Stay informed with the latest in law and compliance
Share this page:
Due Date
Form / Return
Department
Description
Days Left
11 Mar 2026
GSTR-1
Feb, 26
GST
Summary of outward supplies where turnover exceeds Rs.5 crore or have not chosen the QRMP scheme for...Summary of outward supplies where turnover exceeds Rs.5 crore or have not chosen the QRMP scheme for the quarter of Jan - Mar, 26
1d
13 Mar 2026
GSTR-6
Feb, 26
GST
GSTR 6 is a monthly return for Input Service Distributors (ISD) to provide the details of their inwa...GSTR 6 is a monthly return for Input Service Distributors (ISD) to provide the details of their inward supplies & distributed Input Tax Credit (ITC).
3d
13 Mar 2026
IFF
Feb, 26
GST
Invoice Furnishing is an optional facility which enables the small registered person, furnishing the...Invoice Furnishing is an optional facility which enables the small registered person, furnishing the quarterly Form GSTR-1, to file their invoice details on monthly basis.
3d
13 Mar 2026
GSTR-5
Feb, 26
GST
Summary of outward taxable supplies and tax payable by a
non-resident taxable person
3d
15 Mar 2026
Form 24G
Feb, 26
Income Tax
Due date for furnishing of Form 24G by an office of the Government where TDS/TCS for the month of Fe...Due date for furnishing of Form 24G by an office of the Government where TDS/TCS for the month of February, 2026 has been paid without the production of a challan
5d
15 Mar 2026
Advance Tax
FY 25-26
Income Tax
Due date for payment of whole amount of advance tax in respect of assessment year 2026-27 for assess...Due date for payment of whole amount of advance tax in respect of assessment year 2026-27 for assessee covered under presumptive scheme of section 44AD / 44ADA
5d
15 Mar 2026
Advance Tax
4th Installment FY 25-26
Income Tax
Fourth instalment of advance tax for the assessment year 2026-27.
5d
15 Mar 2026
PF & ESIC
Feb, 26
PF & ESIC
PF deducted from the Employees salary in the month of February 26, needs to be paid on or before 15t...PF deducted from the Employees salary in the month of February 26, needs to be paid on or before 15th of March, 2026
The payment of ESIC is made by every employer to the ESIC department on a monthly basis. The due date for ESIC is 15th March, 2026
5d
17 Mar 2026
Issue of TDS Certificate- 194-IA, 194IB, 194M, 194S
Jan, 26
Income Tax
Due date for issue of TDS Certificate for tax deducted under section 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S in t...Due date for issue of TDS Certificate for tax deducted under section 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S in the month of January, 2026
7d
20 Mar 2026
GSTR-5A
Feb, 26
GST
Summary of outward taxable supplies and tax payable by a person supplying OIDAR services
10d
20 Mar 2026
GSTR-3B
Feb, 26
GST
Summary of outward supplies, ITC claimed, and net tax payable for taxpayers with turnover more than...Summary of outward supplies, ITC claimed, and net tax payable for taxpayers with turnover more than Rs.5 crore in the last FY or have not chosen the QRMP scheme for the quarter of Jan - Mar, 26
10d
25 Mar 2026
PMT-06
Feb, 26
GST
PMT-06 is a challan used for making payment of tax, interest, late fee and penalty under the GST law...PMT-06 is a challan used for making payment of tax, interest, late fee and penalty under the GST law by taxpayers who have opted for the quarterly filing of GSTR-3B under the QRMP scheme
15d
30 Mar 2026
TDS Pay- 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S
Feb, 26
Income Tax
Due date for furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under section 194-IA, 19...Due date for furnishing of challan-cum-statement in respect of tax deducted under section 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S in the month of February, 2026
20d
31 Mar 2026
Form No. 3CEAD
FY 24-25
Income Tax
Report by a parent entity or an alternate reporting entity or any other constituent entity, resident...Report by a parent entity or an alternate reporting entity or any other constituent entity, resident in India, for the purposes of sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of section 286 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (assuming reporting accounting year is April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025).
21d
31 Mar 2026
Equalisation Levy Deposit
Jan - Mar, 26
Income Tax
Collection and recovery of equalisation levy on e-commerce supply or services for the quarter ending...Collection and recovery of equalisation levy on e-commerce supply or services for the quarter ending March 31, 2026
21d
Tax Update
Last Opportunity Before Strict ROC Action
The Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 remains open from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026. After closure of the scheme, Registrars of Companies will initiate necessary action against companies that fail to regularize pending filings.
This creates a limited compliance window for defaultinThe Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 remains open from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026. After closure of the scheme, Registrars of Companies will initiate necessary action against companies that fail to regularize pending filings.
This creates a limited compliance window for defaulting entities. Chartered accountants and tax professionals should proactively identify non-compliant clients and ensure corrective filings before enforcement actions begin.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
Who Cannot Avail CCFS-2026?
The CCFS-2026 scheme is not available to companies where final strike-off action under Section 248 has already been initiated, companies dissolved pursuant to amalgamation, vanishing companies, or companies that have already applied for dormant status before the scheme.
Companies should verify thThe CCFS-2026 scheme is not available to companies where final strike-off action under Section 248 has already been initiated, companies dissolved pursuant to amalgamation, vanishing companies, or companies that have already applied for dormant status before the scheme.
Companies should verify their eligibility carefully before filing under this one-time compliance window to avoid rejection of forms and loss of scheme benefits.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
Penalty Immunity Window Under CCFS-2026
Under the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, companies filing pending annual returns and financial statements before issuance of adjudication notice or within 30 days of such notice can get immunity from penalty proceedings under Sections 92 and 137.
However, immunity is not availablUnder the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026, companies filing pending annual returns and financial statements before issuance of adjudication notice or within 30 days of such notice can get immunity from penalty proceedings under Sections 92 and 137.
However, immunity is not available where adjudication orders are already passed. This provision offers critical relief to defaulting companies if timely action is taken within the scheme period.
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has introduced the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026) to provide a one-time opportunity for companies to complete pending annual filings at reduced additional fees.
Companies can file overdue returns by paying only 10% of additional fees. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has introduced the Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme, 2026 (CCFS-2026) to provide a one-time opportunity for companies to complete pending annual filings at reduced additional fees.
Companies can file overdue returns by paying only 10% of additional fees. The scheme also allows inactive companies to opt for dormant status at half fees or apply for strike-off at 25% fees.
The scheme is valid from 15 April 2026 to 15 July 2026.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
GSTN Introduces New IMS Tab to Track Rejected Notes for GSTR-3B
GSTN has rolled out a new IMS (Invoice Management System) tab to help taxpayers track rejected credit and debit notes relevant for GSTR-3B filing.
This feature improves transparency and ensures accurate ITC reporting. Taxpayers can now easily identify and reconcile rejected documents before filinGSTN has rolled out a new IMS (Invoice Management System) tab to help taxpayers track rejected credit and debit notes relevant for GSTR-3B filing.
This feature improves transparency and ensures accurate ITC reporting. Taxpayers can now easily identify and reconcile rejected documents before filing returns.
The update aims to reduce mismatches, prevent wrongful ITC claims, and strengthen compliance under GST return filing procedures.
GSTN has introduced an online facility enabling eligible active taxpayers registered under Rule 14A to opt out by filing Form GST REG-32 on the GST Portal.
Applicants must meet prescribed return-filing conditions and complete mandatory Aadhaar authentication of the Primary Authorised Signatory aGSTN has introduced an online facility enabling eligible active taxpayers registered under Rule 14A to opt out by filing Form GST REG-32 on the GST Portal.
Applicants must meet prescribed return-filing conditions and complete mandatory Aadhaar authentication of the Primary Authorised Signatory and one Promoter/Partner. Draft application and authentication must be completed within 15 days.
During processing, amendment and cancellation requests are restricted. Post approval, enhanced reporting obligations apply.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
AY 2026-27 ITR Filing to Continue Under Income-tax Act, 1961
Income-tax returns for Assessment Year 2026-27 will be filed under the existing Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under the new Income-tax Act, 2025.
Key points:
1) New Income-tax Act, 2025 will not apply for AY 2026-27 returns
2) Filing will continue under the old Act, 1961
3) ITR forms areIncome-tax returns for Assessment Year 2026-27 will be filed under the existing Income-tax Act, 1961, and not under the new Income-tax Act, 2025.
Key points:
1) New Income-tax Act, 2025 will not apply for AY 2026-27 returns
2) Filing will continue under the old Act, 1961
3) ITR forms are yet to be officially notified by CBDT
4) Filing utilities will be enabled only after notification.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Portal Update: VPD Now Available During Business Hours
The MCA portal has extended the View Public Documents (VPD) service to regular business hours.
Users can now download all available public documents during the day itself, without waiting till after 6:30 PM.
This change will help professionals plan MCA-related work more efficiently.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Clarification: 7 Days Allowed for Payment
For FY 2024-25 Financial Statements and Annual Returns, the MCA fee waiver remains applicable if-
1) The DSC-affixed PDF is uploaded on or before 31 January 2026
2) Payment is made within 7 days from the date of upload of the DSC-affixed PDF
Key Point-
Payment can be completed after upload, For FY 2024-25 Financial Statements and Annual Returns, the MCA fee waiver remains applicable if-
1) The DSC-affixed PDF is uploaded on or before 31 January 2026
2) Payment is made within 7 days from the date of upload of the DSC-affixed PDF
Key Point-
Payment can be completed after upload, but the DSC-affixed PDF must be submitted within the waiver period.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
GSTN Enhances Interest Calculation and Auto-Population in GSTR-3B from January 2026
GSTN has issued an advisory announcing key enhancements in GSTR-3B effective from the January 2026 tax period.
Interest calculation in Table 5.1 will now factor in the minimum cash balance available in the Electronic Cash Ledger, aligning with Rule 88B.
The system-computed interest will be autGSTN has issued an advisory announcing key enhancements in GSTR-3B effective from the January 2026 tax period.
Interest calculation in Table 5.1 will now factor in the minimum cash balance available in the Electronic Cash Ledger, aligning with Rule 88B.
The system-computed interest will be auto-populated and non-editable downward. Additionally, the tax liability breakup table will be auto-filled, ITC cross-utilisation will be more flexible, and interest on delayed last GSTR-3B for cancelled taxpayers will be collected via GSTR-10.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
GSTN Issues Advisory on RSP-Based Valuation of Tobacco Goods from 1 Feb 2026
GSTN has issued an advisory clarifying the RSP-based valuation mechanism for notified tobacco goods, effective 1 February 2026.
The advisory explains how taxable value and GST liability must be computed where GST is included in the declared Retail Sale Price (RSP).
It also provides guidance onGSTN has issued an advisory clarifying the RSP-based valuation mechanism for notified tobacco goods, effective 1 February 2026.
The advisory explains how taxable value and GST liability must be computed where GST is included in the declared Retail Sale Price (RSP).
It also provides guidance on correct reporting of such supplies in e-Invoice, e-Way Bill, and GST returns including GSTR-1, GSTR-1A, and IFF, to ensure uniform compliance by taxpayers.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
GSTAT Allows Lenient Scrutiny of Appeals for Initial 6 Months
The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed all its benches to take a lenient view while scrutinising appeal documents during the initial phase of GSTAT portal usage.
For six months from the date of the order (20 January 2026), defects of form or minor procedural The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has directed all its benches to take a lenient view while scrutinising appeal documents during the initial phase of GSTAT portal usage.
For six months from the date of the order (20 January 2026), defects of form or minor procedural lapses should not be raised; only defects affecting the substance of the case may be pointed out.
It is also clarified that documents generated through the GSTN system need not be certified, though scanned copies of physical documents attached with appeals must be signed.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Updates Small Company Status in Master Data
Ministry of Corporate Affairs now shows Small Company status directly in MCA Master Data, simplifying compliance clarity for professionals.
This classification reflects whether a company qualifies under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act based on paid-up capital and turnover thresholds. Explicit Ministry of Corporate Affairs now shows Small Company status directly in MCA Master Data, simplifying compliance clarity for professionals.
This classification reflects whether a company qualifies under Section 2(85) of the Companies Act based on paid-up capital and turnover thresholds. Explicit system visibility reduces guesswork, supports correct statutory filings, and speeds compliance decisions.
Companies and advisors should verify reflected status against audited financials to avoid incorrect filings or compliance risk.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
GST Advisory on Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises
GSTN has issued an advisory on filing the Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises, pursuant to Notification No. 05/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 16 January 2025.
The facility is available on the GST portal for regular taxpayers supplying hotel accommodation services and applicants seeking new GGSTN has issued an advisory on filing the Opt-In Declaration for Specified Premises, pursuant to Notification No. 05/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 16 January 2025.
The facility is available on the GST portal for regular taxpayers supplying hotel accommodation services and applicants seeking new GST registration. Two declarations are prescribed-Annexure VII for existing registered taxpayers and Annexure VIII for new applicants.
For FY 2026-27, Annexure VII can be filed between 1 January 2026 and 31 March 2026. Composition taxpayers and certain other categories are excluded.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
GST Valuation Shift: RSP-Based Taxation for Pan Masala and Tobacco Products
The Government has notified Notification No. 19/2025-Central Tax and 20/2025-Central Tax, introducing a major change in GST valuation for specified goods such as pan masala, tobacco, cigarettes, and nicotine-based products.
Effective 1 February 2026, the value of supply for these goods will be deThe Government has notified Notification No. 19/2025-Central Tax and 20/2025-Central Tax, introducing a major change in GST valuation for specified goods such as pan masala, tobacco, cigarettes, and nicotine-based products.
Effective 1 February 2026, the value of supply for these goods will be deemed as the declared Retail Sale Price (RSP) minus applicable GST, irrespective of transaction value.
New Rule 31D is inserted in CGST Rules, 2017, and corresponding relief is provided under Rule 86B for non-manufacturer registered persons where tax is already paid on RSP basis.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Amends Director KYC Rules
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2025, effective from 31 March 2026.
The amendment replaces Rule 12A and mandates filing of Form DIR-3-KYC-Web for Director KYC compliance. Every individual holding a DIN as oThe Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Amendment Rules, 2025, effective from 31 March 2026.
The amendment replaces Rule 12A and mandates filing of Form DIR-3-KYC-Web for Director KYC compliance. Every individual holding a DIN as on 31 March must file KYC on or before 30 June after every third consecutive financial year.
Further, any change in mobile number, email ID, or residential address must be updated within 30 days through DIR-3-KYC-Web, with applicable fees.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
GSTAT Benches Allocated; Members to Join from 21 January 2026
The Ministry of Finance has issued Office Order No. 03/2025 dated 26 December 2025, allocating benches to newly appointed Members of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The order specifies postings of Technical Members (Centre and State) and Judicial Members across various locaThe Ministry of Finance has issued Office Order No. 03/2025 dated 26 December 2025, allocating benches to newly appointed Members of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
The order specifies postings of Technical Members (Centre and State) and Judicial Members across various locations in India, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata, and other cities.
All members are directed to join their respective benches on 21 January 2026, enabling GSTAT to become functionally operational for appellate proceedings.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
GSTN to Block Excess ITC Reclaim and Negative Balances in New Ledgers
GST Network (GSTN) has announced stricter validations for the Electronic Credit Reversal & Re-claimed Statement and the RCM Liability/ITC Statement. These ledgers track reversed and reclaimed ITC and RCM liabilities reported in GSTR-3B.
Going forward, reclaim of ITC beyond available balances and GST Network (GSTN) has announced stricter validations for the Electronic Credit Reversal & Re-claimed Statement and the RCM Liability/ITC Statement. These ledgers track reversed and reclaimed ITC and RCM liabilities reported in GSTR-3B.
Going forward, reclaim of ITC beyond available balances and negative ledger values will not be permitted. Taxpayers with negative balances must first reverse excess ITC or pay additional RCM liability, failing which GSTR-3B filing will be blocked.
GST
Share:
Tax Update
MCA Grants Fee Waiver and Time Extension for Annual Filings (FY 2024-25)
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued General Circular No. 08/2025 dated 30 December 2025, granting relief to companies for annual filings under the Companies Act, 2013.
Companies are allowed to file e-Forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL, and NBFC-related AOC-4 forms for FY 2024-25 up to The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued General Circular No. 08/2025 dated 30 December 2025, granting relief to companies for annual filings under the Companies Act, 2013.
Companies are allowed to file e-Forms MGT-7, MGT-7A, AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL, and NBFC-related AOC-4 forms for FY 2024-25 up to 31 January 2026 without payment of additional fees.
All other conditions of Circular No. 06/2025 remain unchanged.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
Tax Update
GST Appellate Tribunal Removes Staggered Filing of Appeals
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has revoked its earlier order dated 24 September 2025 that required staggered filing of appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017.
With effect from 18 December 2025, taxpayers can now file appeals without following the staggered scheduleThe Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has revoked its earlier order dated 24 September 2025 that required staggered filing of appeals under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017.
With effect from 18 December 2025, taxpayers can now file appeals without following the staggered schedule. The Tribunal clarified that this change is aimed at ensuring unhindered access to the appellate mechanism while maintaining system efficiency.
Appeals already filed under the earlier order remain valid. This provides procedural relief and clarity to taxpayers and professionals.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Section 68 Addition on Share Capital Deleted as Investors Were Traceable and Creditworthy with Proper Documentary Evidence
PartiesPrincipal Commissioner of Income-tax 1 Kolkata v. Shipra Enclave (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CitationITAT 94 OF 2025 IA NO. GA 2 OF 2025
The assessee-company, an NBFC, raised Rs. 6.22 crore as share capital and premium from 15 corporate entities and submitted PAN, ITR acknowledgments, audited financials, and bank details of subscribers.
The AO treated the investors as shell entities...The assessee-company, an NBFC, raised Rs. 6.22 crore as share capital and premium from 15 corporate entities and submitted PAN, ITR acknowledgments, audited financials, and bank details of subscribers.
The AO treated the investors as shell entities because their directors did not appear in response to summons u/s 131.
Though the subscribers were active taxpayers and confirmed transactions u/s 133(6), the AO added the amount under section 68; the Tribunal deleted the addition.
Decision
The assessee discharged its burden u/s 68 by proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness through strong documentary evidence.
Non-appearance of directors cannot override verified records; suspicion cannot substitute evidence.
No substantial question of law arose; the Tribunals order deleting Rs. 6.22 crore was upheld and Revenues appeal was dismissed.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
Reassessment Valid Where Only Information and Not Entire Material Supplied Under Section 148A
PartiesMHJ Metaltechs (P.) Ltd v. Income-tax Officer
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationW.P.(C) No. 880 of 2026 CM APPL. No. 4297 & 6774 of 2026
The assessee was issued notice u/s 148A(b) for AY 2020-21 based on the Investigation Wing inputs alleging bogus purchases of Rs. 46 lakhs and fictitious sales of Rs. 89.86 crores.
The assessee contended that the notice was invalid as the AO did not...The assessee was issued notice u/s 148A(b) for AY 2020-21 based on the Investigation Wing inputs alleging bogus purchases of Rs. 46 lakhs and fictitious sales of Rs. 89.86 crores.
The assessee contended that the notice was invalid as the AO did not supply the underlying material and complete particulars, including correct counterparty names.
Though an earlier order u/s 148A(d) was quashed, the original 148A(b) notice remained, and the assessee challenged the continuing reassessment proceedings.
Decision
Section 148A mandates the supply of information suggesting escapement of income, not copies of the entire material relied upon.
Mention of transaction amounts and the nature of alleged bogus transactions was sufficient compliance at the 148A stage.
No jurisdictional error was found; the reassessment notice and proceedings were upheld in favour of the Revenue.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
GST Assessment Quashed for Failure to Ensure Effective Service and Personal Hearing Despite Portal Upload
PartiesCmkr Ganesan and Bros v. Deputy Commissioner (CT)GST, Madurai
CourtHIGH COURT OF MADRAS
CitationW.P.(MD)No. 2645 of 2026 W.M.P(MD)Nos. 2223 & 2228 of 2026
The department served the SCN and all reminders only by uploading them on the GST portal; no physical copy or alternative mode of service was attempted.
The assessee claimed a lack of awareness of such portal uploads and did not file any reply.
An...The department served the SCN and all reminders only by uploading them on the GST portal; no physical copy or alternative mode of service was attempted.
The assessee claimed a lack of awareness of such portal uploads and did not file any reply.
An ex parte assessment order was passed without granting a personal hearing; the subsequent statutory appeal was rejected on limitation grounds.
Decision
Though portal upload is a valid mode of service u/s 169, in the absence of a response, the officer should have explored other statutory modes (preferably RPAD) to ensure effective service.
Passing an ex parte order without a personal hearing amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice; both assessment and appeal rejection orders were unsustainable.
The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax, with direction to provide an effective personal hearing.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Mere absence of PAN and address details, without statutory mandate or cogent material, cannot justify reassessment
PartiesZazsons Exports (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
CourtHIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
CitationWRIT TAX No. 813 of 2024
The assessee-company, engaged in the manufacture and export of leather goods, was assessed u/s 143(3); later, an audit objection alleged that sundry creditors of Rs. 28.96 crore were not established due to the absence of PAN and address details.
Tho...The assessee-company, engaged in the manufacture and export of leather goods, was assessed u/s 143(3); later, an audit objection alleged that sundry creditors of Rs. 28.96 crore were not established due to the absence of PAN and address details.
Though the AO initially disagreed with the audit objection, he subsequently issued notice u/s 148A(b) and passed an order u/s 148A(d), initiating reassessment u/s 148.
The assessee contended that cash purchases of hides and skins were legally permissible u/s 40A read with Rule 6DD, and names along with mandi details of sellers were duly recorded in its books.
Decision
The Court held that since the law permitted cash purchases and did not mandate maintaining PAN or address details, the mere absence of such particulars could not establish the non-genuineness of creditors.
Reassessment cannot be initiated merely on suspicion or solely on the basis of an audit objection without any cogent or objective material indicating escapement of income.
As no valid jurisdictional foundation existed, the reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed in favour of the assessee.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
Appellate Authority Cannot Introduce New Grounds Beyond SCN Without Granting Opportunity of Hearing Under the GST Law
PartiesParag Vinimay (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal
CourtHIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CitationWPA No. 4901 of 2025
Parag Vinimay (P.) Ltd. was issued an SCN alleging excess availment of ITC solely because its supplier had not filed GSTR-3B returns for August to October 2019.
During adjudication, the supplier filed returns for August and September 2019, leading t...Parag Vinimay (P.) Ltd. was issued an SCN alleging excess availment of ITC solely because its supplier had not filed GSTR-3B returns for August to October 2019.
During adjudication, the supplier filed returns for August and September 2019, leading to partial relief, but the demand for October 2019 was confirmed as the return was still pending at that stage.
While the appeal u/s 107 was pending, the supplier also filed the October 2019 return; however, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on new grounds relating to the genuineness of transactions and receipt of goods, which were not part of the original SCN.
Decision
The HC of Calcutta held that the appellate authority could not travel beyond the grounds mentioned in the SCN.
If the appellate authority intended to confirm the demand on new grounds, it was mandatory to grant the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing to rebut those grounds.
Since no such opportunity was given, the appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after affording due hearing.
GST
Share:
Case Law
GST Section 74 Notice Quashed for Clubbing Multiple Financial Years Contrary to Year Wise Assessment.
PartiesSpeedways Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 7419 OF 2025
The SCN dated 24-09-2025 was issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act to the petitioner covering the consolidated period April 2019 to March 2023, alleging suppression of taxable value, short payment of tax, and wrongful availment of ITC.
The petitioner challe...The SCN dated 24-09-2025 was issued u/s 74 of the CGST Act to the petitioner covering the consolidated period April 2019 to March 2023, alleging suppression of taxable value, short payment of tax, and wrongful availment of ITC.
The petitioner challenged the notice on the ground that multiple financial years were impermissibly clubbed in a single notice, contrary to the GST statutory scheme.
Reliance was placed on earlier Bombay HC rulings in Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, which held that assessment and limitation under GST operate year-wise.
Decision
The Court held that under the GST framework, each financial year constitutes a separate tax period, and the limitation u/s 73 and 74 runs independently for each year.
A composite SCN covering multiple years distorts limitation, jurisdiction, and the taxpayers right to respond year-wise, and is therefore not permissible.
The impugned show cause notice was quashed and set aside, with liberty granted to the department to issue fresh notices strictly in accordance with Section 74.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Reassessment cannot be reopened on the same examined material merely due to an audit objection
PartiesSapphire Foods India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD)
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationW.P.(C) No. 6159 of 2023 CM APPL. No. 24241 of 2023
The assessee filed a return for AY 2016-17, and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after scrutiny, wherein details of Rs. 8.90 crore (MD payment) and Rs. 90.81 lakh (consultancy payment) were specifically called for and furnished.
In March 2023...The assessee filed a return for AY 2016-17, and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) after scrutiny, wherein details of Rs. 8.90 crore (MD payment) and Rs. 90.81 lakh (consultancy payment) were specifically called for and furnished.
In March 2023, a notice u/s 148A(b) was issued based on Audit Party objections alleging incorrect allowance of expenses aggregating Rs. 9.81 crore.
After dropping the share premium issue, the AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 dated 31-03-2023, beyond four years from the end of the relevant AY.
Decision
Reopening based solely on audit objections, when the AO had already examined the same material during scrutiny, amounts to an impermissible change of opinion.
Since the assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts, the extended limitation was not available to the Revenue.
The notice dated 31-03-2023 and consequential reassessment proceedings were held to be barred by limitation and quashed.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
Declaration of return as invalid under section 139(9) constitutes a revisable order under section 264
PartiesRaj Rayon Industries Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 1904 OF 2025
The assessee filed its return for AY 2022–23, declaring a loss of Rs. 45.47 crores, after which CPC issued notice u/s 139(9) treating the return as defective for non-audit u/s 44AB.
The assessee replied that its turnover was below Rs. 10 crores an...The assessee filed its return for AY 2022–23, declaring a loss of Rs. 45.47 crores, after which CPC issued notice u/s 139(9) treating the return as defective for non-audit u/s 44AB.
The assessee replied that its turnover was below Rs. 10 crores and audit was not required, but CPC nevertheless declared the return invalid through an unreasoned order.
The assessee filed a revision u/s 264, which the Commissioner dismissed, holding that a declaration u/s 139(9) was not an order revisable u/s 264.
Decision
The Court held that a declaration u/s 139(9) declaring a return invalid is an order since it amounts to an authoritative direction.
Such an order is revisable u/s 264, and the Commissioner erred in holding otherwise.
The impugned order was quashed, and the revision application was restored for fresh consideration after granting proper hearing.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
Ocean Freight IGST Refund to Be Credited to Consumer Welfare Fund When Tax Burden Passed On
PartiesUnion of India v. Torrent Power Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationSLP Appeal (C) No. 13084 OF 2025
Torrent Power Ltd., engaged in power, paid IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge for imports made on CIF basis; the levy was later declared unconstitutional in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Private Limited.
The company sought a refund of Rs....Torrent Power Ltd., engaged in power, paid IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge for imports made on CIF basis; the levy was later declared unconstitutional in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Private Limited.
The company sought a refund of Rs. 19.28 crore, but authorities rejected the claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, as the tax burden had been passed on to consumers through tariff determination.
The Gujarat HC allowed the refund and permitted the company to deposit the amount in a separate account for adjustment through tariff reduction under the supervision of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Decision
The SC held that u/s 54(5), 54(8)(e), and 57 of the CGST Act,the refund must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund if the incidence of tax has been passed on.
Since Torrent Power Ltd. had admittedly passed on the tax burden to consumers, it was not entitled to receive the refund directly.
The HCs procedure for refund through tariff adjustment was contrary to the statutory scheme; its judgment was set aside, and the company was directed to deposit Rs. 19.28 crore into the Consumer Welfare Fund.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Inspection of seized jewellery during section 263 revision proceedings held valid without disclosure of reasons
PartiesMiraj Digvijay Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central
CourtHIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CitationWPA No. 25602 of 2025
After a search and seizure u/s 132, jewellery and bullion were sealed; part value was treated as unexplained, and revision proceedings u/s 263 were initiated for inadequate inquiry.
During revision, the department issued notices to inspect sealed se...After a search and seizure u/s 132, jewellery and bullion were sealed; part value was treated as unexplained, and revision proceedings u/s 263 were initiated for inadequate inquiry.
During revision, the department issued notices to inspect sealed seized assets in a strong room; the assessee objected, citing no reasons, lack of statutory basis, and risk to the chain of custody.
Assessee filed a writ challenging the legality of the inspection under Rule 112(13).
Decision
Inspection of seized assets is only verificatory and not an invasive act like a search; therefore, there is no reason to believe or disclosure of information is required.
Since the inspection was connected with pending section 263 proceedings, it was for purposes of the Act and valid under rule 112(13).
Presence of assessee and sealed strong-room custody ensured no tampering; writ dismissed and department allowed to issue fresh inspection notice.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
GST appearance pursuant to summons during inquiry cannot be treated as illegal detention
PartiesKanhaiya Nilambar Jha v. Union of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 885 OF 2025
During the investigation into alleged fraudulent ITC, GST authorities issued a summons u/s 70, and the petitioner received and attended them without objection.
The petitioner later claimed he was illegally detained from 17-6-2025 to 20-6-2025 and co...During the investigation into alleged fraudulent ITC, GST authorities issued a summons u/s 70, and the petitioner received and attended them without objection.
The petitioner later claimed he was illegally detained from 17-6-2025 to 20-6-2025 and contended that summons required a prior 7-day notice.
Official records showed he stayed at the GST office on his own, had access to his mobile phones, and was formally arrested only on 21-6-2025.
Decision
The Court held that section 70 does not prescribe any mandatory 7-day prior notice, and attendance for inquiry cannot be treated as detention.
Since his presence was voluntary and there was no restriction on movement, illegal custody was not established.
The compensation claim was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed in favour of the revenue authorities.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Minimum three month gap mandatory between GST show cause notice and final order
PartiesA. M. Marketplaces (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION No. 7943 OF 2025
The GST department issued an SCN dated 18-11-2024 proposing a tax demand against the assessee.
The adjudicating authority passed the final order on 31-01-2025, giving the assessee only about 2 months and 13 days to respond.
The assessee filed a wri...The GST department issued an SCN dated 18-11-2024 proposing a tax demand against the assessee.
The adjudicating authority passed the final order on 31-01-2025, giving the assessee only about 2 months and 13 days to respond.
The assessee filed a writ petition contending that the statute requires a minimum three-month period to submit a reply and avail a proper hearing.
Decision
The Court held that a minimum three-month gap between the issuance of notice and the passing of the order is mandatory.
A shorter period violates principles of natural justice and statutory protections available to the taxpayer.
Accordingly, the SCN and order were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Section 5A community income Vivad se Vishwas benefit cannot be denied to spouse
PartiesSmt. Sharen Nitin Naik v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 2024
In Smt. Sharen Nitin Naik v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, a Goan couple governed by section 5A (community property) faced additions and penalty on the same income; husband appealed the assessment & penalty while wife appealed only penalty....In Smt. Sharen Nitin Naik v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, a Goan couple governed by section 5A (community property) faced additions and penalty on the same income; husband appealed the assessment & penalty while wife appealed only penalty.
Both filed Forms 1 & 2 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme; husbands application was accepted, but wifes was rejected for the absence of an assessment appeal.
Wife filed a writ petition; the department objected, citing delay due to COVID and lapse of the scheme.
Decision
Under section 5A, income is a single community income; disputes cannot be split; settlement for husband covers wife.
The pending penalty appeal qualifies as a dispute; rejection of wifes application was invalid.
Delay and scheme expiry are not valid grounds for the authority to reconsider the application and pass a reasoned order.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
Section 271AAB penalty limitation governed by section 275(1)(a) when assessment is appealed; order within time is valid.
PartiesChandrasekaran Joseph Vijay v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
CourtHIGH COURT OF MADRAS
CitationW. P. No. 21006 of 2022 W.M.P. Nos. 20010, 20012 & 20013 of 2022
During a search u/s 132, the assessee admitted Rs. 15 crore as undisclosed cash income and included it in his return for AY 2016-17; the assessment order dated 30-12-2017 initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB.
The assessment order was partly allo...During a search u/s 132, the assessee admitted Rs. 15 crore as undisclosed cash income and included it in his return for AY 2016-17; the assessment order dated 30-12-2017 initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB.
The assessment order was partly allowed by CIT(A) and further modified by the ITAT; the Tribunal’s order dated 22-12-2021 attained finality.
A penalty order dated 30-06-2022 imposed 10% penalty u/s 271AAB; the assessee challenged it as time-barred u/s 275(1)(c).
Decision
Since penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order and the assessment order was carried in appeal, section 275(1)(a), and not the residuary clause (c), governed limitation.
The penalty proceedings were closely linked to the assessment and search proceedings, satisfying the conditions of section 275(1)(a).
As six months from the end of the month of receipt of the ITAT order (December 2021) expired on 30-06-2022, and the penalty order was passed on that date, it was within limitation; writ petition dismissed in favour of Revenue.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
GST Assessment Quashed for Violation of Natural Justice Where Order Passed Without Hearing and Appeal Rejected on Limitation
PartiesDRF Infra Builders (P.) Ltd. v. UT of J & K
CourtHIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
CitationWP(C) No. 2977 of 2025 CM No. 6834 of 2025
An assessment order u/s 63 of the GST Act was passed against the assessee without granting any opportunity of hearing, despite the assessee being a registered GST entity.
The assessee came to know of the assessment only after its bank accounts were...An assessment order u/s 63 of the GST Act was passed against the assessee without granting any opportunity of hearing, despite the assessee being a registered GST entity.
The assessee came to know of the assessment only after its bank accounts were frozen, and thereafter filed an appeal against the order.
The appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation, and the appellate authority also did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Decision
In view of the consensus between the parties, the HC quashed both the assessment order and the appellate order.
The assessee was granted time to submit a reply to the SCN, and the authorities were directed to afford a proper opportunity of hearing.
The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a direction to pass a speaking order, subject to the deposit of 10% of the tax demand, and the order was clarified to be non-precedential.
GST
Share:
Case Law
GST Writ Not Maintainable Once GSTAT Functional; Assessee Directed to Avail Statutory Appeal Remedy
PartiesMonte Carlo Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal)
CourtHIGH COURT OF ORISSA
CitationW.P. (C) No. 583 of 2026
The assessee a works contractor, was issued an SCN u/s 73 proposing demand of IGST with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
The assessees first appeal u/s 107 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, and its rec...The assessee a works contractor, was issued an SCN u/s 73 proposing demand of IGST with interest and penalty, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
The assessees first appeal u/s 107 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, and its rectification application u/s 161 was also rejected.
Alleging violation of natural justice due to non-grant of personal hearing u/s 75(4), the assessee filed a writ petition.
Decision
The Court held that the issues raised, including alleged violation of natural justice, could be effectively adjudicated in statutory appeal before GSTAT u/s 112.
Since GSTAT was functional and timelines for filing appeal were notified, invocation of writ jurisdiction was not justified.
The writ petition was disposed of in favour of the Revenue, directing the assessee to file appeal before GSTAT after complying with the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 112(8).
GST
Share:
Case Law
Bail Denied in Rs 15 Crore Fake ITC Racket
PartiesPramod Kumar Nanda v. Union of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF ORISSA
CitationBLAPL No. 12334 of 2025
GSTN data analytics, BIFA portal, and e-way bill systems revealed a well-organised fake invoicing racket involving newly registered, non-existent firms, leading to fraudulent availment of ITC of about Rs. 15 crore without actual supply of goods.
The...GSTN data analytics, BIFA portal, and e-way bill systems revealed a well-organised fake invoicing racket involving newly registered, non-existent firms, leading to fraudulent availment of ITC of about Rs. 15 crore without actual supply of goods.
The petitioner was alleged to have exercised effective control over multiple bogus entities, issued fake invoices for cement and steel, and was arrested u/s 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017; incriminating electronic material and corroborative statements were recovered.
Bail was rejected by the trial court considering the gravity, scale, and organised nature of the economic offence.
Decision
The HC of Orissa held that economic offences involving systematic tax evasion and fake ITC are grave offences having serious repercussions on public revenue and the economy.
The Court found a prima facie case of a structured and premeditated fraud, supported by GSTN analytics, financial trails, electronic records, and statements, showing the offence was not technical or isolated in nature.
In view of the seriousness of allegations, rejection of bail was held to be justified and warranted no interference, and the bail application was dismissed in favour of the revenue.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 01-04-2021 is void under TOLA, irrespective of section 148A compliance.
PartiesMitra Biswas v. Income Tax Officer
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3068 OF 2026
The AO issued an SCN u/s 148A(b) on 28-03-2022 alleging escapement of income relating to the purchase of immovable property for AY 2015-16.
An order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 dated 14-04-2022 were thereafter issued, followed by an assessment u/...The AO issued an SCN u/s 148A(b) on 28-03-2022 alleging escapement of income relating to the purchase of immovable property for AY 2015-16.
An order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 dated 14-04-2022 were thereafter issued, followed by an assessment u/s 147 making additions u/s 69.
The assessee challenged the reopening notice, assessment order, and recovery proceedings by filing a writ petition, relying on the SC decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal.
Decision
The Court noted that the Revenue had unequivocally conceded before the SC that for AY 2015-16, all section 148 notices issued on or after 01-04-2021 must be dropped as they would not fall within the TOLA completion period.
Since the impugned notice dated 14-04-2022 was issued after 01-04-2021, it was held to be time-barred and invalid in law, notwithstanding the procedure u/s 148A.
Delay or pendency of appellate proceedings did not cure jurisdictional invalidity; accordingly, the section 148 notice, assessment order, and all recovery notices were quashed.
INCOME TAX
Share:
Case Law
Educational Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities Are Export of Services, Not Intermediary
PartiesCommissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax DGST Delhi v. Global Opportunities (P.) Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationSLP Appeal (C) No(s). 2752 OF 2026
The assessee, Global Opportunities (P.) Ltd., an Indian educational consultancy, provided counselling services to Indian students for admission into foreign educational institutions and earned commission directly from those institutions abroad.
The...The assessee, Global Opportunities (P.) Ltd., an Indian educational consultancy, provided counselling services to Indian students for admission into foreign educational institutions and earned commission directly from those institutions abroad.
The assessee raised invoices on foreign institutions and received consideration in convertible foreign exchange, and claimed GST refund, treating the services as export of services.
The GST department rejected the refund by classifying the services as intermediary services, but the Appellate Authority and the Delhi HC held the services were supplied on the assessees own account and not as an intermediary.
Decision
The SC of India refused to interfere with the HCs judgment and dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue.
It upheld that the assessee was not an intermediary, as it neither arranged nor facilitated supply between two parties, and the recipient of the service was the foreign institution.
The services qualified as export of services, entitling the assessee to GST refund along with statutory interest, with a two-month extension granted for making the refund.
GST
Share:
Case Law
Writ Petition Not Maintainable After GSTAT Becomes Functional; Statutory Appeal Mandatory
PartiesShiva Prasad Pattnaik v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax & GST, Odisha
CourtHIGH COURT OF ORISSA
CitationW.P.(C) No. 17390 of 2023
A GST demand for FY 2019–20 was confirmed u/s 73 of the CGST/OGST Act and upheld by the First Appellate Authority.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the demand on the ground that the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) was not constitute...A GST demand for FY 2019–20 was confirmed u/s 73 of the CGST/OGST Act and upheld by the First Appellate Authority.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the demand on the ground that the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) was not constituted and functional.
During the pendency of the writ, GSTAT was constituted and notified as functional with extended and staggered timelines for filing statutory appeals.
Decision
The Writ jurisdiction is available only when the statutory appellate forum is absent or non-functional; once GSTAT became functional, the writ was not maintainable.
The petitioner was required to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before GSTAT by complying with the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 112(8).
The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before GSTAT within the notified advisory timelines, without examining the merits.
GST
Share:
Quick Enquiry
Fill in your details and we'll get back to you shortly.
