SCO.LR | 2026 | Volume 5 | Issue 3

Volume 5 Issue 3 of the Supreme Court Observer Law Reports (SCO.LR) is here. In this Issue, we shortlist five judgements of the Supreme Court from last week which deal with: 

• Re-assessment of tax
• Cruelty and desertion as ground for divorce
• Right to education in regional language
• Premature release or remission of convicts
• Taxation of inter-state transactions

As always, the judgements are available in a clean and easy-to-read format on our SCO.LR page. 

**********

The Supreme Court Observer Law Reports

SCO.LR | Volume 5 | Issue 3

11 May – 16 May 2026

**********

Re-assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961

Sanand Properties v Joint Commissioner of IT Range

12 May 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 472 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(3)[11]

Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan

The Supreme Court held that an Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowed to re-open an assessment where fresh information leads to a prima facie indication that an income has escaped assessment. 

The appellant’s return of income for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were scrutinised under Section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Revenue Department re-opened the assessment noting that the Assessing Officer, under Section 147, had “reasons to believe” that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The appellant challenged re-assessment in the Bombay High Court, arguing that material based on which re-assessment was sought was already produced. They contended that re-assessment cannot be directed merely on the change of opinions. The High Court set aside re-assessment for AY 2007-08. It allowed re-assessment for AY 2008-09 stating that it  was based on tangible material. The appellant and the Revenue Department moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court allowed re-assessment for both AY 2007-08 and 2008-09. It held that merely producing books of accounts and documents does not fulfil the obligation of disclosing all primary facts. Further, the Court noted that re-assessment would remain valid if “reasons recorded” by the Assessing Officer gives rise to a prima facie belief, even if it proves unfounded later.

Keywords/phrases: Income Tax Act 1961—Return of income—Scrutiny—Re-assessment under Section 147—Challenge to re-assessment—Bombay High Court—Re-assessement partly allowed—Civil Appeal—Re-assessment allowed if there is prima facie belief—Reasons recorded in writing—Re-assessment valid. 

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap. 

**********

Professional Career as Ground for Cruelty or Desertion

Ann Saurabh Dutt v Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt

12 May 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 475 |  2026 SCO.LR 5(3)[12]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that a wife’s pursuit of her professional career and decision to secure a safer environment for the upbringing of her child cannot be construed as cruelty or desertion in matrimonial proceedings.

The appellant-wife, a qualified dentist, shifted from Kargil to Ahmedabad due to limited medical facilities during her pregnancy and later due to the medical condition of her daughter. She established her own dental clinic at Ahmedabad. Matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, leading to multiple proceedings, including a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband, an Army officer. The Family Court granted divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, holding that the appellant prioritised her career, inaugurated her dental clinic without informing the respondent or his family and stayed at her parental home during visits to Ahmedabad. The Gujarat High Court affirmed the findings. The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking to expunge remarks on cruelty and desertion; she did not contest the decree of divorce. 

The Supreme Court expunged the findings relating to cruelty and desertion while sustaining the decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. It described the Family Court’s approach as “pedantic and regressive”. It held that the findings were founded upon deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions and a patriarchal understanding of marital roles. It held that the appellant’s conduct was a manifestation of legitimate choices made in pursuit of professional fulfilment and responsible parenthood. 

Key words/phrases: Cruelty and desertion—Professional career of wife—Army officer husband—Safer environment for upbringing of child—Family Court—Cruelty and Desertion—Decree of divorce—Deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions—Conservative patriarchal understanding of marital roles—Irretrievable breakdown of marriage—Findings expunged

 Read the Judgement here.

 Mindmap

**********

Right to Education in Regional Language

Padam Mehta v State of Rajasthan 

12 May 2026 

Citation: 2026 INSC 476  | 2026 SCO.LR  5(3)[13]

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court held that the right of a child to receive primary education in a language understood by the child, including the mother tongue or regional language, is an intrinsic facet of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), read with Article 21A.

The appellants filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Rajasthan High Court seeking the inclusion of the Rajasthani language in the school curriculum and teacher recruitment examinations under Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers, 2021 (REET-2021). The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Rajasthani was not recognised under the Eighth Schedule and the appellants had failed to establish an enforceable legal right warranting the issuance of a mandamus. The appellants approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. It held that Articles 19(1)(a), 21A and 350A recognise that meaningful education cannot be strictly confined to languages listed under the Eighth Schedule. The Court observed that education imparted in a language unfamiliar to the learner impedes effective understanding and defeats the very purpose of elementary education. Relying on Section 29(2)(f) of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 and National Education Policy, 2020, the Court directed the Rajasthan government to formulate a comprehensive policy for imparting education in the mother tongue or regional language. It also directed the state to recognise Rajasthani as a regional language for educational purposes and introduce it as a subject in schools in a phased manner.

Key words/phrases: Right to primary education in regional language—Article 19(1)(a)—freedom of speech and expression—Article 21A—Public interest litigation—Rajasthani language in school curriculum—Article 350A—Eighth Schedule—Rajasthan High Court’s Order set aside—Section 29(2) of Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009—phased introduction of regional languages—State directive to formulate comprehensive policy—Appeal allowed  

Read the Judgement here.

Mindmap

**********

Grounds For Denial Of Remission

Rohit Chaturvedi v State of Uttarakhand

15 May 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 490 |  2026 SCO.LR 5(3)[14]

Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court held that the denial of remission cannot rest solely on the heinousness of the offence. The executive’s refusal to concur with a State Government’s recommendation must be a speaking order disclosing reasons, failing which it is liable to be quashed.

The petitioner was convicted in 2007 by the Special Judge, Dehradun, under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2013. The Uttarakhand government recommended his premature release after 22 years in custody. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), whose concurrence was required as the case had been investigated by the CBI, declined by letter of 9 July 2025. The petitioner sought certiorari and pressed parity with a co-accused already released. The Uttarakhand government supported the appeal.

The Supreme Court quashed the MHA’s letter as non-speaking and arbitrary. The Bench noted that the petitioner had good conduct during his 22-year-long incarceration. The Uttarakhand government’s recommendation for premature release also indicated that the petitioner’s conduct and rehabilitation had been found satisfactory by the authorities. 

Key words/phrases: Murder conviction in 2007 — life imprisonment affirmed up to Supreme Court in 2013 — Uttarakhand Government recommends premature release after 22 years in custody — Ministry of Home Affairs declines — Supreme Court petition — remission held a future-oriented executive function distinct from sentencing — impugned letter quashed and petitioner directed to be treated as remitted.

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap

**********

Taxation of Inter-State Transactions

State of Uttar Pradesh v Reliance Industries 

15 May 2026 

Citations: 2026 INSC 491 | 2026 SCO.LR 5(3)[15]

Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and A.S. Chandurkar

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of public trust is intended for resource management and cannot override the constitutional division of taxation to create non-existent tax jurisdictions.

Reliance Industries had acquired a gas block off the coast of Andhra Pradesh for natural gas exploration and production under a Production Sharing Contract with the Government of India. It subsequently entered into Gas Sales and Purchase Agreements (GSPA)with buyers in Uttar Pradesh. The GSPA explicitly stated that the gas transaction would conclude at the delivery point in Gadimoga, Andhra Pradesh. The buyers arranged for the transportation of the gas to their facilities in Uttar Pradesh through common carrier pipeline operators. The Uttar Pradesh government imposed Value Added Tax (VAT) on the transaction, characterising it as an intra-state. Invoking the doctrine of public trust, the state argued that Reliance Industries acted merely as an agent, while the Union government served as the main trustee. It contended that the transaction legally concluded only at the final delivery point in Uttar Pradesh, rather than the extraction point in Andhra Pradesh. The Allahabad High Court quashed the Uttar Pradesh government’s tax demand, prompting  the state to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the sale was an inter-state transaction. It observed that the sale concluded at Gadimoga, where the title over the gas passed to the buyer, and the subsequent transportation across state lines by the buyers did not change the nature of the sale. Consequently,it held that the Uttar Pradesh government lacks the jurisdiction to levy VAT, as the authority for taxing inter-state transactions belongs exclusively to the Union government.

Key words/phrases: Value added tax—intra-state transaction—Production Sharing Contract—Gas Sales and Purchase Agreements—Delivery point at location of sale—transporation of title to another state—Inter-state transaction—Taxing domain in the Union government—State’s appeal dismissed—Doctrine of Public trust cannot open new taxing jurisdiction

Read the Judgement here. 

Mindmap