Goods and Services Tax

Tax Authority Extends GST Audit Completion Period for 2021-2022 Audits Under Relevant State GST Act
Circulars
GST – States
The tax authority extended the audit completion period under the relevant state GST Act for audits commencing between April 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, due to delays caused by requests from audited parties for additional time to produce accounting records. The original three-month completion requirement from the audit start date was deemed insufficient. The extension allows audits to be completed by August 22, 2025, or three months from the actual audit commencement date, whichever is later. This extension is effective immediately.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Penalty under Section 129(3) GST Act quashed due to technical glitch, no intent to evade tax found
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the GST Act for non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill, finding no intent to evade tax. The petitioner demonstrated that the omission was due to a technical glitch, a fact undisputed in the record. The Court relied on precedents affirming that mere non-filing of the e-way bill does not attract penalty absent a tax evasion intent. As no authority below recorded any finding of willful tax evasion, the penalty was unwarranted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was quashed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC refuses extraordinary relief in ITC blocking under Rule 86A, emphasizing factual inquiry and evidence-based decisions
Case-Laws
GST
The HC declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in a petition challenging the blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, relating to alleged non-existent suppliers. The Court emphasized that Rule 36 requires documentary evidence for claiming input tax credit, and fact-finding on the genuineness of invoices and related records falls within the competence of the adjudicating authority. It held that Rule 86A mandates a reasoned, objective determination based on material evidence before disallowing credit, not mere suspicion. Given the factual nature of the dispute, the HC remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's explanation with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, leaving factual adjudication and verification to the statutory authorities.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

PVC Raincoats Classified Under HSN 3926 as Plastic Articles, Attracting 18% GST Under Schedule III Entry 111
Case-Laws
GST
The AAAR held that PVC raincoats are correctly classified under HSN Code 3926 as plastic articles, not under HSN Code 6201 for textile apparel, since PVC is a synthetic polymer and not a woven textile. The mutually exclusive nature of Chapters 39 and 62 precludes classification of PVC raincoats as textile garments. Consequently, the GST rate applicable to PVC raincoats is 18% under Schedule III, entry no. 111, rather than 5% under entry no. 223, which applies solely to textile clothing items valued at Rs. 1000 or less. The appellant's supply of PVC raincoats falls within the plastic articles category, attracting the higher GST rate irrespective of the price threshold applicable to textile garments.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 93 CGST Act: Recovery Proceedings Against Deceased's Property Set Aside, Legal Representatives Allowed to Proceed
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 22 December 2023 concerning recovery proceedings against the immovable properties of the petitioner's deceased wife under Section 93 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court granted liberty to proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Form GST DRC-16 order dated 30 July 2024 was also quashed. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Ex-Parte Order Set Aside for Violating Rule 142 CGST Rules, Ensuring Fair Hearing Under Section 73 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned ex-parte order due to non-compliance with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and violation of natural justice principles. Although electronic service of notice under the GST regime is generally upheld, the Court found the procedural irregularity and lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard prejudicial in the present case. Considering the nature of the business and substantive rights involved, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for issuance of a fresh notice under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner is directed to appear and effectively participate in the proceedings on the specified date. The petition was allowed by way of remand to ensure fairness and adherence to due process.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition on Alleged Rs. 63.83 Crore ITC Fraud Dismissed; Appeal Allowed Under Section 107 CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a case involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 63.83 crores by 23 fake firms. Citing precedent, the Court held that writ petitions challenging such allegations are ordinarily not maintainable due to the significant impact on the GST regime and the exchequer. Although the petitioner raised procedural grievances regarding notice and consideration of submissions, the Court noted appearances by some parties and found no infirmity warranting interference. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, by 31 August 2025, with the requisite pre-deposit, which shall be admitted and heard on merits without dismissal on limitation grounds. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retrospective Extension Allows Rectification of Orders on Wrongful Input Tax Credit Claims Under CGST Section 16(4)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the retrospective extension of the time limit to avail input tax credit under sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as per the Ministry of Finance circular dated 15-10-2024, permits taxpayers to seek rectification of orders passed under Sections 73, 74, 107, or 108 of the CGST Act regarding wrongful input tax credit claims. Pursuant to the special procedure under Section 148, notified on 8-10-2024, rectification applications may be filed within six months from 15-10-2024, i.e., until 15-4-2025. The petitioner was granted leave to file such an application, and the petition was accordingly disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Separate SCNs under Sections 73 and 74 valid; petitioner must use appeal, not writ, for GST demands
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that issuance of separate SCNs under Sections 73 and 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act for the same period is valid, as Section 73 pertains to tax short paid without fraud, while Section 74 addresses fraud or wilful suppression. The petitioner's challenge to the SCN's vagueness was rejected, noting adequate particulars were provided per statutory requirements and the petitioner failed to appear or adequately contest. Regarding ITC claimed on B2B supplies in GSTR-3B, the Court ruled the petitioner cannot bypass the appellate remedy and invoke writ jurisdiction, as the demand in Form GST APL04 dated 27 December 2023 is final. Consequently, demands under points 1(I) and 3(M) of the SCN dated 13 May 2024 were quashed. The demand in DRC-07 dated 19 July 2024 was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh demand issuance consistent with the Court's directions.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Retiring Partner Remains Liable Under Section 90 CGST Act Without Timely Retirement Notice
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking to set aside the summoning order and restrain respondents from attaching the petitioner's property. The Court held that a retiring partner's liability under the CGST Act continues until a written intimation of retirement is duly served on the Commissioner within one month of retirement. The petitioner failed to provide timely notice of retirement, as evidenced by delayed communication submitted in 2025 despite retirement occurring in 2021. Consequently, the petitioner remains liable for tax obligations incurred during the partnership. The Court refused to absolve the petitioner of liability under Section 90 of the CGST Act, 2017, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory notification requirements. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies as available under law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

HC upholds Sections 69 and 132 of CGST Act on arrest and punishment powers under Article 246A
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the challenge to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which confer power to arrest and prescribe punishment, holding that the contention lacked merit in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India. The SC upheld the constitutional validity of these provisions, affirming that Article 246A grants Parliament exclusive legislative competence over GST, including anti-evasion measures. Consequently, the HC found no violation of Articles 14, 20, or 21 of the Constitution and rejected the petitions contesting the legality of Sections 69 and 132. All related writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with the application being dismissed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ Petition Allowed Against Duplicate Assessment Order Under DRC 01; Earlier Assessment Prevents Repetition
Case-Laws
GST
The HC allowed the writ petition challenging the impugned assessment order issued following notice in DRC 01, noting that the petitioner had already undergone an assessment for the same period by the State Tax Officer. The court held that the statutory scheme precludes duplication of assessment proceedings for the identical period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside. However, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover any differential amount within the framework of the earlier assessment, provided the statutory provisions permit such action.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Stay on GST recovery upheld under Section 112(9) after petitioner meets pre-deposit conditions in tax dispute
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petition concerning the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal and the petitioner's request for a stay on recovery proceedings pending appeal. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the tax demand and agreed to deposit an additional 10% of the remaining amount. In light of the Government of India's circular and the petitioner's undertaking, the court held that the requirements under Section 112(8) of the CGST Act were met. Consequently, recovery of the remaining confirmed demand is stayed pursuant to Section 112(9) of the CGST Act upon the petitioner's compliance with the prescribed pre-deposit conditions. No further directions were deemed necessary, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

CGST Ludhiana unearths Rs 260 cr fake billing scam in iron, steel sector; 2 arrested
GST
Dated:- 25-7-2025
PTI
Chandigarh, Jul 25 (PTI) Based on specific intelligence, the officers of Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate, Ludhiana, conducted multiple search operations at Mandi Gobindgarh unearthing a syndicate involved in availing and passing on fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the iron and steel sector using five firms.
CGST Ludhiana conducted multiple search operations at M

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Petition dismissed for maintainability; appeal allowed under Section 107 of GST Act with no natural justice violation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC dismissed the petition on maintainability grounds, holding that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act. The court found no violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was not entitled to cross-examine departmental officers who issued summons or arrest memos. Further, the petitioner retained the opportunity to make submissions during the appeal proceedings, which are a continuation of the original proceedings. The HC refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits and granted liberty to the petitioner to file the statutory appeal in accordance with law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Writ petition quashed on terms under DRC 01; petitioner to deposit 25% disputed tax within 30 days
Case-Laws
GST
The HC disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order, acknowledging the petitioner's failure to respond to the notice in DRC 01. The Court, following its prior approach in similar cases, granted relief on terms rather than outright dismissal. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the Electronic Cash Register within thirty days from receipt of the order. This conditional quashing balances the petitioner's non-compliance with procedural requirements while providing an opportunity to regularize the disputed tax liability.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Fresh GST registration must be granted if appeal with pre-deposit is filed under Section 107(7) CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The HC held that the non-grant of fresh GST registration to the petitioner, whose Order-in-Original is under appeal with the requisite pre-deposit paid, cannot be considered final. Pursuant to Section 107(7) of the CGST Act, the impugned order stands automatically stayed upon filing the appeal and payment of the mandatory pre-deposit. Consequently, the petitioner shall not be treated as a defaulter during the pendency of the appeal, and the department cannot withhold the NOC on the basis of the disputed demand. The department is directed to process the petitioner's fresh GST registration application and issue the NOC forthwith. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Suo Motu Order Under Section 108 GST Act Set Aside for Lack of Jurisdiction and Natural Justice Violation
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned suo motu order passed under Section 108 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017, on grounds of violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction at the time of issuance. The Court held that the revisional authority was not validly empowered to pass the order on 01.06.2019, as the relevant notification authorizing such authority was issued only on 07.08.2020. Furthermore, the order failed to provide any cogent reasons or record the requisite satisfaction for exercising revisionary powers, rendering it unsustainable. Consequently, the HC directed the concerned authority to discontinue the revision proceedings forthwith and allowed the petition.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Order set aside over GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch; petitioner to deposit 25% disputed tax under Section 143(1)
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 12-4-2024 relating to the assessment year 2018-19, which involved a discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as admitted by counsel for both parties within four weeks from receipt of the order. Upon compliance, the petition was disposed of.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

SC upholds that regulatory fees by CERC and DERC are not taxable under Section 2(17) of CGST Act
Case-Laws
GST
The SC dismissed the Special Leave Petitions challenging the levy of GST on regulatory fees collected by CERC and DERC. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the regulatory functions performed by these Commissions do not constitute “business” under Section 2(17) of the CGST Act. Consequently, revenue derived from such regulatory activities is not taxable under the CGST and IGST Acts. The distinction drawn between adjudicatory and regulatory functions was rejected as a basis for GST liability. The petitions lacked merit and were dismissed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Delay in filing appeal condoned due to medical reasons; hearing must be granted despite limitation rule
Case-Laws
GST
The HC found the appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on limitation grounds justified but, referencing relevant Supreme Court and HC precedents, held that the right to a hearing on appeal cannot be denied solely due to delay. Considering the petitioner's medical condition and supporting documents, the court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remanded to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to adjudicate the appeal on its merits without addressing limitation. Both parties must be afforded a fair hearing, and the appeal is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within three months. The petition was allowed accordingly.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Section 129(3) CGST Act requires reasoned final order after show cause notice even if tax paid under protest
Case-Laws
GST
The SC held that under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, the proper officer is mandatorily required to pass a reasoned final order after issuing a show cause notice, even if tax and penalty have been paid under protest. The deemed conclusion of proceedings under Section 129(5) does not dispense with this requirement nor imply waiver of the right to challenge the levy. The absence of a formal adjudication order deprives the taxpayer of the statutory right to appeal under Section 107. Payment under protest coupled with filed objections necessitates a speaking order to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with natural justice. The HC's refusal to direct the passing of such an order was set aside. The SC directed respondent authorities to pass a reasoned final order in Form GST MOV-09, grant an opportunity of hearing, and upload a summary in Form GST DRC-07 within one month, thereby restoring the appellant's right to appeal. The appeal was allowed.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Govt facilities have spurred industrial growth, boosted GST collection: Gujarat CM
GST
Dated:- 24-7-2025
PTI
Ahmedabad, Jul 24 (PTI) Gujarat Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel on Thursday noted facilities and incentives provided by the government have helped in the growth of industries and also boosted Goods and Services Tax (GST) collection.
He said people are paying taxes without hesitation as they realize the money generated thus is being utilised for their own welfare and also of those in need of government's support.
The CM was speaking after inaugurating as well as laying foundation stones for development projects worth Rs 358.37 crore for Banaskantha district.
Among the projects inaugurated by the CM included a new bus sto

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

d for their welfare itself. Government schemes are benefiting every deserving citizen. This is the reason why the country's tax revenue has increased in recent times,” said Patel.
“India's GST collection was more than Rs 2 lakh crore in just one month (May). A trader can pay tax only when his business does well. You will need good roads, electricity and water connection at industrial estates for running a business. Only then you will earn well and eventually pay taxes. So facilities are also important,” opined the CM.
He highlighted it was PM Modi who brought the idea of '100 per cent saturation' wherein each and every eligible beneficiary is identified and covered under a scheme meant for him/her.
“The PM not only thinks about the curre

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

State tax issues 6,000 GST notices using UPI data; traders protest, department allows evidence submission under GST rules
News
GST
A state tax authority issued nearly 6,000 GST demand notices to traders based on UPI transaction data, alleging unregistered turnover exceeding statutory thresholds. The notices are preliminary and recipients may respond with evidence to prove exemption or justify non-registration, which can lead to withdrawal of notices. Traders' associations have protested, calling for strikes and boycotts of UPI payments, citing lack of clarity and sudden enforcement. The tax department maintains the actions comply with legal provisions, emphasizing the obligation to register and remit taxes once turnover crosses prescribed limits. The department uses UPI data as an indicator but considers other payment modes and allows for hearings before final assessment. Concerns were raised about notices failing to distinguish exempt goods and mixing personal and business transactions, causing confusion among small traders. The department has conducted awareness efforts and encourages traders to engage for guidance within the law.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =

Registration cancellation quashed for lack of reasons and violation of Section 29 GST Act principles of natural justice
Case-Laws
GST
The HC set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, finding that the impugned order lacked application of mind and did not assign reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The cancellation was not in accordance with the prescribed grounds under Section 29 of the GST Act. The petitioner's revocation application was wrongly rejected for non-submission of a reply to the show cause notice, and the subsequent appeal was dismissed without reasons. The court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the cancellation order is unreasoned. The limitation ground cited in rejecting the appeal was also found untenable. Consequently, the petition was allowed, reinstating the petitioner's registration.
TMI Updates – Highlights, quick notes, marquee, annotation, news, alerts

= = = = = = = =

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

= = = = = = = =