2High CourtGovernment & Public Body Interactions
The dispute. An Indian pharmaceutical firm remitted US drug exclusivity settlement proceeds to an Israeli company while withholding tax at source. The tax authority initiated reassessment proceedings, asserting that payment by a resident automatically constituted income accruing in India. The foreign entity filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment notices and the advance ruling authority's refusal to determine taxability.
The reasoning. Source taxation requires a real territorial nexus or business connection rather than a mechanical payer-location rule. Because the commercial rights and markets were situated entirely abroad, the remitted proceeds did not accrue in India.
For your practice. Cross-border tax claims cannot rest solely on the payer's domestic residence without demonstrating a tangible economic nexus or statutory deeming connection within India.
The order. The High Court quashed the reassessment notices, set aside the advance ruling order, and directed the revenue to refund over 783 crore rupees in withheld tax with interest within two months.
Section 5(2)(b), Income Tax Act, 1961
- Case
- TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
- Citation
- Delhi High Court · CW - 4065/2022 · 2026:DHC:7843-DB · 15.09.2026
- Bench
- Dinesh Mehta, Vinod Kumar
3High CourtProperty & Asset Disputes
The dispute. Plaintiffs filed a revenue suit claiming bhumidhari land rights by adverse possession, alleging purchase under unregistered sale agreements two decades earlier. The recorded owners denied transferring the land and asserted continuous cultivatory possession through sharecroppers. After revenue courts concurrently decreed the suit, the recorded tenure-holders challenged the adverse possession declarations before the Uttarakhand High.
The reasoning. Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, an unregistered sale agreement creates no property interest, leaving possession inherently permissive.
For your practice. Plead and prove the exact date when possession turned openly hostile to sustain adverse possession, as occupancy rooted in an informal sale agreement remains strictly permissive.
The order. Writ petition allowed. Judgments of the Assistant Collector, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector, Haldwani, for fresh decision.
Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- Case
- Rajvinder Singh & ors. v. Jagdish Chandra & ors.
- Citation
- Uttarakhand High Court · WPMS/1219/2026 · 2026:UHC:8275 · 15.09.2026
- Bench
- Manoj Kumar Tiwari
4High CourtGovernment & Public Body Interactions
The dispute. GST intelligence authorities issued a show cause notice in January 2024 alleging Glen Industries violated Rule 96(10) between 2017 and 2021. Glen Industries filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking to quash the notice and consequential demand orders.
The reasoning. Upon the unconditional omission of a statutory provision without a saving clause, the provision ceases to exist in law. Consequently, no ongoing or fresh proceedings can be initiated or continued on the basis of the omitted rule.
Upon omission of a provision without any saving clause the provision ceases to exist in the eye of law and no proceedings can be initiated or continued on the basis thereof.
For your practice. Check for express saving clauses in amending notifications, and rely on Rule 96(10)'s unconditional omission alongside binding Supreme Court precedent to strike down pending.
The order. Show cause notice dated 9 January 2024 and consequential orders dated 30 January 2025 quashed. The Court held that no tax proceedings could be initiated or continued under the omitted Rule 96(10).
Rule 96(10), Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
- Case
- M/s. Glen Industries Private Limited & ors. versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GS T Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit & ors.
- Citation
- Calcutta High Court · WPA/3254/2025 · 15.09.2026
- Bench
- Smita Das De
5High CourtWork & Employment Issues
The dispute. A market committee clerk was denied promotion after the marketing board wrongfully transferred another employee into the post. Following revision proceedings, the transfer was quashed and the clerk received retrospective promotion from 2008, but was denied intervening salary arrears. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim under the principle of no work no pay, the employee filed a writ petition before the High Court.
The reasoning. The rule of no work no pay does not apply when a willing employee is kept away from work by the employer. Denying salary arrears for retrospective promotion defeats the remedy where the employee was prevented from working without fault.
The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his.
For your practice. Practitioners must now prove employee fault to deny arrears for notional promotions; mere non-performance insufficient when employer caused inability to work. Shift burden to employers to show employee's unwillingness/default in service cases involving retrospective promotions.
The order. Petitioner entitled to pay and allowances for Auction Recorder post w.e.f. 21.01.2008 to 23.04.2012. Impugned orders dated 25.10.2013 and 22.09.2014 denying arrears quashed. Respondents directed to calculate and release arrears within three months from date of receipt of certified copy of order. No interest rate specified.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Case
- JASKARAN SINGH vs PUNJAB STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ANR
- Citation
- Punjab and Haryana High Court · CWP/25747/2016 · 15.09.2026
- Bench
- Namit Kumar
6High CourtCriminal Issues
The dispute. A woman died by hanging four months after marriage following persistent physical abuse and dowry demands of fifty thousand rupees. Family members deposed consistently regarding the harassment, while the accused alleged an illicit relationship and argued the absence of injury marks negated cruelty. The trial court convicted the husband and brother-in-law for dowry death and cruelty, which they challenged on appeal before the High Court.
The reasoning. Related witnesses in matrimonial disputes are not interested, and their credible testimony requires no external corroboration. Continuous harassment throughout a brief marriage satisfies the statutory requirement of cruelty occurring soon before death.
In these circumstances, far from discharging the reverse burden placed upon them, the explanations offered by the Appellants, being false and unsubstantiated, only served to reinforce the presumption of guilt arising under Section 113 -B, and the presumption must accordingl y be held to stand un -rebutted.
For your practice. Practitioners must now be prepared to counter claims that family witness testimony is inherently unreliable, to argue that persistent demand and cruelty throughout a short marriage can meet the 'soon before death' test, and to ensure that the foundational facts for Section 113-B presumption are solidly proved before relying on the presumption of guilt.
The order. The appeal was dismissed; the conviction under Section 304-B IPC (10 years rigorous imprisonment) and Section 498-A IPC (3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000) was maintained. The appellants were entitled to the benefit of set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Case
- NAVEEN KUMAR VERMA & ors. vs STATE
- Citation
- Delhi High Court · CRL.A.-677/2004 · 2026:DHC:7815 · 15.09.2026
- Bench
- Vimal Kumar Yadav