In this News Letter 2nd Edition of July 2026 you’ll find:
1. RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2. GST UPDATES
3. DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN AUGUST 2026
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
MANORANJAN DASH VS. COMMISSIONER, ODISHA, COMMISSIONERATE OF CT GSTAPL/D1/CTT/2026 (GSTAT Principal Bench at New Delhi)
The Appellant was issued Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging wrongful/excess claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of ₹5,67,237 each under CGST and SGST. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with applicable interest and penalties. The appellant challenged the original assessment order before the First Appellate Authority. While filing this first appeal, the appellant deposited 10% of the original disputed tax demand, amounting to ₹1,13,447. The First Appellate Authority drastically modified and reduced the demand, confirming a liability of only ₹1,02,012 towards tax, ₹98,680 towards interest, and ₹10,202 towards penalty. Aggrieved by the modified order, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the GSTAT. The Tribunal’s Registry issued a defect notice pointing out two primary deficiencies: (1) Failure to make the required statutory pre-deposit for filing a Tribunal appeal. (2) Short payment of mandatory court fees, as the appellant paid only ₹3,000.
The Appellant argued that under Section 112(8) of the Act, an appellant must deposit 10% of the remaining tax in dispute for the appeal to be admitted. Based on the First Appellate Authority’s reduced demand of ₹1,02,012, the 10% pre-deposit works out to ₹10,201. Since the appellant already deposited ₹1,13,447 during the first appeal (which is visible in their Electronic Liability Register), the requirement is completely covered, and asking for a fresh deposit is unwarranted. The appellant placed reliance on the Jharkhand High Court judgment in Ashirwad Food Industries v. Union of India [2026 (107) G.S.T.L. 89 (Jhar.)]. In that case, the High Court held that where a prior deposit at the first appellate stage comfortably covers the subsequent statutory requirement due to a scaled-down demand, the Tribunal cannot insist on a fresh pre-deposit.
The GSTAT observed that under Section 112(8) of the Act, a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax amount is mandatory for filing a Tribunal appeal, which operates in addition to the Section 107(6) pre-deposit. However, if the First Appellate Authority modifies and reduces the tax demand, the subsequent 10% requirement must be calculated on the revised disputed amount. If the absolute sum already deposited at the first stage is greater than the revised 10% amount due for the Tribunal stage, the statutory requirement stands fulfilled.
RAJAT DALMIA VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE WPA NO. 1031 OF 2026 (Calcutta High Court- Jalpaiguri Bench)
The Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on December 27, 2023 in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The issued notice requested a response from the petitioner within 14 days, but it completely omitted the date, time, and venue for a personal hearing, explicitly marking those fields as “not applicable”. The petitioner did not submit a reply to this notice. Consequently, the proper officer proceeded to pass an adjudication assessment order and subsequently issued a Demand Notice in Form GST DRC-07 on April 25, 2024. The petitioner challenged the entire proceeding by filing a writ petition (W.P.A. No. 1031 of 2026) before the High Court on the grounds of being denied a proper opportunity for a hearing.
The Petitioner argued that he was completely denied a proper opportunity for a personal hearing by the revenue authority. The petitioner relied on the binding precedent established by the Calcutta High Court in Goutam Bhowmik v. State of West Bengal (2024), which establishes that providing an opportunity for a hearing is a mandatory statutory obligation when an adverse decision is contemplated. Whereas, the Respondent contended that a perusal of the final adjudication order dated April 25, 2024, made it clear that the petitioner was indeed given an opportunity for a hearing. The State asserted that the petitioner had appeared before the authority and actively participated in the proceedings.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court observed that once proceedings are initiated under Section 73 by issuing Form GST DRC-01, the petitioner is entitled to a further opportunity for a personal hearing. Under Section 73 read with Section 75(4) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, the proper officer is legally bound to afford an opportunity for a hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated against a person chargeable with tax or penalty. This is a statutory mandate that cannot be bypassed. Marking fields like date, time, and venue as “not applicable” in the show cause notice directly signals a disinclination by the authority to grant a personal hearing, breaching the statutory requirement. If the initial action (the show cause notice) is legally defective and bad in law, all subsequent proceedings, assessments, and demands founded upon it cannot be sustained and must be annulled (applying the principle from Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha).
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the defective Form GST DRC-01 (dated Dec 27, 2023), the assessment order, and the Demand Notice (Form GST DRC-07, dated Apr 25, 2024). The Court permitted the revenue to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73, provided a proper opportunity for a personal hearing is granted to the petitioner. Should new proceedings be initiated, the limitation period under Section 73(10) will commence from the date of the new notice.
CHALLENGERS EVENT PVT. LTD. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11525 OF 2024 (Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench)
Herein, on July 25, 2023, the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-H, Jaipur IV, passed an Order-in-Original against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2021-22. The order raised a GST demand of ₹6,55,124/- on the grounds of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The revenue department uploaded this assessment order on the online GST portal under the category of ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ instead of the prescribed category of ‘Notices and Orders’. The petitioner did not check alternative categories and discovered the order by chance. Because they did not find it in time, the statutory period elapsed. When they attempted to use the online appeal module, the system treated the appeal as time-barred and blocked the submission. The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition on July 5, 2024, experiencing an overall delay of 226 days (even after factoring in the standard 120-day maximum condonable limit permitted under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017).
The Petitioner argued that the delay occurred solely because the assessment order was uploaded under the wrong portal tab (“Additional Notices and Orders”) instead of the prescribed one (“Notices and Orders”). In the ordinary course of business, a taxpayer has no reason to scout alternative categories and reasonably assumed no order was issued. Once discovered by chance, the system’s strict online status blocked manual filing by treating it as time-barred. The petitioner’s counsel relied on consistent prior Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court that granted relief under similar portal-misplacement conditions, specifically citing M.R. Traders v. UOI, Molana Construction Company v. Central GST Department, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, and RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan. Whereas, the Revenue stated that the assessment order was legally sound and that the statutory time limit under Section 107 of the Act had expired, rendering the appeal absolutely barred by limitation.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that while the Appellate Authority is directly bound by the statutory limitation timeline provided under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, the High Court holds the authority to intervene if procedural strictness inflicts severe injustice. When a delay arises from circumstances entirely beyond the control of the assesse such as the administration uploading an order under an improper portal category then denying a hearing on the merits creates severe prejudice. Substantive justice and adjudication on the merits must override administrative or technological navigation errors.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the petitioner’s delay in filing the appeal. The Hon’ble Court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and adjudicate the petitioner’s appeal on its merits. This direction is subject to the condition that the petitioner files the appeal within 30 days of the High Court’s order being uploaded to its website.
SURENDERA GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS VS UNION OF INDIA D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7287 OF 2026 (Rajasthan High Court)
The petitioner-college is an educational institution affiliated with respondent No. 4, Bikaner Technical University (BTU), Bikaner. The petitioner had already paid the required affiliation fees to BTU for the academic sessions spanning 2018-2019 to 2022-2023. On 06.09.2025, BTU issued a demand letter directing the petitioner-college to pay Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the affiliation fees collected by the University. The petitioner-college filed a writ petition challenging this levy, arraying BTU and the relevant GST authorities as respondents.
The Petitioner argued that the demand for GST on affiliation fees is unlawful. The legal position established by the High Court in a parallel coordinate bench ruling dictates that affiliation is a regulatory function and cannot be taxed.
It was noted on the basis of the Rajasthan Technical University v. UOI that Central and State Educational Boards are recognized as “educational institutions” under Revenue Notification No. 14/2018 for conducting exams. Denying identical tax treatment to universities is arbitrary and discriminatory because universities also conduct examinations for affiliated colleges as an integral step toward conferring degrees.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that the grant of affiliation by a university is a statutory and regulatory function. It does not constitute a “supply of service” under the CGST/RGST framework, and the affiliation fees do not form a consideration for a taxable activity. Even otherwise, affiliation services rendered by a university to its affiliated colleges fall squarely within the ambit of exempted services under Entry 66(a) and Entry 66(b)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). The conditions governing the affiliation of schools to Central/State Boards (like CBSE) are pari materia with colleges affiliating to a university; hence, discriminating between them for GST levy is manifestly arbitrary.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court allowing the writ petition held that the demand for GST raised by Bikaner Technical University (BTU) via letter dated 06.09.2025 was set aside. The respondent GST authorities were directed to refund any collected GST on the affiliation fee within a strict period of four months from the date of the order. If the authorities fail to refund the amount within four months, they are liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum calculated from the original date of the GST payment until the final date of the refund.
DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA WRIT PETITION NO. 3157 OF 2026 C/W W.P. NOS. 4331, 100634, 100636, 100637, 100638, 100657 AND 200402 OF 2026 (T-RES) (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioners are business entities engaged in the manufacture, pouch-packing, and supply of Pan Masala falling under Customs Tariff Item No. 2106 90 20. Following the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016, and the implementation of GST (effective July 1, 2017) Pan Masala was subjected to an Integrated Tax rate of 28% ad-valorem plus a GST Compensation Cess at 32% of the Retail Sale Price (RSP/MRP). From February 1, 2026 onwards the GST rate was increased to 40% of the MRP minus deductions. In 2025, Parliament enacted the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025 (effective February 1, 2026) along with the Health Security se National Security Cess Rules, 2026. The stated purpose was to augment resources for public health and national security expenditure. Instead of taxing the supply of goods (ad-valorem), the Act shifted the taxable event to the ownership, possession, operation, management or control of pouch-packing machinery. Schedule II (Table 1) of the Act prescribed a flat monthly machine-wise cess. Under Serial No. 1 a single uniform slab of ₹101.00 Lakhs per month (for pouches up to 2.5 grams) was levied on all machines with a rated capacity of “up to 500 pouches per minute”. Furthermore, Rules 15 and 16 permitted proportionate tax abatement only if a machine remained continuously inoperative for 15 days or more, requiring prior sealing by a proper officer. The petitioners operated machinery with actual maximum capacities far lower than 500 pouches per minute (ranging from 65 to 250 pouches per minute). They produced illustrations demonstrating that the deemed capacity-based cess structurally outstripped the total MRP value of their actual output, creating a grave financial deficit.
The Petitioner argued that levy cannot borrow power under Article 271 (Surcharge) because Article 271 explicitly excludes GST levied under Article 246A. Pan Masala is already fully taxed under the GST regime. Cess cannot legally be levied on “deemed production” rather than actual output. The single slab framework treats unequal machinery capacities equally, creating manifest inequality under Article 14. Restricting abatement to a 15-day continuous threshold entirely ignores genuine shorter factory shutdowns caused by mechanical breakdowns, raw material shortages, or labour availability.
Whereas, the Respondent contended that the Act is supported by Parliament’s plenary power under Article 246(1) read with the residuary Entry 97 of List I (Seventh Schedule). The Pan Masala sector is notorious for large-scale tax evasion, and transaction-based ad-valorem taxation failed to secure legitimate revenue. Shifting the taxable event to physical machine ownership ensures revenue certainty. Pan Masala has severe adverse public health consequences (linked directly to cancer), justifying a regulatory, capacity-based fiscal policy preference. The 15-day threshold is a deliberate administrative policy designed to eliminate bogus, unverifiable claims of short-term stoppages.
The Karnataka High Court observed that the Taxing statutes are not immune to Article 14 of the Constitution. While the legislature enjoys wide latitude and a “larger play in the joints” regarding classification in fiscal laws, a tax mechanism will be struck down if it treats unequals equally or introduces manifest arbitrariness. Forcing a manufacturer operating a machine with a capacity of 100 pouches/minute to pay the exact same monthly cess as a manufacturer with a 500 pouches/minute machine lacks any rational determining principle. Lack of a reasonable classification within the “up to 500 pouches” bracket creates inherent inequality. An administrative rule cannot be justified purely on the assumption that all assessees are likely to evade taxes. Depriving businesses of any remedy or abatement for genuine, documented operational shutdowns shorter than 15 days is punitive, disproportionate, and procedurally arbitrary. Because the taxable event is the ownership/operation of the machine and not the supply of goods or services, Article 246A (GST) and Article 271 (Surcharge) do not apply. Therefore, Parliament holds the exclusive residuary power under Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I to impose such a cess.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition. The challenge to Parliament’s basic legislative competence to enact a law to levy this cess failed and was rejected. The specific manner of execution, calculation, and levy under the Act and Rules was declared unreasonable, vague, manifestly arbitrary, and unconstitutional for failing the tenets of Article 14. Consequently, the implementing notifications dated 16-12-2025, 31-12-2025, 01-01-2026, and 30-01-2026 were entirely obliterated. The court reserved full liberty for the Union Government/Revenue to promulgate a fresh law or re-enact the levy, provided it computes the cess based on a lawful rationale consistent with the court’s observations.
SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) NO. 9153 OF 2026 AND C.M. APPL. NOS. 42947 & 42948 OF 2026 (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated March 24, 2026, passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order confirmed a tax demand of approximately ₹8.75 crores along with interest and penalties across eleven audit-related issues. The primary component of the demand alleged that the petitioner’s supply of catering services and sale of pre-packaged food products constituted a composite supply taxable at 18%. Prior to the order, the petitioner actively participated in the audit and adjudication by replying to the Audit Memo, Additional Audit Memo, and Show Cause Notice (issued on September 29, 2025). They submitted relevant agreements, invoices, and reconciliations, and attended personal hearings. Instead of filing a statutory appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Petitioner argued that the challenge was limited to the decision-making process of the adjudicating authority. If the authority found the submitted materials insufficient, it was required by natural justice to call for additional clarifications or documents before finalizing liability. The authority passed the order mechanically without adequately considering the detailed replies, violating natural justice principles. The petitioner relied on Delhi High Court precedents: Malaysia Airlines Berhad and Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd..
Whereas, Revenue argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because an efficacious, complete, and comprehensive statutory appeal mechanism exists under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner received adequate opportunity to present its case, and all submitted replies and documents were duly noticed and considered in the impugned order.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that when the legislature enacts a specialized adjudicatory framework and a hierarchy of appeals, constitutional courts must exercise self-imposed restraint under Article 226. This restraint protects the legislative scheme from being bypassed on factual or evidentiary matters. An adjudicating authority is not bound by an inflexible rule of natural justice to continuously request more documents. Once a noticee is given an adequate opportunity to present its case, the authority must decide based on the available record. Complaints regarding the sufficiency of evidence, adequacy of material consideration, or the correctness of factual conclusions are merit-based issues. They do not constitute a jurisdictional error or a violation of natural justice, and fall strictly within the purview of the appellate authority.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory remedy. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It directed that the time period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court must be excluded when computing the limitation period for filing the statutory appeal. The Appellate Authority was instructed to independently evaluate the appeal on its own merits, completely uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment.
MAGNUM ESTATES PVT. LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GST (APPEALS), BHUBANESWAR W.P. (C) NO. 34660 OF 2025 (Orissa High Court)
The petitioner is a registered company under the GST Act. An audit conducted under Section 65 read with Rule 101 of the GST Rules found that the petitioner availed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹6,08,455/- on exempt supplies during Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner voluntarily reversed ₹1,77,136/- on January 15, 2020, through Form DRC-03 and the remaining amount via GSTR-3B in October 2019. The Adjudicating Authority (Superintendent, CGST & Central Excise, Balasore-I Range) initiated proceedings under Section 73. On December 15, 2023, an Order-in-Original was passed confirming a recovery of interest of ₹1,87,093/- for delayed reversal and a penalty of ₹60,845/-. No disputed tax component was involved. In the corresponding summary of the order issued in Form GST DRC-07, the interest amount of ₹1,87,093/- was erroneously recorded under the head “Tax” instead of “Interest”. The petitioner challenged this under Section 107 of the GST Act, but the Additional Commissioner, GST (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on September 29, 2025, without curing the clerical error in DRC-07. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Adjudicating Authority passed a Rectified Order-in-Original under Section 161 on January 28, 2026, reclassifying the ₹1,87,093/- from “Tax” to “Interest” in Form GST DRC-08. However, the Appellate Authority could not modify its Order-in-Appeal to reflect this change as the statutory period of limitation for rectification under Section 161 had already lapsed.
The Petitioner argued that Interest under Section 50(3) is only attracted when a registered person avails and utilizes input tax credit erroneously. By virtue of the newly inserted Section 128A, the interest and penalty demanded under Section 73 for FY 2017-18 stand waived. Because the Appellate Authority failed to rectify the defect, the electronic portal for filing a GSTAT appeal would treat the interest as “Tax”. This would mandatorily force the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of 10% of the interest component under Section 112(8), which does not legally apply to interest or penalties. Relegating the petitioner to an alternative forum under these flawed technical circumstances creates serious prejudice and justifies judicial review under Article 226.
The Respondent Argued that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available by filing a statutory appeal before the GSTAT under Section 112. Disputed factual aspects, such as the wrong availment of ITC and applicability of interest or penalty, must be settled by the statutory fact-finding appellate forum and not through a writ petition. Since the Adjudicating Authority already rectified the error via Section 161 on January 28, 2026, the petitioner can now approach the Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue conceded that the online e-filing system would insist on the pre-deposit by treating the interest as tax because the Appellate Authority’s order remains unrectified and cannot be recalled due to time limits.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Statutory alternative remedies do not bar the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 if relegating the citizen to that remedy results in a failure of justice or compels them to perform an unauthorized statutory obligation. Where an online system forces an appellant to pay a pre-deposit on a misclassified interest component (treating it as tax) due to a time-barred appellate order rectification, the remedy ceases to be truly alternative or efficacious. Factual disputes concerning ITC reversal, interest liabilities, and penalties must be decided on merits by a proper fact-finding statutory authority after a fair hearing.
The Hon’ble High Court set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated September 29, 2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner of GST (Appeal). The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority must decide the matter without being influenced by its earlier decision and after giving a proper hearing to the petitioner.
GSTAT NEWS & UPDATES
- The CBIC in Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST dated 25th July 2026 gave Clarification regarding filing of appeal by department before the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal against order of appellate authority (where Orders-in-Original have been passed by a Common Adjudicating Authority in DGGI cases). The following are the clarifications in respect of procedure to be followed for the purposes of review of orders passed by the appellate authority in such CAA cases and for filing of appeal by department against such order of appellate authorities:
(a). Communication of order by the appellate authority: The appellate authority, upon passing of an order-in-appeal, under section 107 of the CGST Act, in respect of an appeal arising from an order-in-original passed by the Common Adjudicating Authority, shall upload the order-in-appeal on the common portal, and shall also send a copy of the said order to the Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate having jurisdiction over Common Adjudication Authority, through email, along with a with a physical copy.
(b). The Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate having jurisdiction over the Common Adjudication Authority, shall examine the said order-in-appeal passed by the appellate authority in such cases, after seeking comments and inputs from DGGI (if required) at the earliest, and he shall, forward such comments to the jurisdictional CGST Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioners of all the taxable persons/ noticees involved in the said order-in-original, with his recommendations.
(c). Reviewing authority: The jurisdictional CGST Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner of a particular taxable person/ noticee shall be the reviewing authority under sub-section (3) of section 112 of CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the order passed by the appellate authority in such CAA cases, in respect of the said taxable person/ notice under his jurisdiction. The said reviewing authority (including the Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner having jurisdiction over the Common Adjudication Authority) shall, examine the matter regarding the legality and propriety of the order of appellate authority in such CAA cases after taking into consideration, inter alia, the comments and recommendations referred to in para (b) above in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of section 112 of CGST Act, 2017. Where the reviewing authority is of the opinion that an appeal is required to be filed by the department against order of the appellate authority in such CAA cases, he may for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said order and for determination of such points arising out of the said order, as may be specified him, may, by order, appoint and direct any officer subordinate to him for filing and pursuing the appeal by the department before the GSTAT.
(d). Separate appeals have to be filed in respect of each of the taxable person/ noticee, against the order of appellate authority in such CAA cases, by the jurisdictional CGST Commissionerate of the taxable person/ noticee, before the concerned Bench of the GSTAT having territorial jurisdiction over such taxable person/ noticee.
(e). After such application to the GSTAT has been made, the jurisdictional CGST Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner shall also intimate the Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate having jurisdiction over the Common Adjudication Authority, along with a copy of the appeal filed in this respect. Where the reviewing authority is of the opinion that no appeal by the department is required to be filed against the order of the appellate authority in CAA cases, he shall intimate the same to Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner of CGST Commissionerate having jurisdiction over the Common Adjudication Authority.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN AUGUST 2026 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Jul, 2026) Aug 20th, 2026
| GSTR-3B (Jul-Sep, 2026) Oct 22nd, 24th, 2026 | GSTR-5 (Jul, 2026) Aug 13th, 2026
| GSTR-5A (Jul, 2026) Aug 20th, 2026 |
GSTR-1 (Jul, 2026) Aug 11th, 2026 | GSTR-1 (Jul-Sep, 2026) Oct 13th, 2026 | GSTR-6 (Jul, 2026) Aug 13th, 2026 | GSTR-7 (Jul, 2026) Aug 10th, 2026 |
IFF (Optional) (Jul,2026) Aug 13th, 2026
| CMP-08 (Jul-Sep, 2026) Oct 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (Jul, 2026) Aug 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