MoSPI invites comments/ feedback from stakeholders on the Approach Paper The services sector has firmly established itself as the primary engine of India's economic growth, driving more than half of the national Gross Value Added (GVA). To monitor this vital performance accurately, MoSPI initiated a monthly compilation of the ISP for the formal sector with 2024-25 as the base year, on a trial basis in July 2026. The initial framework tracks 19 broad service sub-sectors-relying on... ... ...

  Continuing its sustained crackdown on organised gold smuggling, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized around 8.3 kg foreign-origin gold valued at approximately Rs. 12.37 crore in intelligence-led operation in an operation along the Indo-Bangladesh border. Four persons have been arrested in connection with the smuggling activities. In a significant intelligence led operation DRI officers mounted surveillance along the Indo-Bangladesh border in Cooch Behar District ... ... ...

Section 10(2A) provides a residual composition levy for eligible service providers and mixed suppliers who cannot enter the conventional composition scheme. Eligibility depends on PAN-level aggregate turnover within the prescribed ceiling, collective election by all registrations under the PAN, and continuous compliance during the year. The combined 6% tax applies to turnover of supplies rather than profit, while composition taxpayers cannot collect tax separately or claim input tax credit. Inter-State outward supplies and platform-based services through specified electronic commerce operators remain restricted, and reverse-charge tax continues at regular rates.

Section 118 enables the Board to establish administrative subordination among income-tax authorities based on functional jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and assigned work. The hierarchy runs from the Central Board of Direct Taxes through principal, director, commissioner, deputy, assistant, officer, recovery and inspector levels. The amended appellate arrangement places Joint Commissioners (Appeals) and Additional Commissioners (Appeals) under Principal Chief Commissioners and Chief Commissioners. Administrative control cannot dictate a particular assessment or case disposal and must preserve the discretion of first appellate authorities.

Reasoned decision-making in GST adjudication requires quasi-judicial authorities to give cogent, clear and succinct reasons, based on relevant material and free from extraneous considerations. This safeguard of natural justice restrains arbitrary power, promotes transparency and accountability, and enables judicial review. Original adjudication and first appeals should address deficiencies in reasoning rather than shift substantive correction to later appellate review.

Registration of a right holder's notice is the condition that makes allegedly infringing imports deemed prohibited and supports the ordinary suspension of clearance. A bare complaint does not suffice. Customs may initiate an ex officio suspension on prima facie evidence or reasonable grounds, but prompt reasons must be communicated and the right holder must comply with notice and bond requirements within five days. General importer-protection and Customs indemnity bonds, together with consignment-specific security, support continued detention. Failure to join proceedings or satisfy applicable bonds and time limits requires clearance, subject to other import conditions.

Audit findings may identify discrepancies and support further action, but they do not create an enforceable tax liability. A show-cause notice initiates statutory adjudication, in which the taxpayer may contest the proposed demand through records, evidence and legal submissions. Rule 101(4) requires genuine consideration of the audit reply, though a brief response does not by itself establish complete non-consideration. The Adjudicating Authority must independently examine limitation, computation, audit scope, the legal basis of the demand, and whether a Form GST DRC-03 payment was voluntary or lawfully appropriable.

Domestic GST collections and post-settlement SGST are distinct measures and may move differently because IGST settlement and input-tax-credit utilisation affect final State receipts. Tamil Nadu's domestic collection decline therefore requires reconciliation before it is attributed to economic contraction, evasion or weakened compliance. The analysis should identify taxpayer-specific and sector-specific movements, quantify GST rate-rationalisation effects, reconcile output liability with cash and credit discharge, verify settlement schedules, and examine State-specific refunds. Aggregate revenue weakness may support risk analysis but cannot replace evidence and statutory safeguards in proceedings against individual taxpayers.

GST administration introduces Multistate Registration for normal taxpayers seeking registrations under the same PAN across multiple States or Union Territories. A Master TRN enables submission of Common Registration Information, followed by separate jurisdiction-specific TRNs with auto-populated but editable common details. GSTAT procedures cover respondents' replies and transfer appeals for identical legal questions pending before different benches, allowing qualifying taxpayers with multiple PAN-linked registrations to consolidate matters. Potential policy measures include easing blocked input tax credit and protecting genuine recipients affected by supplier defaults.

Personal guarantor insolvency resolution proceedings require resolution professionals to electronically file prescribed PGIRP forms with complete and accurate records. PGIRP-1 records the interim resolution professional's section 99 report and recommendation on admission or rejection. PGIRP-2A records rejection of an application under section 100, while PGIRP-2B records admission, publication of a public notice, and creditor claim timelines. Filing failures, incomplete records, or inaccurate information may attract regulatory action, including refusal to issue or renew an Authorisation for Assignment.

VAT and sales-tax litigation reached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition challenging a High Court order. Delay in filing was condoned. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the challenged order and dismissed the petition, with pending applications disposed of. The disposition leaves the High Court order undisturbed and identifies no substantive VAT or sales-tax principle.

Supreme Court ruling on legislative competence over intoxicating liquors addressed the division between State power under Entry 8 of List II and Parliamentary control of industries under Entry 52 of List I. Its scope did not extend to service tax on services used in job-work production. Precedent binds only on issues actually decided and cannot be applied to a distinct service-tax question that was not considered. The ruling therefore did not establish invalidity of the service-tax demand or absence of jurisdiction to levy service tax on the job-work service. Relevant precedent may also be relied on during hearing without a separate application.

Interest on an investigation deposit is payable from the date of deposit until the date of refund where the underlying demand is set aside. Once the demand ceased to be payable from inception, the retained amount was not lawfully due. Dismissal of the Revenue's subsequent challenge did not justify withholding the refunded amount without interest during the period of retention.

Section 45(1)'s first proviso places women in a special category and permits an exception to the statutory twin conditions for bail. Exercise of that benefit remains discretionary on the facts, but denial requires specific reasons. Where the bail order is reasoned, the accused cooperated, the investigation is complete, the complaint has been filed, custody is unnecessary, and an early trial is unlikely because of extensive evidence and witnesses, cancellation of regular bail is not warranted and bail continues.

Prematurity of the challenge resulted in disposal of the special leave petition without it being entertained. The petitioners may request the Adjudicating Authority to adjourn its proceedings until judgment is delivered in the connected civil appeal concerning the underlying issue. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Unilateral revocation of a joint development agreement and power of attorney did not, at the interim stage, establish grounds to exclude the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process. The development rights prima facie appeared irrevocable and non-determinable, while the contractual construction period had not expired. The asserted termination and conditional no-objection communication remained disputed, and existing mortgage and potential third-party rights could not be conclusively excluded. The landowner was permitted to intervene; exclusion of the land was declined at this stage, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the appeals.

Supreme Court deferral directions addressing delayed adjudication do not require writ proceedings to continue after provisional assessments culminate in appealable adjudication orders. Section 128(1) of the Customs Act provides an efficacious appellate route for challenging the legality of such orders, the consequences of alleged delay, and claims relating to furnished securities. Writ jurisdiction should not bypass that remedy absent exceptional circumstances. Material non-disclosure of a pre-existing adjudication order may also weigh against discretionary writ relief. The competent appellate forum may determine all related contentions in accordance with law.

Customs civil appeal was dismissed on both delay and merits grounds after hearing counsel for the appellant and the caveating respondent. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. No statutory provision, factual dispute, substantive customs issue, or reasoning supporting either ground is identified, so the operative result is confined to dismissal of the appeal and disposal of related applications.

Civil appeals arising from a CESTAT order in a customs dispute were dismissed because no reason was found to entertain them. The dismissal left the challenged appellate order in place, and pending applications were disposed of. No substantive customs-law principle, statutory interpretation, or independent ground for interference was stated; dismissal was confined to non-entertainment of the appeals.

Condonation of delay was refused because the special leave petition was filed after a prolonged delay and was also refilled late. Finding no grounds to excuse either delay, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and disposed of pending applications. The refusal of condonation brought the special leave proceedings to an end without consideration of the underlying dispute.