FAQs on GSTR -9/9C for FY 2024-25

FAQs on GSTR -9/9C for FY 2024-25 GSTDated:- 17-10-2025GSTR-9/9C is now available to taxpayers for filing. A list of Frequently Asked Question along with the response has been compiled and is intended to assist the Taxpayer in better understanding of vari

FAQs on GSTR -9/9C for FY 2024-25
GST
Dated:- 17-10-2025

GSTR-9/9C is now available to taxpayers for filing. A list of Frequently Asked Question along with the response has been compiled and is intended to assist the Taxpayer in better understanding of various Tables of GSTR-9/9C and their key aspects – such as reporting of various values in Tables.
S. No.
Query
GSTN Reply
1
When my GSTR 9/9C for FY 2024-25 will be enabled?
Once all the due returns in Form GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B for the FY 2024-25 is filed, GSTR 9/9C for FY 2024-25 will be enabled in the system automatically.
2
If any GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B is pending for the FY 2024-25 then will my GSTR 9 is enabled?
No GSTR 9 will not be enabled where any GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B is pending for the FY 2024-25. All the relevant cells of Table 4,5,6,8 and 9 of GSTR 9 will be auto populated based on the statement / return filed by you i.e. GSTR 1/1A/IFF or GSTR 2B or GSTR 3B.
3
What is table 8A of GSTR 9 and how i

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

opulation of value in Table 4/5 of GSTR 9?
Yes, from FY 2024-25 the supplies added / amended through GSTR 1A will also be considered along with GSTR 1 and IFF for the purpose of auto population in Table 4, 5 of GSTR 9.
6
What is table 6A1 and which amount is required to be reported?
Table 6A1 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 capture the ITC of preceding FY (2023-24) claimed by the recipient in the current FY (2024-25) till the specified time period and it is also included in Table 6A of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25.
However, any ITC pertaining to FY 2023-24 or any other preceding financial years, which has been reclaimed during current FY (2024-25) on account of rule 37 / 37A will not be reported in Table 6A1 of GSTR 9.
Therefore, the amount calculated in Table 6A2 (6A minus 6A1) is the ITC pertaining to current FY (2024-25) which need to be bifurcated between 6B to 6H. As the ITC of preceding FY (2023-24) has been excluded through Table 6A1 therefore it will not create the difference

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 as under –
1. Original claim in Table 6B of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
2. Reversal of same in Table 7A of GSTR 9 for FY 202425
3. Reclaim in Table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
Example 2 – Mr A has claimed Rs 100 (IGST) in the month of April 2024 and reversed the same in April 2024 due to nonreceipt of goods as per Circular No. 170/02/2022-GST 6th July 2022. The same has been reclaimed in May 2024 as goods has been received on 4th May 2024. The reporting will be in the GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 as under –
1. Original claim in Table 6B of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
2. Reversal of same in Table 7H of GSTR 9 for FY 202425
3. Reclaim in Table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
8
How the value of ITC will be reported if ITC pertaining to FY 202324 has been claimed, reversed in FY 202324 and reclaimed in the FY 2024-25?
ITC pertaining to preceding FY (2023-24) which has been claimed / reclaimed in this FY (2024-25) for any reason other than rule 37/37A, should be

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ITC will be reported if ITC pertaining to FY 202425 has been claimed, reversed in FY 202425 and reclaimed in the FY 2025-26?
Table 6A of GSTR 9, is auto populated from Table 4A (1 to 5) of GSTR 3B for entire FY from April 2024 to March 2025. As ITC was claimed and reversed in the FY 2024-25 itself then it will be reported in table 6B and reversal in Table 7 of GSTR 9. In such cases these two events should be reported as below –
* claim should be reported in Table 6B,
* reversal should be reported in Table 7 (Table 7A to 7H, as the case may be).
For the reclaim the procedure will be based on whether reclaim is on account of rule 37/37A or reason otherwise, as below –
* If the ITC which was reclaim in FY 2025-26 is because of other than rule 37/37A à Such reclaim will be reported in Table 13 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 and table 6A1 of GSTR 9 of FY 2025-26 (in GSTR 9 of next Year). This will not be reported in Table 6H of GSTR 9 of 2025-26 (in GSTR 9 of next Year).

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

5-26 (in GSTR 9 of next Year).
Example 2 – If any ITC of current FY 2024-25 was claimed and reversed in the FY 2024-25 but reclaimed (due to rule 37/37A) in the next FY 2025-26 then such ITC will be reported in GSTR 9 as under –
1. Original claim shall be reported in Table 6B of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
2. Reversal of same shall be reported in Table 7A (rule 37) or 7A1 (rule 37A) of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
3. Reclaim shall not to be reported in table 8C and 13 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25
4. Reclaim shall be reported in table 6H of GSTR 9 for FY 2025-26 (in GSTR 9 of next Year).
10
Whether there are any changes in the reporting for table 6M as label has been changed from FY 2024-25
No. Label change to Table 6M has aligned it with the instruction of the notified form. As per the Instruction to the notified form the ITC claimed through ITC 01, 02 and 02A should be reported in Table 6M of GSTR 9.
11
What is table 8A excel and where it is available?
To facilitate the ta

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ecord is ineligible for ITC due to PoS Rule, and it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2B as ITC eligibility Yes and B2BA as ITC eligibility No) but not appear in Table 8A online
4. Outward supplies amended from FY 2024-25 to FY 2025-26 then it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2B sections of excel sheet) but not appear in Table 8A online
5. Outward supplies amended from FY 2025-26 to FY 2024-25 then it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2BA sections of excel sheet) and will appear in Table 8A online
It may be noted that 8A online is correctly populated whereas there are some additional records may present in Table 8A excel on account of above-mentioned points.
13
When any amendment made by my supplier in his GSTR 1/1A/IFF, will the changes be auto populated in my Table 8A (Excel and Online) of GSTR 9?
Yes, any amendment in GSTR 1/1A/IFF the auto population in table 8A will be as per amended record if such amended supplies pertain to FY 2024-25.
 Example 1 – Invoice dat

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

th Rs 120(IGST). However, the Table 8A excel will have this record in B2B sections of excel sheet as Rs 100 (IGST) and B2BA sections of excel sheet as Rs 120 (IGST).
Example 3 – Mr A is registered in Maharashtra has issued invoice with IGST to Mr B (registered in Delhi) in the GSTR 1 for January 2025. As this was eligible record for FY 2024-25 hence it will appear in the table 8A (Excel and Online) of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25. Now supplier has amended the place of supply as Maharashtra in the GSTR 1 of Feb 2025 and therefore the CGST and SGST is levied on the record. After amending the place of supply, the amended record becomes ineligible ITC record. As the document belongs to FY 2024-25 so it will appear in Table 8A excel (B2B sections of excel sheet as ITC eligibility Yes and B2BA sections of excel sheet as ITC eligibility No). However, this record will not appear in table 8A Online of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 as amended record on which ITC is eligible will be considered for the purpos

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

nt FY which is availed in next FY within the specified time period. This table shall not include any ITC which was claimed (reported in table 4A of GSTR 3B) and reversed (Reported in 4B of GSTR 3B) in the current FY and reclaimed in next FY till the specified time period.
Hence the Table 8C only contain the missed ITC of current FY (2024-25) which is claimed in GSTR 3B of next FY till the specified time period.
16
Whether table 8C will have the ITC which is claimed and reversed in a FY (2024-25) and reclaimed in next FY (2025-26)
No. In case where the ITC has been claimed and reversed in a FY (2024-25) and reclaimed in 2025-26. Such reclaim ITC should not be reported in the Table 8C of GSTR 9 of FY 202425.
Example – Mr A has claimed the ITC in the month of March 2025 (Table 4A5 of GSTR 3B) and reversed the same in March 2025 (Table 4B2 of GSTR 3B) because the goods has not been reached to its factory. Now in the month of April 2025 the ITC has been reclaimed ((Table 4A5 of

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

ing FY 2024-25 and reported in GSTR 1 furnished between April'25 to October 2025 and hence recipient is availing the corresponding ITC first time in table 4A5 of GSTR 3B of next FY (2025-26) till the specified time period.
Example 1 – Mr A has purchased the goods in the month of January 2025 however he has missed to claim the ITC in the January 2025. Now in the month of May 2025 the ITC has been claimed (Table 4A5 of GSTR 3B). This ITC is pertaining to the FY 2024-25, and which has been claimed first time in next year till the specified time period so it will be reported in the Table 8C and Table 13 of GSTR 9.
Example 2 – Mr A has purchased the goods in the month of January 2025 however supplier has not reported this invoice in GSTR 1 for January 2025. This invoice was added in the GSTR 1 of April 2025 by the supplier which is filed on 11th May 2025. Recipient has claimed the ITC in the GSTR 3B for April 2025 (In table 4A5 of GSTR 3B). This ITC is auto populated in Table 8A of GS

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

not be reported in the Table 6E of GSTR 9. IGST Paid on import of goods be reported in Table 8G and Amount of ITC Claimed in next FY to be reported in Table 8H1 and therefore the difference in the Table 8I will be NIL.
Also, this ITC will be reported in the Table 13 of GSTR 9 of 24-25.
20
Which value is auto populated in tax payable in Table 9 of GSTR 9 for FY 2024-25 as negative liability tables has been inserted in the GSTR 3B?
The Tax payable column is captured from GSTR 3B from net liability. If liability reported in the Table 6.1 of GSTR 3B is positive (Gross minus negative liability) then such positive net tax liability be auto populated in the Table 9 under tax payable. However, if net amount in table 6.1 is appearing in negative then no amount will be auto populated under Tax payable column of Table 9.
Further tax payable column of Table 9 of GSTR 9 is kept editable and therefore taxpayer may change the value, if required.
20
Whether label change to Table 12 an

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

R 9 for FY 202425?
From financial year 2024-25, concessional rate of tax of 65% checkbox is removed from the table 17 and 18 of GSTR-9 online as this concessional rate of tax is not applicable currently. Also, in the offline tool such column has been made disabled.
23
How the late fees are calculated in GSTR 9C for FY 2024-25
As clarified vide Circular No. 246/03/2025-GST dated 30th January 2025, the late fee is levied under Section 47(2) of the CGST Act for any delay in furnishing the complete annual return under Section 44. This includes both FORM GSTR-9 and FORM GSTR-9C (if applicable). Accordingly, a new Table – 17 titled “Late Fee Payable and Paid” has been inserted below Part V of GSTR-9C to capture such late fee payable under Section 47(2).
The late fee shall be leviable for the period starting from the due date of furnishing the annual return till the date of filing of GSTR 9 for annual return.
The late fee for GSTR 9C will be calculated from date of filing of G

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

he ITC which is claimed and reversed due to reason of rule 37 / 37A and subsequently reclaimed in any financial year then such reclaimed ITC will be considered the ITC of that year only (in which it has been reclaimed).
Therefore, it will always report in Table 6H of GSTR 9 to be filed for the FY in which such reclaim has been reported.
Example –
Particular
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Claim – Reversal and reclaim all three are in same FY 24-25) Assume Amount of ITC is Rs 120
Claim and Reversal in FY 24-25; Reclaim in FY 25-26 (Reason other than Rule 37/37A for e.g. Circular No. 170/02/2022-GST 6th July 2022)
Claim and Reversal in FY 24-25; 
Reclaim in FY 25-26 (due to Rule 37/37A for which no time limit to reclaim the ITC 
Originally Claimed 
FY 2024-25
March'25 (FY 2024-25)
April'24 (FY 2024-25)
Reversed –
FY 2024-25
March'25 (FY 2024-25)
October'24 (FY 2024-25)
Reclaimed
FY 2024-25
April'25 (FY

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

120
 
 
 
120
Table 6I Sub total (B to H above)
240
120
0
120
120
Table 6J Difference (I – A2 above)
0
0
0
0
0
Table 7A / 7A1 7A – As per Rule 37 / 7A1 – As per Rule  37A
120
(Report in applicable rows from 7A to 7H
as per the reason of reversal)
 
 
120
 
Table 7H Other reversal 
120
 
 
 
Table 8A ITC as per GSTR2B (table 3 thereof)
120
120
 
120
 
Table 8B ITC as per 6(B) above
120
120
 
120
 
Table 8C [ITC on inward supplies (other than imports and inward supplies liable to reverse charge but includes services received from SEZs) received during the financial year but availed in the next financial year up to specified period
0
0
 
Note 1
 
 
 
Table 8D Difference [A(B+C)]
0
0
 
 
 
Table 12 ITC of the financial year reversed in the next financial year
0
0
&nbs

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

IGST cannot be separately levied on service element of composite supply when goods component already taxed – show cause quashed

IGST cannot be separately levied on service element of composite supply when goods component already taxed – show cause quashedCase-LawsGSTHC allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice issued by the revenue officer, holding that levy of I

IGST cannot be separately levied on service element of composite supply when goods component already taxed – show cause quashed
Case-Laws
GST
HC allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice issued by the revenue officer, holding that levy of IGST on a service component is impermissible where IGST has already been concomitantly imposed on the goods component of a composite supply. The HC, following the SC precedent, concluded that a tax treated by legislation as part of the composite supply of goods cannot be separately taxed as a supply of service. Consequentially, declarations under the specified entries were held invalid to the extent they sought to impose IGST on the service element, and the impugned notice dated 15.12.2021 was set aside.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; held collateral delay attempt, mala fide; petitioner ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 costs

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; held collateral delay attempt, mala fide; petitioner ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 costsCase-LawsGSTThe HC dismissed the petition as not maintainable and awarded costs of Rs.2,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the re

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; held collateral delay attempt, mala fide; petitioner ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 costs
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition as not maintainable and awarded costs of Rs.2,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks. The court held the claim for release/provision of originals seized during searches was impermissible because identical relief had already been granted by the Apex Court and there is no allegation of non-compliance nor any fresh cause of action. The petition was characterised as a collateral attempt to delay adjudication; reliance on statutory-document preparation by officers was rejected. The court noted the respondents had relied on statements of eleven witnesses, all produced in adjudication and already cross-examined by the petitioner, and found the petition misconceived and filed with mala fides.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)Case-LawsGSTThe HC affirmed the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the

Appeal dismissed: petitioner denied ITC for electricity used in township maintenance as residential supply; Explanation 1(d) prospective under s.2(17), s.16(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to input tax credit (ITC) for electricity consumed in maintenance of its township because such supply is external/residential and not in the course or furtherance of business under s.2(17) read with s.16(1) of the CGST Act. The court further held that the amendment inserting Explanation 1(d) to Rule 43 is prospective and does not operate retrospectively; ITC cannot be claimed for exempt supplies of DCS made on or before 05.07.2022. The Single Judge's reasoning and findings were upheld in all respects.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Advance ruling application dismissed as inadmissible for non-disclosure and pending investigation on output tax and input credit

Advance ruling application dismissed as inadmissible for non-disclosure and pending investigation on output tax and input creditCase-LawsGSTThe AAR dismissed the applicant’s advance ruling application as inadmissible and rejected it on grounds that an inv

Advance ruling application dismissed as inadmissible for non-disclosure and pending investigation on output tax and input credit
Case-Laws
GST
The AAR dismissed the applicant's advance ruling application as inadmissible and rejected it on grounds that an investigation and antecedent show-cause proceedings by the revenue investigation unit were pending on the same questions, and the applicant failed to disclose issuance of the SCN, amounting to suppression of material facts. Under the statutory scheme governing advance rulings, the Authority will not admit matters already the subject of proceedings in the applicant's case; non-disclosure demonstrated lack of candour and disentitled the applicant to relief. Consequently, the application regarding levy of output tax and entitlement to input tax credit for outward transportation services was refused.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Quashing consolidated show-cause notices that clubbed multiple years, holding demands must respect Sections 73 and 74 CGST Act.

Quashing consolidated show-cause notices that clubbed multiple years, holding demands must respect Sections 73 and 74 CGST Act.Case-LawsGSTThe HC quashed consolidated show-cause notices issued by Respondent No.2 that clubbed multiple financial years for d

Quashing consolidated show-cause notices that clubbed multiple years, holding demands must respect Sections 73 and 74 CGST Act.
Case-Laws
GST
The HC quashed consolidated show-cause notices issued by Respondent No.2 that clubbed multiple financial years for demand of GST and reversal of alleged ineligible ITC, holding such consolidation to be without jurisdiction and a judicial overreach. The court reaffirmed the statutory limitation scheme under the CGST Act, 2017 – tax periods are tied to returns (monthly or annual) and demands must respect the time limits in Sections 73 and 74 – so SCNs must be framed with reference to discrete financial years. Prior observations by a coordinate bench were noted but the HC granted the petition and set aside the impugned consolidated notices.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Transactions are composite supply under section 2(30) CGST; principal supply photographic printing services determine tax under section 8

Transactions are composite supply under section 2(30) CGST; principal supply photographic printing services determine tax under section 8Case-LawsGSTThe HC held that the transactions constitute a composite supply under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, with

Transactions are composite supply under section 2(30) CGST; principal supply photographic printing services determine tax under section 8
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the transactions constitute a composite supply under section 2(30) of the CGST Act, with the predominant element being a supply of services (photographic printing/processing) rather than transfer of goods; title to the digital images remains with the customers and the paper/ink are ancillary. Consequently, tax liability is determined by the principal supply (printing services) under section 8, and the proceedings against the anonymous petitioners were upheld and the petition dismissed. The Court declined to interfere with the impugned assessments, while noting that the petitioners remain free to pursue any available statutory remedies against tax assessments.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ under Article 226 dismissed for excess ITC where suppliers’ GSTR-1s not proven and procedural delay found

Writ under Article 226 dismissed for excess ITC where suppliers’ GSTR-1s not proven and procedural delay foundCase-LawsGSTThe HC dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 for excess availment of Input Tax Credit where the petitioner failed to establis

Writ under Article 226 dismissed for excess ITC where suppliers' GSTR-1s not proven and procedural delay found
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 for excess availment of Input Tax Credit where the petitioner failed to establish that suppliers filed requisite GSTR-1 for March 2019 and where no procedural infirmity in the impugned demand order was demonstrated. The Court found undue delay in institution and numbering of the petition, noting it was presented on 07.08.2025 but numbered only on 13.10.2025, and observed the petition was filed on the last day for seeking condonation of delay in appeal. Dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's liberty to file an appeal within 15 days, with no pre-deposit required as the assessed tax had already been paid.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PM Modi lauds Andhra govt, IT Minister Nara Lokesh for GST savings campaign

PM Modi lauds Andhra govt, IT Minister Nara Lokesh for GST savings campaignGSTDated:- 16-10-2025PTIKurnool (Andhra Pradesh), Oct 16 (PTI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday lauded the Andhra Pradesh government and IT Minister Nara Lokesh for the suc

PM Modi lauds Andhra govt, IT Minister Nara Lokesh for GST savings campaign
GST
Dated:- 16-10-2025
PTI
Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh), Oct 16 (PTI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday lauded the Andhra Pradesh government and IT Minister Nara Lokesh for the successful 'Super GST Super Savings' campaign.
The GST Council recently approved a complete overhaul of the goods and services tax regime, slashing tax on several common use items, from hair oil to corn flakes and personal health

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Andhra reaping incremental benefits through ‘double engine’ govt: CM Naidu

Andhra reaping incremental benefits through ‘double engine’ govt: CM NaiduGSTDated:- 16-10-2025PTIKurnool (Andhra Pradesh), Oct 16 (PTI) Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu on Thursday said that the state is reaping incremental benefits with

Andhra reaping incremental benefits through 'double engine' govt: CM Naidu
GST
Dated:- 16-10-2025
PTI
Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh), Oct 16 (PTI) Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu on Thursday said that the state is reaping incremental benefits with the “double engine sarkar” (govt) of the NDA.
Addressing the 'Super GST Super Savings' public meeting attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Kurnool, the chief minister noted that Andhra Pradesh is attracting the highest investments with the cooperation of PM Modi.
Referring to the savings accruing to people through the recent GST rejig, the CM said this is just the beginning as they will see many more benefits flowing through in the future.
The TDP supremo thanked

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

of Andhra Pradesh made “super savings through Super Six (welfare) schemes and Super GST”.
Naidu told the PM that over 98,000 events were held in the southern state on GST reforms and promised to continue them beyond the Diwali festival.
Congratulating PM Modi for completing 25 years in office, Naidu reiterated that he is the right leader in the right place at the right time.
Naidu said India is very fortunate to have him (Modi) as the PM, who is working without rest or break, recalling his association with several other PMs.
He further said India commands respect globally, thanks to PM Modi.
Naidu also exuded confidence that India will emerge as the number one country by 2047 to become a superpower.
With the efforts of the PM, India

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CBI arrests Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Nashik while accepting a Bribe of Rs 5 lakh Cash of Rs. 19 Lakh Recovered during searches

CBI arrests Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Nashik while accepting a Bribe of Rs 5 lakh Cash of Rs. 19 Lakh Recovered during searchesGSTDated:- 16-10-2025The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise,

CBI arrests Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Nashik while accepting a Bribe of Rs 5 lakh Cash of Rs. 19 Lakh Recovered during searches
GST
Dated:- 16-10-2025

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has arrested Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Nashik  Commissionerate, Nashik while accepting a bribe of Rs 5 lakh from the complainant.
 CBI registered the instant case on 14.10.2025 against the said accused on allegations that the accused initially demanded undu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PM to inaugurate, lay foundation stone for projects worth Rs 13,430 cr in Andhra

PM to inaugurate, lay foundation stone for projects worth Rs 13,430 cr in AndhraGSTDated:- 16-10-2025PTIAmaravati, Oct 16 (PTI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Andhra Pradesh on Thursday and participate in a host of programmes. He will

PM to inaugurate, lay foundation stone for projects worth Rs 13,430 cr in Andhra
GST
Dated:- 16-10-2025
PTI
Amaravati, Oct 16 (PTI) Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Andhra Pradesh on Thursday and participate in a host of programmes. He will inaugurate and lay the foundation stone for projects worth Rs 13,430 crore.
The projects span across key sectors such as industry, power transmission, roads, railways, defence manufacturing, and petroleum and natural gas.
He will also participate in the “Super GST Super Savings” event in Kurnool.
Narendra Modi, in a post on X on Wednesday, said, “I will pray at the Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam in Srisailam,” on October 16.
“After that, I will be in Kurnool, where development projects worth over Rs 13,400 crores would be inaugurated or their foundation stones would be laid. These works cover sectors like power, railways, petroleum, defence, industries and more,” the prime minister said.
Accor

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

l Area in Kadapa, with a total investment of over Rs 4,920 crore.
Jointly developed by the National Industrial Corridor Development and Implementation Trust (NICDIT) and Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd (APIIC), these modern multi-sectoral industrial hubs feature plug-and-play infrastructure and a walk-to-work concept.
These hubs are expected to attract Rs 21,000 crore in investments and generate approximately one lakh jobs, bolstering industrial development and global competitiveness in the Rayalaseema region of the southern state.
PM will also lay the foundation stone for the six-lane greenfield highway from Sabbavaram to Sheelanagar at a cost of over Rs 960 crore. This project aims to ease congestion in the port city of Visakhapatnam and facilitate trade and employment.
Further, PM will inaugurate the four-laning of Pileru-Kalur section road, widening from Kadapa – Nellore border to CS Puram and the four-lane Rail over Bridge (ROB) between Gudivada and Nu

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

t Nimmaluru, Krishna district, established by Bharat Electronics Limited at an investment of around Rs 360 crore. During his recent visit to New Delhi, Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu extended the invitation to PM Modi for “Super GST – Super Savings” programme.
The GST Council recently approved a complete overhaul of the goods and services tax regime, slashing tax on several common use items, from hair oil to corn flakes and personal health and life insurance policies and umpteen others.
“The upcoming Super GST Super Savings event in Kurnool will celebrate the people's enthusiasm and appreciation for this forward-looking initiative, and I had the privilege of inviting him (PM Modi) to grace this event with his presence,” said Naidu in a recent social media post.
According to the TDP supremo, PM Modi will explain the benefits of the GST reforms to the people.
Naidu recently directed officials to make arrangements for the PM to lay the foundation for 'Drone City' as part of his vi

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Third-party disclosure demands require mandatory Section 11 compliance; Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 read conjunctively; Section 158(1) not absolute

Third-party disclosure demands require mandatory Section 11 compliance; Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 read conjunctively; Section 158(1) not absoluteCase-LawsGSTThe HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that disclosure requests implicating third-party informa

Third-party disclosure demands require mandatory Section 11 compliance; Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 read conjunctively; Section 158(1) not absolute
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition, holding that disclosure requests implicating third-party information require mandatory compliance with Section 11 of the RTI Act and that Sections 8 and 11 must be read conjunctively; information prima facie constituting personal or confidential third-party data attracts the protections of Section 8(1)(j) unless the proviso (demonstrable larger public interest) is satisfied. The court further found Section 158(1) of the GST Act does not automatically preclude RTI disclosure but, on the facts, the Petitioner failed to establish prima facie large-scale fraud or sufficient public interest to override confidentiality, so GST returns were rightly withheld and the petition was dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenge to rectification order partly allowed; demand set aside for turnover-based GST on combo packs; pre-deposit limited to B2B/B2C amounts

Challenge to rectification order partly allowed; demand set aside for turnover-based GST on combo packs; pre-deposit limited to B2B/B2C amountsCase-LawsGSTThe HC allowed the challenge to the rectification order in part and set aside the impugned demand in

Challenge to rectification order partly allowed; demand set aside for turnover-based GST on combo packs; pre-deposit limited to B2B/B2C amounts
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the challenge to the rectification order in part and set aside the impugned demand insofar as it was computed on total turnover without reasoning; it held the Adjudicating Authority erred by imposing GST on aggregate turnover of combo packs despite available delineation of B2B and B2C sales. The Court found breach of natural justice and procedural infirmity in levying differential tax and multiple penalties. The petitioner was directed to seek the statutory appellate remedy, with any pre-deposit to be calculated and paid only in respect of amounts attributable separately to B2B and B2C sales for each financial year. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Challenge to rectification order partly allowed; demand set aside for turnover-based GST on combo packs; pre-deposit limited to B2B/B2C amounts

Challenge to rectification order partly allowed; demand set aside for turnover-based GST on combo packs; pre-deposit limited to B2B/B2C amountsCase-LawsGSTThe HC allowed the challenge to the rectification order in part and set aside the impugned demand in

Challenge to rectification order partly allowed; demand set aside for turnover-based GST on combo packs; pre-deposit limited to B2B/B2C amounts
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the challenge to the rectification order in part and set aside the impugned demand insofar as it was computed on total turnover without reasoning; it held the Adjudicating Authority erred by imposing GST on aggregate turnover of combo packs despite available delineation of B2B and B2C sales. The Court found breach of natural justice and procedural infirmity in levying differential tax and multiple penalties. The petitioner was directed to seek the statutory appellate remedy, with any pre-deposit to be calculated and paid only in respect of amounts attributable separately to B2B and B2C sales for each financial year. Petition disposed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

GST registration revived conditionally upon full tax, interest, late fee and penalty payment; s.30 and s.107 time bars

GST registration revived conditionally upon full tax, interest, late fee and penalty payment; s.30 and s.107 time barsCase-LawsGSTThe HC set aside the cancellation order dated 17.6.2023 and directed respondents to revive the petitioner’s GST registration

GST registration revived conditionally upon full tax, interest, late fee and penalty payment; s.30 and s.107 time bars
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation order dated 17.6.2023 and directed respondents to revive the petitioner's GST registration to its original status and number, subject to payment of the entire tax liability for the relevant period together with interest, late fee and penalty, to be deposited by 15.11.2025 via a portal respondents shall provide. The court held the petitioner was in default, did not seek revocation under s.30 or file an appeal under s.107 within prescribed time, and that the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit (three months plus one month). Petition dismissed as disposed after issuing the revival direction conditional on payment.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =