1. Unlearning the Law and Procedures of Erstwhile Indirect Tax Law: GST being a new law needs to be implemented by all the stakeholders as per the new philosophy & system then only the real benefits of the new regime could be achieved.
  2. Expectation of Compliance from Small Traders or SME’s: The large number of registered dealers in GST are either small traders or SME’s (normal dealers-non composition) who are not so well equipped or fully conversant with the intricacies of the new GST law as well as they are still uncomfortable with the digital platform ‘common portal’ through which this law is being executed. Highly accurate data is needed to be filed in prescribed format on digital platform which these small traders or SME’s even in an organised sectors are unable to provide. The genuine difficulties must be understood and solved at the earliest with open mindset and latitude with the intervention of digital platform.
  3. Apathy towards Decisions on Legal Issues of Constitutional Courts: There is high tendency of ignoring or erroneously distinguishing the decisions of even the Apex Court on the exactly similar legal issue. No proper discussion is made by the Authorities while deciding the matters on the points concerning the legal issues as replied by the noticee in reply to the show cause notice with the support of the decisions of the Superior Court. Since writing the assessment order or a judgement is an art which needs to be inculcated during the training of the officers. There is a need for the officers to observe the principles of writing a good and well discussed assessment order or a judgement so that it could be appreciated at every level. The officers who ignores the decisions of the binding High Court or the Apex Court must be punished which will lead to reduction in litigation as well as avoid harassment of the taxpayer. There would be a complete anarchy of law if the lower Authorities ignores the decided issues. The respect towards the higher judiciary must be maintained with all good intentions.
  4. Absence of GST Tribunal as prescribed in the law itself: It is not only surprising but also seen with suspicion as to why this very important institution of GST Tribunal has not been established even after almost 7 years of implementation of GST. The judicial forum should have been available to the citizen’s/taxpayer’s of the country from the very beginning for deeply analysing & resolving the issues between the taxpayer and the revenue. In the absence of GST Tribunal many factual questions remained unresolved and thus creating humongous problems for the taxpayers during the compliance of this intricate law.
  5. Limitation period for filing of the Appeals: The presently prescribed period of limitation for filing of the Appeal is quite short even though the provision of extension for a fixed period has been provided. There is need to amend the GST law in respect to the period of limitation, the provisions for ‘Condonation of Delay in filing of the Appeal’ in accordance to the Limitation Act should be prescribed to consider the genuine circumstances in the larger interest of providing legal remedy against anything wrong in implementation of the GST law.
  6. A strong and independent Advance Ruling Authority is necessary to rope in its real ethos and purpose: it has been largely opined in various corners that the present system of Advance Ruling Authority or its Appellate Authority is not able to fulfil its functions in real sense and purpose. A robust Advance Ruling Authority system with much seasoned and senior officials should be posted to dispense with the judicial work with full fairness in true sense.
  7. Jurisdiction as the Proper Officer should be Carefully Assumed: The very basic requirement of any legal proceeding by any Authority is the correct assumption of the powers granted under the respective law; under the unique situations the concerned authority should carefully analyse the legal position under the given facts and then should issue a show cause notice, otherwise the whole proceedings may be struck-off for the lack of jurisdiction resulting in the great disadvantage to the revenue and loss of precious time.
  8. Conflict between the GST law passed by the Parliament and the ‘Common Portal’ managed by GSTN including its limitation under specific business circumstances for digital applications/execution of GST law and its interpretation: There are not only limitations but also conflicts at the ‘Common Portal’ which does not allow to take appropriate action in accordance to the correct interpretation of law as per human mind in many of the unique business situations and transactions. The decision arrived at by use of human brain could not be implemented due to non-availability of procedure on the ‘Common Portal’ or sometimes the conflict arises as the procedure adopted at the ‘Common Portal’ perform only in a given fashion as adopted in the software. Some solution should be evolved to solve such impediment so that the taxpayer should not be compelled to approach the High Court. That the solution to this limitation of ‘Common Portal’ is necessary to reduce unwanted litigation in the High Courts.
  9. ‘Common Portal’ has the limitation to analyse a situation in a predefined manner and then apply the prescribed procedure: There could be many ways of doing a business transaction within the framework of GST law but in the present circumstances a registered dealer is compelled to do it in the designed manner so that his transaction should not be in conflict with the normal prescribed procedure of compliance at the ‘Common Portal’. Since not only new businesses are emerging but also new ways of doing a business transaction are evolving so the common portal should be well equipped to deal with all such situation without any limitation of execution. Many of the start-ups are facing issues of compliance and declaration of their otherwise valid transactions. The nomenclature given to a particular transaction in a start-up is finding it a misfit and could not be correctly declared on the ‘Common Portal’. This situation is leading to legal complications which needs to be avoided to reduce the litigation as well as to support the start-ups and doing business in new ways. The ‘Common Portal’ needs to be more adoptive rather than restrictive.
  10. Restriction is needed for use of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ without the application of human brain while issuing the Show Cause Notices or their analysis: The increasing tendency of use of Artificial Intelligence – AI while framing and issuing the Show Cause Notice is certainly not good for correct application of GST law, SCN’s should not only be based on the information analysed by AI but such information should first be analysed by the Gazetted Officer and then action of framing and issuing the show cause notice should be taken. The Proper Officers are brushing their hands from their responsibility of appropriately issuing the Show Cause Notice where any information of mismatch or otherwise – relevant or irrelevant is received from AI in the matter of any dealer. The application of mind of the Proper Officer is the foremost requirement prior to issuing the SCN.
  11. Need for continuous education, guidance and updating the knowledge of daily changes in the GST law to the taxpayers especially the Small and MSME sectors: The understanding of GST law and more so its digital compliance is not an easy task, so it is incumbent on the Revenue Department to continuously educate, guide and update the knowledge of the daily changes being made being made. A serious and effective program should be designed and implemented even in the small towns of every neck and corner of the country; the effectiveness and the reach of such programs for the benefit of the taxpayer must be closely monitored at the highest level. The benefit of the design of GST must be understood by each taxpayer so that the economic benefit of this new regime could be availed.
  12. The aim in the design of GST of the smooth transition of input tax credit is needed to be satisfied: The generous interpretation and truthful implementation of the phrase ‘in the course or furtherance of business’ is a necessary requirement to satisfy the most important aim of the design of GST, but due to various limitations, impediments and harsh provisions along with measly interpretation thereof has made this dream commitment of the Government absolutely false. The large scale litigation on multiple ITC issues proves that the concept of smooth transition has totally failed in the scheme of GST law.

On the basis of the half baked allegation in the most of the cases of ‘fake invoices’ the buyer/inward-supplier is being punished for the mistake of the seller/outward-supplier and ITC is denied even the consideration is fully paid by the buyer to the bank account of the GST registered seller on the basis of the ‘Tax Invoice’ in which GST has been separately charged. The shifting of the legal responsibility of Proper-Officer/Jurisdictional-Officer for taking legally required action against the seller/outward-supplier for not depositing the collected tax is creating huge problems against the innocent buyers/inward-supplier.

The various time limitations provided for claim of ITC are unreasonable and must be extended in the interest of the financial health of the taxpayer’s business. Denial of otherwise eligible ITC only due to late filing of return needs to be practically resolved and time must be extended in every genuine case; this is revenue neutral as the tax has already been paid.

  1. Observing prescribed Limitation for audit and the verification as prescribed under various laws of the GST law: One of the distinguishable improvement in GST law over the erstwhile laws is that the limitations has been prescribed to be followed by both the litigant as well as the Authorities in execution of the law, so it is necessary for them to a strictly follow the limitations and start the proceedings well in time so that all the steps prescribed for giving the opportunity to the taxpayer and decision thereafter could be comfortably and legally possible.
  1. Granting Opportunity of Hearing: Decision should be taken after granting proper opportunity of hearing not only as per the specific provisions provided under the GST law but also in accordance to the principles of natural justice. Most of the orders passed by the officials are in haste without adhering to the fundamental requirement of opportunity of being heard by the aggrieved party/taxpayer. It has been observed that the Hon’ble High Court has to send back the case to the concerned authority only for the reason that proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the aggrieved party, either the notice has not been served or sufficient time has not been provided. This results in unnecessary litigation to the detrimental of the CGST/SGST departments, as not only time and energy is involved but also the delay in collection of revenue.
  1. The Summons or Show Cause Notices for examining or verifying the matters after the search or survey should not be left open: Summons or Show Cause Notices are issued after the search or survey or audit or any verification, but no order is passed for long time and matter is kept open even after submission of all necessary documents and informations by the taxpayer. The team of officers examined such issue must decide the matter as soon as possible otherwise the precious time and financial cost of both the Revenue Department and Taxpayer shall go futile. There should be a clarity to the taxpayer by receiving an order from the officers that the matter has been disposed of without any objection or demand, the word of mouth or no action is not sufficient in any transparently implemented legal system.