GST appeal deadlines require strict follow-through, as missed filing windows can leave recovery proceedings fully active.
An appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act must ordinarily be filed within three months of communication of the order, with a further one-month period available only on showing sufficient cause. A similar appellate structure applies to the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112. Once this three-plus-one-month window expires, the appellate authority is generally understood to lack power to condone further delay, and recovery proceedings may continue once a demand attains finality, including through bank attachment and other statutory tools. (AI Summary)

GST adjudication quality demands careful notice service, natural justice, and correct statutory application for sustainable orders.
GST adjudication requires qualitatively reasoned orders that can withstand appellate scrutiny, with tax officials applying the law carefully at the first stage. The commentary highlights recurring defects such as improper service of show cause notice, impermissible single notices for multiple financial years, violation of natural justice under section 75(4), demands exceeding the show cause notice under section 75(7), and incorrect invocation of sections 73, 74 and 74A. Illustrative case references are provided for use by tax professionals and adjudicating officers. (AI Summary)

Section 74 under GST needs traceable reasons and prima facie material, not mere suspicion, before alleging suppression.
Section 74 of the CGST Act requires a rational prima facie basis before invocation, because fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax are jurisdictional ingredients and cannot rest on suspicion alone. The phrase "where it appears" permits notice on the basis of records, returns, audit, inspection, or other lawful material, but the material must reasonably indicate the fraudulent or suppressive element needed for Section 74. A notice should ordinarily state the reasons for invocation, though those reasons may be traced from connected statutory communications already furnished to the taxpayer. (AI Summary)

GSTAT appeal filing timelines demand prompt action as the revised deadline leaves limited room for delay condonation.
Extended filing timelines for appeals before GSTAT are discussed in view of the large volume of pending matters, the short additional period granted, and the need for taxpayers and tax professionals to file appeals promptly against orders communicated up to 31/03/2026. The commentary also notes the gradual operationalisation of GSTAT, its exclusive role in GST disputes, the availability of condonation of delay up to three months, and the practical need to avoid waiting until the last days of the revised filing window. (AI Summary)

Statutory appeal remedy must remain meaningful; coercive GST recovery cannot start before the appeal period expires.
Statutory appeal remedy under the GST framework must remain effective where the period for filing an appeal has not yet expired. Coercive recovery proceedings should not be initiated during the subsistence of the prescribed appellate limitation, because doing so would make the appellate remedy illusory and defeat the legislative scheme. Where an assessee has a right to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within the notified period, recovery is not to be resorted to merely because the underlying order has been passed. (AI Summary)

Incoterms 2020 standardize trade risk, cost, and delivery obligations across international sales contracts and shipping practice.
Incoterms 2020 are standard international trade rules used in sales contracts to allocate responsibility for transport costs, insurance, customs clearance, delivery obligations, and the point at which risk passes from seller to buyer. They are non-statutory and binding only when incorporated into a contract, often with a named place of delivery. The framework contains 11 terms and explains how cost, risk, and delivery responsibilities shift across different transport modes and trade arrangements. (AI Summary)

Unutilised input tax credit refund limitation must follow the unamended rule and cannot be cut down retrospectively.
Refund of unutilised input tax credit under Section 54 of the CGST Act is governed by a distinct limitation rule from refund of tax paid on exports. For refund claims relating to periods before the amendment of Explanation 2(e), the relevant date is the due date for furnishing the return for the period in which the refund claim arises, read in practice as the end of the financial year under the unamended provision. Explanation 2(a), which concerns refund of tax paid on exported goods or services, does not govern unutilised ITC refunds. (AI Summary)

Conditional customs exemption for hospital imports depends on continuing post-import compliance and strict proof of eligibility.
Exemption under Notification No. 65/88-Cus. for imported medical equipment is conditional and depends on continuing compliance with post-import obligations intended to benefit economically weaker sections. Once the DGHS cancelled the Customs Duty Exemption Certificates for non-fulfilment of those obligations, the hospital ceased to remain entitled to the exemption, and substantial compliance was not accepted in the absence of convincing proof. The Tribunal also rejected alternative exemption claims where the components were imported separately or where the goods were specifically excluded. (AI Summary)

GST implementation challenges demand greater fairness, consistency, and substance over technicality to reduce disputes and improve compliance.
GST is presented as a constitutionally backed reform intended to create a unified national market, remove cascading taxes, simplify compliance, and enable seamless input tax credit. The article argues that implementation has fallen short because of procedural rigidity, inconsistent administration, automated demands, and denial of input tax credit without proper verification, leading to avoidable litigation and uncertainty. It calls for better administration, facilitation over suspicion, and treatment of genuine business transactions with fairness and consistency. (AI Summary)

GST succession liability allows proceedings against legal heirs after death, but recovery stays limited to the deceased's estate.
Section 93 of the CGST Act permits GST liability of a deceased taxable person to be pursued against the legal representative where the business is continued or discontinued, including where the liability is determined after death. Where the business has been discontinued, liability may be recovered only out of the deceased's estate and only to the extent that the estate is capable of meeting the charge. The expression person chargeable with tax was treated as broad enough to include a legal heir made liable by statute. (AI Summary)

Capital contribution to LLPs can trigger GST on movable assets, leasehold rights, and under-construction property transfers.
Capital contribution of assets to an LLP or partnership firm may constitute a supply under the CGST Act because the contributor and the firm are distinct persons and non-monetary economic benefits can amount to consideration. Transfer of movable property as capital contribution is treated as a supply of goods, while transfer of leasehold rights is best characterised as a supply of services under Schedule II. For immovable property, a completed building may fall outside GST under Schedule III, but an under-construction building is taxable as a supply of services. (AI Summary)

Long-term capital gains claims on penny stocks saw interference declined where documents and banking records supported the assessee.
The note compiles Supreme Court orders on alleged bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, stating that where claims were supported by documents, banking entries and DP transactions, interference was generally declined despite departmental investigation material and statements. It also records dismissals of special leave petitions on merits or delay, as well as some Revenue withdrawals and tagged matters without available orders. (AI Summary)

Substantial human creative direction shapes AI authorship in India, bridging Form XIV practice and global copyright standards.
Form XIV is the central copyright registration form in India and assumes a human author exercising creative control over expression. In AI-assisted and AI-generated works, the key question is whether there is substantial human creative direction over the final output, shown through iterative prompting, selection, editing, restructuring, or other creative decisions. The article compares this emerging Indian approach with the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and China, and notes that most systems reject AI alone as an author while differing on the level of human involvement required. (AI Summary)

Personality rights in India need clearer statutory protection against false endorsement, deepfakes, AI replicas and digital identity misuse.
Personality rights in Indian intellectual property law protect an individual's name, image, likeness, voice, signature and other identifying attributes against unauthorized commercial exploitation, while also reflecting privacy and dignity interests. India has no standalone statute and instead relies on constitutional privacy, trademark law, copyright law, passing off and judicial precedent to address false endorsement, celebrity impersonation, unauthorized advertising, deepfakes and digital misuse of identity. The article compares India with the United States, European Union, United Kingdom and Australia, and recommends a dedicated statutory regime to address AI-generated likenesses, synthetic voices, virtual influencers and cross-border online infringement. (AI Summary)

WIPO arbitration and intellectual property disputes: a consent-based, confidential forum for Indian companies' cross-border commercial agreements.
WIPO arbitration is described as a consent-based forum for resolving cross-border intellectual property disputes involving Indian companies, particularly in technology licensing, software, franchising, joint ventures, and related commercial arrangements. Its jurisdiction arises only from an arbitration agreement or contractual clause. The article distinguishes between arbitrable rights in personam, such as royalty disputes, licence interpretation, confidentiality obligations, and technology transfer agreements, and non-arbitrable rights in rem, such as patent validity, trademark cancellation, and rectification of IP registers. It also notes the practical advantages of neutrality, confidentiality, technical expertise, procedural flexibility, and international enforceability. (AI Summary)

Convertible note compliance for foreign investors hinges on DPIIT recognition, FDI eligibility, pricing rules, and RBI reporting.
Convertible notes for foreign investors in Indian startups are debt instruments that later convert into equity, and their use requires compliance with the Companies Act, FEMA and tax rules. A startup must be DPIIT-recognised, the note must involve at least Rs. 25 lakh per investor per tranche, the instrument must convert or be repaid within 10 years, and the startup must operate in a sector eligible for 100% FDI under the automatic route. If these conditions are not met, the receipt may be treated as a deposit or a FEMA contravention. (AI Summary)

Alternate appellate remedy in GST limits writ jurisdiction, with courts preferring statutory appeals and interim protection where tribunal is non-functional.
Writ jurisdiction in GST matters is generally unavailable where the Act provides an alternate appellate remedy, particularly an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under the statutory scheme. Where the Tribunal has not yet become functional, courts have emphasised the existence of the appellate mechanism and the Government's extension of limitation for filing appeals. The article also notes interim protection in some cases until the Tribunal is constituted, and that disputes over classification, pre-deposit, and appellate orders should ordinarily be dealt with within the statutory hierarchy. (AI Summary)

Jurisdictional defect in GST notices after amalgamation: proceedings cannot begin against a dissolved company or dead legal entity.
GST proceedings initiated by show cause notice must be addressed to a person who exists in law; a notice issued in the name of a company that has ceased to exist after amalgamation is a jurisdictional defect and not a mere clerical error. The notice cannot validly be issued to the non-existent entity, even if the alleged liability relates to a period before the merger. Section 87 preserves the possibility of recovering liabilities arising in merger situations, but it does not revive a dissolved company or authorise issuance of a notice to a dead entity. (AI Summary)

Customs penalty under section 112(b) needs proof of foreign origin, conscious knowledge, and real nexus with the goods.
Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires clinching proof of foreign origin, conscious knowledge of smuggling, and a physical nexus with the goods. Mere presumptions, laboratory inference, or uncorroborated confessional statements are insufficient to sustain penal liability. (AI Summary)

Correct GST provision matters: wrong section and penalty mismatch led to quashing and fresh proceedings under the proper provision.
GST adjudication orders must be passed under the correct provision applicable to the relevant financial year, because the sections governing assessment and penalty are mutually exclusive. The article notes that a demand order for financial year 2024-25 was issued under section 74A but finally passed under section 74 with 100% penalty, even though section 74A would attract only 50% penalty. The Madras High Court held that this could not be treated as a mere error in citation, quashed the order, and allowed fresh proceedings under section 74A. (AI Summary)