1In this News Letter 1st Edition of June 2026 you’ll find:
1. RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2. GST UPDATES
3. DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN JUNE 2026
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
DLF LIMITED VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS (CWP) NO. 17530 OF 2022 (Punjab & Haryana High Court)
The petitioner (DLF Limited) on 10.06.2019 filed before Advance Ruling Authority an application under Rule 98 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to get a clarification, whether Preferential Location Charges (PLC) collected for flats should be taxed independently or bundled with the main construction service. On 28.08.2020, the Advance Ruling Authority decided that PLC must be taxed independent of development and construction charges. The petitioner challenged this decision via an Appeal under Section 101 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal on 28.03.2022, upholding the separate taxation of PLC. Subsequent to these orders, the issue was deliberated in the 54th GST Council Meeting on 09.09.2024. The Council recommended that PLC should not be taxed separately, but instead combined with construction services. Accepting the Council’s recommendations, the Ministry of Finance (Tax Research Unit) issued a binding clarification via Circular dated 11.10.2024 under Section 168(1) of the Act. The Circular clarified that selecting an apartment’s location is an integral part of construction services, establishing a naturally bundled composite supply.
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition and argued that both the initial Advance Ruling (28.08.2020) and the Appellate Authority order (28.03.2022) directly contradict the subsequently issued Government of India Circular dated 11.10.2024. Consequently, both impugned orders are legally unsustainable and must be set aside.
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that providing a buyer a choice of apartment location is an integral element of real estate construction. Therefore, PLC is naturally bundled with construction services under a composite supply framework, making it subject to identical tax treatments before a completion certificate is issued. Furthermore, Government circulars that are issued under Section 168(1) of the CGST Act to clarify existing legal ambiguities hold a retrospective application. Clarificatory circulars issued by the Government of India are strictly binding on departmental and respondent authorities. Any prior statutory interpretations by lower tribunals that run contrary to active board clarifications cannot survive. The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both the impugned Advance Ruling order dated 28.08.2020 and the Appellate Authority order dated 28.03.2022. The Hon’ble Court ordered that all necessary consequential benefits and reliefs follow in favor of the petitioner.
CG TOLLWAY LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15048 OF 2025 (Rajasthan High Court)
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) entered into a design, build, finance, operate and transfer (DBFOT) concession agreement with the petitioner CG Tollway Ltd. on December 9, 2016. The agreement mandated the six-laning of a National Highway-79 stretch in Rajasthan. It gave the petitioner site access on a leave-and-license basis and the exclusive right to collect tolls post-Commercial Operation Date (post-COD). The petitioner was required to pay a nominal fee of Re. 1 per annum plus a heavy annual premium starting after the third anniversary of the COD. This premium began at ₹2,28,60,00,000 for the first year, escalating by 3% annually until the 9th anniversary and by 8% annually thereafter. The petitioner subcontracted the entire physical Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) work to an independent sub-contractor, IRB Infrastructure Developers Limited, but retained the exclusive right to collect tolls. An internal audit report dated July 30, 2023 flagged that the petitioner did not pay GST on the transaction value of construction services. This led to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on September 29, 2023. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed a GST demand of ₹16,36,20,418 along with interest and a 10% penalty on December 14, 2023, treating the project as a taxable works contract involving non-monetary consideration. The Commercial Tax Appellate Authority in Ajmer upheld this decision on May 9, 2025, leading to the writ petition.
The Petitioner – CG Tollway Ltd herein contended that they provided no taxable supply or service to NHAI under an independent contract. They argued that the right to collect tolls is entirely exempt under Entry 23 of Notification No. 12/2017. CBIC clarification letters also support that no GST applies to BOT (Toll) operations. Relying on the Supreme Court’s VAT regime precedent in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd., they claimed taxing both the contractor and sub-contractor on the same work is unlawful. Even if GST applies, the exercise is revenue-neutral as the construction activity already suffered tax via the EPC contractor. Identical audit proceedings against sister concerns were dropped by GST officials in Karnataka and Gujarat, making varying stands on a central statute unconstitutional. Whereas, the respondents contended that the petitioner should approach the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 rather than approaching the High Court directly. Further that under Section 7, “supply” includes “barter”. The concessionaire built the road, and in return, NHAI bartered the exclusive site license and toll collection rights. Moreover, exemption under Entry 23 applies strictly to access-to-road services by way of toll under Heading 9967. Road construction falls under Heading 9954, which enjoys no exemption even if payments are deferred as an annuity or toll. Two separate, non-overlapping contracts exist: one between NHAI and the petitioner, and another between the petitioner and the sub-contractor. Thus, separate tax events arise.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that where a statutory alternate remedy is technically available but the designed Appellant Tribunal remains non-functional then the petitioner can’t be left remediless. Thus, the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to decide the matter on its legal merits. Further, under section 2(31) and 7 of the CGST Act, consideration includes non-monetary elements. Granting exclusive toll collection rights and real estate leave-and-license in return for constructing a highway amounts to a reciprocal barter exchange. It forms a taxable supply of works contract services under Schedule II. In a multi-layered contract structure, tax obligations arise independently at each leg of supply. The sub-contractor providing services to the main contractor is a distinct tax event from the main contractor handing over the asset to the procuring authority (NHAI). If there is no privity of contract between the sub-contractor and the ultimate authority, the plea of double taxation is legally untenable.
Valuation rules and ratios under the old VAT regime—which taxed only the incorporation of goods in works contracts are inapplicable to GST. GST is a destination-based levy tracking the independent supply of both goods and services. Statutory exemptions must be strictly interpreted in favor of the revenue. Entry 23 of Notification No. 12/2017 exempts toll collection services under Heading 9967 (supporting services in transport). It does not extend to road construction services falling under Heading 9954, even if the construction consideration is retrieved indirectly via a deferred toll annuity barter framework. Administrative actions or dropping audit objections by local officers in other states do not bind a High Court handling a pure question of law. There can be no claim to negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Thus, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or jurisdictional defect in the lower orders. The orders dated December 14, 2023, and May 9, 2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Authority confirming the GST demand, interest, and 10% penalty against CG Tollway Ltd. were fully upheld.
DOW CHEMICAL INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI RAHUNATHANGAVEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, MAZGAON, MUMBAI – ASHEESH SHARMA & ORS. (GSTAT Delhi- Division Bench)
The Appellant herein (DOW India) is an Indian company engaged in manufacturing/distributing chemical components and providing services. On 01.07.2021, Dow India signed a Procurement Agreement with its global group related entity, Dow Europe GmbH (Switzerland), which serves as a centralized procurement hub. Dow Europe handles the entire procurement lifecycle for Dow India, including identifying foreign suppliers, negotiating contracts, and assisting in purchase orders. For the period from January 2022 to June 2022, Dow India paid Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST)
under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) totaling multiple crores on the assumption that it was an “import of services”. Believing later that Dow Europe functioned as an “intermediary” (making the place of supply Switzerland and thus exempt from Indian GST), Dow India reversed its Input Tax Credit (ITC) and filed six refund claims. Both the Adjudicating Authority and the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) rejected the refund applications. Dow India appealed these decisions to the GSTAT.
The Appellant contended that Dow Europe fits Section 2(13) because it acts as a facilitator connecting Dow India with independent foreign third-party suppliers. Further that the arrangement satisfies CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST since three parties are involved and distinct main/ancillary supplies exist. The payment was structured as a commission (3.5% of total purchases) and was entirely dependent on successful procurement. The “independent contractor” status in the agreement merely clarifies that Dow Europe is not an employee, which does not prevent it from being an intermediary. Whereas, the Revenue contended that the agreement outlines an outsourcing of procurement operations where Dow Europe acts on its own account as a principal business hub. The services involve core operations (analytics, risk management, strategy) rather than just casual liaisoning. The contract explicitly denies Dow Europe the agency or authority to legally bind Dow India to any purchases. Relied on High Court rulings like Columbia Sportswear where global buying support services on a principal-to-principal basis were excluded from the intermediary scope.
The GSTAT clarified that applying for a refund under Section 54 cannot be dismissed simply as an “afterthought” if an asset was paid under a genuine legal misconception. For a service to be an intermediary service, it must be an ancillary supply to a main supply. Dow Europe and Dow India are subsidiaries of the same parent company, “Dow INC”. Dow Europe exists explicitly to operate as the centralized procurement hub for the global group. Its services do not form a temporary supportive role; they represent an independent, principal core service rendered on its own account. Because Dow Europe operates on its own account as an independent contractor without the legal authority to bind Dow India, it fails the statutory definition of an agent or broker intermediary.
Thus, the Division Bench of the GSTAT held that the procurement assistance provided by Dow Europe is not an intermediary service under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. The transaction constitutes a direct import of services, making the place of supply India.
DIVYA TEXTILES INDUSTRIES VS THE ASSSITANT COMMISSIONER WRIT PETITION NO. 12213 OF 2026 (Telangana High Court)
In the present case, the petitioner operates a textile business at Ibrahim-Patanam Mandal, Telangana. The State Tax Department initiated audit/scrutiny proceedings under Section 73 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax (TGST) Act, 2017, targeting the F.Y.2019-20.
The department issued an SCN noting discrepancies between the petitioner’s GSTR-09 Annual Return, GSTR-3B monthly filings, and connected records. The petitioner was called upon to submit an explanation/objection via Form GST DRC-06. Despite three separate personal hearing opportunities and digital reminders uploaded to the GST Common Portal, the petitioner failed to file any written objections or attend hearings. Due to repeated extensions for the FY 2019-20 tax period, the statutory deadline for tax officers to pass adjudication orders under Section 73 was August 31, 2024. Because the deadline was expiring and no taxpayer reply was on record, the Proper Officer passed an ex-parte Assessment Order based on the “best judgment” method. However, this Order-in-Original was officially dated and uploaded on September 2, 2024 under Reference No. ZD360924002306K. The petitioner initially moved an appeal against the assessment. On February 23, 2026, the Appellate Authority issued an order in Form GST APL-02, dismissing the appeal strictly on procedural grounds due to filing delays, without evaluating the merits of the case. The petitioner then approached the High Court.
The Petitioner contended that the statutory deadline was August 31, 2024. The order was uploaded on September 2, 2024. This delay is a fatal flaw that strips the department of its jurisdiction. Further that the Appellate Authority failed to see that the underlying tax demand was dead on arrival due to the time bar. Dismissing an appeal over a delay when the original order itself lacked jurisdiction is a failure of justice. Whereas, the department argued that the substantive “adjudicating mind” was exercised before midnight on August 31, 2024. However, because the date changed from Saturday (August 31) to Sunday (September 1, a public holiday), the systemic generation of the portal reference number (RFN) rolled over to the next working day i.e. Monday, September 2, 2024. The officer was logging in with a single DSC to handle heavy time-bound workloads for two distinct tax circles (336 entries for Rajendranagar-1 and 158 entries for Vanasthalipuram-1). On the merits, the department noted that a subsequent explanation filed by the taxpayer on July 25, 2025, showed the differential IGST ITC of ₹1,94,25,928 was actually legitimate import IGST paid on capital machinery (though omitted from Table 8A/GSTR-2A). The state conceded that, subject to official verification of the bills of entry, there was no actual loss of revenue and the demand would have likely been dropped if the petitioner had replied earlier.
The Hon’ble Telangana High Court held that the power to impose a tax demand is granted by the legislature and is strictly bound by time. Once the clock runs out, the “Proper Officer” ceases to have the power to create a valid financial liability. Further, in modern digital tax systems, an order is not “passed” when an officer finishes thinking about it or writing it on a local machine. It is legally passed only when it is system-generated, digitally authenticated, and made available to the taxpayer on the GST common portal.
A portal date of September 2 cannot be legally backdated to August 31.High workloads, dual-office burdens and public holidays cannot expand a strict statutory deadline. While the court noted the massive volume of orders handled by the officer, it ruled that administrative inconvenience cannot override statutory commands. Thus, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court quashed and set aside both the ex-parte Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal.
MOHAN MILKFOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS JOINT COMMISSIONER (CORPORATE-2), STATE TAX & 2 OTHERS WRIT TAX NO. 2613 OF 2026 (Allahabad High Court)
The matter pertains to petitioner’s blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) in it’s Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86-A of the UP GST Rules, 2017. The blocking order stated a conclusion of fraudulent ITC availment but did not contain a written record of the underlying “reason to believe”. The Revenue’s Standing Counsel presented subsequent written instructions dated May 25, 2026, containing survey reports to justify the order after it was challenged.
The Petitioner herein contended that the statutory authority failed to satisfy a non-negotiable legal condition because no “reason to believe” was recorded in writing prior to taking action. Whereas, the Revenue claimed that the blocking action was fully justified on merits, pointing to subsequent survey proceedings and reports compiled in written instructions. Furthermore, the electronic ledger entry noting “Supplier found non-functioning” should be seen as an adequate reflection of the rule’s requirement.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court observed that public statutory orders must be judged solely by the reasons explicitly mentioned within them at the time of issuance. They cannot be supplemented or improved by subsequent explanations, materials, or affidavits (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner). Recording a “reason to believe” in writing is a strict, mandatory requirement under Rule 86-A. Suspicion or generic allegations from third-party units (like DGGI) do not substitute for an independent, documented application of mind. ITC is vital to the GST structure. Outright blocking cannot be triggered by mere doubt without strict compliance with procedural law. Thus, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the blocking order dated April 9, 2026, declaring it jurisdictionally deficient. However, a liberty was granted to Respondent No. 1 to initiate a fresh process and pass a new order, provided they strictly follow the law.
PRIME METALS VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS SLP APPEAL (C) NO. 18577 OF 2026 (Supreme Court)
Herein the department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the Adjudicating Authority subsequently passed an Order-in-Original against the petitioner under CGST/RGST. The assessee filed before the Rajasthan High Court a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the SCN and the Order-in-Original. The assessee also sought the quashing of a departmental circular and challenged the legal validity of input tax credit conditions under Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that an alternate, efficacious statutory remedy was available before the appellate authority. The High Court gave the assessee liberty to urge all legal and factual grounds before the statutory appellate authority. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court challenging this High Court order.
The Petitioner herein argued that there was a violation of natural justice due to the denial of cross-examination during the adjudication process. Challenged the overall validity of input tax credit conditions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Sought the quashing of a specific departmental circular. Whereas, the department contended that a statutory, efficacious appellate remedy exists against the final adjudication order. Further, argued that a writ petition against a mere SCN or an order where statutory appeals exist is not maintainable.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that when an efficacious statutory appeal mechanism is explicitly provided under tax laws, the court will not generally entertain a writ remedy under Article 226. Even if issues of natural justice (like cross-examination) or statutory validity are raised, they can be kept open to be agitated before the appropriate forum or appellate authority rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court decline to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment and disposed of the Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to file a statutory appeal with the necessary pre-deposits within eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court ordered that if the appeal is filed within this eight-week window, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation/delay. All remedies and issues relating to the validity of the provisions under Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, were left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum or authority.
BHUSHAN CHANDRA DEKA VS. UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 2730 OF 2026 (Gauhati High Court)
The Petitioner herein runs a proprietorship firm. The business executes works contract services out of District Darrang, Mangaldai, Assam. The firm was a registered assessee under the CGST Act, 2017 and the Assam GST Act, 2017. The petitioner failed to file his statutory GST returns for a continuous period of six months. The petitioner could not file the returns due to severe burn injuries sustained during an LPG cylinder blast at his residence. A Show-Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on May 14, 2024, which also suspended the petitioner’s registration. Due to non-response, the Superintendent of CGST, Mangaldoi Range formally cancelled the GST registration via an order dated August 5, 2024. The petitioner filed an appeal, but it was rejected by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on April 10, 2026. The petitioner attempted to file a statutory revocation application, but it was blocked because the prescribed limitation period had elapsed. The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition.
The Petitioner herein contended that the default was entirely unintentional and caused by a serious medical emergency i.e. injuries sustained due to domestic cylinder blast. That the petitioner had already updated his GST returns up to the April–June 2024 period. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready and willing to fully comply with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017 by clearing all outstanding backlogs, taxes, interest, late fees, and penalties. The Petitioner relied upon the coordinate bench ruling of Dhirghat Hardware Stores v. UOI (2025) to seek identical equitable relief.
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court observed that under the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, if a taxpayer chooses to furnish all pending statutory returns and pays the total due tax, interest, penalties, and late fees instead of simply answering an SCN, the proper officer is legally authorized to drop the cancellation proceedings and issue Form GST REG-20. Further, the High Court reasoned that the cancellation of a business’s GST registration carries severe civil and economic consequences, equity permits a time-bound opportunity for a taxpayer to restore business operations, provided they clear 100% of their tax backlog. The decision is bound by and follows the coordinate bench rulings in Dhirghat Hardware Stores v. UOI (2025) 36 Centax 284 (Gau.) and Sanjoy Nath v. UOI (2023).
The Hon’ble Guahati High Court permitted the petitioner to approach the proper officer within 60 days from the date of the order to seek restoration of his GST registration. The proper officer must expeditiously consider and restore the registration, provided the petitioner complies with the proviso to Rule 22(4) by furnishing all pending returns and making full payment of all outstanding tax, penalties, interest, and late fees. The court directed that the statutory limitation period outlined under Section 73(10) of the CGST/State GST Act will be calculated from the date of this order, with the exception of the 2024–25 financial year, which will follow Section 44 of the Act.
NOORDEEN ENTERPRISES VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF GST INTELLIGENCE, CHENNAI W.P. NOS. 6704 & 6705 OF 2023 (Madras High Court)
In the present case the DGGI Chennai issued letters to the petitioners’ customers, directing them to pay the government instead of the petitioners to cover alleged GST dues. Based on these letters, a customer (Sumangala Steel) remitted ₹15 lakhs to the GST Authorities. At the time the letters were sent, a tax proposal existed, but no formal Order-in-Original (OIO) had been passed to crystallize the liability. The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) and the withdrawal of these letters, arguing pre-assessment recovery is illegal.
The Petitioner asserted that the department sent letters to the petitioners’ customers (such as Sumangala Steel Private Limited) to intercept payments owed to the petitioners. Petitioner relied upon earlier ruling in MNS Enterprises v. Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence (W.P. No. 20067 of 2021), the counsel pointed out that the Court had already expressly found such recoveries illegal under Sections 79 and 83. Whereas, the revenue relied on a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner had addressed a letter to its customer, Sumangala Steel, directing them to make the payment directly to the Government’s GST account to discharge their liability, leading to a remittance of ₹15 lakhs. The department argued that the petitioner failed to formally apply for a refund under Section 54 of the GST Act despite having been given liberty to do so by the Court in previous litigation.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court stated that at the time the DDGI Chennai Zonal Unit issued the communication to the customers, a tax proposal existed, but it had not crystallized into an official tax liability. Further the Garnishee recovery under Section 79(1)(c) can only be initiated against a third party once a taxpayer defaults on a formal demand. Provisional attachment rules under Section 83 also could not be pressed into service for this specific type of third-party payment diversion before adjudication. Even though formal tax demand orders were subsequently issued on March 28, 2023, it did not retrospectively validate the unlawful pre-assessment recovery letters.
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE V. GIRISH SACHDEVA CRL.M.C. NOS. 2300, 2330 OF 2021 & 3652 OF 2022 AND CRL.M.A. NOS. 15297, 15491 OF 2021 & 15324 OF 2022 (Delhi High Court)
In the present case, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence initiated on December 13, 2018, an inquiry based on information that M/s Daak International Pvt. Ltd. was generating high-value E-way bills without filing statutory GST returns. Department officials visited the company’s registered address at K.G. Marg, New Delhi, and found the entity non-existent. The premises belonged to a company providing virtual office spaces. The office provider identified Girish Sachdeva, Harish Sachdeva, and Abhinav Bardhan as the directors of the non-existent company. In their initial statements, the respondents claimed they traded textiles and minerals via circular trading partners without possessing any physical storage facilities. The company failed to file GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-9 returns from March 2019 onwards. The respondents consistently failed to physically appear before repeated summons issued under Sections 70 and 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, choosing to only send written replies and documents. Initial investigations indicated that the company operated for only ten months, using circular trading to pass on ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) and defraud the exchequer of more than ₹8 crores. The respondents filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) dismissed the anticipatory bail applications but directed the Department to give the respondents a 7-day prior notice before taking any coercive action. The Department challenged this specific directive under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The Petitioner contended that a directive ordering a 7-day advance notice operates as a blanket order of bail and a shield against investigation, violating established Supreme Court rulings like Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal. For an arrest under the CGST Act, the prior written approval of the Commissioner of CGST is mandatory. No such proposal had been generated or placed before the Commissioner, meaning there was no objective threat of arrest. Economic offences involve deep-rooted conspiracies that damage the country’s economic health and must be viewed with severity. The respondents were actively evading investigation by refusing to appear physically despite multiple statutory summons. Whereas, the respondents claimed they had submitted relevant documents to the authorities and formally undertook to cooperate and join future investigations. The 7-day notice directive was not a blanket restriction on the investigation, but a valid application of natural justice to protect personal liberty.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court reiterated that economic frauds heavily impact the nation’s financial health, and investigating departments retain an absolute statutory right to investigate and proceed against fraud in accordance with law. The High Court ruled that a 7-day prior notice is not a blanket protection or an absolute passport to commit crimes. It does not put any conditions or fetters on the Department’s right to continue its investigation. Since an active investigation is underway, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that the respondents face zero threat of future arrest. Because there was no imminent threat, the ASJ correctly denied anticipatory bail, but the 7-day notice order safely balances natural justice by allowing citizens a fair window to seek legal remedies if coercive actions arise. If the respondents fail to join the investigation or refuse to comply with future notices, the Department remains fully empowered to take appropriate legal action. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court found no merit in the Department’s petitions.
GST UPDATES-
- The GSTAT in Office Memorandum F.No- GSTAT/ Misc. Work 88/2025-26, dated 23.05.2026. Hon’ble President, GSTAT to convey that, owing to the prevailing extreme heat conditions, Members, staff, legal representatives, and tax professionals may face considerable difficulty in wearing robes while attending proceedings before the various Benches of the GSTAT across the country.
Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 123 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, the Hon’ble President, GSTAT has directed that the requirement of wearing robes by Members, staff, legal representatives, and tax professionals during court proceedings and hearings before all Benches of the GSTAT shall remain relaxed until further orders. Professionals / Advocates should be presentable while appearing before the Tribunal in-person or in virtual mode.
- GSTN Revises Effective Date for E-Way Bill System Enhancements. GSTN has extended the implementation timeline for the following E-Way Bill functionalities from 15 June 2026 to 1 August 2026:
- Mandatory capture of “Ship To GSTIN” in Bill-To/Ship-To transactions.
- Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionality.
The extension has been granted considering industry requests for additional time to complete system changes, testing, API/ERP readiness and master data updates. Taxpayers, GSPs, ERP providers and other stakeholders should utilize this extended period to ensure readiness before the revised implementation date of 1 August 2026.
The GSTAT from its official X account has informed that 30th June 2016 remains the last date for filing the backlogs of the Appeal. Further informing that the GSTAT doesn’t have the jurisdiction to extend the last limitation day of filing the Appeal. Thus, all the Appellant be it the Tax Payers/Tax Officials preferring an Appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act of 2017 should file before 30th June 2026. To avoid last minute rush.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN JUNE 2026 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (May, 2026) June 20th, 2026 | GSTR-3B (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 22nd, 24th, 2026 | GSTR-5 (May, 2026) June 13th, 2026 | GSTR-5A (May, 2026) June 20th, 2026 |
GSTR-1 (May, 2026) June 11th, 2026 | GSTR-1 (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 13th, 2026 | GSTR-6 (May, 2026) June 13th, 2026 | GSTR-7 (May, 2026) June 10th, 2026 |
IFF (Optional) (May,2026) June 13th, 2026
| CMP-08 (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (May, 2026) June 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