In this News Letter 1st Edition of July 2026 you’ll find:
1. RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2. GST UPDATES
3. DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN July 2026
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
SUNIL CHAUHAN Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH W.P.(C) NO. 8412 OF 2026 AND C.M. APPL. NOS. 39417 & 39418 OF 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Shree Chem India (GSTIN No. 07AUSPC8705A1ZS) engaged in the trading of agro-chemical products including insecticides and pesticides. On June 17, 2025 the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi Zonal Unit, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The notice proposed a recovery of GST amounting to ₹5,51,34,232 for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23 along with applicable interest and penalty, based on allegations of mis-declaration, undervaluation and clandestine clearance. The Petitioner submitted a reply on July 16, 2025, denying the allegations and requesting permission to cross-examine third parties whose statements and records were relied upon in the SCN. On December 16, 2025 the Adjudicating Authority passed Order-in-Original No. 91/JC/DN/RAVIPARKASH/2025-26 along with DRC-07. This order confirmed the tax demand of ₹5,51,34,232 with interest, imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 74 and further levied penalties under Sections 122(1)(ii) and 122(3)(e) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the original order, bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism.
The Petitioner argued that the Adjudicating Authority failed to apply its mind to the reply dated 16.07.2025, casually dismissing it by stating it was “neither in consonance to the allegations… nor do they seem to validate their stance”. No notices for the personal hearing dates (09.10.2025, 14.10.2025, and 06.11.2025) were ever served upon the Petitioner in accordance with Section 169 of the CGST Act. The statement recorded from the Petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act was involuntary, obtained under coercion and could not legally be relied upon. The SCN relied on third-party items and statements, but the Petitioner was illegally denied the opportunity to cross-examine those individuals. The Adjudicating Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 74 by imposing separate, consequential penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that while an alternative remedy is a matter of discretion and not an absolute bar, a writ petition under Article 226 will only be entertained under exceptional circumstances: breach of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, patent excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of a statute. Bypassing a specialized statutory hierarchy is not justified unless a clear, uncontroverted exception is met. Further, the disputed questions of fact (such as whether a notice was physically served under Section 169) and evidentiary appreciations (such as the voluntariness or retraction of a Section 70 statement, or the necessity of cross-examination) must be evaluated by the appellate authority via standard statutory mechanisms, not a writ court. Section 74(9) mandates that the proper officer consider a representation, but merely failing to deal elaborately with every single submission does not prove complete non-consideration. The adequacy of an officer’s reasoning goes to the merits of the order, which falls strictly in the domain of the appellate authority. The issue of penalty competence is res integra. Reading the statutory scheme holistically including Explanation 1(ii) to Section 74 and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, the proper officer adjudicating tax liability arising from an SCN is competent to determine and impose all consequential penalties under Section 122 in the very same proceeding. Separate adjudication proceedings are not required.
DG ANTI PROFITEERING Vs EMAAR INDIA LTD. NAPA/153/PB/2025 (GSTAT- Principal Bench at New Delhi)
The Respondent herein supplied construction services for a residential housing project named “Gurgaon Greens”. The project comprises 642 residential units. A homebuyer, Mr. Raman Kumar Kalia (Flat No. GGN-04-0602), filed an application under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules, 2017. He alleged that the Respondent did not pass on the Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefit via a commensurate price reduction after GST implementation (effective 01.07.2017). The investigation spanned from 01.07.2017 to 16.07.2019 which is the exact date the Respondent received the Occupancy Certificate (OC). Out of 642 total units, 435 were sold to pre-GST customers and 142 to post-GST customers prior to the OC. Because 65 buyers booked post-OC, exactly 577 homebuyers were deemed eligible for the profiteering calculation.
The Ratios & Savings:
- Pre-GST ratio of credit availed to purchase value: 41% (CENVAT & VAT credits of ₹12,69,22,100 on a purchase value of ₹1,34,84,28,494).
- Post-GST ratio of credit availed to purchase value: 85% (GST credit of ₹24,86,30,369 on a purchase value of ₹2,09,79,11,924).
- Additional ITC benefit derived by the introduction of GST: 44% (11.85% – 9.41%).
Quantification of Profiteering:
- Applying the 2.44% to the post-GST purchase value generated total savings of ₹5,11,62,436.37.
- Distributed over the total saleable area (11,91,366 Sq. Ft.), the saving came to ₹42.94 per Sq. Ft.
- For the total sold area (7,27,150 Sq. Ft.), the base profiteered amount was ₹3,12,26,983.
- After adding 12% GST (₹37,47,238), the total profiteered amount was ₹3,49,74,221.
The Respondent had voluntarily passed on a total of ₹3,21,54,840. However, verification showed they gave excess benefit (totaling ₹2,15,27,181) to 204 buyers, but under-passed or short-paid 226 buyers by a deficit of ₹55,85,980. Accounting for all traceable records, a balance of ₹67,32,464 (inclusive of GST) remained unpaid to 232 eligible homebuyers.
The Respondents herein contended that higher post-GST ITC simply reflected a higher tax burden on input procurements rather than actual cost savings. Claimed allocation should be based on actual post-GST monetary receipts, not total sold area. They even submitted an alternative calculation benchmarking against maximum pre-GST tax incidence, alleging the net additional benefit was only 0.46%, restricting any potential profiteering to ₹58,90,116. Respondent argued that the total benefit voluntarily passed on (₹3.22 crore) exceeded or fully offset any calculated project profiteering, requesting buyer-to-buyer adjustments. They claimed that anti-profiteering adjustments do not constitute a separate taxable supply, meaning the profiteered amount should not be enhanced by adding GST. Respondent further contended that the Standing Committee lacked prima facie evidence to initiate a reference. Claimed the proceedings were barred by limitation and violated natural justice as original application documents were not served. Objected to the DGAP expanding the investigation scope beyond the initial single customer complaint to the entire project. They argued that the interest was not leviable because there was no wrongful intent or deliberate retention, and delays were official. Stated that Section 171(3A) penalty rules cannot apply retrospectively to a prior period.
The Appellant i.e. DGAP defended that the credit-to-cost ratio and area-apportionment method as fully compliant with the Delhi High Court directives in Reckitt Benckiser, noting it directly captures the project’s true economic savings. They further stated that excess benefits given to certain buyers cannot be shifted or set off against shortfalls owed to others, because Section 171 establishes an independent, recipient-specific entitlement. The Appellant reasserted that tax components collected from consumers on base prices must be returned alongside the profiteered amount. The DGAP confirmed that the Standing Committee found Prima-facie evidence, proper notices were issued, records were shared, and timelines under anti-profiteering laws are legally directory rather than mandatory.
The Hon’ble Principal GSTAT Bench observed that there is no uniform mathematical formula for all industries under Rule 126. In real estate, expenses and advances are non-uniform, meaning an ITC-to-turnover ratio is structurally flawed. The appropriate approach requires calculating total project savings and dividing it by total saleable area to distribute uniform per-square-foot benefits to buyers. Section 171(1) operates on a recipient-wise entitlement framework. Excess compliance toward one buyer cannot diminish or clear a statutory deficiency, shortfall, or liability owed to an underpaid buyer. Further that Rule 133(3)(b) mandatory interest at 18% is purely compensatory to preserve the time value of money. It triggers automatically from the date of excess collection until actual refund, remaining entirely unaffected by an absence of wrongful intent or procedural delays by tax authorities. Moreover, Section 171(3A) introduces substantive penal liability and came into force on 01.01.2020. In the absence of explicit legislative language, financial penal rules cannot act retrospectively on transactions finalized during a prior period.
The Hon’ble GSTAT Principal Bench ruling in favor of Revenue, explicitly accepted the DGAP report dated 03.12.2024 and validated its project-based allocation methodology. All the Technical objections that were raised by the Respondent regarding the limitation, natural justice, jurisdiction and expanded scope were dismissed. GSTAT confirmed the total profiteered sum at ₹3,49,74,221 (inclusive of GST). Acknowledging that ₹3,21,54,840 was previously passed on, the Tribunal directed the Respondent to refund the balance profiteered amount of ₹67,32,464 to the 232 short-paid eligible homebuyers. It further ordered that the Respondent to pay statutory interest at 18% per annum on the un-passed profiteered amount, running from the initial dates of collection up to the actual date of final reimbursement. The Tribunal refused to levy any penalty under Section 171(3A) against the Respondent, given that the entire investigation period concluded prior to the introduction of the penal provision on January 1, 2020.
SDE ENGINEERS LTD. Vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER T.R.E.V.C. NO. 52 OF 2008 AND W.P. NOS. 9991, 3865 AND 3866 OF 2009 (Telangana High Court at Hyderabad)
This case pertains to pre-GST period of VAT and Service Tax wherein interesting question of law based on the facts have arisen as to whether the composite contract for lease of working space for IT companies along with facilities could be taxed separately under VAT and Service Tax.
The Petitioners herein constructed high-rise buildings in an industrial technology park and leased out the tech-park premises to IT Companies. The Petitioners entered into composite rental agreements with tenants to provide immovable property along with various core amenities, fittings and furniture on a per-square-foot rental basis. The package included centralized air conditioning, raw power supply, light fittings, functional toilets, drinking water, sub-stations, DG power packs, elevators/lifts, a sewage treatment plant, a fully equipped kitchen, a common cafeteria, furniture and fit-outs. The movability of the furniture and fixtures was undisputed. The petitioners paid Service Tax on the entire composite consideration received. However, the State Revenue Department bifurcated the lease agreements, interpreting the rent allocated to movable items (fixtures, furniture, cafeteria/kitchen equipment) as a “transfer of the right to use goods”. The Revenue levied Sales Tax under Section 4(8) of the APVAT Act, 2005, and Section 5E/5A of the APGST Act, 1957. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (STAT) subsequently affirmed the taxing orders.
The Petitioners herein argued that the Taxable events require a transfer of the right to use, not just a permission or delivery for use. Substantial control and possession of the items always remained with the landlord (petitioners), while lessees merely held basic permission to use them. The arrangements were single, indivisible service contracts where facilities were provided as a means of rendering the primary service of renting immovable property. Petitioners paid service tax on the full amount, and the Revenue’s artificial bifurcation of the lease rentals was legally impermissible. Many facilities (like lifts, cafeteria, sewage system) were common amenities enjoyed simultaneously by multiple corporate occupants and could not be exclusively delivered to one tenant.
The Revenue on the other hand contended that leased items like furniture, fixtures, and equipment are distinct movables that cannot be treated as immovable property. The lease deeds contained item-wise/component-based rent breakdowns, proving that the consideration for fixtures and furniture was distinct, identifiable and taxable. The act of letting out these movables for enjoyment and user by IT companies qualifies as a “deemed sale” under Article 366(29A)(d) of the Constitution read with Section 5E of the APGST Act, even if multiple lessees utilized them.
The Hon’ble Telangana High Court observed that in order to establish a “transfer of the right to use goods” under Article 366(29A)(d), effective possession and exclusive control must be fully vested in the transferee. The transaction failed the 5-ingredient test established by the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) v. Union of India:
- No specific goods were uniquely identified or set apart for standalone delivery to the tenants.
- There was no consensus ad idem as the agreements allowed the petitioners to replace items or suspend facilities.
- Legal consequences of use remained with the landlord, who indemnified the tenants against legal issues arising from the space.
- The legal right to use was not to the exclusion of the transferor; common areas like the cafeteria were shared by multiple IT companies and the landlord’s own staff.
- The owner retained the explicit right to encumber, sell or transfer its interest in the demised property to others.
Since the lease rentals were consolidated on a per-square-foot basis as an integrated transaction, the tax authorities cannot carry out an artificial presumptive bifurcation to extract a sales tax element. Common shared utilities are legally incapable of exclusive delivery.
The Hon’ble Telangana High Court allowed all the Writ Petitions (W.P. Nos. 9991, 3865, and 3866 of 2009) and the Tax Revision Case (T.R.E.V.C. No. 52 of 2008). The impugned orders passed by the STAT, the Assessing Officer, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner were held to be bad in law and were completely set aside/quashed. The Court officially held that the rental payments realized for furniture, equipment, and kitchen/cafeteria items arise strictly out of a contract of service. They are not amenable to sales tax or VAT under the APGST or APVAT Acts.
SHEKHAR CHANDRA PODDER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHEKHAR CHANDRA PODDER Vs INION OF INDIA & OTHERS WP(C) NO.285 OF 2025 (Tripura High Court)
The Petitioner challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 22.07.2024 issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST/TSGST Act by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Agartala (Respondent No 5). The Petitioner also challenged the subsequent Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025 passed by the same officer. The impugned SCN collectively covered four financial years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. For the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, the State GST (SGST) Authorities had previously issued a notice on 24.02.2025 regarding mismatches in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in the Electronic Credit Ledger versus the annual return. Those SGST proceedings were dropped on 08.07.2025. However, the Central GST (CGST) Authority (Respondent No 5) included the same aspect of excess ITC availment for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20 in its SCN dated 22.07.2024.
The Petitioner argued that the SCN was issued beyond the mandatory 5-year limitation period calculated from 31.12.2018 (the original due date for filing annual returns under Section 74(10)), rendering the notice without jurisdiction. Section 6(2)(b) strictly prohibits parallel proceedings. Since SGST Authorities had already occupied the subject matter (ITC mismatches), CGST authorities could not legally re-adjudicate it. Wheras, the Revenue contended that SCN was within time because Notification No. 06/2020 dated 03.02.2020 (issued under Section 168A) extended the annual return filing deadline for the State of Tripura up to 07.02.2020. Disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic also justified extensions in public interest. An investigation notice dated 22.03.2021 regarding a wrongful VAT deposit under the GST regime constituted prior initiation of proceedings by CGST.
The Hon’ble Tripura High Court observed that the Notification No. 06/2020 extending the annual return filing deadline was an administrative benevolence intended to benefit assessees, not to extend the department’s 5-year limitation clock under Section 74(10) to initiate penal proceedings. The department’s investigation notice dated 22.03.2021 was merely an exercise for scrutiny or evidence-gathering. It did not constitute the “initiation of proceedings” under Section 6(2)(b), which strictly requires the formal commencement of adjudicatory proceedings via a formal Show Cause Notice containing explicit allegations of fraud or suppression. Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, the court upheld that Section 6(2)(b) blocks a subsequent authority if: (i) They proceed on an identical tax liability or offence on the same facts; (ii) The demand or relief sought is identical. If an omnibus SCN covers multiple distinct fractions or financial years, the statutory bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only to the specific overlapping infractions (e.g. the ITC mismatch) and does not invalidate distinct, non-overlapping claims (e.g. short payment of GST or separate GSTR-1B/3B mismatches).
The Hon’ble Tripura High Court declared the SCN and the subsequent Order-in-Original for this financial year to be completely without jurisdiction and time-barred, setting them aside. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the CGST SCN and order to the extent of the excess ITC availment, holding it barred by Section 6(2)(b) due to the parallel SGST proceedings. The Court upheld the CGST authority’s right to proceed on the “short payment of GST” aspect for FY 2018-19 and 2019-20, as well as the entire demand for FY 2020-21, since these issues were never a subject matter of the SGST notices. The Order-in-Original dated 03.02.2025 was set aside in its entirety, and the matter was remitted back to Respondent No 5 to pass a fresh order within 3 months, strictly confined to the legally permissible aspects. The Petitioner was given 6 weeks to file an additional reply to contest whether conditions precedent for invoking Section 74 exist. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly.
CLEAR SECURED SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) WP NO. 23402 OF 2026 AND WMP.NOS.25362 & 25363 OF 2026 (Madras High Court)
The Petitioner is a private limited company which receives supplies from a vendor named Jay Steels and claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the same. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner under Section 73, calling upon them to show cause why the claimed ITC should not be reversed. The notice asked for original tax invoices, e-way bills, purchase register, lorry receipt, and proof of payment. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 27.01.2025 enclosing relevant evidentiary records: bank statement, tax invoices, e-way bills, ledger extracts, and screenshots of GSTR 2A & 2B returns. Subsequently, the respondent passed an impugned assessment order dated 02.09.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act for the assessment year 2022-2023, coupled with a summary order in Form DRC-07 dated 08.09.2025. The tax proposal was confirmed by the respondent primarily because the supplier’s (Jay Steels) registration was subsequently cancelled on 27.03.2024 by classifying them as “non-existent”.
The Petitioner contended that the tax proposal was wrongly confirmed solely on the grounds that the supplier’s registration was cancelled on 27.03.2024 as non-existent. The petitioner had submitted detailed, contemporaneous documentation (proof of banking payments, tax invoices, e-way bills, ledgers, and GSTR 2A/2B returns) to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The impugned order was arbitrary, lacked authority of law, and violated the principles of natural justice. Whereas, the Revenue argued that “bill trading” activities are regularly conducted by making payments through banking channels. In the absence of concrete documentation verifying the physical and actual movement of the goods, there was no justifiable ground to interfere with the original assessment order.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court noted that under GST laws, the statutory burden of proof to substantiate a claim for ITC rests entirely on the person claiming the credit. Therefore, the respondent was within their rights to ask for proof that the transactions were genuine. While the department can demand proof, it cannot ignore the evidence presented. The petitioner submitted multiple relevant records. The respondent had a duty to look into these documents thoroughly. If there were deficiencies or shortcomings in the documents, the respondent should have explicitly informed the petitioner and granted them an opportunity to file additional evidence. Simply confirming a tax reversal proposal on the sole basis that the supplier was declared non-existent with effect from 27.03.2024 without evaluating the transaction’s history is unsustainable. The court noted a major procedural error: the show cause notice stated in multiple places that it was issued under Section 73, yet the final assessment order was arbitrarily issued under the more severe Section 74. This approach cannot be legally countenanced.
The Madras High Court set aside the impugned assessment order. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh re-consideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months from receiving a copy of this court order. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP.Nos.25362 & 25363 of 2026) were closed, and no costs were ordered.
VXA GLOBAL LLP Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10872 OF 2026 (Rajasthan High Court- Jaipur Bench)
The petitioner filed a single writ petition challenging assessments spanning across multiple/various assessment years. The petitioner had previously filed appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, but these appeals were filed with an inadvertent delay. The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeals solely on the ground of limitation, stating it lacked the statutory power to extend the limitation period beyond the designated window.
The Respondents raised a preliminary objection stating that a single writ petition challenging assessments of different years is not maintainable. The Petitioner limited its prayer to requesting that the delayed appeals filed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act be heard on merits. The petitioner relied on past High Court orders (D.B. CWP No. 19684/2024, No. 9988/2025, and No. 20749/2025) and Apex Court rulings in Tecnimont Private Limited vs State of Punjab & Ors. (2021) 12 SCC 477 and Assistant Commissioner(CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (2020) 19 SCC 681 to seek delay condonation.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court stated that a challenge to the assessments of different financial/assessment years within a single writ petition is not maintainable, following the final adjudication set in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11000/2024 (decided on 26.07.2024). While the Appellate Authority is tightly bound by statutory limitations and cannot extend deadlines beyond its statutory bounds, the High Court possesses wide extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 226, the High Court holds the jurisdiction to condone such a delay to subserve the interests of justice and ensure a hearing on merits.
Thus, the High Court upheld the statutory boundary of the Appellate Authority, confirming that it had rightly dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation. However, invoking its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court condoned the inadvertent delay, ordered the restoration of the appeals, and directed that they be heard on their merits. The writ petition was allowed to this limited extent only, and all pending applications were explicitly disposed of.
GST UPDATES
- The GSTAT in its Order No. 156/2026 dated 10th July 2026 , in order to facilitate smooth filing of 2nd Appeals and considering them to be filed within due date, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 123 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, it has been directed by the Hon’ble President, GSTAT, to introduce an additional mechanism, as proposed by the NIC, whereby, an appellant can record the intent to file an 2nd Appeal on or before 31st July 2026 by submitting bare minimum basic details and obtaining a ‘token’ Thereafter, the appellant can use that token and complete the actual filing within a further period of 60 days from the date of token generation. If the token is obtained on or before 31st July 2026, it will be deemed to be sufficient compliance for the purpose of filing of 2nd Appeals within the due date.
Process for Token Generation:
- Complete all required fields in the form.
- If the First Appellate Order being challenged before the GSTAT is available on the GST portal, provide the corresponding 16-digit ARN/CRN. If it is not available online, enter Order No./Reference No./File No. along with the relevant tax period.
- Upon successful submission of the complaint on this portal, a Token ID will be generated and shared with the user along with the date and time of the token generation.
- This facility is available to taxpayers and tax officials who possess a GSTIN, Temporary ID, UIN, or TDS Registration Number.
A separate token must be generated for each appeal.
- For example:
- If a taxpayer is required to file two appeals, two separate tokens must be generated.
- One token cannot be used for multiple appeals. Multiple appeals require the generation of an equivalent number of tokens.
The token generated on or before 31st July 2026 serves as evidence that the user has attempted to initiate the appeal filing process before the statutorily prescribed date. Accordingly, users who have generated a valid token before the said date will be considered an exception in cases where the 2nd Appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time limit due to some technical issues or otherwise with the portal in such cases, they will not be required to pay the delay fee, subject to applicable provisions and verification.
Important Timeline
- As per the order of the Hon’ble President of GSTAT, the appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of token generation. Filing of appeal or application completed within 60 days of generation of this token shall only be considered validly filed within the due date prescribed under the Act.
- Users are advised to keep a record of the token generated and ensure that the appeal is completed within the stipulated period.
- The token shall stand lapsed after 60 days of its generation and no filings will be accepted under the said token after such date.
Advisory to the User
- All taxpayers and authorized representatives are requested to generate the required token(s) on or before 31s’ July 2026, being the last date for filing appeal, in case they encounter filing-related issues and to complete the appeal filing process within the prescribed 60-day period to avail themselves of the applicable relaxation.
- Appellants are advised to exercise due caution, as tokens generated with incomplete or inaccurate details may be treated as void.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN JULY 2026 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Jun, 2026) Jul 20th, 2026 | GSTR-3B (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 22nd, 24th, 2026 | GSTR-5 (Jun, 2026) Jul 13th, 2026 | GSTR-5A (Jun, 2026) Jul 20th, 2026 |
GSTR-1 (Jun, 2026) Jul 11th, 2026 | GSTR-1 (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 13th, 2026 | GSTR-6 (Jun, 2026) Jul 13th, 2026 | GSTR-7 (Jun, 2026) Jul 10th, 2026 |
IFF (Optional) (Jun,2026) NA | CMP-08 (Apr-Jun, 2026) Jul 18th, 2026 | GSTR-8 (Jun, 2026) Jul 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