Author: admin_gst

Manual GSTR-3B filing for March 2021 quarter to claim omitted ITC allowed, without cancelling existing tax demand order
Case-Laws
GST
Whether a registered person could be permitted to file a manual GSTR-3B for the quarter ending March 2021 to claim additional ITC omitted due to an error was determined by balancing procedural facilitation with preservation of existing tax demands. The court accepted that allowing manual filing would not, by itself, nullify or dilute the demand raised under the order dated 19.02.2025, which would continue to operate subject to any permissible challenge before the competent authority. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to accept the manual return, without automatic impact on the demand order, and the petition was disposed of. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Seized silver and cash stolen in state custody: compensation awarded for negligent loss; relief limited to undisputed shortfall
Case-Laws
GST
Compensation was sought for loss of seized silver and cash stolen from a police station while in State custody. The seizure was an exercise of sovereign power, but the subsequent loss was attributable to negligence of public officials, amounting to a constitutional tort infringing the claimant's right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g); compensation was therefore maintainable and granted. On quantification, the forum declined to adjudicate disputed purity of returned silver for lack of material, and confined relief to the undisputed shortfall between seized and returned quantities. The claimant was held entitled to return of 23.44 kg silver valued as on the date of compliance, with Rs. 7,95,000 adjusted against that value; petition allowed. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Provisional tax attachment on GST property u/s 83: one-year limit enforced, attachment lapsed and cannot be renewed.
Case-Laws
GST
Provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST/KGST Act was challenged as time-barred. The court held that Section 83 expressly limits the attachment's operation to one year, and on expiry the attachment and all consequential proceedings and notices cease to have effect; accordingly, the impugned attachment was declared non-subsisting due to lapse of the statutory period. Relying on binding precedent, it further held that after expiry of the one-year period, the Revenue is precluded from re-invoking Section 83 to issue a fresh or new provisional attachment in respect of the same matter. Petition was disposed with directions. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST tax demand with interest and penalty decided without show-cause reply; taxpayer given another chance, orders set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
Challenge to confirmation of GST tax demand with interest and penalty on the ground that the adjudication proceeded without a reply to the show-cause notice. The court held that where the taxpayer asserted bona fide and unavoidable reasons constituting sufficient cause for not filing a reply, a justice-oriented approach warranted one further opportunity to contest on merits; accordingly, the adjudication order under s.73 and the appellate order under s.107 were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of filing reply to the show-cause notice, subject to payment of costs to the Legal Services Authority. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Accountant's illness delaying s.107 tax appeal filing after s.73 order; 57-day delay condoned, rejection set aside, remanded.
Case-Laws
GST
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Rs 24-crore hawala, GST fraud racket busted in Bareilly, 2 held
GST
Dated:- 6-1-2026
PTI
Bareilly (UP), Jan 6 (PTI) Police in Uttar Pradesh's Bareilly district have uncovered a suspected hawala and GST fraud network involving illegal financial transactions worth around Rs 24 crore, with the arrest of two men who allegedly used fake firms and so-called “mule accounts” to move money, officials said on Tuesday.
The racket surfaced after a small zari (embroidery) artisan received an income tax notice of nearly Rs 1.5 crore for transactions he was unaware of, Bareilly Superintendent of Police (South) Anshika Verma said on Monday.
According to police, the accused targeted small traders and daily wage workers, offering to help them

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advisory on Filing Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises, 2025
GST
Dated:- 5-1-2026

Dear Taxpayers,
The relevant declarations issued vide Notification No. 05/2025 – Central Tax (Rate), dated 16th January 2025, are now made available electronically on the GST Portal. These declarations may be opted for and filed by persons who are applying for registration or are already registered and supplying hotel accommodation services by declaring the premises as “specified premises”.
Kindly take note of the following key points:
1. Who may opt and file the declaration
* Regular taxpayers (active and suspended) supplying hotel accommodation service who want to declare their premises to be a “specified premises”
* Applicants for

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

vailable separately in due course of time.)
3. Timeline for Filing Declarations
(A) Existing Registered Taxpayers – Annexure VII
* Can be filed for the subsequent financial year during the specified window: 1st January to 31st March of the preceding financial year.
* For FY 2026-27, Annexure VII can be filed from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2026.
(B) New Registration Applicants – Annexure VIII
* Can be filed within 15 days from the date of generation of ARN of the registration application.
* Filing is allowed irrespective of whether GSTIN has been allotted, provided the application is not rejected.
* After the lapse of 15 days, the opt-in declaration can be filed only when the window for Annexure VII is available, i.e., 1st January to

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

rate PDFs with reference numbers will be generated for each premise.
* If any premises are left for opt-in, the taxpayer may again file Annexure VII for that premise for the same financial year during the eligible window period.
* Suspended taxpayers are allowed to file the declaration. However, cancelled taxpayers are barred from filing such declarations.
* The option exercised will continue for subsequent financial years unless an opt-out declaration (Annexure IX) is filed within the prescribed time.
6. Downloading of Filed Declarations
* Filed Annexures (VII / VIII) can be downloaded from: Services -> Registration ->Declaration for Specified Premises -> Download
* Separate reference numbers are generated for each declared prem

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Arunachal GST collection rises 36pc in first 9 months of FY26
GST
Dated:- 5-1-2026
PTI
Itanagar, Jan 5 (PTI) Arunachal Pradesh has recorded a sharp 35.7 per cent rise in Goods and Services Tax (GST) collections in the first nine months of the 2025-26 financial year, compared to the figure in the same period in the previous fiscal, officials said on Monday.
The collection exceeded the national growth average of 6.8 per cent, reflecting strong economic activity and improved tax compliance in the state, they said.
The state collected Rs 1,519 crore between April and December 2025 as GST, while the collection was Rs 1,324 crore in the corresponding period of 2024, with an absolute increase of Rs 195 crore.
According to the centr

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Health Security se National Security (HSNS) Cess Act, 2026 and HSNS Cess Rules, 2026
GST
Dated:- 5-1-2026

Q1. Who is required to get registered under the HSNS Cess Rules?
Ans. Every taxable person as per section 3 of the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') must register. An application for registration shall be made in FORM HSNS REG-01 through the ACES portal. Where machines are installed in more than one factory, separate registration shall be required for each factory.
Q2. I am an existing manufacturer of Pan Masala. By what date must I apply for registration under the new HSNS Cess Rules?
Ans. You must apply for registration immediately upon the commencement of the Act and the HSNS Cess Rules, i.e., on 1st February, 2026. Since the liability to pay cess begins from that date, you must submit the registration application in FORM HSNS REG-01 on the portal at the earliest. Your

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ent may be done on the portal by utilizing the said temporary registration number even if the registration certificate (which shall be issued within seven working days) is still being processed.
Q5. Once I get my registration, when must I file the declaration regarding my machines?
Ans. You must file the declaration in FORM HSNS DEC-01 on the portal within seven days of the grant of your registration. This declaration must specify the parameters of your machines (maximum rated speed, weight of specified goods, etc) relevant for the computation of the cess.
Example: 'ABC Ltd' receive their Registration Certificate on February 10, 2026. They must file FORM HSNS DEC-01 by February 17, 2026.
Q6. What if I add a new machine? Do I need to inform the department?
Ans. Yes. You must file a fresh declaration under section 9(3) of the Act and rule 9(2) of the HSNS Cess Rules within fifteen days of any change in the parameters relevant for the computation of cess, which includes the installat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ification.
* You will have to pay the amount of cess so determined for the subsequent period and the past period as per rule 11(3) which mandates that you are liable to pay the differential amount of cess along with interest for the period commencing from the date of installation (for initial declarations) or the date of change in parameters (for fresh declarations) until the date of actual payment and also, pay the determined cess amount for the subsequent period.
Example: On 1st February, a manufacturer installs a machine with a speed of 300 pouches/minute and declares its details to the Department. On 1st April, the proper officer, after verification, concludes that the machine's maximum rated speed is actually 700 pouches/minute. The proper officer shall issue an order by April 30th detailing the computation of cess after giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The registered person shall pay the differential cess amount for February, March, and April, along with intere

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

s required to be paid fully for that entire month within five days of such addition or installation.
Example: 'M/s ABC Ltd' (an existing registered entity) operates 4 machines. On August 20, 2026, they install a 5th Machine with a monthly cess liability of Rs. 1,01,00,000. They must pay the monthly cess of Rs. 1,01,00,000 by August 25, 2026. In case of any delay in payment, interest would be payable from August 26, 2026 to the date of actual payment.
Q13. What are the due dates for payment and return filing?
Ans. You must pay the monthly cess electronically by the 7th day of the current month. You must file the monthly return in FORM HSNS RET-01 by the 20th day of the succeeding month.
Q14. What happens if I file my return late?
Ans. If you fail to furnish the return by the due date, the proper officer will issue a notice requiring you to furnish such return within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Further, as per section 18(1)(c) of the Act, failure to furni

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he machine or manual unit is non-operative for a continuous period of fifteen days or more. If a machine is sealed for 10 days, then desealed for two days and again sealed for another 10 days, you cannot claim abatement because the continuous period is less than 15 days.
Q18. Can I simply switch off the machine and claim abatement later?
Ans. No. You must inform the proper officer at least 3 working days before the intended closure. The proper officer will visit your factory and officially seal the machine so it cannot be operated within three days of the receipt of the intimation.
You must ensure that no manufacturing takes place on that machine during the period the machine was sealed.
Q19. Can I stop paying Cess if my machine is not working or if there is no demand?
Ans. You can claim abatement (adjustment) only if the machine is non-operative for a continuous period of 15 days or more. The procedure for claiming abatement under Chapter V of the HSNS Cess Rules should be follow

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

er on or before 20th October. Say, they file the claim on 25th September, and the abatement order is passed on 7th October, they can adjust this amount against their liability for November.
Example 2: 'ABC Ltd' has installed a High-speed pouch packing machine (700 ppm). Their monthly liability (C) is Rs. 2,02,00,000. The machine is sealed on July 20th and de-sealed on August 8th. Since the shutdown (21 days) is more than 15 days, they are eligible for abatement which will be calculated separately for each month as below:
* For July:
* N: 31 days
* D: 12 days (July 20-31)
* Abatement (A1):
A1=2,02,00,00031×12=Rs. 78,19,355
For August:
*
* N: 31 days
* D: 9 days (Aug 1-9)
* Abatement (A2):
A2=2,02,00,00031×9=Rs. 58,64,516
* They can claim the abatement amount of Rs. 1,36,83,871 (A1 + A2) by applying to the proper officer on or before 20th September. Say, they file the claim on 25th August, and the abatement order is passed on 5th September, they can adjust this amo

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t inform the proper officer 3 working days in advance. The officer will supervise the uninstallation and removal. If removal is not feasible, it will be sealed.
Q25. My machine has a maximum rated speed of 700 pouches/minute, but I only run it at 300 pouches/minute. Which Schedule II slab applies to me?
Ans. You must pay the amount of cess based on the Maximum Rated Speed, not the actual operating speed. As per Rule 12 the maximum rated speed of a machine shall be taken as the maximum speed achievable by the machine, irrespective of the actual operating speed at which the machine is used to manufacture goods of any weight.
Q26. If I do not produce the specified goods in a month, but the machine was not sealed, do I still pay Cess?
Ans. Yes.
Q27. My machine was sealed from September 1st to September 15th. On September 15th evening, it was de-sealed. Am I eligible to claim an abatement?
Ans. No. Since the machine was non-operational for a continuous period of only 14 days, you are

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

y manual” if no machine capable of assisting or completing any part of the manufacturing or production is installed in the factory. The amount of cess payable shall be as per Table 2 of Schedule II of the Act (11 lakhs per month).
Q 31. I am planning to start a new Pan Masala manufacturing unit in March 2026 (after the rules are notified). If I install my machines and start production on the 10th of the month, do I have to pay the Cess for the entire month?
Ans. No. As per the proviso to rule 12 of the HSNS Rules, if a newly registered person installs machines during a month, the cess payable for that specific month is calculated on a pro-rata basis. You will only pay for the number of days remaining in that month, starting from the date of installation of the machine or the start of the manual process unit, as the case may be. Further, you must pay this proportionate cess amount within five days of such installation or start.
Example: If you start a new unit and install the machine

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Parallel GST show-cause proceedings by State after Central notice u/s 6(2)(b) barred; State order quashed.
Case-Laws
GST
State GST authorities were held to lack jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings where Central GST authorities had already initiated proceedings against the taxpayer by issuing a show-cause notice, since dual/parallel proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. Applying the binding precedent on identical facts, the impugned order-in-original and its summary were treated as without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order-in-original and the summary were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Refund claim rejected for missing documents, petitioner seeks chance to submit evidence; rejection set aside and remanded for reconsideration.
Case-Laws
GST
Rejection of a refund claim was challenged on the ground that necessary supporting documents had not been furnished earlier and a further opportunity was sought to produce additional documents. Applying a justice-oriented approach and principles of fair opportunity, the impugned orders rejecting the refund were set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law after granting one more opportunity to file the requisite documents; the petition was allowed by way of remand. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Goods transport route deviation with valid invoice and matching documents-detention and s.129 penalty quashed; s.125 left open.
Case-Laws
GST
Whether mere deviation of route during transit, when the consignment was accompanied by valid tax invoice and no discrepancy in goods or documents was found, could justify detention and penalty under s.129 CGST/KGST was answered in the negative. The authority relied only on a cyclostyled driver statement and produced no material to prove deliberate diversion or intent to evade tax, while the taxpayer offered a prompt, plausible explanation of inadvertent route-miss. Since s.129 is invocable only upon deliberate tax evasion and not for technical or minor lapses, the orders imposing s.129 penalty were held illegal and were set aside, with liberty to proceed, if at all, only under s.125. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST refund claim after deficiency memo: limitation u/s54(3) runs from first filing; time-bar rejection quashed, remanded.
Case-Laws
GST
Refund was rejected as time-barred under s.54(3) CGST Act by treating a later revised application (filed after a deficiency memo) as the relevant date for limitation. The Court held that limitation must be computed from the date of the initial refund application, and a subsequent revised filing pursuant to a deficiency memo cannot shift the limitation start point; the contrary approach was erroneous and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the refund claim on merits in accordance with law, and the petition was allowed. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Deferred input tax credit claimed beyond s.16(4) limits: s.107 rectification reconsidered after s.148 notification; remanded
Case-Laws
GST
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Alleged bogus firms and fake e-way bills under CGST ss. 67, 132, with seized digital evidence; anticipatory bail granted
Case-Laws
GST
Anticipatory bail was sought in a prosecution alleging creation of bogus firms and facilitation of fake e-way bills under ss. 67 and 132 of the CGST/SGST Act. The court held that the allegations were chiefly founded on documentary and digital material already seized during the search, with no pending recovery shown, reducing the necessity of custodial interrogation. Considering the maximum punishment of five years and the non-violent nature of the alleged offence, the court found pre-trial incarceration unwarranted, and observed that conditional liberty would not likely enable absconding or evidence tampering given seizure of relevant data. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Pending tax refund application seeking interest and penalty: authority ordered to decide claim and issue orders within four months
Case-Laws
GST
The dominant issue was whether the tax authority should be directed to act on a pending refund application and consider interest and penalty. The court held that the authority must decide the refund application in accordance with law, specifically taking into account the claim for refund along with applicable interest, and bearing in mind binding precedents on such refund claims. Consequently, the authority was directed to consider, process, and pass appropriate orders on the refund application within four months from receipt of the order, and the writ petition was disposed of. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Bank-account attachment for another company's tax dues challenged; recovery quashed as no garnishee liability and veil-piercing unjustified.
Case-Laws
GST
Attachment and recovery from a company's bank account was challenged on the ground that the demand and adjudication were issued against a distinct juristic entity. The court held that where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were addressed to another company, the petitioner could not be fastened with that entity's dues absent any garnishee relationship or proved liability to pay amounts to the defaulter. It further held that common directorship alone is insufficient to lift the corporate veil for recovery, and such veil-piercing was impermissible on the pleaded facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed and the petition was allowed with directions to appear before the authority. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Clinical trial and R&D services for US recipient treated as export; Notification 04/2019-IGST applied retrospectively, GST demands set aside.
Case-Laws
GST
Clinical trial and related R&D services supplied to a foreign recipient raised the issue whether the place of supply was outside India, making the supply an export and not liable to GST, and whether Notification No. 04/2019-IGST dated 30.09.2019 applied retrospectively to the period April 2018-March 2019. The notification clarified that for such services the place of supply is the location of the recipient, subject to conditions; since the recipient was located in the USA, the supply fell in a non-taxable territory. Treating the notification as beneficial, clarificatory and elucidatory, it was held to operate retrospectively, and the contrary view of the authorities was erroneous; the impugned orders were set aside and the petition was allowed – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Service tax show-cause notice invoking extended limitation u/s 73(1) without suppression details quashed as invalid
Case-Laws
GST
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Voluntary GST short-payment disclosure and composite-supply classification dispute: s.74 demand and s.39(9) ITC denial quashed
Case-Laws
GST
Where the taxpayer had voluntarily intimated short payment and its willingness to discharge tax much before any enforcement action, the essential preconditions of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression were not made out, rendering invocation of s.74 GST impermissible; consequently, denial of ITC by applying s.39(9) could not be sustained, and the proceedings were quashed. The taxpayer's earlier payment at a higher rate treating the supply as composite “to buy peace” was held not to operate as waiver or estoppel; it could still raise the composite-versus-individual supply issue before the competent authority, which must decide it on merits without relying on the prior admission. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Marketing and technical support services to foreign client under master service agreement: not “intermediary” under IGST s2(13); refund allowed
Case-Laws
GST
The dominant issue was whether the marketing support and technical support services supplied to a foreign recipient under a master service agreement constituted “intermediary services” under section 2(13) of the IGST Act, thereby disentitling the supplier from treating the supply as export and claiming refund of accumulated input tax credit. On construing the agreement and contemporaneous records, it was held that the supplier was not arranging or facilitating supplies between two persons but providing services on its own account, satisfying the conditions for export of services. Consequently, the adjudication and appellate orders were set aside, the IGST demand was quashed, and refund was directed to be granted. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Gross and Net GST revenue collections for the month of Dec, 2025
GST
Dated:- 3-1-2026

The gross and net GST revenue collections for the month of Dec, 2025.
Thanks,
Team GSTN
News – Press release – PIB

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Export refund rectification denied despite documents proving export proceeds realized; order set aside for fresh decision on natural justice grounds
Case-Laws
GST
Rectification relating to export refund was rejected without considering documents evidencing realization of export proceeds, thereby breaching natural justice. The record showed the documents were in fact produced with the representation, and the authority failed to address them while deciding rectification. Applying prior binding precedent on illegality and lack of authority in similar refund/rectification rejection, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration of the rectification application in accordance with law; the writ petition was partly allowed. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Detention and penalty for unloading goods at unregistered extra business site with valid invoice/e-way bill; set aside
Case-Laws
GST
Detention/penal proceedings for unloading goods at an additional place of business were challenged where the goods were accompanied by a valid tax invoice and valid e-way bill. The First Appellate Authority accepted the taxpayer's explanation that unloading occurred at an additional place subsequently registered, treating the lapse as technical with no intent to evade tax and no demonstrated revenue loss. The Revisional Authority could not substitute its view and reverse a reasoned appellate order absent prejudice or monetary loss. The revisional order was set aside and the appellate order was restored, allowing the petition. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST refund claims for Jan 2019-Mar 2021 filings and Covid limitation exclusion (Notification 13/2022) treated as within time; rejection set aside
Case-Laws
GST
Rejection of a tax refund claim as time-barred was held unsustainable because the record showed the claimant had filed an initial refund application on 09.05.2023 within the statutory period for January 2019 to March 2021, and also filed a further claim on 28.02.2024, the date the authority itself treated as the outer limit, yet neither filing was duly considered. The authority also failed to apply the Covid-19 limitation exclusion under Notification No. 13/2022, covering March 2020 to February 2022, which operated to extend limitation. The refund applications were held within time and the impugned order was set aside. – HC
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =