Nation wide launch of #GST Appellate Tribunal or #GSTAT

• GSTAT President, vide order dated 20/01/2026, has directed all bench registries to take a lenient view while scrutinizing appeals for the next 6 months.
• Defects should be raised only for substantial issues affecting merits, not for procedural/formal matters.
• Documents generated digitally through GSTN need no certification; scanned copies of physical documents must be signed.

The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has officially become operational as of January 2026. This marks a massive milestone in the GST regime, as it provides a specialized forum for taxpayers to challenge orders passed by the First Appellate Authority, finally moving away from the need to approach High Courts for every dispute.
Here is the current status and essential details for 2026:
1. Operational Status (as of January 2026)
Launch: Most benches, including the Principal Bench in New Delhi and various State Benches (like Chennai and Vijayawada), became functional around January 21–22, 2026.
Scale: The GSTAT is now the largest tribunal in India, with 32 Benches (1 Principal and 31 State Benches) operating across 45 locations.
Digital-First: It is the first tribunal in the country to go fully digital. All appeals are filed electronically via the GSTAT e-Filing Portal.
2. Crucial Deadlines for Filing
The government has provided a transitional window to accommodate the years when the tribunal was not active:
Orders received BEFORE April 1, 2026 Appeals can be filed until June 30, 2026.
Orders received ON or AFTER April 1, 2026 Usual limit: 3 months from the date of communication.
3. Key Procedural Updates
Leniency Period: Recognizing the "newness" of the portal, the GSTAT President has ordered a 6-month leniency period (until July 2026).

Registries are instructed to ignore minor technical/form errors and only raise objections for serious defects that affect the case's merits.

Digital Signatures: Documents generated online through the GSTN system do not need physical certification. However, any physical documents scanned and uploaded must be signed before uploading.
Pre-deposit: To file an appeal, you must generally deposit 10% of the disputed tax (in addition to the 10% paid during the first appeal), effectively making it a 20% total pre-deposit for the tribunal stage.
4. Jurisdiction Breakdown
Principal Bench (New Delhi): Handles cases involving "Place of Supply" disputes and appeals against National Anti-Profiteering orders.
State Benches: Handle all other matters (Input Tax Credit, classification, valuation, refunds, etc.) within their respective states.
How to Proceed:
If you have a pending order from an Appellate Authority (APL-01), you should now register on the GSTAT e-Filing portal using your GSTIN.

#Journalist Bodies Strongly Condemn Police Action on #J&K Scribes

Several journalists including the Indian Express’s Basharat Masood, Hindustan Times’ Ashiq Hussain and most recently, The Hindu’s Peerzada Ashiq, were orally summoned by the J&K police this month, while the phone of The Wire’s Jehangir Ali was seized in December.

“According to reports, the journalists were also pressured to sign bonds or affidavits to the effect that they will not undertake any activity to "disturb the peace", whatever that may mean or imply.
Press Club of India has strongly condemned the Jammu and Kashmir Police's decision to orally summon several journalists, including Srinagar-based reporters of at least three national dailies, for questioning without providing them with specific reasons while doing so.
An officer, who did not wish to be named, told The Indian Express that the police had sought to take preventive action under Section 126 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, claiming it had information he would commit a “breach of peace” or disturb “public tranquillity”. This section states that if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace.
In the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, India's ranking is 151st out of 180 countries. 
While this reflects a slight upward movement from previous years (159th in 2024 and 161st in 2023), the report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) continues to classify the situation in India as "very serious."

Governor’s address to #assembly in opposition ruled States ; a #federal friction brewing

In India, the Governor’s address to the State Assembly is a constitutional requirement that has recently become a major flashpoint for federal friction, particularly in states ruled by parties in opposition to the central government.
Under Article 176 of the Constitution, the Governor must address the Legislative Assembly at the start of the first session each year and after every general election. While this is meant to be a ceremonial presentation of the state government’s policies, it has recently evolved into a platform for significant political and legal standoffs.
Recent Controversies (2025–2026)
As of January 2026, several states have witnessed unprecedented scenes during the Governor’s address:
Tamil Nadu (January 20, 2026): Governor R.N. Ravi walked out of the Assembly without delivering the customary address. He cited disagreements with the content prepared by the state government, claiming it contained inaccuracies regarding investment figures and that the national anthem was "insulted." The Assembly later passed a resolution to record only the original Cabinet-approved speech.
Kerala (January 20, 2026): Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar delivered the address but omitted or modified specific paragraphs (12, 15, and 16) that criticized the central government’s stance on fiscal federalism and pending bills. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan moved to have the original text prevail in the House records.
Karnataka (January 22, 2026): Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot delivered a truncated (shortened) version of the address and staged a walkout. This led to a heated exchange between the ruling Congress and the opposition BJP, with the government accusing the Governor of "insulting the national anthem" by leaving before it was played.
The Constitutional Conflict
The tension arises from a clash between the Governor’s "discretionary" view and the state government’s "policy" view.
Key Legal Precedents
Nabam Rebia Case (2016): The Supreme Court clarified that the Governor is not an executive head with independent power; they must generally act according to the Cabinet's advice.
West Bengal Speaker Case (1966): Established that the special address is not a mere formality but a vital constitutional duty to inform the legislature of the government's program.
Recent 2025 Ruling: In cases involving Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the Supreme Court has increasingly restricted the Governor’s power to "stall" the legislative process, emphasizing that "dialogue, not obstructionism" is the essence of federalism.
Practical Implications
When a Governor refuses to read the speech or skips parts of it, the state government usually:
Passes a resolution to accept the "full text" as if it were read.
The Speaker may use their powers to ensure the Cabinet-approved version enters the official record.
The "Motion of Thanks" on the Governor's address is then debated by the MLAs, often leading to fierce criticism of the Raj Bhavan (Governor's office).
State governments in opposition-ruled states (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka) are currently relying on a long-standing "Chain of Jurisprudence" to argue that the Governor’s address belongs to the Cabinet, not the individual holding the office.
​A summary of the key legal pillars used by state governments to challenge Governors who omit or skip parts of their speech:
​1. The "Nominal Head" Doctrine
​Case: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
This is the foundational ruling by a seven-judge bench. It established that the Governor is a "formal or constitutional head" who must act only on the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers.
​The Ruling: The Governor cannot exercise executive functions personally. The satisfaction of the Governor is actually the "satisfaction of the Council of Ministers."
​Application today: States argue that because the address (Article 176) is a statement of policy, the Governor has no discretion to edit it. To do so would be to act as an independent executive, which Shamsher Singh forbids.
​2. Discretionary Powers are "Minimal"
​Case: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
A five-judge bench clarified that the Governor's discretionary powers are not "all-pervasive." 
​The Ruling: The Governor can only act in their own discretion where the Constitution specifically allows (e.g., appointing a CM when no party has a majority). Summoning the house or delivering an address does not fall under this independent discretion.
​Application today: State governments use this to argue that the Governor is "constitutionally bound" to read the text as provided. Refusal to do so is seen as an attempt to exercise "unfettered discretion" that the Supreme Court has already struck down.
​3. The "Anti-Obstruction" Principle
​Case: State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025)
In a landmark ruling on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court took a strict stance against Governors "stalling" state business. 
​The Ruling: The Court held that a Governor cannot simply sit on Bills or delay legislative processes indefinitely. It stated the Governor must be a "catalyst, not an inhibitor" of democratic functions.
​Application today: When Governors like R.N. Ravi (TN) or Thawar Chand Gehlot (Karnataka) walk out or skip paragraphs, states cite this 2025 ruling to argue that the Governor is acting as a "political inhibitor" rather than a constitutional facilitator.
The "Resolution" Strategy
Because of these rulings, Speakers in states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have started using their residual powers to:
Declare the Governor’s omissions "null and void."
Order that the original text be printed in the Assembly Journal.
Argue that since the Governor "refused" to perform their duty, the House will proceed as if the duty was performed correctly (Deemed Reading).
Summary of Legal Arguments:
​Article 163 / Shamsher Singh
The speech belongs to the Cabinet; the Governor is just the "voice."
Constitutional Duty Article 176
Delivering the address is a mandatory obligation, not a choice.
Federal Balance Nabam Rebia
Governors cannot use "discretion" to block the state's political message.
Reasonableness TN v. Governor (2025)
Actions must be done in "good faith" (bona fide) and within reasonable limits.

Courts must examine charge-sheet materials carefully before quashing an FIR : #SC

Once the charge-sheet exists, the "quashing of the FIR" alone is no longer the correct remedy. The court must examine the charge-sheet materials to see if the police actually found evidence during their investigation.

In the case of Naveen Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant order on January 19, 2026, regarding the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings when a charge-sheet has already been filed.

Key Details of the Judgment

Case Citation: Criminal Appeal No. [Assigned in 2026] (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13002/2025).

Bench: The matter was heard in the early 2026 session (specifically Jan 19).

Lower Court Action: The Patna High Court had previously quashed an FIR (Case No. 246 of 2023, P.S. Mojahidpur) involving charges under Sections 341, 323, and 504 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Core Dispute

The appellant (Naveen Kumar Sah, the original complainant) challenged the High Court's decision to quash the FIR. The primary argument was that the High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to strike down the FIR after the investigating agency had already completed its investigation and submitted a charge-sheet.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court's order based on the following legal principles:

Failure to Consider Charge-Sheet: The Court noted that since a charge-sheet had already been filed before the High Court passed its order, the High Court was duty-bound to consider the evidence and materials collected by the police during the investigation.

Procedural Overlook: The Supreme Court emphasized that once an investigation results in a charge-sheet, the "quashing of an FIR" in isolation is generally inappropriate. The court must instead look at whether the materials in the charge-sheet actually make out a prima facie case.

Remand: Because these materials were not brought to the High Court's notice or were ignored, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, effectively reviving the proceedings or directing a reconsideration based on the full investigative record.

Why This Matters

This ruling reinforces the principle that High Courts should be cautious when using their extraordinary powers (under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC) to quash cases at a late stage. If the police have already found enough evidence to indict a person (via a charge-sheet), the case should typically proceed to trial unless the evidence itself is demonstrably insufficient.

In Indian criminal law, the distinction between quashing an FIR and quashing a charge-sheet is primarily based on the stage of the investigation and the evidence the court is allowed to consider.

While both remedies are sought under Section 482 of the CrPC (or the new Section 528 of the BNSS), they differ significantly in their procedural implications.

1. Quashing the FIR (Initial Stage)

Timing: This occurs while the investigation is still ongoing.

The Focus: The High Court looks only at the face value of the allegations in the FIR.

Legal Test: The court asks: "If everything written in this FIR is true, does it actually describe a crime?" If the answer is no, or if the case is clearly a civil dispute disguised as a crime, the FIR is quashed to stop the investigation immediately.

Restriction: At this stage, the court cannot "mini-trial" the case or weigh whether the evidence is strong or weak; it can only check if a "prima facie" (on the face of it) offense is made out.

2. Quashing the Charge-Sheet (Concluding Stage)

Timing: This occurs after the police have finished their investigation and submitted their final report (charge-sheet) to the Magistrate.

The Focus: The court now looks at the entire body of evidence collected by the police—statements of witnesses, forensic reports, and physical evidence.

Legal Test: The court asks: "Now that the investigation is done, is there enough material here to put this person on trial?"

Scope: This is a broader inquiry. Even if the FIR was well-written, if the investigation failed to find any evidence to support it, the charge-sheet can be quashed.

In the case of Naveen Kumar Sah v. State of Bihar & Ors. (decided January 19, 2026), the Supreme Court provided specific details regarding the incident that led to the original FIR.

1. The Allegations (Mojahidpur P.S. Case No. 246 of 2023)

The dispute arose from an incident in Mojahidpur, Bihar. The primary allegations involved:

The Gunshot Incident: It was alleged that a shot was fired into the air during a confrontation.

The Property Dispute: The underlying cause of the friction was a disagreement over a passage (pathway). The accused (Respondent No. 7) claimed the passage was his own private property, whereas the complainant (Naveen Kumar Sah) disputed this.

Nature of Assault: The FIR included charges of wrongful restraint and voluntarily causing hurt, alongside the use of a firearm.

2. Legal Sections Involved

The charges filed in the FIR and later supported by the police charge-sheet were:

Section 341 IPC: Punishment for wrongful restraint.

Section 323 IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 504 IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

Section 27 of the Arms Act: Punishment for using arms, etc. (specifically for the alleged firing in the air).

3. The Defense's Argument

Before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the accused (Respondent No. 7) argued:

The allegations were false and malicious, stemming from the passage dispute.

Even if the shot was fired, it was from a licensed weapon and directed into the air, which they argued did not constitute a criminal offense under the circumstances.

4. The Supreme Court's Focus

The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the firing was "legal" or "illegal." Instead, it focused on the procedural error of the Patna High Court. Justice Manoj Misra noted that the High Court quashed the FIR on July 14, 2025, while ignoring that the police had already submitted a charge-sheet indicting the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized that once a charge-sheet is filed, the court cannot simply quash an FIR as if no investigation occurred; it must examine the actual evidence collected by the police.

Why the Naveen Kumar Sah Case is Important

The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in this case highlights a common procedural trap. If an accused person asks to quash an FIR, but the police file a charge-sheet while the petition is still pending, the High Court cannot simply ignore the charge-sheet.

As the Court noted, once the charge-sheet exists, the "quashing of the FIR" alone is no longer the correct remedy. The court must examine the charge-sheet materials to see if the police actually found evidence during their investigation. In this case, the Patna High Court erred by quashing the FIR without acknowledging that the investigation had already concluded and produced an indictment.

#CESC arm signs #MoU with UP Govt for Rs 3,800-cr RE projects

CESC Green Power a subsidiary company of CESC has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the government of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to develop renewable energy (RE) infrastructure in the state.

Under the MoU, the company will set-up a 3 GW solar cell/module plant, 60 MW of solar power plant and ancillary units, research & development lab and other infrastructural facilities with an investment of around Rs 3,800 crore. CESC is a fully-integrated electrical utility company. The company's other business segments include power, organized retailing, property development and business process outsourcing. The company's consolidated net profit jumped 20.4% to Rs 425 crore on 12.1% increase in net sales to Rs 5,267 crore in Q2 FY26 over Q2 FY25.

#ED Seizes Assets Worth Rs 57 Crore in West Bengal

The properties attached by the ED belong to Trinamool Congress MLA Jiban Krishna Saha, the main middleman, Prasanna Kumar Roy, and his associates.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED)  has provisionally attached immovable properties worth around ₹57.7 crore in connection with its money laundering probe into irregularities in the appointment of assistant teachers for classes 9 to 12.
With the fresh attachment orders, the total value of assets attached by ED in four cases in connection with the school recruitment cases rises to ₹698 crore, a statement by ED said.
ED said Saha, who was allegedly involved in the collection and handling of proceeds of crime, was arrested on August 25, 2025. Investigation has established that he and his family allegedly bought assets worth ₹3 crore in Murshidabad and Purba Bardhaman district of West Bengal from the proceeds of crime.
According to ED, Prasanna Kumar Ray was the main middleman in the case, who collected a large sum of cash from candidates in exchange for appointment letters. It said many properties were also acquired in the name of Roy’s ex-wife and close associate, Nilima Mangal Mangal.
The case pertains to large-scale manipulation in the recruitment process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission, wherein OMR sheets and personality test scores were tampered with, and appointments were made to accommodate undeserving candidates who paid bribes.
In May 2022, the Calcutta high court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe the appointment of non-teaching staff (Group C and D) and teaching staff by the West Bengal School Service Commission and West Bengal Board of Secondary Education between 2014 and 2021. The appointees allegedly paid bribes ranging from ₹5 lakh to ₹15 lakh to secure jobs after failing the selection tests.

HCs can't apply Section 41A of #CRPC without quashing an FIR : #SC

Granting "anticipatory bail" or interim protection to an accused without quashing the FIR is legally improper : SC

In the case of Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana & Ors. (2026), the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical procedural point regarding the High Court’s powers when dealing with petitions to quash a First Information Report (FIR).

The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot direct the police to follow the procedure of Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) if it is simultaneously declining to quash the FIR.

Key Details of the Judgment

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 74

Judgment Date: January 19, 2026 (Uploaded/Reported Jan 21, 2026)

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

Core Legal Issue

The case arose because the Telangana High Court had disposed of a petition filed by the accused to quash an FIR. While the High Court did not quash the FIR, it directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to comply with Section 41A CrPC (which mandates notice instead of arrest for offenses punishable by less than 7 years) and protected the accused from arrest in the interim.

The complainant (Practical Solutions Inc.) challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that:

The complainant was not heard by the High Court.

The High Court effectively granted "anticipatory bail" or interim protection under the guise of a quashing petition, which is legally improper.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order based on two primary grounds:

Misuse of Quashing Jurisdiction: The Court held that if a High Court is not inclined to quash an FIR, it should not pass orders directing the IO to follow specific procedural safeguards like Section 41A. Doing so amounts to granting an "interim relief" that the High Court could only consider if a prima facie case for quashing was actually made out.

Violation of Natural Justice: The Court noted that the High Court had passed the order without hearing the De-facto Complainant (Practical Solutions Inc.), even though they were present and sought to be heard.

Outcome

Remand: The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Telangana High Court for a fresh decision.

Mandate: The High Court is now required to issue a notice to the complainant, hear their arguments, and then pass a final order.

Interim Status: Until the High Court decides the matter again, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive steps (such as arrest) be taken against the accused.

Note on Legal Transition: This case specifically references the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. While the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has replaced the CrPC, this judgment clarifies the limits of judicial discretion when procedural safeguards (like Section 41A) are used as a middle ground in quashing petitions.

The case involves criminal offenses where the punishment is less than seven years. According to the legal filings and the Supreme Court’s observations:

Primary Charges: The accused (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) were charged under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Note: These correspond to provisions regarding cheating and criminal conspiracy in the new Indian penal code.

The Dispute: The dispute is between Practical Solutions Inc. (the De-facto Complainant/Appellant) and the accused individuals. The complainant alleged that the accused committed fraudulent acts or "cheating" (Section 318 BNS) that caused them loss.

Procedural Controversy: The complainant approached the Supreme Court because the Telangana High Court had effectively protected the accused from arrest without hearing the complainant’s side. The complainant argued that by directing the police to follow Section 41A CrPC (Notice of Appearance) while refusing to quash the FIR, the High Court was granting "anticipatory bail" through a back door without examining the seriousness of the fraud allegations.

Why the Supreme Court Intervened

The Supreme Court (Justice Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra) was not focused on whether the fraud actually happened, but rather on how the High Court handled the petition:

Refusal to Hear the Victim: The complainant (Practical Solutions Inc.) was present in the High Court and wanted to present evidence regarding the alleged scam/cheating, but the High Court passed its order without hearing them.

Improper Use of Section 41A: The Supreme Court clarified that a High Court cannot use its "quashing" powers to tell the police how to arrest someone if it isn't actually quashing the case. If the case isn't quashed, the police should be allowed to investigate according to the law.

Current Status

Because the Supreme Court found the High Court's process "legally unacceptable," it remanded (sent back) the case. The Telangana High Court must now:

Formally notify Practical Solutions Inc.

Hear their specific allegations regarding the fraud.

Decide whether the FIR should be quashed based on the merits of those allegations.

#Lawyers can't file #RTI for clients, CIC relies on #Madras HC 2017 judgement

In N. Saravanan v. The Chief Commissioner (W.P. (MD) No. 4336 of 2017) case, is a landmark judgment came from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

It specifically addresses whether an advocate can use the RTI Act as a tool for their legal practice. This judgment has gained renewed attention because Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi recently (January 2026) cited it to dismiss a second appeal filed by an advocate.

The Core Ruling (March 15, 2017)

In this case, an advocate sought information via RTI that was directly related to a legal matter he was handling for a client. The Court dismissed his petition, establishing the following legal principles:

The "Citizen" vs. "Advocate" Distinction: The court ruled that while every citizen has the right to seek information, an advocate cannot use that right to act as a professional agent for a client.

Preventing Misuse: The court noted that if advocates were allowed to do this, the RTI Act would be "flooded" with requests from lawyers trying to bypass the standard judicial process (like the Code of Civil Procedure) to gather evidence.

Professional Promotion: The judges explicitly stated that the RTI Act's "laudable objects" should not become a tool for advocates to "promote their practice" or serve personal/professional ends.

Crucial Quote from the Order:

"As a citizen, he can personally ask for information, but not as an Advocate on behalf of his client... otherwise, every practicing advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information... which situation does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act."

Recent Application: Sudha Rani Relangi's Decision (2026)

On January 12, 2026, Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi applied this specific precedent to a case involving a dispute over a supply contract at a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana.

The Case: An advocate filed an RTI seeking documents regarding the termination of a fruits-and-vegetables supply contract. He admitted the information was for his brother (the supplier).

The Rejection: Relangi dismissed the appeal, noting that the advocate was acting as a legal representative. She pointed out that if the brother (the citizen) wanted the information, he should have filed the RTI himself.

Result: By using the N. Saravanan precedent, the CIC reinforced that lawyers cannot be the applicants for information intended for their clients' litigation.

CM Mohan Charan Majhi hard sale #Odisha to Bengal investors

•  Highlights close neighbourly bonds
• CM Mohan Majhi returns to Odisha with investment proposals worth Rs.1 lakh cr from Kolkata.

At a time when Bengali-speaking migrant workers in Odisha have become a focal point of national discussion due to a surge in identity-based violence and large-scale detentions, Odisha CM Mohan Charan Majhi highlighted the close neighbourly ties between West Bengal and Odisha to attract investments from Bengal and north-eastern states into Odisha. " We have long cultural and regional ties with West Bengal, we share the same cultural values, though sometimes we compete with Bengal for eg. GI tags on rosogolla, but any such irritants should not deter investors from investing in Odisha, " he said.

In his keynote speech, CM Majhi emphasised that Odisha stands at the forefront of the “Purvodaya” initiative—Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision for the industrial resurgence of Eastern India. He noted that Odisha, traditionally recognized for its rich natural resources and leadership in the mining and metals sectors, is now rapidly expanding its footprint in chemicals and petrochemicals and other sectors.

Speaking at the Odisha Investors' Meet in Kolkata organised by CII Eastern Region Majhi said, 'Odisha and West Bengal, we are not only neighbors in geography. We are actually partners in growth. We share a common history, we share a common culture. We share many common traits. We are immediate neighbors." 

Odisha' GSDP is 113 billion dollars and is growing at faster than the national rate of growth. Major contribution, 44% comes from industries. In comparison West Bengal's GSDP is 219 billion dollars.

Odisha Investors meet in Kolkata was aimed at deepening partnerships with eastern India’s business community and positioning Odisha as a preferred investment destination, in line with the government’s vision of achieving ‘Samruddha Odisha, Viksit Bharat’.

Chief secretary Anu Garg, additional chief secretary, Industries Hemanta Sharma, principal secretary to CM Saswata Mishra and private secretary to CM Manoj Sahu were part of the delegation.

Some of the companies from West Bengal which have made significant investments in Odisha are Berger Paints, Shyam Steel, Jupiter Wagons, Himadri Speciality Chemicals, Birla Tyres.

India's Top Court rules Tiger Global Liable to pay Capital gains Taxes for #Flipkart sales

• ₹15,000 cr. capital gains tax demand likely on Tiger Global for sale of shares in Flipkart after Supreme Court ruling
• Tiger Global claimed that it is exempted from Indian capital gains tax under the "grandfathering" clause of the India-Mauritius DTAA, since it had acquired the shares before April 1, 2017.

In a major legal shift, the Supreme Court of India ruled on January 15, 2026, that Tiger Global is liable to pay capital gains tax on its 2018 exit from Flipkart. This landmark judgment overturned a previous Delhi High Court ruling and has significant implications for how foreign investments are structured in India.  

The Supreme Court upheld the Indian revenue authorities' refusal to entertain Tiger Global's advance ruling applications in the case of Authority of Advanced Ruling v. Tiger Global.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that if a transaction is prima facie designed for tax avoidance, the tax authorities are not required to examine the merits of taxability.

This decision relies on the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 245R(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Core Dispute

The case originated from Walmart’s $16 billion acquisition of Flipkart in 2018. Tiger Global, a US-based investment firm, sold its stake (worth roughly $1.6 billion) through several Mauritius-based entities.  

Tiger Global's Argument: They claimed tax exemption under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). They argued that because their investments were made before April 1, 2017, they were protected by "grandfathering" clauses.  

Tax Department's Argument: Authorities contended that the Mauritius entities were merely "conduits" or "shell companies" with no real commercial substance. They argued the "head and brain" of the operation was in the US, and the structure was designed solely for impermissible tax avoidance.  

The Supreme Court Ruling (January 2026)

A bench consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled in favor of the Income Tax Department, establishing several key legal precedents:  

Substance Over Form: The Court held that the transaction was an "impermissible tax avoidance arrangement." It emphasized that the real purpose and control of the entities matter more than where they are registered.  

TRC is Not a "Blank Check": The court clarified that holding a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) from Mauritius is not sufficient to claim treaty benefits if the entity is found to be a conduit for tax avoidance.  

GAAR Applicability: The ruling invoked the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), stating that tax authorities have the right to look through complex offshore structures to determine the actual beneficiary.  

Tax Liability: Tiger Global is now reportedly facing a tax demand of approximately ₹14,500 crore to ₹15,000 crore (roughly $1.7 billion–$1.8 billion), including potential interest and penalties.  

Why This Matters

This case is considered a "watershed moment" for international taxation in India because:

Venture Capital Impact: Other major firms (like Peak XV, Accel, and Blume) that use Mauritius or Singapore structures may face increased scrutiny.

End of "Treaty Shopping": It signals that India will no longer tolerate structures that use tax-haven jurisdictions without genuine business operations (economic substance) in those locations.  

Retroactive Scrutiny: Even "grandfathered" investments (pre-2017) can now be challenged if the underlying structure is deemed a sham. 

To understand the Tiger Global ruling, it is essential to look at the two legal "pillars" that were at the heart of the argument: the Grandfathering Clause (which Tiger Global relied on) and GAAR (which the Tax Department used to override it).

1. The Grandfathering Clause

The India-Mauritius tax treaty was amended in 2016 to stop "tax-free" exits. However, to protect existing investors, a Grandfathering Clause was introduced.

The Rule: Any shares of an Indian company acquired before April 1, 2017, are protected. When these shares are sold (regardless of the year of sale), the capital gains tax is determined by the old treaty rules—meaning the tax is paid in Mauritius (which is 0%) and not in India.

Tiger Global’s Position: Since they invested in Flipkart before 2017, they argued they had a "vested right" to this exemption.

2. General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR)

Introduced in India on April 1, 2017, GAAR gives the Income Tax Department the power to "look through" a legal structure and tax it based on its real economic substance.

An arrangement is flagged as an Impermissible Avoidance Arrangement (IAA) if its main purpose is to get a tax benefit and it meets any of these "tainted element" tests:

Lacks Commercial Substance: The entity (like a Mauritius shell company) has no real employees, office, or decision-making power.

Abuse of Law: It uses the treaty in a way that wasn't intended (Treaty Shopping).

Arm's Length: It creates rights/obligations that wouldn't exist between independent parties.

The "Conflict" in the Tiger Global Case

The 2026 Supreme Court ruling effectively decided which of these two rules is stronger. 

Key Takeaway: The Court ruled that Anti-Avoidance (GAAR) overrides Treaty benefits. If a structure is found to be a "sham" designed only to save tax, the Grandfathering protection will be denied.

Impact on Future Investments

Investors can no longer rely solely on a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC). To be safe under Indian law now, an offshore fund must show "Economic Substance" in the country where it is registered, such as:

Local Directors: Who actually make investment decisions (not just rubber-stamping US orders).

Local Office & Employees: A physical presence with operational costs.

Commercial Purpose: A reason for being in that country other than just the 0% tax rate.

Tiger Global was represented by Senior Advocates Porus Kaka and Harish Salve.

The revenue was represented by Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman.