JSA Newsletter | Indirect Tax | September 2026 Edition

Please click here to download the Newsletter as a PDF.

 

Recent Rulings by courts and authorities

Supreme Court

Show cause notice under Section 74 of CGST Act[1] requires specific allegations; cannot rest on mechanical invocation of fraud or suppression

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in the case of G.R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.[2], set aside a Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) issued under Section 74[3] of the CGST Act, along with the consequential order-in-original. The Madhya Pradesh High Court[4] had earlier dismissed the assessee’s writ petition, holding that once an SCN is issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, it is not open to the writ court to examine whether the proper officer had erroneously invoked the said provision in the absence of any reason of fraud or wilful misstatement of fact to evade tax.

The Supreme Court observed and held that:

• the SCN dated June 13, 2025 pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19 was barred by limitation under Section 73[5] of the CGST Act[6];
• a bare reading of the SCN disclosed nothing beyond a bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts’, nothing is stated as to how fraud was inferred or concealment of facts were detected. Further, the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ indicated that the assessing officer was himself not certain whether the proceedings were founded on fraud or on concealment of facts;
• for invocation of the extended period, the allegations leading to the inference of fraud or concealment resulting in suppression of facts must emanate from the notice itself and “cannot be a mechanical use of the words ‘fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts’ without listing out the aspects which persuades the assessing officer to conclude that there has been employed either of these surreptitious devices by the assessee”; and
• the Revenue’s reliance on the elaboration of the allegations of fraud and suppression in its counter affidavit was impermissible, since the requirements to make the notice or order valid should be contained in such notice or order and cannot be supplanted by a counter affidavit in Court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the SCN and the consequential order and directed the Revenue to desist from taking any further proceedings in pursuance thereof.

 

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules[7], in the absence of a saving clause, inures to the benefit of all pending proceedings

The Supreme Court, in the case of Goodluck India Limited and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.[8], affirmed the judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat (“Gujarat HC”)[9], which had held that the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules vide Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax with effect from October 8, 2024, applies to all proceedings pending on the date of such omission. The dispute arose from recovery of refunds of integrated tax claimed by exporters who had exported goods on payment of integrated tax while availing specified duty exemption or concessional tax benefits, allegedly in violation of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules.

The Supreme Court observed that:

• The well-established legal principle, as affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Limited vs. Union of India[10], holds that when a statutory provision is deleted, it is to be treated as though it never formed part of the statute. Accordingly, where such deletion is not accompanied by a saving clause that expressly permits the continuation of proceedings already commenced under the deleted provision, any such pending proceedings must be deemed to have abated and cannot be carried forward;
• Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was omitted for the reason that its operation was leading to unnecessary complications without any intended benefit being served, and “the intention to omit the rule without any saving clause was to bring to an end, the unnecessary complications once and for all and the intention cannot be to keep alive the unnecessary complications insofar as the pending proceedings are concerned”;
• omission envisaged that applicability of refund under Rule 96 was without the rigor of the person claiming such refund, having received supplies after availing benefits available by virtue of the notifications specified in clause (a) or the benefits available under the notifications specified under clause (b);[11] and,
• the recommendation of the 54^th Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) Council meeting[12] that the omission should operate prospectively is advisory in nature and does not bind the rule making authority, and no saving or sunset clause was in fact introduced by the legislature.

Noting that several proceedings on the effect of the omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules are pending before various High Courts and that conflicting orders have been passed, the Supreme Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the order to all High Courts and further directed the Registry of the High Courts to place such matters before the appropriate roster benches, after obtaining orders from the respective Chief Justices, expeditiously, so as to bring quietus to the litigation.

 

Upholds constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act to affirm that supplier’s tax payment is pre-condition to avail ITC

The Supreme Court, in the case of Bhandari Scrap Traders vs. Union of India and Ors.[13], upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c)[14] of the CGST Act to affirm that unless the supplier makes payment of applicable tax in respect of supply, the recipient is not entitled to avail Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) of GST paid to the supplier on said supply.

The Supreme Court concurred with the judgement passed by the Gujarat HC[15] to observe:

• from analysis of the provisions of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (“Delhi VAT Act”) and the CGST Act, it is clearly demonstrated that there is no possibility of drawing parity between the provisions of the 2 (two) enactments, so as to treat a purchasing dealer under the CGST Act on par with a purported bonafide purchasing dealer under the Delhi VAT Act in relation to ITC, when the supplier-dealer fails to pay the requisite tax; and
• under Section 41 of the CGST Act, the purchasing dealer under the CGST Act is entitled to re-avail the reversed ITC after the supplier-dealer is made to discharge the tax liability.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act to affirm that the suppliers’ tax payment is a pre-condition for the recipient to avail ITC of GST paid to the supplier on the supply.

 

High Courts

Levy of GST on corporate guarantees furnished prior to October 26, 2023 declared unconstitutional; expression “whichever is higher” in Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules read down

The Gujarat HC, in the case of Torrent Power Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.[16], partly allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of GST on corporate guarantees furnished by holding companies in favour of banks and financial institutions in respect of credit facilities availed by their subsidiaries.

The Gujarat HC held that:

• Rule 28(2)[17] of the CGST Rules and Section 15(4)[18] of the CGST Act are intra vires the CGST Act and Articles 14[19], 19(1)(g)[20] and 265 of the Constitution of India, save that the expression “whichever is higher” in Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules is required to be read down, inasmuch as adopting the deemed value of 1% per annum even where the actual consideration is lower is arbitrary, and the assessee is entitled to have the value determined with reference to the actual commission or charge paid on the corporate guarantee;
• the levy of GST on corporate guarantees furnished prior to October 26, 2023, being the date with effect from which Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules was introduced, is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, since it operates as a retrospective levy of a new tax for a period during which no levy existed, imposes an unexpected financial burden without any fault on the part of the assessee and disrupts settled financial arrangements, and “the imposition of levy of GST on 1% valuation per annum to the corporate guarantee prior to the introduction of Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules w.e.f. October 26, 2023 is harsh and unfair to the tax payers”;
• in a corporate guarantee, the guarantor undertakes an obligation to discharge the liability of another person upon the occurrence of a default. Such guarantee creates a contingent obligation that may become enforceable in the future; it does not, by itself, amount to an actionable claim. The holding-company is not the debtor until the subsidiary defaults. An actionable claim represents a direct, primary right to claim a payment or debt. A corporate guarantee, by contrast, stems from a secondary, contingent liability that triggers only upon default of the principal debtor under a tripartite arrangement. The Court accordingly held that a corporate guarantee is not an “actionable claim”, and hence, remains outside the reach of Schedule III read with Section 7(2)(a)[21] of the CGST Act;
• since a corporate guarantee constitutes a supply of service, the taxable event is not postponed until the guarantee is invoked or the guarantor actually discharges the subsidiary’s debt. The execution of the guarantee creates an immediate and enforceable legal right in favour of the creditor, and tax liability is triggered by the execution itself. Any subsequent payment by the guarantor upon default is merely the fulfilment of a pre-existing obligation and does not give rise to a fresh taxable event. Accordingly, the time of supply is to be determined under Section 13(2)(c) of CGST Act, i.e., the date on which the service recipient records receipt of the service in its books of account. Since the subsidiary is mandated to disclose the guarantee and its outstanding balance year on year basis, this accounting recognition is a recurring obligation and hence, the time of supply is available to be determined in each year. This establishes a direct nexus with Rule 28(2)’s valuation of the guarantee amount at 1% of amount of guaranteed amount per annum;
• the ‘doctrine of shareholder activity’[22] is not applicable in the present case. The Court held that the true character of the transaction must be determined from the substance of the contractual arrangement rather than its nomenclature. Where multiple documents form part of the same transaction, they must be read together. Since GST law is unconcerned with how a promise is secured, tax liability arises immediately upon extending the guarantee. Thus, agreement of pledging of shares along with corporate guarantee is a supply of service attracting levy of GST upon 1% of guaranteed amount under Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules;
• no case of discrimination is made out on account of the exemption granted to services supplied by the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories to their undertakings and public sector undertakings by way of guaranteeing loans availed by them, such exemption being intended to prevent artificial tax inflation on sovereign-supported public infrastructure and welfare financing, taxation whereof would increase borrowing costs for public entities and defeat the public interest goals of governance; and
• the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act necessitates a strict demonstration of malafide intent, namely fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, wherein ‘suppression’ under Explanation 2 to Section 74 can only be established through a positive act of the assessee demonstrating willful withholding of vital information to evade tax. In the present case, the dispute being a bona fide matter of interpretation of Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules, the Gujarat HC relied upon the Supreme Court’s settled position that “when facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, would not render it suppression. It further held that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful suppression. Mere failure to declare does not amount to suppression”. Accordingly, the Gujarat HC held the invocation of Section 74 to be arbitrary and vitiated by non-application of mind, there being no intention to evade tax nor any fraud, collusion, misconduct, or suppression of facts, particularly given that the corporate guarantee was executed during the pre-GST regime. The Gujarat HC further held that, in such circumstances, the petitioners could not be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal.

Accordingly, the Gujarat HC quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the CGST Act, set aside the clarifications on taxability of corporate guarantees contained in Circular No. 204/16/2023-GST dated October 27, 2023 and Circular No. 225/19/2024-GST dated July 11, 2024 to the extent they run contrary to the judgment, with liberty to the Revenue to issue fresh circulars or administrative instructions in conformity therewith, and directed refund of the excess amount of GST, if any, deposited by the petitioners.

 

Pre-deposit for an appeal against a penalty-only order is governed by the law in force on the date of issuance of the SCN

The Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”), in the case of Gaurav Jain and Anr. vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) CGST Delhi Zone and Anr.[23], examined the temporal operation of the proviso to Section 107(6)[24] of the CGST Act, as substituted with effect from October 1, 2025, which requires pre-deposit of 10% (ten percent) of penalty for filing an appeal against an order demanding penalty without any accompanying demand of tax.

The petitioners were issued SCNs before introduction of the substituted proviso, i.e., October 1, 2025, which sought to recover only penalty under Section 122(1A)[25] of the CGST Act. Orders-in-originals were passed after October 1, 2025, confirming the demand of penalty without any demand of tax. Application of the substituted proviso would have required petitioner to deposit 10% of penalty demanded for availing the statutory appellate remedy.

The Delhi HC observed and held:

• the right of appeal is a substantive right which vests upon commencement of the lis and carries with it the conditions governing its exercise as they stood on that date, and once the right of appeal is vested, it cannot be impaired or subjected to a more onerous condition except by express enactment or necessary intendment. In the context of tax adjudication, a lis is said to be commenced on the date of initiation of proceedings and not the date of eventual decision;
• following Hoosein Kasam Dada[26], Garikapati Veeraya[27] and Videocon International[28], the legal pursuit of a remedy through suit, appeal and further appeal constitutes one connected proceeding. Neither the date of the adverse order nor the date of filing the appeal determines the applicable appellate regime. Although an appeal can ordinarily be filed only after an adverse decision is rendered, the right to pursue the proceedings through the appellate hierarchy attaches to the lis at its commencement, the adverse order merely makes that right capable of exercise. The relevant date is the date on which the lis was initiated. The subsequent stages are treated as parts of one legal proceeding connected as an intrinsic unit;
• the relevant event in the present case, is not the date of the alleged transactions, nor does every investigation by itself give rise to a vested appellate right. The material event is the SCN issued on June 25, 2025 (e., before substituted provision came into force on October 1, 2025), whereby the department formulated and asserted a definite proposition of personal penal liability. The filing of replies and participation in the personal hearing after October 1, 2025, did not postpone the commencement of the proceedings, there being an unbroken continuity between the SCN, the adjudication and the appellate remedy arising from the resulting order. Hence, the lis commenced on date of issuance of SCN, i.e., June 25, 2025;
• at the commencement of lis in the present case, the original proviso before substitution did not require payment of pre-deposit of 10% (ten percent) for filing appeal against a penalty-only order; and,
• neither Section 129 of the Finance Act, 2025[29] nor the substituted proviso, expressly or by necessary implication, subject adjudicatory proceedings initiated before October 1, 2025, to the newly introduced pre-deposit, and the absence of a saving or transitional clause does not, by itself, subject proceedings initiated before October 1, 2025 to the amended provision.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with directions inter-alia including that the appeals be registered and entertained without treating non-payment of 10% of the disputed penalties as a deficiency.

 

Sanctioned refund is payable in cash where the business has been discontinued and the registration surrendered

The Allahabad High Court (“Allahabad HC”), Lucknow Bench, in the case of Vossloh Cogifer Turnouts India Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.[30], held that there is no prohibition under the GST laws against making payment in cash of an amount of refund which was earlier directed to be re-credited as ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger (“ECrL”), where the assessee has permanently discontinued its business and surrendered its registration.

The petitioner had challenged the refund sanction order to the extent it directed refund of amount mistakenly paid under the wrong tax head by way of re-credit as ITC in the ECrL instead of disbursement in cash. It was contended that, having permanently discontinued its business and surrendered its registration, the petitioner could no longer utilise the re-credited ITC, rendering the sanctioned refund wholly nugatory and conferring no real or effective benefit.

The Allahabad HC observed that, since the petitioner was no longer carrying on business and had surrendered its registration, the ECrL had ceased to be functional and had no practical, commercial or legal utility. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Allahabad HC directed the Revenue to disburse the sanctioned refund in cash or into the petitioner’s bank account, along with applicable interest, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks.

 

Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal

Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC without verification does not amount to suppression for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act

The GSTAT[31], Thiruvananthapuram Bench, in the case of Santhome Latex Enterprises vs. The Commissioner of CGST, Thiruvananthapuram[32], set aside an order-in-appeal which had reversed the order-in-original dropping a demand raised under Section 74 of the CGST Act towards alleged recovery of ineligible ITC. The SCN had proceeded on the averment that the assessee had taken self-assessed ITC without verifying its eligibility, thereby resulting in suppression of facts in terms of Section 74(1) of the CGST Act.

The GSTAT held that:

• the averments in the SCN were vague and bald assertions unsupported by evidence, and even if it were established that the ITC had been taken without verification of eligibility, “mere act of taking of ITC without due verification will not amount to a suppression of facts”, the onus being on the Revenue to establish that the assessee “knew that a particular ITC was not eligible, but in a contumacious act, still went ahead and took the credit thereof”;
• every transgression of Section 16(2)[33] or Section 42(1) of the CGST Act does not ipso facto amount to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and the SCN, not being based on any investigation worth the name, failed the tests laid down in Instruction No. 05/2023-GST dated December 13, 2023, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs;
• mere failure to reply to an audit enquiry or the final audit report does not, by itself, amount to suppression of facts for the purposes of Section 74 of the CGST Act, particularly where the underlying reconciliation stood disclosed through the annual return and reconciliation statement filed on the common portal; and,
• the order-in-appeal travelled beyond the SCN by sustaining the demand on the new ground of non-furnishing of information called for during audit, thereby transgressing the fundamental principles of natural justice, and suffered from non-application of mind inasmuch as it neither specified the information sought, the date on which it was called for and the provision under which it was called for, nor dislodged the factual findings recorded in the order-in-original.

Accordingly, the GSTAT allowed the assessee’s appeals and set aside the order-in-appeal.

 

Courtroom updates

Bombay High Court bench releases the Skoda Auto Volkswagen customs matter; rehearing likely

The division bench of the Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”) has released the customs dispute in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.[34], in which judgment had been reserved by the bench approximately 15 (fifteen) months ago. The matter is now likely to be heard afresh by a new bench.

 

Madras High Court to examine fastening of personal liability upon former director without establishing gross neglect/ misfeasance

The Madras High Court (“Madras HC”) while hearing a challenge to the provisional attachment of immovable property belonging to the ex-director is set to examine whether the revenue authorities can invoke Section 89[35] of the CGST Act to proceed against a former director without first demonstrating failure to recover GST dues from the company. Assessee has submitted that the attachment to recover dues from the directors could not have been made unless the revenue authorities have put the directors to notice, and further as mandatorily required under Section 89, the revenue authorities have neither alleged nor established gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of the director before fastening personal liability. The Madras HC has orally observed that under Section 89(1) of the CGST Act, the revenue authorities would have to establish that they were unable to recover GST dues from the taxable person, i.e., the company, before proceedings against the directors.

 

Notifications, circulars and instructions

Inventory-based Cross-border E-Commerce Export Framework introduced

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (“DGFT”), vide Notification No. 27/2026-27 dated August 5, 2026, has introduced Inventory-based Cross-border E-Commerce Facilitation Framework (“Framework”) as paragraphs 9.13 to 9.19 to the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 (“FTP”) with immediate effect. The objective of the Framework is to enable e-commerce exports through an inventory model under which the e-commerce operator will be an Exporter-on-Record (“EOR”), who will hold inventory for export, undertake export-related processes, export goods, and assist and enable the actual sellers or Sellers-on-Record (“SOR”) to access global markets. Some of the key features of the Framework are as follows:

• Key definitions: An EOR is an entity holding a valid Import Export Code and Goods and Services Tax Identification Number, registered with DGFT under the Framework, which exports and sells goods procured from one or more SORs to buyers located outside India. Where an e-commerce entity proposes to undertake export operations under paragraph 5.2.15.2.5 of the Consolidated FDI Policy[36], such operations are to be carried out through a separate legal entity incorporated for the purpose, which must disclose its shareholding pattern and the nature of its ownership or control relationship with the e-commerce entity at the time of registration or amendment. An SOR is an entity registered in India under the applicable GST laws which supplies goods produced in India to the EOR against the EOR’s confirmed export orders, for the purpose of export to buyers located outside India.
• Export Inventory: Goods procured by the EOR from a SOR against a confirmed export order and held exclusively for export, which are designated, recorded, and traceable in the EOR’s records as export-designated stock.
• Domestic Inventory: Goods held by the SOR for supply in the Domestic Tariff Area (“DTA”).
• Export Rebates and Refunds (“ERR”): ERR covers cash or cash-equivalent export incentives, rebates, refunds or remissions received by the EOR upon export of goods, including Duty Drawback, Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products, Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies or any other notified scheme involving direct monetary or transferable financial benefit, but excludes non-transferrable duty remission instruments such as Advance Authorisation or Export Promotion Capital Goods Authorisation. Refund of taxes to the EOR under the CGST Act is an EOR entitlement and does not form part of Seller-attributable ERR.
• Eligibility and holding of export inventory: An e-commerce entity, other than a marketplace e-commerce entity as defined under the Consolidated FDI Policy, may undertake export-only inventory operations through a registered EOR. Only goods of Indian origin are eligible, with the SOR being responsible for ensuring and declaring the correct origin, and DGFT may notify a list of ineligible goods from time to time. Title to goods will pass from the SOR to the EOR only against a confirmed export order received by the EOR from a buyer located outside India. Speculative transfer of title or inventory build-up without a confirmed export order is not permitted.
• Inventory management and segregation: The EOR is responsible for distinctly identifying, segregating and maintaining export inventory, and for maintaining a digital repository enabling identification, tracking and traceability of all export inventory, including records relating to procurement from SORs, inventory status and linkage with export documentation.
• Payments to the SOR and pass-through of ERR: The EOR must pay the SOR promptly upon acceptance or deemed acceptance of the goods, and in any event no later than 7 (seven) days therefrom, and such payment cannot be made contingent upon or delayed on account of receipt of payment from the overseas buyer, return of goods, or any other event outside the control of the SOR. The EOR is entitled to claim ERR and must apportion and disburse the same among the SORs whose goods form part of the export consignment, in proportion to the Free-on-Board value attributable to the goods of each such SOR as declared in the shipping bill. The EOR may retain an administrative charge, the balance constituting Seller-attributable export benefits to be disbursed to the SOR.
• Reverse logistics and returned consignments: The EOR must own and manage all reverse logistics processes for returned or rejected consignments and bear the associated costs. Returned or rejected consignments cannot, under any circumstances, be sold or supplied in the DTA by the EOR, whether directly or through any other person or entity.
• E-Commerce Export Hubs (“ECEH”): The EOR must, to the extent practicable, utilise notified ECEH infrastructure for operations under the Framework, subject to the operational readiness and available capacity of such facilities.

 

This Newsletter has been prepared by:

Manish Mishra Partner & Head of Practice – Indirect Tax

Shareen Gupta Partner

Shashank Shekhar Partner

Shikha Parmar Principal Associate

Sameer Samal Senior Associate

 

For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com

 

[1] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

[2] TS-631-SC-2026-GST (decided on August 19, 2026)

[3] Determination of tax, pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.

[4] Order dated October 29, 2025, passed in Writ Petition no. 40749 of 2025

[5] Determination of tax, pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.

[6] SCN was issued on June 13, 2025, for assessment year 2018-19. Limitation period for assessment year 2018-19 were extended initially up to December 31, 2023, and subsequently up to February 28, 2025.

[7]      Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

[8]      TS-575-SC-2026-GST (decided on August 6, 2026)

[9]      TS-525-HC(GUJ)-2025-GST

[10]    (2000) 2 SCC 536

[11]    “Rule 96(10), as it stood immediately prior to its omission, disentitled certain exporters from claiming refund of integrated tax paid on export of goods or services. It provided that persons claiming such refund should not have:

• received supplies on which the benefit of Notification No. 48/2017–Central Tax dated 18.10.2017 (deemed exports) — except so far as it related to receipt of capital goods against the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme — or of Notification No. 40/2017–Central Tax (Rate) or Notification No. 41/2017–Integrated Tax (Rate), both dated 23.10.2017 (supplies to merchant exporters at the concessional rate of 0.1%), had been availed; or
• themselves availed the benefit of Notification No. 78/2017–Customs (imports by EOU/EHTP/STP units) or Notification No. 79/2017–Customs (imports under Advance Authorisation, Export Promotion Capital Goods and allied schemes), both dated 13.10.2017, again except so far as the latter related to receipt of capital goods against the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme.

The Explanation to the sub-rule, inserted vide Notification No. 16/2020–Central Tax dated 23.03.2020 w.e.f. 23.10.2017, clarified that the benefit of the said notifications would not be regarded as having been availed where the registered person had paid integrated tax and compensation cess on inputs and had availed exemption only of Basic Customs Duty thereunder”.

[12] Dated September 09, 2024

[13]    TS-538-SC-2026-GST (decided on July 28, 2026)

[14] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no registered person shall be entitled to the credit of any input tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both to him unless,––

(c) subject to the provisions of section 41, the tax charged in respect of such supply has been actually paid to the Government, either in cash or through utilisation of input tax credit admissible in respect of the said supply; and

[15]    TS-312-HC(GUJ)-2026-GST – The Gujarat HC judgement was under challenge before the Supreme Court in the present SLP. The Gujarat HC had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act to affirm that suppliers’ tax payment is a pre-condition for recipient to avail ITC of GST paid to the supplier on the said supply.

[16]    TS-592-HC(GUJ)-2026-GST (decided on August 14, 2026)

[17] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the value of supply of services by a supplier to a recipient who is a related person located in India, by way of providing corporate guarantee to any banking company or financial institution on behalf of the said recipient, shall be deemed to be one per cent of the amount of such guarantee offered per annum, or the actual consideration, whichever is higher.

[18] Section 15 – Value of taxable supply

(4) Where the value of the supply of goods or services or both cannot be determined under sub-section (1), the same shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.

[19] Equality before law.

[20] (1) All citizens shall have the right-

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

[21] 7. Scope of supply.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),––

(a) activities or transactions specified in Schedule III;

[22]    ‘Shareholder activity’ is an activity undertaken by a parent or Holding Company solely by virtue of its ownership interest in another group entity, which does not constitute an intra-group service even if the investee company derives an incidental benefit therefrom.

[23]    TS-554-HC(DEL)-2026-GST (decided on July 31, 2026)

[24] Provided that in case of any order demanding penalty without involving demand of any tax, no appeal shall be filed against such order unless a sum equal to ten per cent. of the said penalty has been paid by the appellant.

[25] (1A) Any person who retains the benefit of a transaction covered under clauses (i), (ii), (vii) or clause (ix) of sub-section (1) and at whose instance such transaction is conducted, shall be liable to a penalty of an amount equivalent to the tax evaded or input tax credit availed of or passed on.

[26]    Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Limited vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1953 SCC OnLine SC 33 [decided on February 23, 1953]

[27]    Garikapati Veeraya vs. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors., (1957) 1 SCC 180 [decided on February 01, 1957]

[28]    Videocon International Limited. vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2015) 4 SCC 33 [decided on January 13, 2015]

[29]    Substituted proviso was introduced under Section 129 of the Finance Act, 2025

[30]    TS-590-HC(ALL)-2026-GST (decided on August 10, 2026)

[31] Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal

[32]    TS-628-GSTAT-2026-GST (decided on August 21, 2026)

[33] Conditions for taking input tax credit.

[34]    Writ Petition No. 2051 of 2025; order dated April 28, 2025, reserving judgment

[35] Liability of directors of private company.

[36] Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2020 (DPIIT File Number 5(2)/2020-FDI Policy) dated October 15, 2020