Goods and Services Tax

Customs jurisdiction governs IGST on imports; State tax officers lack cross-empowerment against centrally allotted taxpayers.
Case-Laws
GST
IGST on imported goods falls within the customs assessment framework, so tariff classification, valuation, exemption and tax recovery are to be handled by customs authorities; GST officers cannot assess or recover such IGST, and the impugned notice on that issue was set aside. Cross-empowerment under GST operates only where the taxpayer is administratively allotted to the State and the officer is the proper officer; as the taxpayer was allotted to Central jurisdiction, the State tax officer lacked jurisdiction. A circular already struck down by a High Court was treated as inoperative nationwide without fresh invalidation. The notice also failed because it sought to cover multiple years in one show cause notice, and was set aside on that ground as well.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Post-GST property pricing and ITC benefit: Tribunal finds no profiteering where the entire transaction occurred under GST.
Case-Laws
GST
In a post-GST construction-linked property transaction, the Tribunal held that phrases such as construction in the post-GST period and upfront payment of the full price do not require the flat to be fully built at agreement stage or payment to be made in one lump sum. It found that where booking, allotment, contracting, construction and payment all occurred during the GST regime, the pricing already reflected the post-GST ITC position, so no separate input tax credit benefit was claimable by the buyers and no locus existed to challenge the DGAP report on that basis. On the merits, the DGAP comparison showed no incremental ITC gain and therefore no contravention of Section 171 read with Rule 129(6).
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anti-profiteering claim failed as additional input tax credit benefit was found to have been passed on to home-buyers.
Case-Laws
GST
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report in an anti-profiteering matter concerning construction services and additional input tax credit on the footing that the benefit had already been passed on to home-buyers by commensurate price reduction. After redetermination, the report found excess benefit had been passed to eligible buyers, and the differential amounts with interest due to the two complainants had been paid and acknowledged. As no other home-buyer objected to the report, no surviving basis remained to hold profiteering against the respondent, and no contravention of section 171 was made out.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Anti-profiteering under GST: failure to pass on additional input tax credit led to refund, 18% interest, and penalty exposure.
Case-Laws
GST
Additional input tax credit under GST had accrued to the respondent and was not passed on to homebuyers by commensurate price reduction, as the Tribunal accepted the DGAP's finding that the input tax credit-to-purchase value ratio increased post-GST and the respondent accepted the computation; this amounted to contravention of Section 171. The Tribunal further held that the obligation to pass on the benefit arose at the time of supply, so the profiteered amount had to be refunded with 18% interest from the date of collection of the last instalment until return to the eligible homebuyers. It also held that penalty was leviable under Section 171(3A), subject to the statutory proviso on deposit within thirty days.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Margin-based GST valuation for second-hand cars applies only on strict compliance, with Heading 8703 classification and limited advance ruling scope.
Case-Laws
GST
Dealings in second-hand cars are covered by the margin-based valuation mechanism in Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules read with Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate), but only where the prescribed conditions are strictly met, including no availed input tax credit and supply as such or after minor processing that does not change the goods' nature; negative margin is ignored. Motor vehicles principally designed for transport of persons were classified under Heading 8703, with assessable value determined on the margin basis, but the exact rate of tax was not ruled upon because essential factual particulars were not furnished. The Authority also refused to give general suggestions, treating that request as beyond advance ruling jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST classification of biodiesel blends turns on petroleum oil content, splitting B20/B30 from B40-B70 under different tariff items.
Case-Laws
GST
GST classification of biodiesel-HSD blends follows the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the HSN Explanatory Notes adopted for GST interpretation. Blends containing 70% or more petroleum oils fall under Heading 2710: B20, conforming to IS 16531, is classifiable under tariff item 27102020, while B30 falls under the residual tariff item 27102090 because no specific entry covers it. Blends containing less than 70% petroleum oils are excluded from Heading 2710 and fall under Chapter 38: B40, B50, B60 and B70 are classifiable under tariff item 38260000 as biodiesel and mixtures thereof.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pure labour construction services for stand-alone residential units qualify for GST exemption when no goods or materials are supplied.
Case-Laws
GST
Pure labour services for construction-related original works in a single stand-alone residential dwelling unit are exempt from GST under Entry No. 11 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) when no goods or materials are supplied by the service provider. The exemption applies where the work consists only of labour-oriented construction, erection, commissioning or installation for a single residential unit that is not part of a residential complex. On the stated facts, the applicant supplied labour alone to individual owners of stand-alone houses, without transfer of property in goods, and the statutory conditions were satisfied. The advance ruling therefore recognised exemption from GST subject to the activity remaining original works and the unit remaining outside any residential complex.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Residential villa construction is a taxable composite supply, with outsourced execution and deemed one-third land valuation applying.
Case-Laws
GST
Construction of residential villas under direct buyer agreements remains a taxable supply of services even where the actual building work is fully outsourced, because the promoter retains contractual responsibility and the outsourced work is only a mode of performance. The transaction is treated as a naturally bundled composite supply, with construction of the villa as the principal supply; the specific residential construction entry under Heading 9954(ia) applies over the general works contract entry. For valuation, the notified GST mechanism for construction involving land requires deduction of one-third of the total amount charged as deemed land value, and actual land pricing does not displace that statutory formula.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Emergency care and life-support training treated as taxable commercial coaching; exemption denied for course and renewal fees.
Case-Laws
GST
Emergency care and life-support courses were treated as structured skill-based training, not public awareness of preventive health or charitable activity under Notification No. 12/2017. The Authority held that training delivered to identifiable participants for consideration, with evaluation, certification and renewal of certificates, did not qualify for exemption under Entry 1, and the same reasoning applied to renewal fees. It also found that the provider was not an educational institution for Entry 66 purposes because the courses were not part of a recognised curriculum or approved vocational education. The services were classified as commercial training and coaching services under SAC 999293 and held taxable at 18%.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Printing exam question papers for universities qualifies as exempt examination-related service under GST notification.
Case-Laws
GST
Universities qualify as educational institutions under paragraph 2(y)(ii) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) because they provide curriculum-based education leading to qualifications recognised by law and are empowered to prescribe curriculum, conduct examinations and award degrees. Services relating to the conduct of examinations were held to include ancillary and incidental activities with a direct and proximate nexus to the exam process. On that basis, printing of examination question papers supplied to universities was treated as an integral examination-related service and remained exempt from GST under Serial No. 66(b)(iv).
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Home owners' association water charges form part of taxable composite service, not separate exempt supply of goods.
Case-Laws
GST
Recovery of water charges by a home owners' association was held to form part of the composite HOA service, not a separate exempt supply of water as goods. The Authority found the association to be a distinct legal person supplying membership organisation services, with water intrinsically linked to maintenance and upkeep of the residential complex, so Entry 99 of Notification No. 2/2017 could not be invoked. It further held that the applicant did not satisfy the pure agent conditions, so water charges had to be included in the value of supply and aggregated with maintenance charges for the exemption threshold. The service was classified under SAC 999598 and taxed at 18% when the threshold was exceeded.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Meerut police unearths GST fraud racket, arrests gang member
GST
Dated:- 6-4-2026
PTI
Meerut (UP), Apr 6 (PTI) Police in Meerut district have arrested a member of a gang, unearthing a multi-crore GST fraud racket, officials have said.

The accused had amassed input tax credit (ITC) by generating fake invoices through fictitious firms, causing a revenue loss of about Rs 17 crore to the government, police said on Sunday.

Investigation revealed that members of the gang used fake

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CBI Arrests Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ratlam in a Bribery Case
GST
Dated:- 4-4-2026

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested an Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ratlam, in a bribery case.

The CBI registered the instant case on 31.03.2026 against Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Ratlam, and a private person on the allegations that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lakh through a middleman/private person for not initiating GST proceedings against the complainant's f

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Cross-empowerment under GST does not extend to IGST transit detention where the State lacks tax entitlement
Case-Laws
GST
State tax officers cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for inter-State movement of goods under the IGST regime where the State has no tax allocation in the transaction. The Court held that cross-empowerment under GST is limited to functions assigned to the State as proper officer, and Andhra Pradesh officers may act under the IGST Act only where the State is entitled to a share of tax; otherwise they may merely forward the material to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee. The Court also held that valuation disputes, alleged undervaluation, description mismatch, excess quantity, or absence of an e-way bill, without more, do not justify action under detention and confiscation provisions. The impugned proceedings were set aside as without jurisdiction.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST amnesty waiver cannot be rejected on a clerical error; demand must be assessed on its true components.
Case-Laws
GST
An apparent clerical error in the summary assessment could not be carried forward to reject a Section 128A GST amnesty waiver application. The original order showed that the demand comprised tax, interest and penalty, with penalty being only a part of the total demand, so the authority was required to examine the waiver request on the correct basis and on its own merits. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after treating the demand as consisting of tax, interest and penalty and after hearing the petitioner.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pragmatic condonation of delay restored a time-barred appeal, with merits left open for fresh hearing.
Case-Laws
GST
A High Court applied a pragmatic approach to condonation of delay and held that a one-day delay should not be rejected pedantically where refusal would defeat adjudication on merits. Relying on the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities in limitation matters, and noting the respondent's no-objection, the Court set aside the order treating the appeal as time-barred. The appeal was restored for fresh hearing and decision on merits, while all other contentions, including the underlying tax challenge and impugned notifications, were left open.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Geomembranes classification under HSN 5911 upheld on binding High Court precedent, rejecting Chapter 39 treatment.
Case-Laws
GST
Geomembranes manufactured through a woven fabric stage followed by lamination were held classifiable under Chapter 59, specifically HSN 5911, rather than as plastic goods under Chapter 39. The Appellate Authority applied the binding jurisdictional precedent of the Gujarat High Court in an identical product dispute and treated that ruling as final. It rejected the Department's reliance on contrary case law, noting that the cited authority did not address woven fabric as a textile product and was therefore inapposite. On that basis, the advance ruling classifying geomembranes under HSN 5911 was upheld and the departmental appeal was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Leasehold rights used for constructing an immovable manufacturing facility kept GST input tax credit blocked under the plant and machinery test.
Case-Laws
GST
Leasehold rights used to obtain land and set up a manufacturing facility were treated as an enabling service received for construction on the appellant's own account, so the first condition of the ITC bar under section 17(5)(d) was satisfied. Applying annexation, object, intendment and marketability tests, the Authority held that the air separation plant was an immovable manufacturing facility meant for permanent beneficial enjoyment of the leased land, not a standalone apparatus, equipment or machinery. As the facility did not fall within the statutory meaning of plant and machinery, the exclusion from the credit bar was unavailable and GST input tax credit on the leasehold-rights service remained blocked.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

NSDC training exemption for digital marketing courses accepted, with intervening period regularised on an as is where is basis.
Case-Laws
GST
NSDC-approved training partners conducting NSQF-aligned digital marketing courses were treated as supplying training services exempt under Entry 69 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT(R), because the services fell within the skill development framework covered by the notification. After Notification No. 08/2024-CT(R), NCVET-accredited training bodies and NSDC-approved training partners were treated as separate categories, so the applicant could not claim the NCVET route merely because the course was NSQF-aligned. The exemption for the intervening period was therefore unavailable on the notification wording, but the tax position for that period was directed to be regularised on an as is where is basis, with no tax recoverable if unpaid and no refund if already paid.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit allowed for foundation and structural support used with plant and machinery in factory construction.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit was held admissible on works contract input services used to construct foundation and structural support for plant and machinery installed in the factory. The Authority reasoned that section 17(5)(c) blocks credit for works contract services used for immovable property, but the Explanation to section 17 expressly includes the foundation and structural support of apparatus, equipment and machinery within “plant and machinery”. Because the RCC and steel structures were used only to support the machines, absorb vibration and ensure stability, they were not treated as excluded civil structures. The applicant was therefore entitled to credit on the impugned services.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Input tax credit on foundation and structural support for plant and machinery upheld as part of plant, not excluded civil structure.
Case-Laws
GST
Input tax credit was held admissible on input services used to construct foundation and structural supports for solvent recovery and wastewater treatment plants within a factory, because the services had a direct nexus with manufacturing activity and were used in the course or furtherance of business. The Authority held that steel and RCC works supporting the equipment formed part of “plant and machinery” under the statutory explanation, since the structures were fixed to earth to hold apparatus used for outward supply. As the exclusion for immovable property does not extend to such foundation and support forming part of plant and machinery, the restriction in section 17(5)(c) did not apply.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Non-monetary consideration and leasehold rights transfer to LLP treated as taxable supply of service under GST.
Case-Laws
GST
A proposed contribution of developed leasehold land, constructed hotel floors and related infrastructure to an LLP was treated as a taxable supply of service under the CGST Act. The arrangement was regarded as a transaction between distinct taxable persons, with consideration in non-monetary form because the contributor would receive partnership interest, profit-sharing rights and related commercial benefits. The transfer of leasehold and occupancy rights for hotel business was viewed as supply of service in the course or furtherance of business, not as a mere capital contribution or sale of immovable property outside GST. As the transaction did not fall within Schedule III, GST was held leviable on the proposed arrangement.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST on employee canteen and transport recoveries upheld; exemption denied and input tax credit blocked for personal consumption.
Case-Laws
GST
Provision of canteen and employee transportation facilities was treated as activity in the course of business, with two separate supplies identified: service from the third-party provider to the employer, and outward supply from the employer to employees where amounts were recovered by salary deduction. The recovered portion was held to be consideration liable to GST, while only the employer-borne concession was treated as a perquisite. The employee transport arrangement was not accepted as exempt non-air-conditioned contract carriage under Notification No. 12/2017, since it was characterised as vehicle hiring with operator. Input tax credit was also denied because employee transportation was held to be used for personal consumption under section 17(5)(g).
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Job work and manufacture distinction: crushing limestone/dolomite was treated as service, not manufacture, under GST.
Case-Laws
GST
A registered recipient may seek an advance ruling where the transaction affects its tax position, because the term “applicant” is broad enough to cover such a request; the locus objection was therefore rejected and the ruling was examined on merits. On classification, crushing, screening and sizing of limestone/dolomite did not amount to manufacture because the processes did not produce a new product with a distinct name, character and use; the mineral identity and commercial understanding remained unchanged, with only physical dimensions altered. The contractor's assumption of operational risk was irrelevant. The activity was treated as treatment or processing of another person's goods and therefore a supply of service in the nature of job work.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Difficulty in filing appeals on the GST portal in cases where adjudication orders reflect “NIL” demand due to prior voluntary payment
GST
Dated:- 3-4-2026

Subject: reg.

1. Introduction

• It has come to the notice of GSTN that certain taxpayers are facing difficulties in filing appeals on the GST portal against demand orders wherein the demand amount is reflected as “NIL,” despite the existence of a dispute regarding tax liability.

• This situation generally arises in cases where the taxpayer has made payment of tax, interest, or penalty (fully or partially) at the stage of issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN), without admitting the liability, and the adjudicating authority has subsequently issue

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ount cannot be more than demand amount itself.”

• Since no liability is reported by the tax officer on the GST portal, the system blocks the taxpayer from filing an appeal.

3. Nature of Issue:

It is clarified that:

• Payment made during the SCN stage, without explicit admission of liability, does not amount to acceptance of the demand.

• In such cases, the taxpayer retains the right to contest the liability and file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

However, where the adjudication order incorrectly reflects a “NIL” demand, the taxpayer is unable to exercise this statutory right due to the NIL demand reflected in the system.

4. Alternate solution:

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =