There is no more separate set of GST Law exclusively for GST officials.

The first development took place during September 2025 when the setting up of the benches of GSTAT was formally announced. The next development took place in February 2026, when e appeals have started to be filed in GSTAT portal. The third development took place on 08/10/2026 in the 57th GST Council meeting which approved several proposals to reduce at least by 10% of the improper and invalid orders that are being passed by various adjudication officials as per their whims and fancies. Having said that as per whims and fancies, I propose to substantiate my stand with the help of one case law Smt. Lalitha S W/O Late S.K. Subbanna Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya And The Special Land Acquisition Officer And Competent Authority, Mysore And National Highway Authority Of India, Bangalore And Project Director National Highway Authority Of India, Ramanagara - 2026 (8) TMI 1685 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT.

The story: Schedule III to the CGST act, 2017 is on activities or transactions which shall be treated neither as a supply of goods nor as a supply of services and serial number 5 reads as Sale of land and, subject to clause (b) of paragraph 5 of Schedule II, sale of building. This being so, one Smt.Lalitha S owned some land and the same was acquired by Government of India for National Highways and compensation was fixed and paid. While paying the compensation amount determined as per guideline values, a sum of 18% was deducted by the respondent number 2 who is Special Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant pleaded before NHAI that acquisition of land by NHAI is neither a sale of good nor a supply of service and accordingly GST is not applicable on the transaction. However, the NHAI took the stand that 18% GST is applicable as this happens to be taxable supply under works contract service and accordingly 18% GST was deducted and paid to the Government out of the sale proceeds payable to the appellant. The best part of the story is NHAI informed the High Court that this is their usual practice in respect of all similar transactions.

The case came before the Karnataka High Court by way of writ and the High Court examined the case at length and concluded in the operating portion as " 9. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the respondents have acted in excess of their power in deducting GST from compensation payable to the petitioner.

10. The respondent No.2 is directed to refund the GST of Rs.1,14,815.29 deducted from the compensation payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Interest payable on the deducted GST shall be recovered from the respondent No.2 personally. The respondent No.2 shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the petitioner within a month, towards the expenses incurred in filing this unwanted petition".

This is not an isolated case and only a tip of the iceberg. I can quote two more cases. In one case, an officer has sent a letter to the jurisdictional sub-registrar to take a no objection certificate from him before registering a particular property. That property belonged to one Mr A who was a taxpayer under the jurisdiction of that officer during 2018-19. The taxpayer has settled that property in the subsequent year in favour of his daughter. Hid daughter sold that property to one Mr C subsequently. The letter to the sub registrar was sent after C acquired that property. When C tried to sell that property to D, the sub-registrar said NOC is required from the concerned tax officer. Despite the above facts were within the knowledge of the tax officer after due explanations by C and D, the tax officer did not help them. The jurisdictional High Court ordered the sub-registrar to register that property without insisting on NOC, provided the papers are in order in respect of all other aspects other than that of NOC.

One more officer at Sivakasi insisted on payment of GST again for the second time on a particular taxpayer Velavan Fireworks on the grounds that as per his records, tax was payable. The proof of earlier payment was not considered and as GSTAT was not there at that time, relief came from high court.

There are few more cases where cost was imposed on the erring tax officials. This should happen in each and every case where the OIO or OIA is quashed either by GSTAT or a higher court, because when an order in Original or Order in Appeal is quashed, only the tax officer is responsible for that illegal order which is not standing before a higher court. When more and more orders are passed by competent courts by imposing cost on the erring tax official, the responsibility to pass a reasoned and valid order which subsequently sustains at a higher court stands fixed.

Though the 57th GST Council has addressed few of the common difficulties being faced by the taxpayers due to another set of GST law being followed by tax officials, the 58th GST Council must address several issues which are yet to be addressed at the top level.

While the abolition of section 74 after 01/04/2024, reduction in maximum penalty under section 125, reduced powers on roving squad, reduction in power to arrest are all well thought measures, there are few more suggestions proposed as below:

In case the above suggestions are improved in the proposed 58th GST Council meeting likely to take place during January 2027, the taxpayers shall have the feel of ease of doing business in letter and spirit.