|
|
|
Newsletter no. 77 dated 26.03.2023
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
- Advisory
- GST Portal
- GST Article
- GST/Income Tax in Media
- GST Notes
- Book by CMA Anil Sharma
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the lines of continuous endeavor to provide Ease of Doing Business in pursuance to Union Budget Announcement 2023-24, Central Processing Centre (CPC) has been established to process forms filed as part of various regulatory requirements under Companies Act and Limited Liability Partnership Act (LLP Act) in a centralised manner, requiring no physical interaction with the stakeholders.
|
From 16.02.2024, 12 forms/applications as listed below shall be processed at CPC, followed by other forms from 01.04.2024 onward. Later, forms/applications filed under LLP Act are also proposed to be centralised. Based on filing trends, it is expected that about 2.50 lakh forms will be processed through CPC annually, once it is fully operational.
|
As of now, 4,910 forms have been received by CPC after commencing operations. The forms shall be processing a timebound and faceless manner. Processing of applications at CRC and C-PACE also does not require any physical interaction with the stakeholders.
|
The Central Registration Centre (CRC), Centralised Processing for Accelerated Corporate Exit (C-PACE), and CPC will ensure speedy processing of applications and forms filed for incorporation, closure and for meeting regulatory requirements so that the companies are incorporated, closed, can alter and raise capital, and are able to complete their various compliances under the corporate laws with ease.
|
After the establishment of CPC, jurisdictional Registrar of Companies (RoC), will have to focus more on their core functions of inquiries, inspection and investigation for ensuring robust corporate governance.
|
Further Steps towards Ease of Doing Business
Over the past many years, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has taken several steps towards Ease of Doing Business.
|
|
An important part of the EoDB has been initiatives taken towards ease of entry in terms of quicker incorporation of companies. Central Registration Centre (CRC) was established for centralised, expeditious, transparent processing of applications filed for companies and LLPs for incorporation in Non-STP (Straight Through Processing) mode. This has yielded desired results. While during FY 2013-14, 1,02,063 Companies and LLPs were incorporated, during FY 2022-23, 1,95,586 Companies and LLPs got incorporated, registering an increase of about 92%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporation of LLPs and companies till 14.02.2024 this financial year has been not only more than the previous Financial Year 2022-23, but also the highest as compared to any of the previous financial years.
Following ease of entry, it was announced in the Union Budget Speech 2022-23 to establish Centralised Processing for Accelerated Corporate Exit (C-PACE) for expeditious voluntary closure of companies under the provisions of Section 248(2) of Companies Act, 2013 from more than 2 years to less than 6 months. Accordingly, C-PACE was established and operationalised on 01.05.2023. Under C-PACE, applications filed for voluntary closure of companies are getting processed in Non-STP within an average time of less than 4 months (about 100 days) compared to an average time of more than 18 months earlier. C-PACE has processed and closed 12,441 companies so far. Only 3,368 applications are pending with C-PACE, the lowest as compared to any previous year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While major announcements may hold off until after the 2024 general elections, the upcoming Interim Union Budget presents an opportunity to address lingering concerns and set the stage for future economic growth.
|
It is most likely that this Budget would prioritise fiscal discipline and avoid populist measures. However, there is optimism for potential relief in the realm of personal income tax, particularly in the New Tax Regime.
|
Before that let’s understand what happened in the Budget 2023 in this front:
First Budget in "Amrit Kaal"
|
: This sets the tone for the next 25 years of India's growth.
|
Economy on the right track: 7% growth estimated for FY23, highest among major economies.
|
Focus on key areas: Inclusive development, infrastructure, green growth, youth power and financial sector.
|
Major announcement on Income Tax:
|
(a) New tax regime becomes default, but old regime also available.
|
(b) No tax on income up to Rs 7.5 lakh in new regime (Rebate + Standard Deduction)
|
(c) Highest surcharge rate reduced from 37% to 25% in new regime.
|
(d) New income tax slabs: 0-3 lakh (nil), 3-6 lakh (5%), 6-9 lakh (10%), 9-12 lakh (15%), 12-15 lakh (20%), 15 lakh+ (30%).
|
Now here are some of our top expectations for 2024:
80D deduction limit —The deduction limit under Section 80D for medical insurance premiums should be increased from Rs,25,000 to Rs.50,000 for individuals and Rs.50,000 to Rs.75,000 for senior citizens, reflecting rising healthcare costs.
|
Additionally, extending Section 80D benefits to the new tax regime would promote equitable access to healthcare.
|
Ease TDS compliance for home buyers — Currently, 1% TDS is deducted on property purchases exceeding INR 50 lakh. While this process is straightforward for resident sellers (using Form 26QB), it becomes more complex for Non-Resident Indian (NRI) sellers.
|
Simplification of capital gains taxation — The complexity of the current capital gains tax regime poses challenges for investors, with numerous factors to consider, such as asset classes, holding periods, tax rates, and residency status. The government should streamline the classification of equity and debt instruments, unify tax treatment for listed and unlisted securities, and simplify indexation provisions.
|
Metro city status for Bengaluru — Bangalore to be considered a metro city for the purpose of HRA exemption- Despite being recognised as a metro city by the Indian Constitution, Bengaluru remains classified as a non-metro for income tax purposes, limiting HRA deductions to 40% for its residents instead of 50% available in other metro cities.
|
Goods & Services Tax:
Streamlining Customs law — The focus of the Interim Budget 2024 is anticipated to concentrate on streamlining Customs law compliance rather than GST law, which is predominantly addressed in GST Council meetings. While the Central GST Act may undergo amendments to align with some of the GST Rules recently passed, expectations for Budget 2024 include significant aspects.
|
Introduction of revised annual GST return form — Another expectation involves introducing a revised annual GST return form, allowing taxpayers to rectify errors in the GSTR-9 form, particularly for B2B transactions. This measure aims to prevent unnecessary scrutiny by tax officers due to errors in the originally filed returns.
|
GST on reverse charge for non-compliant vendors — Additionally, we expect a new reverse charge-based mechanism for better GST compliance. Buyers who are large taxpayers with turnovers exceeding ₹100 crore or ₹500 crore could directly pay GST dues to the government instead of their small vendors. This shift in tax payment onus aims to alleviate the compliance burden on small businesses and facilitate smoother transactions for large enterprises dealing with smaller vendors.
|
The above proposals would ensure timely remittance of GST by large enterprises, enabling small businesses to file quarterly or half-yearly statements, reducing their monthly tax payment obligations. This change could also resolve challenges faced by large enterprises dealing with small vendors, as it shifts the responsibility of tax payment to buyers, facilitating smoother ITC claims and reducing administrative burdens associated with their following up with small vendors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, has launched the scheme, “Vivad se Vishwas II – (Contractual Disputes), to effectively settle the pending contractual disputes of government and government undertakings. The scheme was announced in the Union Budget 2023-24 by the Union Finance Minister.
|
In Para 67 of the Union Budget speech, Union Finance Minister and Corporate Affairs Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman had announced:-
|
“To settle contractual disputes of government and government undertakings, wherein arbitral award is under challenge in a court, a voluntary settlement scheme with standardized terms will be introduced. This will be done offering graded settlement terms depending on pendency level of the disputes”
|
The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, had issued an order on 29.05.2023 indicating detailed guidelines of the scheme. The last date for submission of claims is 31.10.2023.
|
Cases satisfying the following criteria will be eligible for settlement under this scheme:
|
The scheme will apply to all domestic contractual disputes where one of the parties is either the Government of India or an organisation working under its control.
|
Under the scheme, for Court Awards passed on or before 30.04.2023 the settlement amount offered to the Contractor will be up to 85% of the net amount awarded/ upheld by the court.
|
For Arbitral Awards passed on or before 31.01.2023, the settlement amount offered is up to 65% of the net amount awarded.
|
Government e-Marketplace (GeM) has developed a dedicated web-page for implementation of this scheme. Eligible claims shall be processed only through GeM. For non-GeM contracts of Ministry of Railways, contractors may register their claims on IREPS (www.ireps.gov.in).
|
The details of the scheme are available on the website of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 31st March, 2023 and is hereby published for general information.
|
The Finance Act, 2023 (No. 8 of 2023) dated 31.03.2023.
|
This giving effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2023-2024.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Directorate General of Systems and Data Management, CBIC issued Advisory no. 16/2025 dated 25.03.2025 regarding post EGM Amendment Module
|
Reference is invited to the regulations issued under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allowing amendment of shipping bills within a period of up to 2 years after export. A new module has been developed in ICES to handle such amendments in the shipping bill after filing of EGM
|
2. The module may be used only after Board issues Circular/instructions for the same. Further, Board vide letter F.No. 450/108/2017-CusIV(Pt.) dated 13.03.2025 (copy of letter attached) has informed that as of now the functionality to amend the SB post EGM maybe used only in compliance of a court order, and hence, it may be used in cases where there are orders issued by Hon'ble High Courts.
|
3. Once a shipping bill is amended, the export incentives would be processed again and the benefits would be paid to the exporter as per the existing functionalities.
|
4. The functionality will allow the officer to amend all the fields of a shipping bill except the IEC of the exporter. The amendment module is a 3-step process:
|
- (a) POST_AMD role: In this role, the officer will activate the shipping bill by mentioning the details of approval taken for amendment of the shipping bill. The role may be allotted to the officer in the rank of JC/ADC as deemed fit.
- PO_EG_AM role: Once the shipping bill is activated from POST_AMD role, it will move to this role i.e., PO_EG_AM role for entry of amendment details of the shipping bill. The role can be allotted to Appraiser/ Superintendent etc. After any amendment, officer needs to check the data integrity of the SB using option no.10 i.e., “Integrity check”. This will display the list of errors, if any. It is mandatory to check the integrity using option no. 10 before submitting the SB through this role, otherwise the changes done in amendment will not be saved.
- PEA_AC role: Once the amendment jobs are submitted through above role by the appraiser, the SB will move to PEA_AC role. In this role, the officer will submit/approve the shipping bill. This role can be allotted to officer in the rank of AC/DC.
5. Once the amendment is approved from PEA_AC role, the SB will move to scroll queue. A new type of scroll “P” PEA has been designed to handle scroll of Post EGM amendment SBs.
|
6. It is observed that majority of the references from field formations including references due to court cases pertain to amendment in scheme code RoDTEP N to RoDTEP Y, etc. in a shipping bill. The processing of scheme code change type of amendment for a sample SB through “Post EGM Amendment Module” is enclosed as Annexure to this Advisory.
|
For reference, screenshots are attached with the Advisory.
|
Officers facing any difficulties or issues may email to Saksham.seva@icegate.gov.in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Informatics Centre has issued an advisory on verification of transporter ID in EWay bills.
|
National Informatics Centre
E-Waybill System
Advisory on verification of transporter Id (TRANSIN) in e-Waybills
Date: 10-11-2023
|
Dear Taxpayers / Transporters,
|
We have received queries/clarifications from some transporters and taxpayers regarding the verification of transporter Id in the e-waybill system. There are 3 categories of transporters in the e-Waybill System. They are:
|
- GST registered Transporters: In this category, the transporter gets registered in the GST Common portal and obtains a GSTIN number.
- Enrolled transporters: In this category, there are small transporters who want to do transport business but are not registered in GST Common portal and do not have the GST number. So, the transporter enrols himself in the e-waybill portal based on the PAN and obtains a TRANSIN that looks similar to a GSTIN number. They are called as Enrolled transporters.
- Common enrolled transporters: This is the third category of transporters. They are normal GST registered transporters having multiple GSTINs across different states. Such transporters move consignments with e-waybills which passes through multiple states. This involves transhipments and updating of transporter Id of the respective state for the e-waybills.
To ease the process of updating transporter Id, a common enrolment facility is provided in the e-waybill system as per Notification No. 28/2018 Dated 19th June 2018– Central Tax. In this, the GST registered transporters can club all their GSTINs and enrol for common enrolment so that they obtain an enrolment number that is similar to GSTIN but starting with 88 followed by the same PAN. For example, a GST Registered transporter may have GSTIN like 29ABCDE1234FX12, 27ABCDE1234FX13 etc. When they get common enrolled, they get a number 88ABCDE1234FX13. Transporters can use this number to update the transporter Id. This facility is provided so that as the goods move from one state to other state the transporter Id can be kept same instead of updating with GSTIN of transporters of their respective states.
|
After analysis it is observed that some of the ERP, GSP, ASP, SAP and other automated systems are not verifying the transporter Id of all the given types. This is affecting the business of some of the transporters. Some of the ERP/GSP/ASP/SAP systems are verifying only the ‘GST registered Transporters’ using the ‘Get GSTIN details’ API to verify the authenticity of the transporter ID. This API will return the status only for the GST registered transporters. For the enrolled and common enrolled transporters, the API will return as Invalid status. There is another API ‘Get TRANSIN details’ to verify the transporter id under the categories of ‘enrolled and common enrolled transporters.
|
Hence, it is requested to use the API ‘Get TRANSIN Details’ also, in addition to ‘Get GSTIN details’ API. As ERP system cannot distinguish between registered and enrolled transporter IDs, hence the ERP may be modified to first call the ‘Get GSTIN Details’ to verify the transporter Id and in case the status is invalid then call ‘Get TRANSIN details’ API before finally concluding the status of the transporter Id.
|
Details of APIs are given below:
|
Similarly, in e-Waybill Portal, two options to verify the GST taxpayers and transporters are provided under the Search option in the main menu.
|
- Taxpayers: This option returns the details of the taxpayers registered under GST. The status of the enrolled and common enrolled transporters cannot be verified using this option.
- Transporters: This options returns the details of the taxpayers registered under GST as well as the status of the enrolled and common enrolled transporters. So, for verifying the transporters, this option may be used instead of the previous one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public advisory is issued on the process of Biometric based Aadhaar authentication for the applicant of new registration.
|
- GSTN wish to inform you about recent developments concerning the application process for GST registration, particularly for those applicants who have opted for authentication of their Aadhaar numbers. It is advised to keep the following key points in mind during the registration process.
- Rule 8 of the CGST Rules, 2017 has been amended to provide that every applicant who has opted for Aadhaar authentication and is identified on the common portal, based on data analysis and risk parameters shall be followed by Biometric-based Aadhaar Authentication and taking photograph of the applicant along with the verification of the original copy of the documents uploaded with the application. The functionality of the aforesaid changes related to Biometric-based Aadhaar Authentication and taking photograph of the applicant have been developed by GSTN. It will be rolled out in Gujarat on 7th November, 2023, in the pilot phase.
The applicant for new registration will be subject to the said Biometric Aadhaar authentication process:
|
- First trader will go to GST site and file proper REG-01 PART A to get new GST number. At the end of which the trader will get the TRN number.
- Trader will file REG-01 PAR-B with the help of TRN. Based on the detailed information filled in PART-B, GSTN will conduct a risk analysis of the traders who have opted for Aadhaar.
- At the end of risk analysis, traders who are included in high and medium risk. Those traders will have to visit GSK (GST Service Centre) for bio metric and document verification. Which will be reported to the merchant on registered e-mail. The link for slot booking will be given in the e-mail. Based on the link, the trader will select the day and time and book the slot at GSTKs,
- In addition, traders who have not opted for Aadhar or have opted for Aadhar but are included in Low Risk. ARN will be generated at the end of PART-B in the application of such traders. Such application will have to be processed as per existing normal process. They will not have to go to GSK (GST Seva Kendra) for bio metric and document verification.
- According to the slot booked by traders included in high and medium risk, Bio metric and document verification will go to GSKs.
- On successful completion of Biometric and document verification at GSKs, the TRN of the trader will be converted into ARN and the application will be assigned to the Registration approval officer (RAO of the state or center depending on the area of operation. The application has to be processed and approved or rejected by the RAO (Registration approval officer).
- After the application is approved by the RAO (Registration approval officer), the applicant will get a GST Number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNSTARRED QUESTION No. 3164
|
TO BE ANSWERE ON MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2023/PHALGUNA 29, 1944 (SAKA)
|
SIMPLIFICATION OF GST INPUT TAX CREDIT
|
3164, Dr. Chandra Sen Jadon:
|
Will the Minister of FINANCE be pleased to state:-
|
(a) whether the Government proposes to simplify and streamline GST input tax credit paid on purchases in the GST law;
|
(b) if so, the details the modalities thereof and if not, the reasons therefore;
|
(c) whether many merchant establishments were unable to give details of their sales in the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 due to ignorance of GST law, lack of information and technical glitches in the portal and if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto;
|
(d) whether the Government has taken any immediate steps for the convenience of the said establishments and dealers who claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of their own accounts and bills and if so, the details thereof;
|
(e) whether sustained pressure is being allegedly created on the taxpayers by giving online ITC mismatch information and if so, the details thereof and the reaction of the Government thereto; and
|
(f) the reasons for not giving ITC on the basis of the ledger accounts and bills and the steps taken by the Government to rectify aforesaid petty omissions and errors?
|
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FANANCE
|
(a & (b) Government, as per recommendations of GST Council, taken a member of measures to simplify and streamline availment of input tax credit by the registered persons under GST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GSTN is taking downtime to enhance its services on the GST Portal on 27.06.2026 from 12:00 AM onwards until 2:30 am of 27.06.2026.
|
|
We shall be enhancing services on the GST portal on : 27th June’26 12:00 AM onwards. GST Portal services will not be available until 27th June’26 02:30 AM. The inconvenience caused is regretted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GSTN is taking downtime to enhance its services on the GST Portal on 12.06.2026 from 11:30 AM onwards until 7:30 am of 13.06.2026.
|
We shall be enhancing services on the GST portal on : 12th June’26 11:30 PM onwards. GST Portal services will not be available until 13th June’26 07:30 AM. The inconvenience caused is regretted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GSTN Advisory no. 664 dated 17.06.2026
|
Reference is invited to the GSTN Advisory dated 20.05.2026 regarding enhancements in the e-Way Bill system, wherein it was informed that “Ship-to GSTIN” shall be mandatorily captured in Bill-to/Ship-to transactions. It was also clarified that where the consignee is an unregistered person, the value “URP” shall be entered in the Ship-to GSTIN field.
|
In this regard, representations have been received from trade, ERP vendors, GSPs, ASPs, private IRPs and other stakeholders seeking clarification on the applicability of the said requirement in cases where e-Way Bill is generated along with e-Invoice or by using IRN. Representations have also been received regarding the Voluntary Closure of e-Way Bill facility and its impact on portal-based and API-based operations.Accordingly, an advisory has been issued to apprise stakeholders of the corresponding changes introduced in the e-Invoice API, e-Way Bill by IRN API and EWB Closure API. It has also been informed that the aforesaid changes have been made available in the Sandbox environment for testing and system preparedness. The changes are scheduled to be implemented in the Production environment with effect from 1st August, 2026.
|
All concerned stakeholders may accordingly be advised to access the advisory through the link given below and undertake necessary testing, system changes and preparedness within the prescribed timeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
