In this News Letter 1st Edition of March 2026 you’ll find:
1. RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
2. GST UPDATES
3. DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN MARCH 2026
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI-PROFITEERING, DGAP VS. TATA PLAY LIMITED [NAPA/166/PB/2025] (GSTAT-Delhi)
The Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) acting as the investigative appellant against M/s Tata Play Limited (the DTH service provider) the respondent herein. This investigation is based upon the complaint by Ms. Sweety Agarwal alleging that her half-yearly DTH subscription of ₹3,290 remained unchanged from June 2017 (Pre-GST) to the Post-GST period, despite the availability of new Input Tax Credits (ITC). DGAP analysed the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.01.2019. It compared the Pre-GST ITC to turnover ratio (10.86%) against the Post-GST ratio (15.05%), identifying a net additional ITC benefit of 4.19%. The profiteered amount was quantified at approx. ₹450.18 crore. This was originally confirmed by the National Anti-profiteering Authority in 2022 however, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court set aside that order in 2025 and remanded it to the newly formed GSTAT for a fresh factual determination.
GSTAT rejected Tata Play’s contention that tax increased from 15% Service Tax to 18% GST, the Tribunal clarified that anti-profiteering analysis under Section 171 must consider the total indirect tax incidence rather than merely comparing headline tax rates. GSTAT emphasized that removal of entertainment tax, VAT, and other embedded levies along with availability of full ITC resulted in a net tax benefit to DTH operators. The Tribunal also rejected Tata Play’s procedural and legal objections. It held that the pending Supreme Court challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 171 does not affect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the absence of a stay order. Further, it clarified that the benefit of tax subsummation arises by operation of law, regardless of whether a particular levy like entertainment tax was actually collected from customers, and failure to collect such tax cannot negate the statutory obligation to pass on GST benefits.
Based on DGAP’s quantified findings, GSTAT concluded that a clear tax benefit accrued to Tata Play after GST due to subsummation of taxes and enhanced ITC availability, but the benefit was not passed on to consumers. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed profiteering of ₹450.18 crore and directed the company to deposit the amount into the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds in a 50:50 ratios within three months. The Tribunal held that same subscription prices before and after GST, despite a reduction in the overall tax burden following GST implementation. The Tribunal held that Tata Play failed to pass on the benefit of reduced tax incidence to consumers as mandated under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The largest share of the profiteered amount is attributed to Maharashtra (₹195.66 crore) and Uttar Pradesh (₹35.64 crore) based on state-wise turnover. The amount must be deposited within three months with 18% interest calculated from the date the amount was profitered.
JAI KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ORS. HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2026 (Allahabad HC)
On December 29, 2025, officials from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) searched the residence of the petitioner, Jai Kumar Aggarwal, under Section 67 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was arrested on January 16, 2026, under Section 69 of the Act for alleged offences under Section 132(1)(c) of the Act. The petitioner claimed that while an arrest memo was handed over, no “grounds of arrest” or “reasons to believe” were provided at the time of arrest. On January 17, 2026, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Meerut, passed a remand order. The petitioner alleged the “grounds of arrest” were only served to his counsel at 5:00 p.m. that day, well after the remand proceedings.
The Petitioner argued that the arrest violated the Supreme Court’s mandate in Radhika Agrawal and Mihir Rajesh Shah, as grounds were not provided in writing before the remand. Furthermore, the Petitioner claimed that since the alleged offence carries a maximum of 5 years, the arrest was unwarranted under the Satendra Kumar Antil guidelines. Whereas, the respondent contended that “reasons to believe” are internal documents and need not be shared with the accused. The respondent claimed that that the “grounds of arrest” were explained orally and signatures were obtained on January 16, constituting sufficient compliance. The Respondent went to argue that Satendra Kumar Antil does not apply to the CGST Act, which is a “complete code”.
The Hon’ble Court held that while the Commissioner must record “reasons to believe” based on credible material, there is no requirement to supply this specific internal document to the accused under the GST Act. The Court ruled that “grounds of arrest” must be explained and furnished in writing as an annexure to the arrest memo, as per the department’s own circular dated January 13, 2025. The Court agreed that the ratio of Satendra Kumar Antil applies to Special Acts; thus, for offences punishable by less than 7 years, arrest should not be routine. The Court found the remand order was not in accordance with law because the grounds of arrest were not properly served before the remand proceedings. The writ petition was allowed, the remand order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be released.
TVL. VISHAGAN TRADERS V. DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-2 [W.P.(MD) NO. 3833 OF 2026], (Madras High Court)
In the present case, against the Petitioner two separate adjudication orders were issued for the same tax period concerning the mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The first respondent passed an order dated 28.11.2025 based on a show cause notice limited to this mismatch, while the second respondent later issued another order dated 08.12.2025 addressing two issues, one of which was the same GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B discrepancy, with tax liability quantified again for the same matter.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that both orders dealt with the identical issue for the same period, resulting in duplication of proceedings and potential double taxation. The Court observed that the quantification of tax on the same mismatch in both orders created overlapping demands, which is legally impermissible.
The Hon’ble High Court held that maintaining parallel proceedings on the same issue violates principles of proper adjudication and fairness in tax administration. Since both orders covered the identical dispute, the earlier order dated 28.11.2025 was held to be unsustainable in law and was consequently quashed. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the subsequent order dated 08.12.2025 and the matter was remanded to the second respondent for fresh adjudication. The Court directed that the authority reconsiders the issues afresh after granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the show cause notice and related communications had only been uploaded on the GST portal and the original notice was not furnished to the petitioner. As no personal hearing was granted before passing the order, the assessment was held to violate principles of natural justice, and the authority was directed to issue a clear notice and provide a proper hearing during the remanded proceedings.
MD SHORIFUL ISLAM V. STATE OF ASSAM, WP (C) NO. 471 OF 2026 (Gauhati High Court)
The petitioner received a “Summary of the Show Cause Notice” (Form GST DRC-01) on May 2, 2024. While it mentioned a Show Cause Notice (SCN) was attached, only a “determination of tax” statement was actually provided. As the Petitioner did not reply, an order was issued on August 29, 2024 (Form GST DRC-07) confirming the tax liability. Consequently, the petitioner’s bank accounts were frozen. However, both the electronic summary and the attached tax determination lacked the physical or digital signature of the Proper Officer.
The Petitioner argued that a summary is not a substitute for a full SCN. They contended that under Rule 26, all notices and orders must be authenticated by a signature, without which they are void. Furthermore, they requested a hearing in their GST DRC-06 reply, which was never granted. Whereas, the Respondents on the other hand claimed that the tax determination attachment provided sufficient details for a reply. They argued that the online portal requires authentication to upload documents, implying the “Sd- Proper Officer” notation was sufficient.
The Hon’ble High Court held that Section 73(1) and Rule 142(1) distinguish between a “Notice” and its “Summary.” A summary is an additional requirement and cannot replace the formal SCN. Furthermore, as per Rule 26(3) which requires notices and orders to be authenticated via digital or e-signatures. An unsigned document loses its legal efficacy and is considered “ineffective and redundant”. The Court also clarified that Section 75(4) is a mandatory safeguard. If a taxpayer requests a hearing, or if an adverse order is contemplated, the Proper Officer must grant a personal hearing. Failure to do so renders the order “bad in law”.
Thus, the Hon’ble High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 29/08/2024. The Court also order the bank accounts of the Petitioner to be immediately de-freeze. However, the court granted the authorities liberty to initiate de novo (fresh) proceedings according to the law, excluding the time spent on this litigation from the limitation period.
KRISHNA SAI GRANITES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION NO: 8499 & 8500 of 2024 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The Petitioner herein, challenged the recovery of tax refunds previously sanctioned for exports made between November 2018 and September 2022. The tax authorities issued “orders in original” on 21.12.2023, claiming the refunds were barred under Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
The Petitioner argued that Rule 96(10) was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Crucially, they noted that the rule was omitted on 08.10.2024 without a saving clause, meaning any proceedings based on it must be set aside.
However, the Respondent contended that the omission of the rule should not affect the original orders already passed against the petitioner.
The Hon’ble High Court held that since the impugned proceedings were founded entirely on Rule 96(10), and that rule was subsequently omitted without a saving clause, the orders lost their legal basis. The Court referenced its own previous judgments (e.g., W.P. Nos. 17221 and 17222 of 2025) to support the view that such orders cannot survive the omission of the underlying rule. Thereby setting aside the recovery orders dated 21.12.2023.
JYOTI TAR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX, SHIBPUR CHARGE, WBGST & ORS., WPA 20118 OF 2025 (Calcutta High Court)
The Petitioner herein is involved in trading crude tar and allied products. In July 2024, the State Tax authority issued an intimation (DRC-01A) alleging wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately ₹36 lakhs. After a series of replies, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued and challenged. A Division Bench eventually remanded the matter, directing the authority to consider the petitioner’s initial reply before issuing a fresh SCN. On August 6, 2025, a new SCN was issued under Section 74 of the WBGST Act, alleging a fraudulent ITC chain involving shell companies. During the pendency of this writ petition, the authority passed an adjudication order on November 4, 2025, confirming the demand.
The Petitioner claimed that they fulfilled all conditions under Section 16(2) by providing invoices, E-way bills, and bank statements. Further arguing that the SCN was issued with a closed mind, making the response a mere formality. Even contending that ITC cannot be denied for a supplier’s default if the transaction was genuine at the time of supply. Even the final adjudication order was passed without personal hearing. Whereas, the respondent argued the writ was filed at the SCN stage, which only records a prima facie view. Respondent even alleged that the ITC chain involved multiple cancelled registrations and “routing” through dummy companies.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Writ Court should only interfere with a show cause notice in exceptional cases involving a total lack of jurisdiction or “patent illegality,” such as a predetermined mindset. Also stating that while basic documents (invoices/E-way bills) may suffice for undisputed transactions, a higher standard of proof is required under Section 155 when the legitimacy of the transaction is doubted due to a suspected fraudulent ITC chain. The Hon’ble Court reiterated that under Section 75(4) of the Act, an opportunity for a personal hearing is mandatory if an adverse order is contemplated.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court refused to quash the show cause notice, finding it was not “predetermined” but based on prima facie evidence of collusion and a circular ITC chain. However, the final order dated November 4, 2025, was set aside because it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice (no personal hearing). The petitioner was granted 30 days to reply to the SCN. The proper officer must then pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.
GST UPDATES
- Composition Scheme: Regular taxpayers can opt for the Composition Scheme for the upcoming FY 2026-27 by March 31, 2026.
- LUT Submission: LUT for exports without payment of tax for FY 2026-27 is due by March 31, 2026.
- In Instruction F.No-GSTAT/Pr. Bench/Portal/125/2025-26 dated 10.03.2025 issued by the Principal Bench GSTAT, it was clarified that:
- APL-05 that is Appeal to GSTAT, must contain soft copies of Show Cause Notice (SCN), Order-In-Original (OIO), Order-In-Appeal (OIA), Statement of Facts & Grounds of Appeal. Proof of Pre-deposit and Court Fees is compulsory, however, if there are any orders of the Higher Courts for exemption of Court Fee/ Pre-Deposit then defect shouldn’t be raised.
- In case where the Appellant prefers an Appeal under Section 112 (1) of the Act by attaching a scanned copy of certified OIO or OIA and if the Scrutiny Officer is satisfied from the endorsement made therein by the issuing authorities, that is a certified copy of the OIO or OIA, then a defect shouldn’t be raised.
- The Appellant taxpayer shall also upload a copy of the Authorization issued in favour of the tax professional or vakalatnama executed in the name of an Advocate.
- As far as the application filed by the Revenue under section 112(3) are concerned then the following documents are necessary:
- Show Cause Notice
- OIO
- OIA
- Opinion of the Commissioner directing his officer to make the Application
- Statement of Facts
- Grounds of Appeal
*No Court Fee/ Pre-Deposit is required in an Appeal filed by the Revenue (Department).
- One Verification & Digital Signature of the Appellant is required.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN MARCH 2026 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Feb, 2026) Mar 20th, 2026
| GSTR-3B (Jan-Mar, 2026) Apr 22nd, 24th, 2026
| GSTR-5 (Feb, 2026) Mar 13th, 2026
| GSTR-5A (Feb, 2026) Mar 20th, 2026
|
GSTR-1 (Feb, 2026) Mar 11th, 2026
| GSTR-1 (Jan-Mar, 2026) Apr 13th, 2026
| GSTR-6 (Feb, 2026) Mar 13th, 2026
| GSTR-7 (Feb, 2026) Mar 10th, 2026
|
IFF (Optional) (Feb,2026) Mar 13th, 2026
| CMP-08 (Jan-Mar, 2026) Apr 18th, 2026
| GSTR-8 (Feb, 2026) Mar 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.
© 1981-2025 Sharnam Legal, All rights reserved