Foreign exchange traders and regulation of currency trading under the foreign exchange management framework in India.
Foreign exchange traders, commonly referred to as FETERS, are market participants who buy and sell currencies in the foreign exchange market, including banks, financial institutions, authorised dealers and brokers. Their functions include currency trading for profit, providing market liquidity, managing exchange-rate risk through hedging instruments such as forward contracts, options and swaps, and engaging in speculation, arbitrage, and market analysis based on technical and fundamental indicators. In the Indian context, foreign exchange trading is regulated under the Foreign Exchange Management framework and supervised by the Reserve Bank of India. (AI Summary)

Customs penalty requires knowledge of confiscability; local purchaser cannot be penalised without proof of awareness of import irregularity.
Local purchasers of imported goods are not liable to penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act unless they knew, or had reason to believe, that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111. Where watches were purchased locally after importation and the retail sale price was revised in line with the importer's price list, penalty could not be sustained in the absence of documentary evidence showing knowledge of the import declaration or any duty-related irregularity. (AI Summary)

Car exports from India grow on manufacturing strength, policy support, and widening global demand across vehicle categories.
India's car export sector has expanded into a major part of the country's automotive and trade profile, driven by manufacturing capacity, cost competitiveness, skilled engineering talent, and policy support. The export base now includes domestic manufacturers and global OEMs operating in India, with passenger vehicle exports, utility vehicles, and emerging electric vehicle shipments forming the principal categories. India supplies vehicles to more than 100 countries, with sustained demand from Africa, Latin America, West Asia, South Asia, ASEAN markets, and a growing presence in developed markets. (AI Summary)

Late fee under GST cannot be duplicated with a general penalty for the same delayed annual return filing default.
Late fee under Section 47 for delayed filing of annual return under GST is the specific statutory consequence for that default, and a separate general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed for the same omission. The residual penalty provision applies only where no separate consequence is otherwise provided, and it cannot be used to add a second punitive levy to a default already met with late fee. Late fee, though labelled as a fee, is treated as penal in substance when it is triggered by default and functions as a deterrent consequence. (AI Summary)

Insolvency resolution timelines and definitions tightened under amendment act with clearer rules for admission, default proof, and restructuring plans.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 introduces new and amended definitions covering registered valuer, security interest, service provider, avoidance transaction, fraudulent or wrongful trading, initiation date and voting share. It also expands the resolution plan explanation to include restructuring by merger, amalgamation, demerger and sale of assets, subject to specified conditions. The Act strengthens CIRP initiation timelines by requiring the Adjudicating Authority to decide financial creditor, operational creditor and corporate applicant applications within fourteen days, with specified rules on admission, rejection, defect rectification, written reasons for delay, and reliance on information utility records to establish default. (AI Summary)

Transitional GST refund of VAT pre-deposit must be paid in cash despite contrary departmental circulars.
Refund of a VAT pre-deposit made by debiting input tax credit must be granted in cash after the transition to GST where the underlying tax demand is dropped. Section 142(6) of the CGST Act governs the transitional refund and requires admissible amounts from proceedings under the old regime to be refunded in cash. A departmental circular cannot restrict or deny that statutory refund, and VAT input tax credit cannot be carried forward or merely adjusted under the GST regime once the old demand has ceased to survive. (AI Summary)

Appellate tax strategy cannot replace an undeveloped factual defence when the issue requires evidence and earlier pleading.
Tax litigation strategy must be framed at the adjudication stage, because a party may be restricted from shifting to an entirely different factual defence for the first time on appeal. Appellate proceedings are not intended to rebuild the factual foundation of the dispute or to fill evidentiary gaps left earlier. Pure questions of law may be raised at any stage, but issues requiring factual determination and evidence should first be placed before the adjudicating authority. (AI Summary)

Charitable activity under general public utility is limited by connected commercial receipts, nominal mark-up, and separate books of account.
Post-Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, a general public utility entity cannot carry on trade, commerce or business as a standalone object for consideration. Connected commercial activities may still be undertaken in the course of advancing the public utility object, but only if the receipts stay within the prescribed quantitative limit and the consideration is no more than cost or a nominal mark-up. Section 11(4A) and section 2(15) are to be read harmoniously, with separate books of account supporting compliance and the assessment turning on whether the receipts are materially above cost. (AI Summary)

GST search and seizure powers do not extend to cash, and strict statutory safeguards must be followed.
Cash seized during a GST search was held to fall outside Section 67 of the CGST Act, which permits seizure only of goods, documents, books, or other things relevant to proceedings. The court emphasised strict construction of the provision, the need for a rational basis for reason to believe, and compliance with statutory safeguards, including return of seized goods where no notice is issued within the prescribed period. It also noted that GST officers lack authority to transfer seized cash to another department without statutory backing. (AI Summary)

Works contract taxation demands binding precedent be applied at adjudication, not deferred to appeal.
Composite works contracts prior to 01.06.2007 cannot be artificially split and taxed under pre-existing service categories such as commercial construction service or erection, commissioning and installation service. The taxable entry for works contract service was introduced only from 01.06.2007, and the article states that, for the earlier period, such contracts were not amenable to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. It further stresses that adjudicating authorities must apply this binding law at the first stage and not leave the matter to appeal. (AI Summary)

Natural justice in GST show-cause notices depends on fair opportunity, not perfect drafting, before adjudication proceeds.
GST registration cancellation proceedings based on a show-cause notice alleging availment of input tax credit from non-existent or non-operational suppliers were challenged as vague and mechanically issued. The High Court held that procedural fairness, not drafting perfection, is the governing test where the taxpayer receives supporting material and submits a detailed reply showing understanding of the allegation. It also held that communication of investigation findings by intelligence authorities does not amount to dictation, and the proper officer retains independent statutory responsibility to examine the material and pass a reasoned order. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge and reiterated that writ petitions are ordinarily not maintainable against a mere show-cause notice. (AI Summary)

GIFT IFSC tax incentives extend fund relocation relief, aircraft leasing dividend exemption, and return filing relaxation for investment funds
Tax incentives and compliance relaxations for GIFT IFSC include non-applicability of section 56(2)(x) to fund relocation into IFSC, exemption for dividend income between aircraft leasing units under section 10(34B), and exemption for regulated investment funds from furnishing a return of income under section 139(1). The fund relocation exemption applies where shares, units, or interests in the resultant fund are received by the fund management entity in exchange for interests held in the original fund, subject to continuity thresholds of ownership and proportional holding. A prescribed declaration and TDS reporting mechanism applies to the dividend exemption. (AI Summary)

GST detention and seizure rules govern release of goods in transit, payment conditions, and hearing requirements
Detention and seizure of goods and conveyance in transit under section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 permit release on payment of tax, interest and penalty, or on furnishing security, with the amount varying according to whether the owner of the goods comes forward and whether the goods are exempted goods. The proper officer must identify the owner, issue notice, and determine the applicable amount after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The article also notes amended timelines, recovery by sale for non-payment, omission of provisional release, and procedural directions on undervaluation, online orders, and related GST rules. (AI Summary)

Input tax credit and depreciation bar must be confined to the same tax component, not the entire credit base.
Banking companies and financial institutions opting for the special mechanism under Section 17(4) of the CGST Act may avail 50% of eligible input tax credit, with the balance lapsing. The bar under Section 16(3) applies only to the specific tax component on which depreciation has actually been claimed, and not to the entire tax component where no double benefit exists. Accordingly, depreciation on the unavailed portion does not disentitle the assessee from claiming input tax credit on the remaining portion. (AI Summary)

Arbitration agreement and abandoned proceedings cannot support a fresh Section 11 application on the same cause of action.
The dispute concerned repeated arbitral proceedings arising from agreements containing arbitration clauses, after earlier proceedings were abandoned and no liberty was obtained to refile. The Supreme Court stated that Section 11 jurisdiction is confined to the existence of an arbitration agreement and that res judicata does not ordinarily arise at that stage, but the principle of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code applies to Section 11 proceedings. Accordingly, where an earlier application is withdrawn or abandoned without liberty, a fresh Section 11 application on the same cause of action is not maintainable. (AI Summary)

Inter-state input tax credit transfer on amalgamation cannot be denied by portal-based restrictions lacking statutory backing.
Inter-state transfer of unutilized Input Tax Credit on amalgamation is permissible under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules, and cannot be denied merely because the transferor and transferee are registered in different States. Authorities cannot import restrictions not found in the statute, or reject a FORM GST ITC-02 request without separate, cogent reasons grounded in the CGST Act. Where the GST portal cannot process the transfer, manual filing of FORM GST ITC-02 is required to preserve the statutory credit transfer mechanism. (AI Summary)

Impossibility under EPCG licences makes export default, penalties, and confiscation questionable when machinery is seized by authorities.
If machinery covered by an EPCG licence is seized, the exporter may be unable to fulfil export obligations, and such impossibility is treated as a material factor against treating non-compliance as wilful default. In that setting, penalties and confiscation become legally questionable where the failure to export results from government action rather than deliberate breach. Duty computation must also account for exports already made and depreciation of the capital goods, and orders are vulnerable where passed without hearing the affected party or considering extension, third-party exports, or depreciation-based recomputation. (AI Summary)

Summons under GST inquiry must be judicious; repeated calls to company directors may amount to harassment.
Section 70 of the CGST Act empowers the proper officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry, and a company director is not insulated from summons merely because the company has nominated an authorised representative. However, the power must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with administrative fairness. A writ court may intervene where the summons is without jurisdiction, issued for an oblique purpose, abusive, or harassing, and a demonstrable breach of CBIC guidance may support judicial review for arbitrariness. (AI Summary)

WhatsApp spam and fraud regulation in India highlights gaps between telecom oversight, intermediary duties, and cybercrime enforcement.
Unsolicited, fraudulent and loan-related WhatsApp messages in India are analysed as spam, deceptive communications and, in some cases, criminal intimidation or harassment. The discussion identifies the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, electronic evidence requirements, telecom spam controls under the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018, and intermediary duties under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It also notes enforcement limits caused by encryption, the OTT-telecom divide and cross-border cybercrime, and calls for stronger coordination, traceability and regulatory reform. (AI Summary)

Limitation for appeal after rectification proceedings remains a critical GST procedural issue, with conflicting judicial approaches on computation.
Limitation for filing an appeal may become a procedural risk when a taxpayer first pursues rectification proceedings against an original order. The article contrasts a strict approach in Power Tracks with precedents suggesting that the time spent in rectification proceedings may be relevant to computing limitation, and that limitation may run from the disposal of the rectification application. It also notes the practical concern that taxpayers may otherwise be forced to file rectification and appeal simultaneously to protect limitation. (AI Summary)