Goods and Services Tax

Advocate-Client Privilege Limits: GST investigations may examine counsel conduct while preserving unrelated client data confidentiality
Case-Laws
GST
GST search powers may extend to an advocate's cabin and electronic records within authorised premises where recorded reasons support statutory satisfaction; a pre-search hearing is not required. Advocate-client privilege protects client communications and confidentiality, but does not immunise an advocate's own conduct from investigation. Only cloned electronic data relevant to the investigation may be used, and unrelated client material must remain confidential. Sealed investigative records need not be disclosed while investigation continues because disclosure may expose its course and witness statements. Absence of a show cause notice at the investigation stage does not invalidate searches or summonses.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Same-subject-matter bar under GST requires identical contravention, so distinct credit allegations proceed through statutory appeals.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars parallel Central and State GST proceedings only where they seek to adjudicate the identical liability or contravention; shared assessee, tax period, input tax credit, or transactional background does not suffice. Allegations of fraudulent credit based on invoices without actual goods supply remain distinct unless that precise infraction was already adjudicated in State proceedings, so the Central proceedings were not barred. Writ review remains available despite a statutory appeal, but disputes over replies, relied-upon material, genuineness, goods receipt, fraud, suppression, and duplicate liability ordinarily require examination of the adjudication record in appeal absent exceptional circumstances. The writ petition was dismissed, with merits left open in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory appellate remedy channels parallel GST proceedings and jurisdiction objections from writ review to factual appellate examination.
Case-Laws
GST
Availability of a statutory appeal against an Order-in-Original required the writ challenge to be pursued before the appellate authority. The objection that parallel Central and State GST proceedings concerned the same subject matter required factual examination of their scope, allegations, transactions, liabilities and evidentiary foundations. That inquiry, together with challenges to the demand and evidentiary findings, was left for appellate consideration. The writ petition was dismissed, while all contentions on jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and the demand remained open in appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory remedy in GST adjudication generally bars writ review after an Order-in-Original, absent patent jurisdictional error.
Case-Laws
GST
Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal materially constrains Article 226 writ jurisdiction in GST adjudication. Once show-cause proceedings culminate in an Order-in-Original, disputes over overlapping State and Central input tax credit proceedings, factual and evidentiary material, and a multi-year notice should ordinarily be examined on appeal. A statutory pre-deposit obligation and the earlier filing of a writ during pending notice proceedings do not alone justify bypassing that remedy. Absent patent jurisdictional infirmity, appellate review remains available on all permissible grounds; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to appeal.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST reimbursement for post-GST works contracts requires assessment under the notification's applicable provision, not the pre-GST clause.
Case-Laws
GST
GST reimbursement under the contractual tax-transition notification must be assessed under paragraph 4 for post-GST contracts and ongoing projects with estimates approved before 1 July 2017, applying GST rates. Paragraph 3(iv), confined to pre-GST contracts, cannot govern or defeat claims concerning contracts executed after that date. The reimbursement claim requires reconsideration under paragraph 4 following a personal hearing and a reasoned decision; coercive action remains restrained pending that determination.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration cancellation beyond show-cause notice was quashed, with fresh proceedings permitted after a hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
GST registration cancellation based on alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ineligible input tax credit cannot rest on grounds omitted from the show-cause notice. Repeated cancellation proceedings founded on allegations previously dropped by the same officer indicate non-application of mind. The cancellation notice and order were quashed without determination on the merits. Fresh proceedings may be initiated only through a new show-cause notice, with an opportunity of hearing and compliance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Special GST law bars general criminal prosecution where alleged tax defaults are already addressed under the CGST framework.
Case-Laws
GST
GST-related tax fraud allegations based on non-response and non-payment of Central or State GST must be addressed under the CGST Act where proceedings under that special enactment have already commenced. Sections 4 and 5 of the BNSS preserve the investigative and procedural framework prescribed by special statutes, preventing recourse to general criminal law for offences governed by such statutes. On this basis, BNS prosecution for the alleged GST defaults, including the charge-sheet and cognizance order against the taxpayer, was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory remedy requires appellate exhaustion before direct writ challenges to GST assessment and rectification orders proceed.
Case-Laws
GST
GST assessment and rectification orders are subject to the statutory appellate mechanism, requiring exhaustion of that alternative remedy before a writ challenge is directly entertained. Where a GST demand and rejection of a rectification application were challenged without first filing an appeal, the writ petition was dismissed on that ground. Liberty was granted to file the statutory appeal within 30 days; if filed within that period, it must be entertained without a limitation objection and decided on merits. All substantive contentions remain open in the appellate proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Weekly-market fee collection rights leased by Panchayats remain public-authority functions and fall outside GST when linked to markets and fairs.
Case-Laws
GST
Leasing by a Town Panchayat of weekly-market entrance-fee collection rights to tender contractors is undertaken in its capacity as a public authority where it directly relates to the statutory function of markets and fairs. The phrase “in relation to” covers integral, incidental and ancillary arrangements needed to discharge that function. Contractors' collection under Panchayat-prescribed fees, receipts and conditions does not change the activity's statutory character or make it independently commercial. The leasing is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services and therefore falls outside GST under the applicable notification.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bovine semen sorting is taxable as a scientific and technical service, not exempt animal husbandry support.
Case-Laws
GST
Bovine semen sorting, a laboratory process separating X-bearing and Y-bearing sperm cells, is a value-addition, testing and separation service performed on biological material. It neither constitutes nor directly supports livestock rearing, feeding, breeding management or animal husbandry, and is not an intermediate production process by way of job work relating to rearing of animals. In the absence of a specific scientific and technical service entry, it falls within SAC 998349 as other technical and scientific services, attracting GST at 18% without exemption.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit on land-survey services is unavailable for land surrendered to fulfil afforestation obligations.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit on land-survey charges incurred to identify alternate land for afforestation obligations is unavailable where the land is surrendered to the Forest Department, written off, and generates no independent economic benefit or taxable outward supply. The survey services are not used in the course or furtherance of business, so the Section 16(1) requirement is not met. Surveys connected with golf-course development concern immovable property developed on own account, while surveys for surrendered land relate to written-off land; the related credit is treated as blocked under Section 17(5), including Section 17(5)(h). Land transactions are outside the scope of supply under Schedule III.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Territorial GST jurisdiction limits detention and confiscation of inter-State consignments passing through a non-entitled transit State.
Notes
GST
State GST officers may conduct initial document verification of inter-State consignments but cannot detain, seize or confiscate goods merely passing through their State. Cross-empowerment under CGST and IGST laws requires both administrative allocation of the taxpayer to the State and assignment of the relevant proper-officer function; it is not unrestricted authority. Coercive action under Sections 129 and 130 additionally requires territorial and fiscal nexus, including the State's entitlement to IGST apportionment under Section 17. For consignments originating and destined outside the intercepting State, discrepancies should be referred to the consignor's or consignee's proper officers. Confiscation requires statutory grounds, material supporting intent to evade tax where applicable, and notice and hearing; transit checks cannot become valuation assessments.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Consolidated GST show cause notices may span financial years, but each demand component requires independent limitation and fraud scrutiny.
Notes
GST
Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act permit a common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods or financial years, as the expressions “for any period” and “such periods” do not impose a financial-year-specific bar. Financial-year references in the order-limitation provisions operate as separate limitation benchmarks for each demand component; consolidation cannot extend limitation or defeat period-wise objections. Section 74 requires disclosed material supporting fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, and cannot be invoked merely because tax remains unpaid. Rule 142 and FORM GST DRC-01 regulate electronic notice communication without restricting consolidation. Notice-specific allegations, quantified demands, hearing rights, reasoned orders and limits on confirmation remain applicable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Delhi South officers bust firm in fraudulent availment of ITC involving over Rs. 25.22 crore; proprietor arrested
GST
Dated:- 18-9-2026

As part of its ongoing enforcement drive against fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims, the officers of Anti-Evasion Branch, Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST), Delhi South Commissionerate, has arrested a proprietor of a firm engaged in trading of iron and steel goods in a case involving fraudulent availment, utilisation and passing on of inadmissible ITC aggregating to over Rs. 25.22 crore through bogus invoices of approximately Rs. 140.14 crore.

Investigation revealed that the firm had availed inadmissible ITC on the basis of invoices issued by multiple firms, several of which wer

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Binding GST appellate orders require consequential refunds unless statutory withholding safeguards, including hearing, are satisfied.
Case-Laws
GST
Binding GST appellate orders remain operative unless modified, stayed or set aside through statutory remedies; departmental review, an intended challenge, or a later appeal does not suspend them. Refund authorities must process a consequential refund arising from annulment of the underlying demand and cannot revisit adjudicated input tax credit entitlement during refund processing. Withholding pending proceedings requires compliance with statutory safeguards, including the prescribed opinion based on malfeasance or fraud and an opportunity of hearing; a proposed challenge to the appellate order is insufficient. Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative appeal where refund rejection disregards a binding order and the appellate remedy is ineffective. The refund rejection was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST proceedings for one tax period were quashed while earlier exemption proceedings continue for fresh consideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Parallel GST proceedings for the same tax period cannot continue while earlier proceedings on alleged nil or exempt turnover remain pending. The later show-cause notices, adjudication orders and consequential recovery action were quashed as duplicative proceedings. The exemption claim remains for examination in the earlier proceedings upon production of documents and after a personal hearing. Those earlier proceedings must be reconsidered afresh without limitation impeding consideration because the now-quashed parallel proceedings had been initiated.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rule 88C mismatch proceedings require examination before a Section 73 adjudication can be lawfully sustained.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 73 adjudication requires consideration of the taxpayer's claim that its Rule 88C(2) explanation was accepted and that the mismatch proceedings concluded in its favour. Where that claim remains unexamined, the taxpayer must receive an opportunity to provide the relevant details and response. The adjudication was quashed and restored for fresh consideration of whether the Rule 88C proceedings had concluded in the taxpayer's favour and whether that conclusion affected the sustainability of the Section 73 proceedings.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST refund limitation permits writ-based delay condonation where double reversal of transitional credit requires statutory reconsideration.
Case-Laws
GST
GST refund applications remain subject to a mandatory two-year limitation period, but writ jurisdiction may be available to condone delay. An asserted double reversal of TRAN-I credit, discovered only on examining records, can constitute just cause for such condonation. The time-bar rejection was set aside, and the refund claim was restored for fresh examination by the statutory authority upon production of supporting documents.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Differential GST on government works contracts must be reimbursed by the service recipient, subject to verification of records and calculations.
Case-Laws
GST
Government recipients of works-contract services must bear and reimburse the differential GST liability caused by the VAT-to-GST transition during contract execution. Reimbursement is limited to the incremental tax attributable to GST, rather than the full tax burden, and depends on verification of the contractor's records and calculations. A writ of mandamus required consideration of the contractor's representation, determination of the verified differential amount, and reimbursement within the stipulated period.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance ruling jurisdiction under GST requires the applicant's own supply, barring questions on another person's obligations.
Case-Laws
GST
GST advance ruling jurisdiction is confined to questions concerning supplies undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant. Questions concerning consultancy services allegedly supplied by a consultancy in-charge or faculty member to the applicant, including that person's GST registration and tax-invoice obligations, fall outside that scope. The advance ruling application was therefore not admitted because it did not concern any supply made or proposed to be made by the applicant.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Going-concern business transfers qualify as services, but exemption requires proof; otherwise transferred stock and assets are taxable goods.
Case-Laws
GST
Under GST, a comprehensive transfer of an entire proprietorship business to an LLP without consideration, including assets, liabilities, employees and business rights, constitutes a supply even if not made in the ordinary course of business. Transfer of a business as a going concern is classified as a supply of services because it is excluded from treatment as a supply of goods. The going-concern exemption applies only where the business is established as a going concern under applicable standards. If that status is not established, transferred stock and other business assets are treated as taxable supplies of goods at the applicable rates.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Battery-free electric vehicles retain preferential GST classification, while input-tax-credit refund claims lie outside advance-ruling jurisdiction.
Case-Laws
GST
Electrically operated E-Rickshaws, E-Carts, Ecovat Hydraulic vehicles and E-Scooters retain that classification when supplied without batteries if their traction derives solely from electrical energy and the fitted motor, inverter, control module and drivetrain enable passenger or goods transport. The three-wheeled vehicles fall under heading 8703 and E-Scooters under heading 8711; each attracts GST at 5 per cent whether supplied with or without batteries. Refund claims for accumulated input tax credit arising from an inverted duty structure fall outside the specified scope of advance-ruling questions and remain undecided on merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Self-invoice value for imported related-party services is deemed open market value where full input tax credit is available.
Case-Laws
GST
Imported IT support services from a related foreign entity constitute imports of services liable to integrated tax under reverse charge. For such supplies, the recipient's self-invoice qualifies as the invoice contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 28(1) and the reverse-charge self-invoicing requirement. Where the recipient is eligible for full input tax credit, the value declared in that self-invoice is deemed to be the open market value. This treatment applies only subject to full input tax credit eligibility on the reverse-charge tax payable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Water-supply exemption excludes infrastructure construction and repair works, leaving pipeline works contracts taxable under GST.
Case-Laws
GST
Water-pipeline construction involving transfer of goods incorporated into immovable property is a works contract. New main-pipeline installation falls under SAC 995422 as construction of water mains and lines, while distribution-network revamping falls under SAC 995429 as repair and maintenance of civil engineering works. The water-supply exemption is confined to direct water-supply services and does not cover related construction, repair, or ancillary infrastructure works. Supplies to a statutory governmental authority also fail the relevant exemption conditions where they are neither pure services nor qualifying composite supplies. Both services are taxable as works contracts at 9 per cent CGST and 9 per cent SGST.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

FinMin allays fears of increase in cash transactions post UPI MDR levy: Sources
GST
Dated:- 17-9-2026
PTI
New Delhi, Sep 17 (PTI) The Finance Ministry does not expect an increase in cash transactions due to the levy of 0.4 per cent Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) for UPI transactions above Rs 2,000, which comes into effect from October 15, sources said on Thursday.

Sources said it is anticipated that the imposition of MDR would not lead to a reduction in UPI transactions as only 4 per cent of total volume is getting impacted due to the decision.

Asked about the concerns leading to an increase in cash transactions post October 15, sources said it is unlikely to happen as transactions through RuPay debit cards are completely free regardless of amount.

The ministry is also preparing to put a monitoring mechanism in place to ensure that the UPI MDR burden is not passed on to customers, sources added, assuaging widespread concerns of transfer of MDR charges to end users

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ain UPI transactions above Rs 2,000 is aimed at creating a sustainable revenue framework for the digital payments ecosystem.

The MDR is a fee paid by merchants to payment service providers for processing digital transactions.

From October 15, a 0.4 per cent MDR will apply to person-to-merchant UPI payments above Rs 2,000. The charge will be paid by merchants, not consumers, and will be capped at Rs 300 for transactions of Rs 75,000 or more. Payments between individuals, as well as the vast majority of everyday merchant payments, will remain free.

Essential services, such as railways, telecom, fuel and insurance, will attract a flat Rs 5 fee per transaction above Rs 2,000. Capital markets transactions (mutual funds, stockbroking) get a lower 0.02 per cent rate, also capped at Rs 300.

Small merchants collecting up to Rs 1 lakh a month via UPI QR codes remain fully exempt from any new charge – a carve-out, officials say, shields about 96 per cent of all merchant transactio

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued the clarification in response to observations in the US Trade Representative's (USTR) 2026 report on the inability of US electronic payment service providers to participate in the UPI ecosystem, including credit transactions on UPI, on a level playing field with RuPay.

“The NPCI circular of September 15, 2026, does not allow credit transactions on UPI by any other credit card other than the RuPay credit card. There is a clear policy of only allowing the RuPay credit card on UPI to enable the RuPay credit card to become the preferred choice of credit card amongst users in India,” the DFS said in a post on X.

“The allegation that MDR has been introduced under any external influence is patently false and misleading,” it added.

The rejection comes amid allegations by some Opposition parties, including the Congress, that the government had succumbed to US pressure in deciding to impose a 0.4 per cent MDR on UPI transactions above Rs

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =