|
|
|
Newsletter no. 79 dated 10.04.2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
This website contains information about recent changes mainly in GST laws. It also contains Articles on various topic in GST. Please visit the website and read more.
|
|
|
|
Index
- Recent updates
- GST in Media
- Income Tax in Media
- Article
- Press Release
- GST Notes
- Book by CMA Anil Sharma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adv. Ashu Dalmia of ADA Law Chambers, prepared this PPT on topic "GST Litigation - Key issues & Case laws". It is a comprehensive guide to critical GST provisions, natural justice principles, time limits, ITC disputes, penalties, arrest, and electronic evidence —with landmark judicial pronouncements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. S.K. Rahman, Member (Technical), GST Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench address audience at BCAS 20th Residential Study Course on GST held at ITC Grand Chola, Chennai on 26th, June, 2026.
|
He spoke on 'Mastering GSTAT Appeals: From Defect-Free filing to Effective Advocacy - Procedural Precision, Court Craft and Best Practices from Tribunal Experience.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advocate Shailesh Sheth, M/s. SPS Legal , Mumbai presented PPT on topic "GST in Courts - Emerging Judicial Trends in Critical Disputes" at the "GST Gyan Parv" Organised by Indirect Tax Consultants Association, Ludhiana on 08.05.2026.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA Nihalchand J Jain prepared this PPT on "GST Law vs Reality of Input Tax Credit (ITC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Centre has extended the last date for filing appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) to July 31, 2026, giving taxpayers an additional month to submit their cases after a surge in filings led to technical difficulties on the GSTAT portal.
|
The extension applies to appeals filed under Section 112(1) read with Section 112(3) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law.
|
The revised deadline replaces the earlier cut-off of June 30, 2026, which had been notified by the government on September 17, 2025.
|
The decision follows recent representations from various stakeholders who flagged technical issues arising from a rush of appeals being filed on the GSTAT portal ahead of the deadline.
|
While noting that the original due date had been notified well in advance in September 2025, the government said filing activity had intensified sharply in recent weeks. It said 30,000 appeals were filed in the last 15 days alone, with daily filings touching a peak of 5,500 appeals.
|
Advising against eleventh-hour filings, the government urged taxpayers to complete their appeal submissions well in advance to ease pressure on the GSTAT portal.
|
The GST Appellate Tribunal serves as the first judicial appellate forum for taxpayers seeking to challenge orders issued by GST authorities after the disposal of their first appeals.
|
Source: The Economic Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GST & IDT Committee has requested the Chairman, IDT Committee, ICAI, New Delhi to urgently represent before the respective forums for the date extension of GSTAT, i.e., 30-Jun-2026.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tata Steel Limited said tax authorities have filed an appeal seeking restoration of penalties worth Rs. 368.72 crore that were earlier dropped in a GST adjudication order, even as proceedings on the underlying demand remain stayed by the Jharkhand High Court, according to a stock exchange filing.
|
"One June 16, 2026, the Assistant Commissioner, Division-I, CGST & Central Excise , Jamshedpur, Jharkhand filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi against the above-mentioned Adjudication Order dated December 18, 2026, to the extend that the Adjudicating Authority has dropped the penalty amounting to Rs. 3,68,72,21,158/-," Tata Steel said in its exchange filing.
|
The appeal, filed on June 16 by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, challenges the December 18, 2025, adjudication order to the extent it waived the penalty.
|
The original show-cause notice, issued in June 2025, proposed disallowance of input tax credit for FY 2018-19 to FY 2022-23, with an aggregate GST demand of about Rs. 1,007.55 crore. Of this, Tata Steel said it has already paid Rs. 514.19 crore in the normal course, leaving an alleged exposure of Rs. 493.35 crore.
|
In December 2025, the adjudicating authority confirmed the tax demand of Rs. 493.35 crore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 638.83 crore and applicable interested, while dropping an earlier proposed penalty of Rs. 368.72 crore. Tata Steel subsequently moved the Jharkhand High Court, which granted a stay on all further proceedings in March 2026.
|
"This matter is, inter-alia, contingent upon the final adjudication of the issue concerning the issuance of show cause notices for multiple periods, which is presently sub judice before the High Court," Tata Steel said.
|
Tata Steel added that it has a good case on merit and hence will contest the same before the Appellate Authority within the statutory timelines, noting that the development has no impact on its financial or operational position, arising from the said appeal.
|
Source: The Economic Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the June 30 deadline for filing legacy appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) fast approaching , tax professionals, chartered accountants and industry bodies have urged the Finance Ministry to extend the filing window, warning that persistent technical glitches on the GSTAT portal could prevent thousands of taxpayers from filing their appeals before the deadline.
|
The demand comes as taxpayers seek to file appeals arising from nearly nine years of litigation accumulated during the period when the Tribunal remained non-operational. Experts said the combination of a massive backlog, voluminous documentation and continuing portal-related issues has significantly constrained taxpayers' ability to meet the deadline.
|
According to Aditya Singhania, Founder of Trackase, the backlog is estimated at nearly four lakh to 4.5 lakh legacy appeals, while only around 36,929 appeals have been filed nationalwide so far.
|
"The ground reality is deeply concerning. Against an anticipated backlog of nearly four to four and a half lakh appeals accumulated over nine years of the Tribunal's non-operationality, only around 36,929 appeals have been filed nationally as of now," Singhania said.
|
He attributed the slow pace of filings to the teething troubles of the newly launched e-filing portal, including server time-outs, authentication challenges, payment gateway reconciliation issues and a filing structure that requires considerable time and effort to navigate.
|
Experts cite portal hurdles, record backlog
According to experts and representations submitted to the Finance Ministry, taxpayers continue to face multiple technical issues on the GSTAT portal, including session expiry, repeated login failures., Aadhaar authentication problems, Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) validation failures, payment reconciliation delays and incomplete integration between the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) and the GSTAT portal.
|
Experts said taxpayers are also required to retrieve and compile extensive records accumulated over several years, including adjudication orders, invoices, reconciliations, e-way bills, ledger extracts and other supporting documents, making the filing process particularly time-consuming.
|
CA Nitin Bansal, State-President, BJP CA Cell Haryana, said the Finance Ministry has received several representations highlighting the practical challenges taxpayers are facing in filing appeals before the Tribunal.
|
"With the Tribunal becoming operational after nearly nine years, taxpayers must now prepare and file a substantial backlog of appeals within a limited window, many involving voluminous, multi-year records, even as the GSTAT e-filing portal continues to stabilise," Bansal said.
|
He added that extending the deadline would be revenue-neutral as the mandatory pre-deposit and other conditions would remain unchanged while ensuring genuine taxpayers are not denied their appellate remedy because of circumstances beyond their control.
|
Over-time extension sought
CA Sonu Goel, Chairman, Panipat Branch of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), said a one-time extension would ensure disputes are decided on their merits rather than procedural constrints.
|
"One-time extension would safeguard taxpayers' right to appeal, uphold the principles of natural justice, and ensure that dispute are decided on merits rather than being defeated by procedural or technological constraints. This pragmatic relief would further reinforce the Government's commitment to ease of doing business while maintaining certainty and confidence in the GST ecosystem," Goel said.
|
Parag Mehta, Partner at N.A. Shah Associates LLP, said the portal continues to experience issues ranging from login failures and incorrect fee calculations to disappearing data.
|
"Considering the fact that the portal is not fully supporting the filing process and the number of appeals filed remains significantly lower than expected, the deadline should be extended. GSTAT is an important appellate remedy and taxpayers should not be deprived of that opportunity," Mehta said.
|
Bas association flags nationwide concerns
The Sales Tax Bar Association has also written to the Finance Ministry seeking an extension of the filing deadline, stating that taxpayers and tax professional across the country continue to face significant practical and technical difficulties while filing appeals through the GSTAT portal.
|
In its representation, the association said the present limitation period covers appellate orders accumulated over nearly nine years when the Tribunal remained non-functional, requiring taxpayers to retrieve historical records and prepare detailed documentation within a limited period.
|
The association highlighted recurring issues including server interruptions, repeated Aadhaar authentication and DSC validation failures, payment gateway reconciliation delays, manual duplication of information already available on the GSTN portal and challenges in uploading voluminous records.
|
It warned that if the deadline is not extended, thousands of taxpayers could lose the opportunity to pursue their statutory appeals because of technological and procedural constraints, potentially leading to avoidable litigation before various High Courts.
|
Prabhat Ranjan, Senior Director at Nexdigm, said extending the filing deadline has become "the need of the hour".
|
"The appellate process should be about the actual merits of the issues between both parties and not technical questions of delay. This is a taxpayer-friendly measure that will make GST dispute resolution processes more fair and credible," he said.
|
As of publication, the government has not announced any extension of the June 30 deadline for filing legacy GSTAT appeals. While the GSTAT has extended the period for relaxed scrutiny of filed appeals until December 31, 2026 , tax professionals, industry experts and representative bodies continue to seek a one-time extension of the filing deadline, arguing that additional time would enable taxpayers to exercise their statutory right of appeal without affecting revenue, as the mandatory pre-deposit requirements would continue to apply.
|
Source: The Economic Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Union government on Tuesday granted a six-month extension to the tenure of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Chairman Ravi Agrawal till December 2026.
|
The 1988 batch IRS officer was to retire on Tuesday(June 30).
|
The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) in an order on Tuesday said it has approved "re-appointment" of Ravi Agrawal as Chairman, CBDT on contract basis for a period of six months with effect from 01.07.2026 or until further orders, whichever is earlier, on the terms and conditions applicable to re-employed central government officers, in relaxation of the Recruitment Rules.
|
He was made chief of CBDT, the policy-making body for the Income Tax Department, for a one-year term in June 2024. His tenure was extended by a year in June 2025.
|
The CBDT is headed by a chairman and can have up to six members, who are equivalent to special secretary rank.
|
Source: The Economic Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several important financial changes are set to take effect on July 1, 2026. These changes could impact taxpayers, bank customers, credit card users, passport applicants and Aadhaar card holders. Here's a look at the key financial changes coming into effect in July 2026.
|
1. ITR-1, ITR-2 deadlines
For taxpayers filing ITR-1 and ITR-2 forms, due dates for filing returns for the Financial Year 2025-26 (Assessment Year 2026-27), is July 31, 2026. Missing the prescribed deadlines could result in penalties, restrictions on choosing certain tax regimes and limitations on carrying forward eligible losses to future assessment years.
|
2. Free update in Aadhaar card
Starting July 1, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has temporarily waived off the Rs 75 fee for updating your registered email address on your Aadhaar card. This service will be completely free of cost for six months (until December 31, 2026).
|
According to an official notification, "It has been decided to waive off the charges (i.e., Rs 75) for availing the service of email address update through the Aadhaar mobile application and make it free of cost for a period of six months with effect from July 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026."
|
3. SBI credit card changes
SBI Card has announced changes to the reward point programme for select PhonePe SBI Credit Cards, which will come into effect from July 1, 2026. The revision affects both PhonePe SBI Credit Card PURPLE and PhonePe SBI Credit Card SELECT BLACK card holders, as new limits on earning reward points and a broader list of transactions that won't earn reward points have been introduced.
|
4. HDFC Credit card changes
From July 1, 2026, HDFC credit card holders will be eligible for three complimentary domestic airport lounge visits per calendar quarter, provided they have spent at least Rs 60,000 in the preceding calendar quarter.
|
For instance, to avail lounge access during the July–September 2026 quarter, a card holder must have spent Rs 60,000 or more between April and June 2026. This spend-based eligibility will apply to every subsequent calendar quarter.
|
5. Higher passport fees
Obtaining a passport will soon become more expensive for both normal and Tatkaal applicants. The Ministry of External Affairs has increased services fee for normal and tatkal passports (India and overseas) from July 1, 2026.
|
6. New rules for banks on mis-selling of bank products
The RBI has announced new rules to curb the mis-selling of financial products by banks. Under the new framework, customers who are mis-sold products will be entitled to a full refund and compensation for losses. The rules are set to come into effect on July 1, 2026.
|
Source: The Economic Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Ashish Tyagi v. Director General of GST Intelligence & Ors. allowed the habeas corpus petition and declared the arrest and consequent detention of the assessee under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) as illegal, on the ground that the arrest memo neither contained the specific grounds of arrest nor disclosed the place of arrest, and the grounds of arrest did not bear the mandatory CBIC-Document Identification Number (“DIN”), thereby violating the mandate of law and the safeguards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal . Accordingly, the Court directed the immediate release of the assessee, while granting liberty to the Revenue to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law.
|
- Mr. Ashish Tyagi (“the Petitioner”) was arrested by the officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad (“the Respondent”) for alleged offences under Section 132(1)(a), Section 132(1)(f) and Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act. The grounds of arrest were dated December 10, 2025.
- The Petitioner was thereafter remanded to judicial custody by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut vide order dated February 18, 2026 passed in Case No. 2122 of 2025 (Union of India v. Ashish Tyagi).
- The Petitioner contended that neither were the grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest memo nor were they supplied as an annexure thereto, in clear violation of Circular No. 02/2022-23 issued by the CGST Department, which mandates communication of the grounds of arrest.
- It was further contended that the arrest memo merely recorded that the grounds of arrest were “explained” to the arrestee, without any recital indicating that the grounds were actually supplied to the Petitioner. Moreover, columns (i) to (iv) of the jamatalashi (personal search memo) were left blank and the Petitioner’s signatures were obtained thereon mechanically.
- The Petitioner also urged that the arrest memo did not disclose the place of arrest and that the Remand Magistrate failed to consider these discrepancies while granting remand, rendering the arrest, detention and remand illegal.
- The Respondent filed a counter affidavit; however, it could not rebut the submissions of the Petitioner by placing any material or document on record.
- Aggrieved by the illegal arrest and detention, the Petitioner filed a habeas corpus writ petition before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court seeking a declaration that the arrest, detention and subsequent remand were unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary, and praying for release forthwith.
Whether the arrest and consequent detention of the Petitioner under Section 132 of the CGST Act can be sustained when the arrest memo neither contains the specific grounds of arrest nor discloses the place of arrest, and the grounds of arrest do not bear the mandatory CBIC-DIN?
|
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 509 of 2026 held as under:
|
- Observed that, the arrest memo did not disclose the place of arrest of the Petitioner, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal .
- Noted that, the grounds of arrest dated December 10, 2025 did not bear any CBIC-DIN, and the Petitioner was merely made to endorse on the arrest memo that he had received the arrest memo along with the grounds of arrest and that he had informed his friend about his arrest through a mobile phone call.
- Noted that, the submission of the Petitioner that, in terms of Circular No. 02/2022-23 issued by the CGST Department, every document is required to bear a CBIC-DIN, remained uncontroverted by the Respondent, who failed to place any material on record to rebut the allegations.
- Held that, the Petitioner has been illegally detained in violation of the mandate of law, and accordingly, the arrest and detention of the Petitioner are declared illegal and the Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith.
- Directed that, it shall, however, remain open to the Respondent to proceed against the Petitioner afresh, strictly in accordance with law.
The power of arrest under GST flows from Section 69 of the CGST Act, which empowers the Commissioner to authorise the arrest of a person where he has “reasons to believe” that such person has committed specified offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act. Section 69(2) of the CGST Act, read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, casts a mandatory obligation on the arresting officer to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and to produce him before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours. These safeguards are not empty formalities but constitutional imperatives, as repeatedly emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court since D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal , which prescribed, inter alia, the preparation of a proper arrest memo recording the time and place of arrest, duly attested and countersigned.
|
Insofar as the DIN requirement is concerned, the CBIC, vide Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated November 05, 2019, read with Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST dated December 23, 2019, mandated electronic generation and quoting of a DIN on all communications, including those issued during investigation such as search authorisations, summons, arrest memos and inspection notices. Significantly, the said Circular categorically provides that any specified communication which does not bear a DIN shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Goyal v. Union of India also underscored the importance of the DIN mechanism as a measure to ensure transparency and accountability in tax administration. The present ruling applies this discipline to arrest documentation as well, holding that grounds of arrest not bearing a CBIC-DIN cannot satisfy the mandate of law.
|
Further, the CBIC, vide Instruction No. 02/2022-23 dated August 17, 2022, laid down detailed guidelines for arrest and bail in relation to offences under the CGST Act, requiring that the grounds of arrest be explained to the arrested person and recorded in the arrest memo. Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India , the CBIC issued Instruction No. 01/2025-GST (Inv.) dated January 13, 2025, mandating that the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person in writing, as an annexure to the arrest memo, and an acknowledgement thereof obtained. In Radhika Agarwal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the ratio of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) , requiring written communication of the grounds of arrest, applies with equal force to arrests under the Customs and GST laws, failing which the arrest itself stands vitiated.
|
On a pari materia footing, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Kshitij Ghildiyal v. Director General of GST Intelligence, Delhi declared an arrest by DGGI officers illegal where the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the arrestee in writing, and directed his release. The present decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court adds a significant dimension to this line of authority by holding that even where an endorsement of receipt of the grounds of arrest is obtained, the absence of a CBIC-DIN on such grounds, coupled with blank columns in the search memo and non-disclosure of the place of arrest, vitiates the arrest in its entirety.
|
The takeaway for the Department is that procedural safeguards surrounding arrest under GST, viz. furnishing of written grounds of arrest bearing a valid DIN, complete and contemporaneous arrest documentation, and adherence to the D.K. Basu guidelines, are mandatory and non-negotiable, and any breach thereof would render the arrest and consequent remand illegal, notwithstanding the gravity of the alleged offence. For taxpayers and arrestees, the ruling reaffirms that habeas corpus remains an efficacious remedy where curable procedural lapses cross the threshold into violations of constitutional safeguards, although the Revenue retains liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in M/s Metal Syndicate and Another v. The Union of India & Ors. set aside the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal confirming GST demand of Rs. 78,70,952/- along with interest and equivalent penalty, and held that a bona fide purchasing dealer cannot be denied Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) merely on account of the supplier’s failure to deposit the tax collected with the Government. The Court reiterated that the Department’s remedy in such circumstances lies against the defaulting supplier and not against the genuine recipient, who has discharged all statutory obligations.
|
M/s Metal Syndicate (“the Petitioner”), a proprietorship firm based in Silchar, Assam, engaged in trading of scrap/waste batteries, purchased goods from suppliers based in Kolkata during the Financial Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Petitioner received the goods along with proper tax invoices and made payments, including applicable GST, through banking channels. ITC was availed and utilized strictly in accordance with Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), and GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B returns were duly filed within the prescribed time.
|
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“DGGI”), Guwahati Zonal Unit, issued summons alleging that the Petitioner had availed ineligible ITC on the strength of invoices issued without actual receipt of goods. The Petitioner appeared before the authorities on April 05, 2019, and submitted all relevant documents including GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and purchase invoices. A search was subsequently conducted at the Petitioner’s business premises on July 09, 2019, during which no incriminating material was recovered or seized.
|
Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) dated July 28, 2022 was issued alleging wrong availment and utilization of ITC of Rs. 78,70,952/- in violation of Section 16(2)(a) and (b) of the CGST Act. Vide Order-in-Original No. 22/GST/AC/SIL/2023-24 dated February 19, 2024, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand comprising IGST of Rs. 47,12,010/-, CGST of Rs. 15,52,967/- and SGST of Rs. 16,05,975/- for the period July 2017 to March 2019, along with interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act and an equivalent penalty of Rs. 78,70,952/- under Section 74(1) read with Section 122 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated February 14, 2025.
|
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by way of a writ petition challenging both the impugned orders.
|
Petitioner’s Contentions:
|
- The Petitioner had purchased goods from registered suppliers, received valid tax invoices and discharged the full consideration (including GST) through banking channels, thereby complying with all conditions of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.
- The sole basis for denial of ITC was the alleged failure of the suppliers to discharge their tax liability — a circumstance entirely beyond the Petitioner’s control.
- No effective opportunity of hearing was afforded, and the SCN was not uploaded on the GST portal; notices were served manually beyond the date of hearing.
- The controversy stood squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam , which in turn relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi .
WhetherITC can be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer solely on account of the supplier’s failure to deposit the tax collected with the Government, where the recipient has otherwise complied with all the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act?
|
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 2960/2026 held as under:
|
- Observed that the Petitioner had purchased goods from registered suppliers, received tax invoices, made payments including GST through proper banking channels and claimed ITC after complying with the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act.
- Noted that both the counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Department were in consensus that the issue involved stood squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling in National Plasto Moulding (supra), wherein the Court, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), held that a purchasing dealer cannot be punished for the act of the selling dealer where the latter has failed to deposit the tax collected.
- Held that where a purchasing dealer has entered into bona fide transactions with a registered supplier and has complied with the statutory requirements, denial of ITC solely on account of the supplier’s failure to deposit tax with the Government would not be justified. The remedy of the Department, in such circumstances, lies against the defaulting supplier and not against the bona fide recipient.
- Quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated February 19, 2024 and the Order-in-Appeal dated February 14, 2025.
- Directed that the Department shall be at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law in the event materials surface indicating that the transactions in question were not bona fide or were entered into in collusion with the suppliers.
Section 16 of the CGST Act lays down the eligibility and conditions for availing ITC. Specifically, Section 16(2)(c) prescribes that no registered person shall be entitled to ITC unless the tax charged in respect of the supply has been actually paid to the Government, either in cash or by utilization of ITC. This provision has consistently been a flashpoint of litigation, as it effectively transfers the consequences of the supplier’s non-compliance onto the genuine recipient, who has no statutory mechanism or practical means to monitor or compel the supplier to deposit the tax collected with the exchequer.
|
The present ruling reaffirms the well-settled jurisprudential principle that the law cannot impose an impossible burden of compliance on a bona fide recipient. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had, while dealing with the pari materia provision under Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004, read down the said provision and held that denial of ITC to a bona fide purchaser would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition against the said ruling on January 10, 2018, thereby giving finality to the principle.
|
The same view has been consistently followed across various jurisdictions:
|
- The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Bagnan Charge)held that the recovery action must first be initiated against the defaulting supplier and only in exceptional circumstances (such as where the supplier is missing, has been deregistered, or where collusion is established) can recovery be effected from the recipient. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the said order.
- The Hon’ble Madras High Court in D.Y. Beathel Enterprises v. State Tax Officerset aside the assessment order denying ITC to the recipient on the ground that no enquiry was conducted against the defaulting supplier despite the recipient having discharged the consideration including GST.
- The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Malik Traders v. State of U.P.and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Diya Agencies v. State Tax Officer, while broadly affirming the conditions of Section 16(2)(c), have also held that the recipient’s claim cannot be rejected on the basis of GSTR-2A mismatches alone, without verifying the supplier’s compliance.
It is, however, pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Nahasshukoor v. Assistant Commissioner, while recognising the practical challenges during the initial phase of GST rollout, upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(4) of the CGST Act.
|
Until such pronouncement, the ruling in Metal Syndicate (supra), being a consistent reaffirmation of the bona fide recipient’s right to ITC, serves as a valuable precedent for genuine taxpayers facing identical demands. Recipients facing such proceedings should, as a matter of practice, maintain robust documentation — including tax invoices, e-way bills, transportation records, weighment slips, banking trail and acknowledgments of receipt of goods — to demonstrate the genuineness of their transactions. The Department’s right to proceed in cases involving collusion or fraudulent transactions remains preserved, and accordingly, the bona fide character of the transaction will continue to be the touchstone of every adjudication.
|
Accordingly, the question of the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) — and by extension, the foundational right of a bona fide purchaser to avail ITC — remains open and pending adjudication at the highest judicial level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Press release ID 2279424 dated 30.06.26
|
The Government had earlier provided a full Customs Duty exemption on imports of critical petrochemical products till 30th June 2026, as a temporary and targeted relief in view of the conflict in West Asia and the consequent disruptions in global supply chains.
|
The exemption was provided to ensure sufficient availability of petrochemicals in the domestic market as Indian petroleum companies had been asked to concentrate on the production of LPG during this period. As the situation is gradually normalizing, to ensure a smooth and non-disruptive transition for the affected sectors, it has been decided to extend the said exemption by a further period of 15 days, that is, till 15th July 2026.The list of products covered remains the same as notified earlier.
|
The Government remains committed to supporting India's manufacturing sector. As before, the exemption is expected to benefit a wide range of sectors dependent on petrochemical feedstock and intermediates, including plastics, packaging, textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, automotive components and other manufacturing segments. This will also provide relief to consumers of final products.
|
Link to previous press note issued:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Press release ID 2279409 dated 30.06.2026
|
|
In a major operation the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) successfully dismantled a trans-border gold smuggling syndicate and seized 15 kg foreign-origin smuggled gold, valued at approximately Rs. 21.40 crore, operating from Delhi.
|
|
|
DRI officers intercepted an international courier consignment originating from Thailand at Courier Terminal, Delhi. The consignment was in the name of a firm linked to a foreign national.
|
A meticulous examination of the consignment declared as "worn gear", led to the recovery of eight disc-shaped pieces of foreign-origin gold, each weighing 1.5 kg, ingeniously concealed inside gear parts. In total, 12 kg smuggled foreign-origin gold was recovered from the courier consignment.
|
Simultaneous searches conducted at the residence of the intended recipient and the alleged mastermind resulted in the recovery of two more identical disc-shaped pieces of foreign-origin gold, each weighing 1.5 kg.
|
Four persons, including the mastermind, who is a repeat offender, and a foreign national have been arrested in relation with the case.
|
Preliminary investigations also reveal that crypto-currency was being used to transfer the money across borders to finance the smuggling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Press release id 2279274 dated 30.06.26
|
The government has extended the due date for filing of appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under section 112(1) read with section 112(3) to 31.07.2026.
|
The government has extended the due date in view of the recent representation from various stakeholders , highlighting technical difficulties due to rush to file appeals on the GSTAT portal. It is to be noted that in the last 15 days alone, 30,000 appeals were filed, with daily volumes peaking at 5,500 appeals.
|
|
Taxpayers are advised to plan their appeal filings well in advance and not wait until the deadline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. GST Notes by CMA Anil Sharma
1) Shri CMA Anil Sharma, Shri CMA Gurdev Singh Saini and Smt. CMA Bhawna Sharma posted Chapter-15 containing CGST Act in simple language in PPT format. This is to make dealers, professionals, academicians, students etc. understand the basics of GST laws. Each Chapter in CGST Act, 2017 is explained in the form of Slides as given below for easy understanding of the Act:
|
Chapter-15 slides given below:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7) Book by CMA Anil Sharma
|
Book by CMA Anil Sharma, B.Com (Honrs), M.Com, FCMA co-author of the book
|
|
Handbook on GST Audit by Tax Authorities has authored yet another book
|
|
title Goods & Service Tax – Some Perceptions and Reflections. Buy now at Price Rs.300/-.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wish to publish your Article?
|
If you wish to share your article with maximum readers then please send them at taxupdate.otu@gmail.com. We shall publish it with all due credit to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hope the above updates is of use to you. Please share your input and feedback at taxupdate.otu@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
Visit our website
|
OTU provides you
|
- Articles on various topics
|
|
- Media - GST, Income Tax & Press R.
|
|
- Notes / Newsletter etc.
|
|
|
|
|
