2017 number and 17 August 2025 date. The inconsistent reference must not become an independently verified notification citation.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd.
NAPA/37/PB/2025
Why it matters. Transaction-linked wallet credits accepted on their facts; Rs. 10,241 residual benefit directed to Central Consumer Welfare Fund
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Preserve the actual wallet terms, activation history, expiry settings and transaction-level mapping before relying on this judgment. A screenshot or cashback label alone does not prove that the statutory benefit reached the affected recipient. Distinguish a freely available recorded credit from a promotional offer conditional on spending, and verify whether the facts really match the Tribunal’s findings.
Director General of Anti-Profiteering v. Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd.
NAPA/87/PB/2025
Why it matters. Vertex Panache: documented construction-cost escalation and a reasoned finding of no profiteering
Practical takeaway. AKHB analysis: Separate an asserted project overrun from a demonstrated increase in specified input costs. Preserve contemporaneous budgets, actual quantities and procurement prices, books, invoice samples and the certificate’s methodology. Reconcile the chosen cost items with the additional ITC calculation and avoid double counting tax effects or unsupported indirect costs.
Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. NeAC
ITA 437/PAT/2025
Why it matters. Sections 44AB / 271B / reasonable cause
Practical takeaway. Maintain the audit appointment, completion and filing calendar. If delayed, document the actual impediment, correspondence and causal link; absence of a tax addition or government ownership alone is not a reasonable-cause defence.
New Era Social Development Welfare Society v. DC/AC (Exemption)
ITA 534/PAT/2025
Why it matters. Section 13 / specified-person payments
Practical takeaway. Document actual services, responsibilities, qualifications and independent remuneration/rent benchmarks. Support building use and related-party disclosures with contemporaneous records; banking-channel payment alone does not prove reasonableness.
No matching entry. Try a broader issue or date range, then browse a court repository.
Orient Crafts · 2026 INSC 1018
The earlier briefing and source-reviewed note are consolidated in the existing case page.
Read the Orient Crafts note and preserved briefingEditorial scan record and publication controls
Previous-day judicial scan · 7 October 2026
Mepco's electricity-subsidy judgment met the publication standard.
The Supreme Court's official latest-judgments listing and the substantive judgment in M/s Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle, 2026 INSC 1090, were reviewed and the source-linked analysis is included in this edition. Accessible High Court/eCourts discovery and the ITAT official portal were also reviewed. Tax-titled order listings, cause lists and pronouncement lists were not converted into merits holdings without the substantive order text and issue verification.
Publication control: a cause list, case-status entry, headline or secondary case note is not enough, and a pronouncement list alone is not treated as a judgment. AKHB publishes only after primary evidence supports the case name, court or bench, appeal number where available, decision date, sections, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, practical significance and whether the result is fact-specific.
Supreme Court latest judgments ↗
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders search ↗