Change now, otherwise you will be forced to change.

It is not me. It is the Government of India that said that the period starting from September 2025, post rationalization of GST rates as GST 2.O. Thus we are currently in GST 2.O which is much advanced, taxpayer friendly as well as we are now in GSTAT regime. This fact must be understood well by all tax officials all over India. We are not talking about OIO or OIA dated prior to 31/08/2026. As on 01/09/2026, several GSTAT orders, High Court orders as well as Supreme Court orders as in the cases of Tata Steel as well as G R Infra Projects etc. are available in the public domain. It is observed the GST officials assume that few of sub sections or sections of CGST law are meant for improper invocation by them which are as below:

In fact, it would be difficult to list all violations of GST officials but the above 5 are very common. However, even after issue becoming final, officials are not bothered to change and improve.

1. Violation of 75(4) is there in all ex party orders. It is not necessary that taxpayer must seek in writing for the personal hearing. The law provides that whenever any adverse decision is contemplated against a taxpayer, personal hearing is a must.
2. The demand as per OIO exceeds the demand proposed in SCN. This one ground is sufficient for quashing the OIO. It is for the tax officer to take care of this requirement.
3. Good time has begun for all wrong invocation of section 74. GSTAT has passed few orders already which are going to continue in the long run as well.
4. The intention of the legislature is try a. If it does not work try also b. In case a as well as b both does not work, try c in addition to a and b and so on and so forth. This is the one and only interpretation that is possible on 169. Jurisdictional High Courts have held on many cases that option d is a full stop only when SCN is replied and in all other cases, a second mode of communication is a must.
5. We have come across few such cases wherein it is held as a violation of 75(6) when the reply of the taxpayer is not properly addressed.

The trigger for this write up is the recent order passed by the Allahabad High Court on 22/09/2026 in the matter of M/s Vakas Transport Service Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax Kayasthwara And Another - 2026 (9) TMI 1989 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. It is really interesting to notice that all officers spread all over India in various states irrespective of east or west or north or south or even central think alike on passing orders which are being quashed later.

In the above case, the penalty @ 10% at SCN stage worked out to Rs. 30,800 whereas OIO proposed a demand of Rs. 35,008 as penalty which was sufficient to decide the case. The operative portion of the simple order reads as "3. In view of the fact that the provision of Section 75(7) of the Act is mandatory, clearly the Adjudication Order passed confirming the demand far in excess of the demand proposed is without jurisdiction.

4. In view of the above fundamental illegality made out in face of the record, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present writ petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. Once the legislature has forbidden the adjudicating authority from confirming any demand in excess of that proposed, it may never became open to the adjudicating authority to confirm the demand in excess of that proposed.

5. Accordingly, the impugned Adjudication Order dated 27.02.2025 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today".

Conclusion: What is reiterated again is the same thing. Though a sample size of 228 is too small to judge against around 90,000 cases before the GSTAT as on date, the orders that were passed so far clearly lays the road forward and in a majority of the cases, the appeals of taxpayers are generally allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are generally rejected either on merits or on quantum of dispute as less than prescribed. While the monetary limit for a taxpayer stands as 50,000, the same is 20,00,000 for the Revenue. As the orders passed on day to day basis from various benches are immediately available on respective websites, we shall cover more such cases during October 2026.

The time is changing. The 56th GST Council meeting has brought in several laudable measures. The 57th meeting proposed on 07/10/2026 is likely to consider several long standing unresolved issues and let us hope for the best things to happen in this meeting as well. It is unofficially learnt that the quantum of penalty at Rs. 25,000 under section 125 is proposed to be reduced to Rs. 10,000 and that shall be a great move, if it is approved.