In this News Letter 1st Edition of May 2026 you’ll find:
1. RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2. GST UPDATES
3. DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN MAY 2026
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
FATEH EDUCATION CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & ORS. W.P.(C) 17500 OF 2025 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioner herein, provides education consultancy, marketing, and recruitment support to foreign universities. The Petitioner promotes courses, counsels prospective students, charges no fee from students, and receives commissions directly from foreign institutions like the University of Manchester. The petitioner sought an IGST refund of ₹2,63,38,771 plus interest for the export of services between September 2023 and March 2024. The Respondent Authority rejected the petitioner’s GST refund claim via an order dated 30.10.2025. Tax authorities classified the petitioner as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017.
The Petitioner herein argued that it had satisfied all the conditions required for the export of service: (i) the service provider is located Inside India, (ii) the actual consumer of the service (the university) is entirely outside India, (iii) the place of supply is outside India, (iv) payment was completely realized via convertible foreign exchange. The Petitioner further used the explicit language of the service agreement with the University of Manchester, the petitioner proved they could not execute legal contracts, finalize student admissions, or bind the university financially. The contract contained standard boilerplate language disclaiming any principal-agent, partnership, or employer-employee framework. The Petitioner contended that helping students with paperwork is merely an incidental component of fulfilling the main contract with the university. The real commercial service is delivered directly to the university to enhance its enrollment profile.
The Respondent Authority argued that because the petitioner’s revenue is structured as a commission linked to student tuition fees, the company acts as a local agent matching a local buyer (the student) to a foreign seller (the university). The Petitioner argued that the petitioner does not supply the core service (higher education degrees) on its own account, thereby qualifying it strictly as a facilitator (intermediary) under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that for a service to be deemed an “intermediary service”, two distinct supplies must occur concurrently: the main supply between the principal and a third party, and an ancillary agency supply facilitating it. When an exporter provides market strategy and branding entirely on its own account to an overseas client, it operates as a primary supplier of marketing, not a middleman. The Court contended that the identity of the service recipient must be determined exclusively by who holds the contractual right to demand the service and who is legally responsible for paying the provider. The physical location of student assistance inside India is irrelevant to the tax destination. The Hon’ble High Court noted that the issue was no longer res integra (unsettled). The Delhi High Court had already established this principle in DGST v. Global Opportunities Private Limited, which mirrored the Bombay High Court’s ruling in K.C. Overseas Education Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court’s subsequent dismissal of the tax department’s Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) finalized this legal interpretation.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declared the order dated 30.10.2025 legally unsustainable and set it aside. The Hon’ble High Court ordered the tax department to fully process, sanction, and disburse the refund amount of ₹2,63,38,771 along with all accumulated statutory interest under applicable law. The entire processing and disbursement must be executed within a strict window of two months from the date of the decision.
*Editor’s Note: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court didn’t thrown light on the provisions of Section 13 of the IGST Act which provides the determination of “place of supply of services- where location of supplier or location of recipient is outside India”.
IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. WRIT PETITION NO. 3390 OF 2024 (Bombay High Court)
The petitioner herein pursuant to order dated 12/12/2018, wherein the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, formally approved the legal scheme of amalgamation fusing CFL and its subsidiaries into IDFC First Bank Limited, an application for the formal cancellation of CFL’s GST registration certificate was filed on 21 January 2019. Respondent No. 3 processed this and officially cancelled the registration on 14 June 2019. Despite the cancellation, Respondent No. 3 issued a discrepancy notice in Form GST ASMT-10 on 4 January 2022 concerning CFL’s historic returns. The Petitioner replied on 21 February 2022, systematically denying the discrepancies and explicitly warning the department that CFL had legally merged and was non-existent. Respondent No. 3 issued scrutiny notices, conducted an audit, and issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30 December 2023 under CFL’s name. Respondent No. 3 passed an assessment order (Reference No. ZD270424057770B) dated 26 April 2024 in Form GST DRC-07 against CFL and in the said order confirmed the tax demands of ₹4,40,15,285/- each for CGST and MGST, alongside ₹1,45,31,099/- for IGST, plus interest and penalties.
The Petitioner herein argued the Proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio and non-est in law. The Petitioner placed its reliance on the on established Supreme Court and High Court precedents, including PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which rules that assessing a non-existent corporate body is a fatal jurisdictional defect. This stance was adopted under the GST framework by the Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Limited v
Union of India. The Petitioner further contended that the department had actual and constructive knowledge of the dissolution because they approved the GST registration cancellation in June 2019. They cannot claim ignorance or leverage Section 87 to bypass fundamental corporate law principles. Whereas, the Department argued that the underlying tax discrepancies, liabilities, and audit parameters belonged to the pre-amalgamation operating period of FY 2018-19. Furthermore, that Section 87 of the CGST Act creates a statutory legal fiction. Under this interpretation, the combining entities must be treated as separate, distinct companies for the period leading up to the merger order, thereby validating notices issued under the predecessor’s original identity.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court observed that pursuant to the NCLT sanctions an amalgamation scheme, the transferor/amalgamating company is fused into the transferee. It completely loses its identity and can no longer be treated as a “person” under relevant tax statutes. No legal proceedings can be initiated or sustained against a non-existent entity. Moreover, Section 87(1) and 87(2) of the CGST Act exist solely to address a specific transactional window: the intervening period between the effective date of a merger and the final date of the NCLT order. If the combining companies traded goods or services with each other during this gap, those transactions are treated as taxable supplies between distinct entities. Section 87 is an ex abundanti cautela (abundant caution) measure to preserve tax track records of intra-company transactions. It does not grant the tax department the power to issue look-back show-cause notices or final assessment orders to a dead entity post-merger. In an amalgamation, the liabilities of the transferor company automatically transpose to the transferee/amalgamated entity. If the Revenue wishes to recover taxes for past periods, it must issue notices and conduct proceedings directly against the surviving, active successor entity (IDFC First Bank) rather than targeting the defunct entity.
Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed & set aside impugned tax demand order dated 26 April 2024. However, the Hon’ble Court clarified that it did not inspect or rule on the technical mathematical merits or parameters of the tax discrepancies. All lawful avenues remain open for the tax department to take appropriate structural steps against the correct, active amalgamated bank, provided they conform to the rules of jurisdiction.
SUBHASH CHANDRA NARENDRA KUMAR NAHAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. WRIT PETITION NO. 2510 OF 2026 & 2532 OF 2026 (Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore)
The Petitioners (M/s Subhash Chandra Narendra Kumar Nahar and M/s Nahar Traders) herein sought to quash an order dated December 30, 2025 passed by respondent No. 4 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Anti-Evasion Bureau, Indore). The Impugned order herein imposed a total tax liability of Rs. 7,01,61,092 on the petitioner in WP-2510/2026. It is pertinent to note that herein an investigation into another entity (M/s Dakshraj Enterprises) suggested a supply chain mechanism used for wrongful passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioners, as recipients were accused of availing inadmissible ITC in violation of the M.P. GST Act, 2017.
The Petitioner argued that the Respondent No. 4 that is the adjudicating officer was not the proper officer herein as defined under section 2(91) of the CGST Act. The Petitioners herein relied upon the 2024 Commissioner’s Order, an Assistant Commissioner’s jurisdiction is capped at an annual turnover of Rs. 20 Crores. Matters involving higher turnovers vest solely with the Deputy Commissioner. The Respondent on the other hand, argued that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner could have filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. They Further, claimed that respondent No. 4 was authorized under Section 6(1) of the Union Territory GST Act, 2017.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that while an alternative remedy exists, it is not an absolute bar under Article 226 if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction citing Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademark. Furthermore, as per Section 6(1) of the GST Act, State Tax officers can only be authorized as “Proper Officers” for Central/Union Territory tax purposes subject to conditions and recommendations of the GST Council. Even the State’s counsel admitted there was no such recommendation by the Council to notify Respondent No. 4 as the Proper Officer in this context. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the order dated December 30, 2025, on the grounds that it was passed by an incompetent Authority but the Court granted the Competent Authority the liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.
TATA POWER RENEWABLE ENERGIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. WRIT PETITION NO. 10314/2025 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
In the present case, the petitioner supplies Solar Power Generating Systems and Solar Power-based Devices, including design, installation, testing, and maintenance services. Under Entry 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and Entry 38 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), a statutory 70:30 mechanism applies. This legal fiction deems 70% of the contract value as supply of goods (taxed at 5% GST) and 30% as supply
of services (taxed at 18% GST), resulting in an effective tax rate of 8.9%. The petitioner paid taxes based on this 70:30 mechanism for the 2020–21 financial year. On November 30, 2024, Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act. Rejecting the petitioner’s responses, Respondent No. 3 issued an assessment order on March 6, 2025 (Form DRC-07, DIN3706032567381). The order demanded a differential tax of ₹9,19,14,507/-, alongside an equivalent penalty and interest, by taxing the entire gross turnover at 18%.
The Petitioner herein argued that the installation of solar power generating systems constitutes a unified composite contract, supported by the High Court’s precedent in Sterling and Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner. Further that the 70:30 statutory allocations is an explicit legal fiction that applies regardless of whether goods could otherwise be classified under separate, higher-taxed HSN codes. The extended limitation period under Section 74 was unlawfully invoked because there were no ingredients of tax evasion or fraud. The Respondent Authorities stated that the petitioner raised separate, distinct invoices for the physical goods and the erection/installation services, the transactions cannot be treated as a single composite contract. Furthermore, that the effective rate of 8.9% cannot apply to components falling under distinct HSN codes that individually command an 18% tax rate.
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the amendments and explanations introduced into Entry 234 (Notification No. 1/2017) and Entry 38 (Notification No. 11/2017) establish a strict legal fiction. This statutory mechanism locks the value ratio at 70% goods and 30% services for solar power generation system contracts. Moreover, the split issuance of separate invoices for accounting or logistical purposes does not dissolve the underlying single contract executed with the purchaser. It does not strip a taxpayer of the right to use the statutory 70:30 billing formula. The Hon’ble High Court further stated that the on one side assessing an overarching 18% tax rate on the entire turnover while simultaneously arguing that goods and services were separate transactions is a contradictory, unmindful exercise in revenue-raising that lacks legal structure.
Thus, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the impugned Assessment Order (Form DRC-07) dated March 6, 2025, to the extent of the levied differential tax, penalty, and interest. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court directed the Respondent No. 3 to pass necessary consequential orders aligned with the court’s validation of the 70:30 mechanism. The Hon’ble High Court even stated that since the petition succeeded fully on its legal merits, the Court declined to rule on the secondary question of limitation.
SURYA PRIVATE BUSINESS LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. WRIT PETITION CIVIL NO. 6322 OF 2023 (Gauhati High Court)
The Petitioners is registered dealer under the CGST and AGST Acts, 2017. An audit was conducted under Section 65 of the AGST Act was conducted for the period 2017–18. An Audit Observation was issued on 29-05-2023 highlighting discrepancies like short payment of tax and un-reconciled turnover. The Petitioner replied on 07-06-2023, providing necessary clarifications and documentation. The Final Audit Report under Section 65(6) dropped the tax discrepancy objections but directed the petitioner to pay ₹1,34,580 in interest for delayed payments. The Petitioner deposited the interest amount on 17-06-2023 and requested the closure of the matter. However, a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 was subsequently issued on 28-09-2023 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, alleging short payment of tax (₹64,25,694) and excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment (₹1,68,052) for the exact same period.
The Petitioner herein argued that since a completed Section 65 audit encompasses a detailed verification of turnovers, taxes paid, and ITC availed and the audit report cleared the petitioner of tax short-payments and the petitioner paid the calculated interest, no grounds of Section 65(7) exist as, section 65(7) allows action under Section 73/74 actions if the concluded audit actually detects unpaid/short-paid tax or wrongly availed ITC. The Petitioner placed his reliance upon the Departmental Instruction No. 13/2023-GST mandates that subsequent automated notices issued via “IIT Big Data Software” must be dropped if an audit for that period is already complete.
The Respondent on the contrary asserted that writ petition is premature because the petitioner can simply submit their clarifications directly to the proper officer to drop the proceedings. Further contending that there is no explicit statutory provision in the GST Act restraining a Section 73 notice after an audit is completed. They even argued that while the short payment issue was discussed in the audit, the second issue regarding the wrong availment of ITC was not explicitly discussed or noticed by the auditors.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held that an “audit” under Section 2(13) is a comprehensive verification of records to assess total compliance. Re-issuing an SCN for the same period without new qualifying circumstances undermines the statutory audit process and renders it redundant. The Court even observed that for the proper officer to initiate action under Section 73 or 74 following an audit, the completed audit must have actually detected tax short-payments or wrongful ITC. If the final audit report finds no such outstanding liability, the stage to invoke Section 65(7) does not arise. Furthermore, the issues in the SCN (output tax and ITC verification) were already before the authorities during the comprehensive audit, and the petitioner had fully discharged the verified interest liability. Thus, the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 28/09/2023 as non-maintainable.
MAHESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2026) 42 CENTAX 123 (GAU.), (Gauhati High Court)
The Petitioner herein is a proprietorship concern engaged in executing works contracts. The Petitioner claimed service tax exemption under the Mega Exemption Notification of the Finance Act, 1994. A Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the petitioner on 11.04.2022 for the Financial Year (FY) 2016–17. The SCN alleged non-payment of service tax amounting to ₹26,57,349.90 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner filed a response to the notice on 17.11.2023. The Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in-Original on 24.04.2024, confirming the tax demand. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge this order.
The petitioner argued that issuance of the SCN is completely barred by the limitation periods prescribed under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Further that time-barred notice vitiates the entire proceedings and renders the final adjudication order a nullity. The Petitioner asserted that existence of an alternative statutory appeal remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the underlying proceedings are entirely without jurisdiction. The Respondent Authority stated that the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner should be directed to approach the appellate forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Hon’ble Guahati High Court held that, an alternative statutory remedy is a rule of self-imposed restraint and discretion, not an absolute or inflexible bar. The statutory time limitation under Section 73(1) is a substantive fetter on jurisdiction, not a mere procedural convenience. It even Observed that once the statutory period expires, an authority is completely divested of its legal power to initiate tax recovery proceedings. Further, the extended five-year limitation period can only be invoked if specific jurisdictional facts like fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement with intent to evade tax are established. If a notice for FY 2016–17 is issued beyond even the extended five-year period, the initiation is void ab initio and subsequent proceedings are non est. Relegating a party to an alternative appellate forum to challenge an order that is an absolute nullity is unwarranted.
Thus, the Hon’ble High Court held that the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 11.04.2022 was ex facie barred by limitation. The High Court held that tax proceedings initiated under the time-barred notice entirely without jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned adjudicating order dated 24.04.2024 was quashed and set aside.
MARUTI ENTERPRISES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18080 OF 2023 (Gujarat High Court)
The Petitioners (the Purchasing Dealers) had Input Tax Credit (ITC) denied or reversed by the Revenue because their respective suppliers defaulted in depositing the collected tax component with the government treasury. The Hon’ble High Court focused solely on the constitutional validity of the provision, clarifying that it did not investigate the individual merits or factual specifics of each distinct petition in the group.
The Petitioner argued that Section 16(2)(c) treats unequal classes alike by imposing the same penalty denial of ITC on both genuine buyers and collusive or dishonest buyers. Further, the doctrine of “Lex non Cogit Ad Impossibilia” applies because a buyer cannot legally compel or track a supplier to verify if they have filed Form GSTR-3B or deposited the actual tax. Forcing a bona fide purchaser to forfeit ITC after they have already paid GST to a registered supplier amounts to taxing the same supply twice. The Petitioners heavily relied on the Delhi High Court’s On Quest Merchandising ruling (affirmed by the Supreme Court in Arise India), which read down a parallel provision (Section 9(2)(g)) under the Delhi VAT Act. Whereas, Revenue on the other hand argued that ITC is not an absolute or fundamental right, but a statutory concession/entitlement strictly subject to legislative conditions. Under Section 155 of the CGST Act, the burden of proving absolute eligibility for an ITC claim rests entirely on the person making the claim. GST is a destination-based tax system. Under Section 53, the exporting state must transfer tax components to the destination state. Allowing ITC without the tax actually being paid would disrupt state finances and make the framework unworkable. The old VAT framework lacked balancing mechanisms like Section 41(2) (reversal/re-availment of credit) and Rule 37A of the CGST Rules, meaning the On Quest judgment cannot be applied to the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble High Court stated that the six conditions laid out in Section 16(2) [clauses (a) to (d)] cannot be read in isolation. They are cumulative and must be read conjointly. Eligibility is not completed merely by receiving goods under clause (b); the tax must actually be paid to the government under clause (c). The Hon’ble High Court reiterated established Supreme Court jurisprudence (ALD Automotive) that tax credits are legislative concessions, and the conditions attached to them must be interpreted literally and followed strictly. Unlike historical VAT regimes, the current GST framework provides an integrated ecosystem (via Section 41(2) and Rule 37A) that permits buyers to re-avail or reclaim their reversed ITC automatically in the succeeding month once the supplier fulfills their tax liability. Thus, it does not leave genuine purchasers permanently without a remedy. The High Court held that under Section 155, the initial burden is on the purchaser to prove that the collected tax was successfully remitted to the exchequer. Courts can only resort to “reading down” a text to salvage a provision when a literal interpretation reveals clear constitutional infirmities. Section 16(2)(c) is completely plain, self-explanatory,and unambiguous. The High Court of Gujarat refused to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, ultra vires or unconstitutional.
The Hon’ble High Court specifically shown genuine concern towards the Tax Payers and directed the government to take appropriate measures to safeguard the innocent purchasers. The High Court in para 88 held that “……the Government undertakes a comprehensive re-evaluation of the dicey situation which purchasers are facing. There is a pressing need for legislative amendments or clarifications to be issued within the GST framework to alleviate the disproportionate financial and administrative burdens currently placed upon purchasers who have an honest claim of ITC. Beyond mere policy changes, the Government should implement a robust, technology-driven tracking mechanism enabling verification of payments made by suppliers against specific invoices in real time, thereby insulating bona fide recipients from the defaults of their vendors. Simultaneously, the Government has to take prompt and immediate steps for recovery of tax from the erring suppliers, instead of compelling the purchasers to avail themselves of alternate cumbersome remedies. In the absence of stringent oversight, unscrupulous sellers could potentially enrich themselves at the expense of both the public exchequer and honest buyers”.
GST UPDATES-
- The Central Government in Notification No. 18/2024 dated 07/05/2026 has empowered the Principal Bench of the GSTAT to hear Appeals on Section 101B of the GST Act. However, the application of the said provision has been done retrospectively since, 01/04/2026.
- The GSTAT Principal Bench in F.No. GSTAT/Pr.Bench/Portal/125/25-26 Dated 14th May, 2026 extended the applicability of its office order No. 16/2026 dated 20th January 2026 and Instructions dated 10th March 2026, till 31st December 2026 for filing of the Appeals before GSTAT by the Appellants, the GSTAT exercised this power under Rule 123 of Goods & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, pursuant to the difficulties being faced by the appellants in the initial phase for filing of appeals on the GSTAT Portal.
The Bench Reiterated that:
- The Registrar / Joint Registrars / Deputy Registrars / Assistant Registrars shall examine if APL-05 contain soft copies of Show Cause Notice (SCN), Order in-Original (O1O), Order-in-Appeal (OIA), Statement of Facts, grounds of appeal, pre deposit and Court fees, wherever required. In such cases and in cases where any orders of the Higher Courts for exemption of Court Fee / Pre Deposit then flag (defect) should not be raised.
- In case the Appellant prefers Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 112 by attaching a scanned copy certified OIO, OIA and if the Scrutiny officer is satisfied from the endorsement made therein by the issuing Authorities, that it is a certified copy of OlO or OIA, a flag(defect) should not be raised.
- The Appellant /taxpayer shall also upload a copy of the Authorization issued in favour of the tax professional or Vakalatnama executed in the name of an Advocate.
- As far as the application filled by the Revenue under Sub-Section (3) of Section 112 are concerned, the following documents are necessary.
- Show Cause Notice.
- Order in Original
- Order in Appeal.
- Opinion of the Commissioner directing his officer to make the application. 5. Statement of facts.
- Grounds of appeal.
- No Court Fee / Pre Deposit is required in appeal filed by the Revenue (Department).
Verification and Digital Signature of appellant is required.
GSTAT in F.No. GSTAT/Benches/PB/2026/157, Dated 14-05-2026 in Office Order No. 3/GSTAT/PB/2026, prescribed Creation of Benches for hearing matters which are as per Categories No. I, II, III.
The following matters shall be treated as Category I cases: –
- Misclassification of any goods or services or both
- Wrong applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act
- Incorrect determination of time of supply of goods or services or both
- Incorrect determination of value of supply of goods or services or both
- Incorrect admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid/credit to credit ledger/denial of ITC/blocking of credit
- Incorrect determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both 7. Whether applicant is required to be registered or has been granted suo moto registration
- Whether applicant is required to be registered or has been granted suo moto registration
- Whether any particular thing done by the applicant results in supply of goods or services or both
- Determination of tax not paid or short paid on outward supply u/s 73
- Excess ITC availed/utilized u/s 73
- Fraud or willful suppression of fact leading to non-payment/short payment of tax determined u/s 74
- Excess ITC availed/utilized determined u/s 74
The following matters shall be treated as Category II cases: –
- Rejection/acceptance of application for registration
- Rejection/acceptance of application for amendment to registration
- Suspension of registration
- Order dropping show-cause in relation to registration
- Denial of facility to pay tax under composition scheme
- Cancellation of registration
- Rejection/acceptance of application for revocation of cancellation of registration 8. Order accepting reply of taxpayer/order dropping show cause notice
- Order of disqualification of GSTP/cancellation of enrolment of GSTP
- Transfer/Initiation of recovery/ Special mode of recovery (all kinds of garnishee) 11. Tax wrongfully collected/Tax collected not paid to Government.
- Order of assessment including that of a non-filer or evading registration or protective assessment
- Order for re-credit in credit ledger of claim for refund rejected or of wrongly obtained refund being deposited
- Order rejecting/granting provisional refund
- Order denying/reducing/withholding/granting refund
- Issue related to provisional assessment
The following matters shall be treated as Category III cases: –
1.Issues related to seizure/confiscation of goods/books/property or release of such goods/books/property
2. Order relating to rectification/withdrawal of an earlier order
3.Order creating/modifying/withdrawing demand under earlier law
4.Order permitting payment in installments
5.Order relating to provisional attachment of property
6.Order imposing penalty
7.Order permitting compounding of any offense or withdrawing such order.
8. Any other matter not specifically covered under Categories I and II (Residual Category).
*NOTE: All such matters of Category III shall be heard by the bench assigned with deciding the main issues out of which the consequential orders of seizures/confiscation/rectification etc., arises, except Karnataka, Guwahati and Kolkata State Benches.
Following are the Benches:
Delhi Bench
- Sh. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal, Vice-President along with Sh. Rajiv Kapoor, Technical Member (Centre), will take up the cases in category I on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
- Sh. Arun Kumar Singal, Judicial Member, along with Sh. Rajiv Kapoor, Technical Member (Centre), will take up the cases in category II on Thursday and Friday.
Uttar Pradesh
Ghaziabad
- Sh. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi, Vice-President, along with Ms. Sungita Sharma, Technical Member (Centre), shall consider all the three categories of the cases of their jurisdiction. (all working days).
Lucknow Bench
- Sh. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, along with Sh. Alok Chopra, Technical Member (Centre), will take up all the cases of category I (all working days).
- Sh. Narendra Kumar, Judicial Member, along with Sh. Arvind Kumar, Technical Member (State), will take up all the cases of category II (all working days).
Prayagraj Bench
- Sh. Mahtab Ahmad, Judicial Member, along with Sh. Ashish Varma, Technical Member (Centre), shall consider all the three categories of the cases of their jurisdiction. (all working days).
Varanasi Bench
1. Sh. Narendra Bahadur Yadav, Judicial Member, along with Sh. Ananjai Kumar Rai, Technical Member (State), shall consider all the three categories of the cases of their jurisdiction. (all working days).
Agra Bench
- Sh. Ajeet Singh, Judicial Member, along with Sh. Vivek Kumar, Technical Member (State), shall consider all the three categories of the cases of their jurisdiction. (all working days).
Haryana
Gurugram Bench
- Sh. Rakesh Syal, Vice-President, along with Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Technical Member (Centre), shall consider all the three categories of the cases of Gurugram Jurisdiction on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
Hissar
- Vimal Kumar Sapra, Judicial Member, will go in circuit/virtual hearing along with Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Technical Member (Centre), (Gurugram Bench) shall consider all the three categories of the cases on Thursday and Friday.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN MAY 2026 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Apr, 2026) May 20th, 2026
| GSTR-3B (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 22nd, 24th, 2026
| GSTR-5 (Apr, 2026) May 13th, 2026
| GSTR-5A (Apr, 2026) May 20th, 2026
|
GSTR-1 (Apr, 2026) May 11th, 2026
| GSTR-1 (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 13th, 2026
| GSTR-6 (Apr, 2026) May 13th, 2026
| GSTR-7 (Apr, 2026) May 10th, 2026
|
IFF (Optional) (Apr,2026) May 13th, 2026
| CMP-08 (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (Apr, 2026) May 10th, 2026
| RFD-10 2 years from the last day of the quarter in which supply was received
|
Disclaimer: Pursuant to the Bar Council of India rules, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. You, the reader acknowledges that there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is solely available at your request and is for informational purposes only, it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the reader relying on material/ information provided in the newsletter. In cases where the reader has any legal issues, he/she must in all cases seek independent legal advice. Any information obtained or materials used from this newsletter is completely at the reader’s volition and any transmission, receptor use of the contents of this newsletter would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
© 1981-2026 Sharnam Legal, All rights reserved