|
|
|
Newsletter no. 76 dated 19.03.2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 update
- Press Release
- Case Laws
- GST Article
- GST/Income Tax in Media
- GST Notes
- Book by CMA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
List of GSTIN generating IRN -
|
Source: E-invoicing portal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E-invoicing threshold limit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ITAT, New Delhi, in Mohammad Saleem v. ITO, Ward 63(3), New Delhi 110002 held that delay of 191 days in filing appeal before the ITAT due to the lack of access to e-mail resulting in non-communication of dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) is a sufficient cause to condonation of delay for filling appeal.
|
Mohammad Saleem (“the Appellant”) has limited education, earning income from running a government-run ration shop or food grains shop. The Appellant filled an appeal on January 03, 2023 against the order dated April 27, 2022 (“the Impugned Order”) passed by the Commissioners of Income-Tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
|
The Appellant was required to file the Appeal on or before June 26, 2022. However, the Appellant was unaware of the dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A). This lack of awareness was due to communication of the Impugned Order solely through email. Unfortunately, the Appellant did not have access to email due to limited financial resources and a lack of knowledge in utilizing such technology.
|
The Appellant became aware of the dismissal of the first appeal upon receiving a penalty notice on October 18, 2022. Subsequently, recognizing the need to take action, the Appellant filed the appeal on January 3, 2023, with a delay of 191 days.
|
Whether delay of 191 days can be condoned on the ground that the Appellant has no access to E-mail?
|
The ITAT, New Delhi, in ITA No.28/Del/2023 held as under:
|
- Noted that, where the Appellant, due to limited resources and lack of knowledge, did not have access to electronic communication, the delay of 191 days in discovering the dismissal of the appeal by the ld. CIT(A) can be considered a valid reason justifying the delay.
- Held that, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ITAT, New Delhi in The ACIT, Circle-47(1), New Delhi v. Ashish Bansal dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue Department and held that the Commissioner has correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer who merely by comparing industry gross margin and assessee’s gross margin added the differential margin to the income of the assessee without analysing business strategy of the assessee.
|
Ashish Bansal (“the Respondent”) is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of gold and silver bullion, manufacturing and selling gold and gold made ornaments. For the Assessment Year 2015-16 the gross profit rate (“GP Rate”) of Respondent reduced to 0.41% as compared to GP Rate of 8.59% in the Assessment Year2014-15, while the turnover has increased from INR 8.23 crores to INR 292 crores in Assessment year 2015-16 when compared to Assessment year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (“the AO”) issued a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) ordering to provide separate working of Gross Profit, Net Profit of silver, gold bullion and manufacture of gold ornaments.
|
The Respondent in its reply inter alia stated that the reason for steep fall in his GP rate was due to change in business strategy by decreasing Gross margin which resulted in higher turnover.
|
The AO was not satisfied with the GP Rate declared by the Respondent and made addition of INR 1,72,35,965/- by taking GP Rate as 1% instead of 0.41%, adjusting it with the industry Gross margin.
|
Aggrieved by addition made by the AO, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (“CITA”) who vide Order dated August 30, 2018 ("the Impugned Order”) deleted the addition made by the AO, without doubting the correctness, completeness and fairness of the books of the Respondent.
|
Aggrieved by the Impugned Order the Revenue Department filed an appeal before the ITAT.
|
Whether the AO has power to make addition in income of the Respondent by best judgment method without understanding the business strategy of the Respondent?
|
The ITAT, New Delhi in ITA No.7427/Del/2018 held as under:
|
- Stated that, the AO has not pointed out any defects or discrepancies in the audited books of accounts and has only on the basis of the reduction in GP rate made addition of INR 1,72,35,965/- in income of the Respondent.
- Observed that, it is well accepted principle of tax jurisprudence that the AO cannot sit on the armchair of the businessman to replace his business strategy by his own whims and fancies.
- Noted that, it was the Respondent’s business decision to reduce the GP rate with an intention to fetch high turnover resulting into increase in the total net profit.
- Held that, the CIT(A) vide the Impugned Order has correctly deleted the addition made by the AO of INR 1,72,35,965/- to the income of the Respondent.
- Dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in Tvl. Manickavasagam S. v. The Proper Officer/Commercial Tax Officer set aside the assessment order passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the TNGST Act”) pertaining to levy of GST on seigniorage fees and held that since the very incidence of tax itself is at large is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the matter is remanded for fresh consideration without imposing the customary condition of pre-deposit, with the further direction that the final orders shall be kept in abeyance and enforcement and further demand of any liability so determined shall await the outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
|
Tvl. Manickavasagam S. (“the Petitioner”) was issued an assessment order in GST ASMT 15 Temporary ID: 332500004524 TMP/2020-2021, dated February 24, 2026 (“the Impugned Order”) by the Proper Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Sivagangai (“the Respondent”) under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017.
|
The subject matter of dispute pertained to the levy of GST on seigniorage fees, an issue which is presently pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
|
The Petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice; however, the said reply was not considered by the Respondent while passing the Impugned Order.
|
Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Impugned Order as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
|
The Petitioner contended that the subject matter in dispute is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and that the Hon’ble High Court has already held in earlier matters that the authorities shall await the orders of the Apex Court.
|
Per contra, the Revenue contended that the Hon’ble High Court has been directing the assessing authorities to complete the proceedings; however, the orders of the Appellate Authority were directed to be kept in abeyance until the orders are passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The Revenue placed reliance on the orders of the Madras High Court in M/s. Marginal M Sand v. State Tax Officer andTvl. Rajapalayam Cement and Chemicals Limited v. Assistant Commissioner .
|
Whether the assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 levying GST on seigniorage fees, where the very incidence of tax itself is at large before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and where the Petitioner’s reply was not considered, can be sustained?
|
The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in W.P(MD) No. 14948 of 2026held as under:
|
- Observed that, while in earlier matters such as M/s. Marginal M Sand and Tvl. Rajapalayam Cement and Chemicals Limited, the Court had granted permission to the assessing authorities to complete the proceedings, it had simultaneously directed that final orders shall not be passed and that the authorities have to await the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
- Noted that, in the present case, although the order of assessment had been passed, the reply filed by the Petitioner was not considered by the Respondent, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
- Held that, considering the fact that the very incidence of tax itself is at large, the Petitioner can be granted an opportunity to be heard afresh. Further, although the Court normally imposes a condition of deposit of 25% while granting such opportunity on equitable considerations, since in this case the very incidence of tax itself is at large, no such additional condition is imposed on the Petitioner.
- Directed that, the Impugned Order dated February 24, 2026 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the Respondent for fresh consideration. The Petitioner shall, within two weeks from receipt of a web copy of the order, file additional reply along with supporting documents and the Respondent shall consider the matter afresh; however, the final orders shall be kept in abeyance until the orders are passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
- Further directed that, if the order on remand is in favour of the Petitioner, then there is no difficulty; however, if it results in the assessment of tax or imposition of penalty, the same shall be communicated to the Petitioner, but the enforcement and further demand of the liability so determined shall be kept in abeyance until the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. As and when the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounces its judgment, the Petitioner shall be entitled to take further steps subject to the outcome of the said judgment.
Hence, the writ petition was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
|
Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 (pari materia with Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017) empowers the Proper Officer to determine tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. It mandates the issuance of a show cause notice, consideration of the assessee’s reply, and a reasoned order — a quasi-judicial exercise where non-consideration of the assessee’s reply vitiates the order on the ground of violation of natural justice, as squarely demonstrated in the present case.
|
The issue of GST leviability on seigniorage fee/royalty paid to the State Government for extraction of minerals from mining/quarry leases is intrinsically linked to the larger question of whether royalty is in the nature of “tax”, which is presently pending before the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India. Pending the verdict, several High Courts have consistently directed that GST adjudication on royalty/seigniorage be held in abeyance to avoid prejudicing taxpayers.
|
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in A. Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) had similarly kept orders of adjudication with respect to levy of GST on mining lease/royalty in abeyance and stayed recovery, until the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority decides the issue as to the nature of royalty.
|
In a pari materiaruling, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in PLR-NCC-NECL (JV) v. Union of India granted interim stay on the order-in-original dated May 5, 2025, which had confirmed GST demand on amounts deducted towards royalty/seigniorage, District Mineral Foundation (DMF), and State Mineral Exploration Trust (SMET), reinforcing the consistent judicial trend of staying coercive recovery on this issue.
|
Further, the Andhra Pradesh Authority for Advance Ruling in Sudhakara Infratech ruled that an Excess Royalty Collection Contractor (ERCC) is not liable to discharge GST under forward charge on collection of royalty/seigniorage fee, District Mineral Foundation (DMF), Mineral Exploration and Research & Innovation Trust (MERIT) and similar statutory levies from mining/quarry leaseholders, lending support to the view that such statutory levies may not constitute a taxable “supply” within the meaning of the GST law.
|
The instant ruling is a welcome relief for taxpayers in the mining, quarrying, and allied sectors who continue to face assessment proceedings and coercive recovery actions on the disputed levy of GST on royalty/seigniorage fees. The Hon’ble Court’s nuanced approach — setting aside the order for non-consideration of the reply, dispensing with the otherwise mandatory 25% pre-deposit condition since the very incidence of tax is at large, and directing that enforcement of any future demand shall remain in abeyance until the Supreme Court’s verdict — strikes a fair balance between revenue interests and taxpayer protection. Taxpayers similarly placed may consider invoking writ jurisdiction to seek analogous protection, particularly where their replies have not been considered or where coercive recovery is being initiated pending the Supreme Court’s verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. GST/Income Tax in Media
|
|
|
|
|
CBIC -
To commemorate nine years of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) organized a special celebration at CSOI, New Delhi, on 1 July 2026. The event was held under the theme, ‘सुगम कर व्यवस्था, सशक्त भारत’, highlighting GST's
|
GST Indore -
The 9th #GSTDay was celebrated with great enthusiasm at CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Indore under the theme "सुगम कर व्यवस्था, सशक्त भारत".
|
GST Samvad an interaction among officers, taxpayers, trade & industry representatives, and tax professionals was organised on 30.06.2026 to commemorate nine years of GST as a transformative reform. The programme highlighted taxpayer facilitation initiatives, digital services, policy updates, and the importance of timely and voluntary compliance.
|
9 Years of GST! The CGST Indore Commissionerate celebrated the 9th anniversary of the Goods and Services Tax. The event marked nearly a decade of economic transformation and a unified national market.
|
Recognizing Excellence: The Department felicitated leading revenue contributors-Bharat Petroleum( @BPCLimited), HDFC Limited(@HDFCLTD), and MRF Limited(@MRF_Corporate)-for their exemplary tax compliance.10 dedicated departmental officers and a meritorious student were also honored
|
Taxpayer First: CGST Indore Commissioner Shri Peeyoush Bhati highlighted GST’s role in nation-building and announced that the Commissionerate will now regularly host monthly meetings with taxpayers to address grievances and ensure a transparent, efficient regime.
|
GST Aurangabad Commissionerate -
CGST AURANGABAD building lit up to kick in early 9th GST day celebrations
|
CGST Mumbai West -
As part of the #GSTPakhwada on occasion of upcoming 9th GST Day, on this year’s theme "सुगम कर व्यवस्था, सशक्त भारत” (Easy Tax System, Empowered India), CGST Mumbai West Commissionerate organised an Essay Writing Competition for officers and staff.
|
The winners and participants were felicitated by the Hon’ble Commissioner, CGST&C.Ex. Mumbai West appreciating their enthusiasm and insightful contributions.
|
WIRC of The Institute of Cost Accountants of India
Celebrating one of India’s landmark tax reforms that strengthened transparency, unity and the vision of One Nation, One Tax, One Market.
|
DGTPS MUMBAI CBIC
9वें GST दिवस के उपलक्ष्य में DGTS MZU & AZU द्वारा "Nine Years of GST: Perspective from Taxpayers" विषय पर Kendriya Vidyalayas के विद्यार्थियों हेतु एक वेबिनार आयोजित किया गया।
|
इस सत्र के माध्यम से GST के प्रति जागरूकता, वित्तीय साक्षरता को बढ़ावा दिया गया तथा विद्यार्थियों को राष्ट्र निर्माण में कराधान की भूमिका से अवगत कराया गया।
|
CGST Thane -
CGST Thane organized a 'Hindi & Marathi Essay Competition' for officers & staff
|
The Commissioner honored winners with certificates for outstanding performance
|
Celebrating language, awareness & commitment to GST
|
CGST MUMBAI EAST
As part of the 9th GST Day celebrations, CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate organised Essay Writing and Drawing Competitions for students of Sandesh Vidyalaya & Junior College, Vikhroli (East), on 30.06.2026, with enthusiastic participation from young students.
|
The essay competition focused on GST and citizens’ responsibility towards tax compliance, while the drawing competition encouraged students to express ideas creatively. Prizes were awarded to winners, promoting taxation awareness and responsible citizenship among young minds.
|
As part of the 9th Anniversary celebrations of GST, CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai East Commissionerate organised GST "SAMVAD" and interactive session with members of trade and tax professionals on 29 June 2026 at Vikhroli to mark the occasion with active participation.
|
The session witnessed enthusiastic participation. Queries on filing of appeals, GST returns and other GST-related issues were addressed by officers, making it a valuable platform for knowledge sharing, constructive dialogue and promoting voluntary tax compliance across sectors.
|
CGST & Customs Thiruvananthapuram Zone
On the occasion of International Day Against Drug Abuse & Illicit Trafficking, the officers and staff of CGST & Customs Thiruvananthapuram Zone took a solemn pledge under the #NashaMuktBharatAbhiyan to build a society free from the menace of drugs.
|
DGTS AHMEDABAD CBIC
30.06.2026 को,DGTS AZU और MZU ने JG University के साथ मिलकर GST Awareness & Overview पर एक हाइब्रिड सेमिनार आयोजित किया।DGTS के Pr. ADG,श्री सुमित कुमार ने उद्घाटन भाषण दिया। CBIC के रिटायर्ड सुपरिटेंडेंट श्री जॉन क्रिश्चियन मुख्य वक्ता थे। #DGTS #GST #GSTDAY2026 #CBIC
|
Article Writing Competition 2026
To commemorate 9th Year of GST, Online Tax Update (OTU) launched 'Article Writing Competition 2026'. Registration starts today 1st July 2026 and ends on 15th July 2026. Article submission till 31st July 2026 and Winner Announcement in August, 2026. Cash Award + Certificate of Participation. Participation fees Rs. 300/- Read more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. GST Notes by CMA Anil Sharma
1) Shri CMA Anil Sharma, Shri CMA Gurdev Singh Saini and Smt. CMA Bhawna Sharma posted Chapter-14 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-14 slides given below:-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
