Goods and Services Tax

India in Full Flow — The Decade of Demand
GST
Dated:- 10-9-2026
PTI
AILBIEA's Silver Jubilee Knowledge Conference brings the GST Appellate Tribunal, senior Customs leadership, global suppliers and Capt. Raghu Raman to Mumbai on 11 September 2026 — headlined by a live, open-floor deliberation on EMI – AEO whose Outcome Document goes to CBIC
Mumbai, India: The All India Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association (AILBIEA), the apex national body for India's liquid bulk trade, will host its Silver Jubilee Knowledge Conference on Friday, 11 September 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., at The Regal Ballroom, Hotel Trident, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 21. Themed “India in Full Flow — The Decade of Demand”, the conference precedes the Silver Jubilee Evening, which commences at the muhurat of 6:21 p.m. in the same venue.

A working agenda, not a ceremonial one
The conference opens at 10:00 a.m. with the inauguration and the welcome address by Shri Jayyannt Laps

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

okers and surveyors to state plainly what is working in the Authorised Economic Operator framework, what is not, and what must change. Interventions will be captured live and consolidated into a formal Outcome Document for submission to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, as India moves towards its AEO coverage targets for 2028. Themes include the trust-based framework, faceless examination, National E-Bond and Transfer of Ownership, Participating Government Agencies routing under SWIFT 2.0, and Customs Integrated Systems 2.0.

The afternoon: global suppliers, reform from the Department, and the flagship address
At 2:00 p.m., the Global Suppliers Panel, moderated by Shri Avinash Maheshwari of Geo-Chem Laboratories (Cotecna Group), brings the world's suppliers into candid conversation with India's buyers. It features Mr. Reece H. Cannady of the U.S. Grains & BioProducts Council, U.S.A.; Shri Vikash Sharma, Director, Godrej International Trading & Investment, Singapore;

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

odrej Industries Group, Aegis Vopak, Supreme Petrochem Ltd., VVF Limited, AWL Agri Business and Hindustan Unilever Limited. AGS 360, from Atlantic Global Shipping (AGS), is the Digital Partner for the Silver Jubilee celebrations, which will also mark its India launch — an integrated digital maritime information and intelligence application bringing port information, vessel tracking and port call estimates onto a single platform. Media Partners are Daily Shipping Times, EXIM and friends from the Logistics Media Ecosystem.

Shri Jayyannt Lapsiaa, President, AILBIEA, said: “We did not want a Silver Jubilee conference of speeches. We wanted a room where the trade says plainly what it needs, the Government hears it directly, and something leaves the room in writing. Twenty-five years have taught us that when industry and Government speak with trust, trade moves faster and the nation gains.”
The Silver Jubilee Evening follows, commencing at the muhurat of 6:21 p.m., with a special

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 61 return scrutiny is not mandatory before fraud-based input tax credit proceedings, leaving factual invoice disputes for adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 61 return scrutiny is a pre-adjudicatory verification mechanism and is not a mandatory prerequisite for tax-determination proceedings under Section 74A. Rule 99 applies only where return scrutiny has actually commenced. Independent verification alleging that works-contract sub-contractors were fictitious or non-existent may provide the factual foundation for fraud-based input tax credit proceedings. Disputes over the actual existence of suppliers, provision of services, and genuineness of invoices require evidentiary adjudication rather than threshold writ review. A show-cause notice should not ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction where statutory adjudication remains available and no jurisdictional defect or recognised exception is established.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Regular bail in GST evasion prosecution followed completed investigation, documentary evidence, low interference risk, and anticipated trial delay.
Case-Laws
GST
Regular bail in alleged GST-evasion proceedings involving suppression of online money-gaming receipts was granted after investigation had concluded. The High Court treated the documentary nature of the proposed evidence and the official status of witnesses as indicating negligible risk of evidence tampering or witness influence. It also considered the maximum punishment, Magistrate-triable nature of the offences, prolonged custody, societal roots of the accused, and the likelihood of trial delay. Bail was made subject to bonds and conditions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, leaving the country without permission, or misusing liberty.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Voluntary GST Payments During Investigation Require Statutory Formalities, Supporting Refund Where Coercion or Procedural Defects Exist
Case-Laws
GST
Voluntary GST payments during investigation under section 74(5) require genuine voluntariness and payment of the associated interest and penalty. DRC-03 payments lacking interest and penalty, coupled with absence of the rule 142(2) DRC-04 acknowledgment, may not qualify as voluntary payments. Where no prior demand or liability ascertainment exists and payment follows an unexplained direction to appear, recovery proceedings under section 79 do not cure the defect. Refund rejection was set aside, with refund plus interest directed, while issues in pending show-cause and adjudication proceedings remained open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Blocked electronic credit cannot fund appellate pre-deposit until Rule 86A restrictions are lifted through a reasoned unblocking process.
Case-Laws
GST
Blocked electronic credit ledger balances cannot be utilised for an appellate pre-deposit while a valid debit restriction under Rule 86A remains in force. Section 49(4) permits electronic credit ledger utilisation towards output-tax liabilities only subject to prescribed conditions and restrictions; it does not create an absolute right to use blocked credit. Rule 86A operates as a provisional measure requiring written reasons and permits unblocking when the grounds for restriction cease. Pending unblocking requests require expeditious consideration, with a reasoned order and reasonable opportunity where rejection is proposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Dishonest intention at inception prevents contractual indemnity disputes from being treated solely as civil claims for FIR quashing.
Case-Laws
GST
Contractual indemnity does not bar criminal prosecution where allegations disclose cognizable offences rather than a mere civil breach. Claims that an agent introduced non-existent suppliers, produced documents to establish their genuineness, and facilitated fabricated GST invoices and supporting records for wrongful input-tax-credit claims may indicate dishonest intent from the inception of the transactions. Such disputed allegations require determination in criminal proceedings and cannot be conclusively resolved through inherent-jurisdiction proceedings to quash an FIR. The criminal proceedings were permitted to continue without any determination on the merits.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input Service Distributor credit supports SEZ units' integrated tax refund where exported services are zero-rated.
Case-Laws
GST
Rule 89 permits an SEZ unit exporting zero-rated services on payment of integrated tax to claim refund where it used input tax credit proportionately distributed through an Input Service Distributor. The supplier-only refund restriction in the proviso to Rule 89(1) applies to direct supplies of goods or services to an SEZ unit, preventing duplicate supplier and recipient claims. It does not apply where corporate-level input services are distributed as credit and no supplier can seek the refund. The declaration under Rule 89(2)(f) likewise applies only to direct, tax-collected supplies to an SEZ unit; its absence does not bar such a refund claim. Refund rejections were set aside for processing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit eligibility requires prior adjudication; vague notices and new appellate grounds cannot defeat inverted-duty refunds.
Case-Laws
GST
Vague show-cause notices alleging ineligible input tax credit without identifying invoices, the nature of ineligibility, or the basis for rejection cannot support denial of an inverted-duty refund. Invoice details supplied by the taxpayer do not cure that defect, and an appellate authority cannot introduce a distinct ground not stated in the notice, as doing so breaches natural justice. Eligibility of unutilised input tax credit must be determined through proceedings for wrongful availment or utilisation before the credit can be disallowed. Refund proceedings cannot be used collaterally to decide credit eligibility; absent a prior determination, refund denial on that basis is unsustainable.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Monetary thresholds for departmental appeals require interest-only GST disputes to be measured by disputed interest, not broader tax amounts.
Case-Laws
GST
Departmental appeals in interest-only GST disputes must be assessed against the disputed interest amount under the applicable monetary-limit circular. Where the interest in dispute is below the prescribed threshold for appeals before GSTAT and no specified exclusion applies, the departmental appeal is not maintainable and must be dismissed. The monetary threshold applies specifically to the interest component in an interest-only dispute rather than to any broader tax amount.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appellate remand powers under GST exclude sending matters back; appellate authorities must verify evidence and decide appeals finally.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 107(11) of the CGST Act permits an appellate authority to conduct or cause further inquiry and then confirm, modify or annul the order under appeal; it does not permit remand to the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority must independently verify relevant documents and figures and issue a reasoned final order identifying the points for determination, its decision and reasons. A direction requiring the adjudicating authority to re-examine evidence and delete or confirm a tax demand exceeds appellate jurisdiction. The appeal must instead be decided afresh by the appellate authority after necessary verification and observance of natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Statutory Bar on GST Appellate Remand Requires Independent Verification and a Reasoned Fresh Decision on Merits
Case-Laws
GST
Section 107(11) of the CGST Act permits the appellate authority to conduct further inquiry and then confirm, modify or annul the appealed order, but bars it from remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. Verification of documents and figures supporting a GST demand must therefore be undertaken by the appellate authority itself, including by calling for records where necessary. Section 107(12) requires a reasoned appellate order identifying the points for determination, the decision and the supporting reasons. A direction requiring the original authority to verify evidence and delete an untenable demand constitutes an impermissible remand and gives that authority a second opportunity. The appeal must be decided afresh after independent verification and observance of natural justice.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anti-profiteering in regulated housing excluded price-capped LIG/MIG units, while HIG buyers received individual ITC benefits, interest and penalty.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutorily capped LIG and MIG apartment prices, which permitted only direct-cost recovery and excluded overheads, administrative expenses and indirect taxes, did not give rise to profiteering; the analysis was confined to commercially priced HIG units. Eligible HIG purchasers were entitled individually to commensurate additional input-tax-credit benefits, without cross-adjusting excess passed to one purchaser against another purchaser's shortfall. Post-occupancy-certificate sales and unsold units were excluded from taxable-supply computation. Unpassed benefit attracted 18% compensatory interest from collection until refund. A continuing contravention after the penalty provision commenced attracted 10% penalty, subject to statutory waiver on payment within 30 days.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CBIC terms GST revenue comparison using compensation cess 'misleading'
GST
Dated:- 9-9-2026
PTI
New Delhi, Sep 9 (PTI) The CBIC on Wednesday said monthly GST revenue growth figures are calculated on a comparable tax base and described cherry-picking of figures by including the erstwhile compensation cess as “misleading and mischievous”.

In a reply to former finance secretary Subhash Chandra Garg's post on X, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) said the GST revenue figures published monthly reflect the correct picture of GST revenue performance, with full disclosure, and the purpose of a growth figure is to show how the tax base has changed.

“A growth rate is meaningful only when it is computed on a compa

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ike with like, instead of misleading our citizens by comparing two fundamentally different data-sets,” CBIC said.

Last year, the GST Council decided to discontinue the compensation cess effective from September 22, 2025, on all items except tobacco and related products.

The cess levy on tobacco and related products was also removed from February 1, 2026. Accordingly, for the above period, there is no cess collection.

From November 2025 (first tax period post GST rate rationalisation), GST revenue figures are published showing compensation cess separately in the table, and year-on-year growth was computed on the tax base consisting of Central GST, State GST and Integrated GST for the corresponding periods. PTI JD BAL BAL

=======

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex parte GST appellate orders against a wound-up company require notice and a personal hearing for its liquidator.
Case-Laws
GST
Ex parte GST appellate orders against a company in winding up require notice to its liquidator and an advance opportunity of personal hearing. Four appellate orders concerning the company's GST liabilities were set aside because they had been made without the liquidator's participation. The appeals were remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing to the liquidator. The merits of the GST demands remain open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Owner's transport documents in goods detention proceedings require consideration before penalties are imposed, requiring fresh adjudication.
Case-Laws
GST
Detention and penalty proceedings for goods require consideration of documents produced by a person claiming ownership, including the e-way bill, e-tax invoice and bilty. Failure to assess those materials, along with the issue identified in the relevant CBIC circular, rendered the penalty order unsustainable. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration of the ownership documents and circular requirements in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST search authorisations require recorded reasons, while investigation-based demands can proceed without prior return scrutiny.
Case-Laws
GST
Search authorisation requires the competent officer to record reasons to believe; non-supply of those reasons to the searched person does not itself invalidate the search, but the original authorisation and contemporaneous records require examination in adjudication. Alleged absence of a Document Identification Number requires factual verification and does not alone justify quashing a notice. Investigation-based GST demands may proceed without prior return scrutiny, although scrutiny remains necessary for discrepancies identified solely through return scrutiny. A consolidated notice may cover multiple financial years if liability, limitation and applicable provisions are assessed separately for each year. Penalties cannot be imposed twice for the same act or omission. Disputes over suppression and quantification require statutory adjudication absent jurisdictional or patent legal defects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pre-charge evidence in GST prosecutions requires formal summoning and a hearing before cognizance under prescribed criminal procedure.
Case-Laws
GST
Recording pre-charge evidence in a GST prosecution without a formal order summoning the accused is procedurally erroneous. The trial court must first follow the prescribed process, including the hearing requirement before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the BNSS and the applicable Supreme Court principles. Orders recording pre-charge evidence without compliance were set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed under the statutory procedure.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alternative statutory remedy limits writ challenges to GST determinations involving disputed factual questions and available appellate review.
Case-Laws
GST
Writ jurisdiction against GST determinations involving fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression is generally unavailable where objections require resolution of disputed facts. Challenges concerning signatures, the form and content of show-cause notices, consideration of replies, and the hearing officer's authority require factual examination not ordinarily undertaken in writ proceedings. Form DRC-01 summaries identifying the demand and relevant taxable periods, coupled with an order that is not prima facie non-speaking and is passed by a proper officer, support recourse to the statutory appellate mechanism. A taxpayer cannot bypass the prescribed multi-tier appeal merely to avoid mandatory pre-deposit requirements.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Mandatory personal hearing in GST adjudication requires notice of a specific date, time and venue before adverse orders.
Case-Laws
GST
Section 75(4) of the GST law requires the proper officer to provide a personal hearing before passing an adverse adjudication order, even where the taxable person has not requested one. Notice of a specific date, time and venue is necessary to satisfy that requirement. A hearing recorded before issue of the show-cause notice does not cure the failure to provide a post-notice opportunity. Non-compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement invalidates the adjudication and requires fresh consideration after allowing a response to the show-cause notice and conducting a properly notified hearing.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Environmental charitable GST exemption protected effluent-treatment services, while absent fraud or wilful suppression invalidated extended demand proceedings.
Case-Laws
GST
GST exemption applies to effluent and waste-treatment services supplied by a section 12AA-registered entity where those activities constitute charitable preservation of the environment. The specific nil-rate exemption prevails over the taxable entry for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal services, particularly where charitable status has been previously determined. Extended demand proceedings require strict proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax; a failure to declare tax liability alone is insufficient. A subsequently discontinued exemption claim and later tax payment do not establish prior intent to evade. The show-cause notice was quashed because the exemption was available and the conditions for invoking the extended-demand provision were absent.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Prior appellate resolution bars an unreconciled subsequent tax adjudication order and its consequential bank recovery notice.
Case-Laws
GST
A subsequent adjudication order under section 74 for FY 2017-18 cannot be sustained where it was passed without reference to an earlier adjudication order that had culminated in an appellate order. The consequential Form GST DRC-13 recovery notice issued to the bank also fails because it depends on the invalid subsequent order. The subsequent adjudication order and recovery notice were quashed, and the writ petition was partly allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Merits-Based GST Refund Appeals Require Reasoned Decisions, Preventing Dismissal Solely for Non-Appearance and Requiring Fresh Adjudication
Case-Laws
GST
GST appellate authorities must adjudicate statutory refund appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for an appellant's non-appearance. Appellate orders must also provide reasons supporting their conclusions. The High Court set aside an order dismissing a refund appeal for non-prosecution because it contained neither merits-based adjudication nor reasons. The refund appeal was remanded to the Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law, with all merits left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST appeal limitation may yield where uncontrollable delay would deny merits review and cause grave prejudice.
Case-Laws
GST
Statutory limitation for GST appeals under section 107 bound the appellate authority, but the High Court condoned delay where circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control prevented timely filing and refusal of merits review would cause grave injury and prejudice. The appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside. The GST appeal concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was permitted to be filed and decided on merits without limitation objection, subject to compliance with the filing period stipulated by the High Court.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Electronic GST notice service remains valid when uploaded to the taxpayer's portal; failure to monitor it cannot defeat assessment.
Case-Laws
GST
Electronic service of GST notices and assessment orders through a taxpayer's web-portal profile constitutes valid and sufficient service under the CGST Act. A taxpayer remains responsible for monitoring the portal, communicating hearing dates and uploaded orders to its engaged lawyer, and responding to departmental communications. Execution of a vakalathnama does not transfer that monitoring obligation or establish denial of opportunity. Where no material demonstrates a lapse by the lawyer, non-participation caused by failure to check the portal does not justify interference with assessment orders or consequential recovery proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST appeal pre-deposit follows the law when adjudication begins, while factual penalty challenges belong before statutory appellate authorities.
Case-Laws
GST
GST appeal pre-deposit requirements are governed by the law in force when adjudicatory proceedings commence; consequently, appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before 1 October 2025 remain subject to the earlier Section 107(6) regime despite later Orders-in-Original. A proper officer's authority for penalty proceedings is function-specific, but objections concerning officer competence, evidentiary material, hearing, cross-examination, penalty quantification and individual noticees' roles require record-based examination through the statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction is not invoked where that appellate remedy is complete and efficacious. Whether Section 122(1) applies to a person who is not a taxable person remains unresolved.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =