Goods and Services Tax

Section 74 show-cause notices require material allegations of fraud or suppression; bare invocation cannot sustain extended limitation.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 74 of the CGST Act requires a show-cause notice invoking extended limitation to set out specific allegations and material supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. Its invocation solely to keep a demand within limitation, without those particulars or prima facie material, is insufficient. The impugned notice and consequential proceedings were quashed, without barring issuance of a fresh notice that complies with Section 74.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST penalty adjudication jurisdiction: a Joint Commissioner's order remained valid despite challenge, while other appellate grounds remained open.
Case-Laws
GST
GST penalty adjudication by a Joint Commissioner fell within the proper officer's relevant monetary jurisdiction. Although the circular invoked to support that position was issued after the show-cause notice and order-in-original, it indicated that a Joint Commissioner was competent for such matters. Section 160 of the CGST Act prevented invalidation of the proceedings solely for the alleged jurisdictional defect. The jurisdictional challenge failed, while all remaining grounds were left for determination through the statutory appellate remedy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Section 74 proceedings require audit-based material supporting wilful suppression, while statutory appeals generally displace writ review of merits.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 74 proceedings for audit-detected GST non-payment or short payment require the proper officer to identify the applicable statutory provision and disclose material supporting satisfaction regarding wilful suppression. A show-cause notice may rely on audit findings, the final audit report and allegations that defaults would otherwise have remained undetected; sufficiency of that satisfaction is not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction. Where the notice discloses no jurisdictional error or non-application of mind, an efficacious statutory appeal generally precludes writ review of the merits of an order-in-original. Merits may instead be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST Order Communication Determines Appeal Limitation Where Improper Portal Upload Denies Effective Notice and Requires Reasoned Delay Consideration
Case-Laws
GST
GST appellate limitation depends on effective communication of the adjudication order, requiring actual or constructive knowledge sufficient to pursue an appeal. Portal upload in an “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, where adjudication orders need not be posted, may not constitute communication merely because registered persons use the portal for returns and tax payments. A breach of natural justice may support writ jurisdiction despite an alternative Tribunal remedy. The appellate authority must give reasons when rejecting a delay explanation; merits remain to be determined after a personal hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Effective GST notice service requires alternative delivery after repeated non-response before ex parte assessment may proceed.
Case-Laws
GST
Effective service of GST notices requires more than portal upload where repeated electronic communications receive no response. Although portal upload is a statutorily sufficient service mode, the proper officer should consider alternative prescribed modes, preferably registered post, to ensure actual notice. Proceeding ex parte without effective service and a meaningful personal hearing is an empty formality. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, conditional on payment of the stipulated disputed-tax portion, objections, and clear notice of personal hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Extended input tax credit limitation permits qualifying delayed claims when returns were filed within the statutory extended period.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 16(5) of the CGST Act applies retrospectively notwithstanding Section 16(4), allowing input tax credit for specified financial years where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021. Claims satisfying that extended filing condition are not barred by the earlier limitation. The relief addresses denial solely on limitation; allegations involving erroneous, excess, discrepant, or fake input tax credit remain subject to action under applicable law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Transitional refund eligibility for reverse-charge tax on external borrowings survives absent assessment or adjudication proceedings.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act bars a transitional refund only where service tax becomes recoverable through assessment or adjudication proceedings. An information inquiry, voluntary payment, and closure of investigation do not by themselves create a statutory recovery. Service tax paid under reverse charge on external commercial borrowings after the GST transition therefore remains eligible for consideration as a refund under section 142(3), read with the applicable saving provision, where no assessment or adjudication was instituted. The appellate and Tribunal orders rejecting the claim were quashed, and the refund was remitted for processing under section 142(3).
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Portal-only GST order service may not trigger appeal limitation when authorities know the taxpayer ceased manufacturing.
Case-Laws
GST
GST adjudication orders served solely through the common portal may not amount to constructive notice where the Department knows that the registered person has ceased manufacturing. Although prescribed service modes offer a choice, that choice must be exercised fairly and reasonably; email, speed post or registered post should also be used in those circumstances. Limitation for a statutory appeal begins when the person obtains knowledge of the order, rather than on portal upload alone. The delay was condoned, the appellate refusal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for merits adjudication, with directions for non-portal communication of the resulting order.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit reversal requires review of reconciliations and disclosed grounds before fresh verification of stock transfers.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit reversal on stock transfers requires verification of reconciliations, Form WW and Chartered Accountant certification supporting inter-State purchase claims. Annexures supplied in replies, appeal materials and fuller reconciliation may constitute supporting records. A reversal cannot rest on an objection, such as lack of proof of manufacture outside the State, that was absent from the show-cause notices. The input tax credit reversal issue was remanded for fresh verification after hearing the assessee, who may provide additional particulars; merits remained undecided.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory show cause notice service is mandatory; assessment based solely on an accompanying summary cannot stand.
Case-Laws
GST
Service of a statutory show cause notice under section 73 is mandatory; the notice must state the reasons for initiating proceedings. Rule 142 requires the statutory notice to be accompanied by a prescribed summary, but the summary cannot substitute for service of the notice itself. Where only the summary was served, the mandatory notice procedure was not complied with. The summary notice and assessment founded solely on it were quashed, while the competent authority retained liberty to issue a fresh statutory notice with its summary and proceed in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory appeal documents and pre-deposit proof: registration was refused after defects remained uncured despite repeated opportunities.
Case-Laws
GST
GST appellate appeal registration requires copies of the show cause notice and order-in-original, together with proof of the prescribed pre-deposit. Where these mandatory documents are absent, pre-deposit proof is neither uploaded nor reflected on the portal, and notified defects remain uncured despite repeated opportunities, the Registrar may decline registration under the prescribed procedure. The appeal form was rejected for failure to furnish the required documents and pre-deposit proof or respond to the defect notices.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST extended recovery notices require pleaded foundational facts of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression; statutory recitals alone are insufficient.
Case-Laws
GST
GST extended recovery proceedings for short payment of tax on outward supplies require foundational facts showing that the short payment resulted from fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression. A show cause notice must disclose those facts and demonstrate application of mind; merely reproducing statutory expressions is insufficient. Where the notice neither states foundational facts nor alleges fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, invocation of the extended recovery provision is invalid. Consequential proceedings and orders founded on such a defective notice are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Transit-State GST Jurisdiction: Verification remains permissible, but external inter-State supplies lack a local detention-penalty nexus.
Notes
GST
GST transit-state jurisdiction permits interception, document verification and authorised physical inspection of inter-State consignments, but physical passage through an intermediate State does not itself establish a place of supply, tax liability or penalty jurisdiction. Section 129 detention and penalty require contravention linked to a taxable nexus; where documented origin and destination are outside the transit State and there is no diversion, local supply, false documentation or mismatch of goods, an e-invoice defect alone should be addressed by authorities connected with the supplier or recipient. Cross-empowerment under the CGST and IGST regimes facilitates administration but does not create independent territorial taxing authority. Discrepancies may be recorded and communicated to competent jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Statutory cap on general GST penalties requires quashing excess penalties despite return filing and late-fee payment.
Case-Laws
GST
General penalty imposed after a return was filed and statutory late fee paid cannot exceed the maximum limit under the U.P. GST Act. The return had been filed and the late fee paid in accordance with law. As the penalty exceeded that statutory cap, the show-cause notice and penalty order were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Show cause notice limits GST demand grounds, requiring quashing where the final order relies on a different basis.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act bars confirmation of a GST demand on grounds not proposed in the DRC-01 show cause notice. A demand founded in the final order on a ground different from that set out in the notice breaches this mandatory requirement and constitutes an incurable defect in the proceedings. The demand order was therefore quashed, while preserving the revenue's liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Condonation of delay restored a GST appeal for merits review, subject to timely payment of costs.
Case-Laws
GST
Condonation of delay in a statutory GST appeal was granted after the proprietor attributed the delayed filing to attendance on a critically ill spouse. High Court, acting on the parties' concession and the explanation furnished, set aside the appellate dismissal as time-barred and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits. Restoration was conditional on timely payment of costs; failure to comply would remove the benefit of restoration. All issues on the underlying GST dispute remained open before the appellate authority.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Double taxation of turnover requires holistic verification across separately registered units and permits limited rectification of overlapping assessments.
Case-Laws
GST
Double taxation of the same turnover across separately registered units constitutes a rectifiable mistake where the assessee establishes that turnover taxed in one unit was assessed again in another. Separate registrations or assessment under different charges do not prevent the Department from examining all relevant records holistically to ensure that turnover is taxed only once. The assessment was set aside solely for verification and reworking of the alleged overlapping turnover between the units, with a fresh determination directed on that limited issue. Other disputed issues remained open to be pursued through available remedies.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Duplicate GST adjudication on GSTR reconciliation and excess input tax credit was quashed where identical proposals were previously determined.
Case-Laws
GST
Duplicate GST adjudication cannot be sustained where tax proposals concerning GSTR-1/GSTR-3B reconciliation and excess input tax credit in GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A have already been determined in an earlier order. Complete overlap between the proposals prevents a second determination, even while an appeal against the earlier order is pending. The impugned order was quashed to the extent it repeated those two proposals.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

GST proceedings against deceased sole proprietors lack jurisdiction where authorities knew of death and legal heir, requiring fresh lawful action.
Case-Laws
GST
GST demand proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased sole proprietor lacked jurisdiction where the authority had been informed of the death during cancellation proceedings and knew that the legal heir had pursued an earlier appeal. Fresh action against the deceased was therefore invalid, notwithstanding allegations of wrongful input tax credit availment. The intimation, show-cause notice and demand order were quashed. The authority retained liberty to initiate proceedings against the legal heir where permissible in law, while the merits of the input tax credit allegations and all contentions concerning such proceedings remained open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Prospective omission of Rule 96(10) preserved IGST refund processing where no saving clause retained the export restriction.
Case-Laws
GST
Prospective omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules removed the restriction relied on to reject an IGST refund claim for exports made using Advance Authorisation imports. In the absence of a saving or sunset clause, the omitted restriction could not continue to defeat the claim. The refund rejection was quashed, and the claim was required to be processed within 12 weeks.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit reconciliation enables fresh GST adjudication after non-participation, subject to timely evidence and conditional tax deposit.
Case-Laws
GST
GST adjudication concerning a mismatch between input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B and reflected in Form GSTR-2A was reopened after the taxpayer's non-participation following a board change. The adjudication and demand orders were quashed conditionally, requiring timely submission of a reconciliation and supporting transaction documents, together with deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, pending fresh adjudication.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

E-Way Bill Reuse Requires Cogent Evidence of Prior Transport Before Penalty Can Be Sustained Under GST
Case-Laws
GST
Penalty under section 129 for alleged e-way bill reuse requires cogent, positive evidence of prior transportation or delivery of the same goods; extended document validity and the driver's statement on loading date, without independent corroboration, are insufficient. Matching quantities and descriptions in tax invoices and valid e-way bills supported the recorded movement, while omission of the dispatching premises' GSTIN did not establish unaccounted goods or a fictitious transaction. In the absence of proof of earlier delivery, unloading, return, second loading, or an intent to evade tax, the penalty could not be sustained. The order setting aside the penalty remained in force and the departmental appeal failed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Merger-related input tax credit transfers raise statutory eligibility questions requiring scrutiny of prescribed transfer procedures.
Case-Laws
GST
Transfer of input tax credit in a merger requires examination of the interaction between section 16(2), section 18(3) and rule 41, particularly whether a transferee may directly avail credit reflected against the transferor's GSTIN without using the prescribed transfer mechanism. The issue concerns whether that mechanism is mandatory and whether non-compliance is procedural or substantive. Statutory interpretation of eligibility and transfer requirements constitutes a question of law for purposes of Division Bench jurisdiction under section 109(8), rather than merely a factual dispute. The appeal is to be heard by a Division Bench on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

India and New Zealand sign Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) on Electronic Origin Data Exchange to Facilitate Bilateral Trade Under the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
GST
Dated:- 21-10-2026

India-New Zealand MoC will deepen Customs cooperation and support effective implementation of trade facilitation measures

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), India, and the New Zealand Customs Service (NZCS) signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) concerning Electronic Origin Data Exchange of Trade in Goods.

The MoC marks an important step towards strengthening customs cooperation and facilitating bilateral trade between the two countries. The MoC was signed under the India-New Zealand FTA which entered

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Provisional attachment cannot freeze a payment aggregator's escrow funds without tangible material linking it to GST liability.
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional attachment of a payment aggregator's current and regulated escrow accounts requires an opinion based on tangible material showing that attachment is necessary to protect revenue. Vague suspicion of GST evasion by unidentified third-party online gaming merchants, without identifying the aggregator's tax liability, relevant transactions, evasion method, or statutory status, does not satisfy that threshold. Escrow funds reserved for merchant settlements are held in trust and are not the aggregator's attachable property. The High Court treated the attachment orders and continuing debit freezes as illegal and quashed them.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =