GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) CUSTOM HOUSE, 15/1 STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA- 700001 PUBLIC NOTICE NO.: 47/2018 Subject: Direct Port Delivery (DPD) in case of AEO status holders of imported goods ADDENDUM TO PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 04/2018 DATED 12.01.2018 In partial modification to the Public Notice No. 04/2018 dated 12.01.2018, Para No. 11. (i) is omitted. 2. All other conditions laid down in the Public Notice No. 04/2018 dated 12.01.2018 remains unch... ... ...

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA NOTIFICATION Mumbai, the 14th September, 2026 No. SEBI/LAD-NRO/GN/2026/315.-Securities and Exchange Board of India, having considered the application for renewal of recognition made under Section 3 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 by Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Limited, having its registered office at Building, Unit 205A, 2nd Floor, Piramal Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, L.B.S. Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 ... ... ...

GOVERNMENT OF GOA Department of Finance Revenue & Control Division --- Notification 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(281)/26798 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 read with Section 51 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Goa Act 4 of 2017), hereafter in this notification referred to as the said Act, the Government of Goa, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby makes the following amendment further to amend the Government notification No. 38/1/2017... ... ...

Government of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Bhopal, the 6th March 2026 No. FA-3-02/2017/1/V(06) : In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (No.19 of 2017) read with Rule 109A of Madhya Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Notification No. F A-3-19-2017-1- V(28),Bhopal, dated 24 June, 2017 and No. F A-3-21-2017-1-V(30), Bhopal, dated 24 June, 2017 of this department and in superse... ... ...

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS) NOTIFICATION NO. 75/2026-CUSTOMS (N.T.) New Delhi, the 15th September, 2026 S.O. 5077(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient to do so, hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in ... ... ...

Goa has inserted a proviso under the statutory framework issued pursuant to section 23(2) of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Persons engaged in supplying metal scrap classified under Chapters 72 to 81 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, are excluded from its scope. The amendment takes effect immediately.

Money-laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act concern alleged land grabbing through forged board resolutions, forged-sale agreements, fabricated deeds, and falsified property records. The alleged conduct includes manipulation of land records, civil proceedings based on false claims, denial of landowners' lawful entitlements, and threats or physical force against persons asserting legitimate rights. The investigation is linked to multiple police FIRs concerning the individual and associated entities.

Goa appoints 1 April 2025 as the date from which the Authority under section 171 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax framework will cease accepting requests to examine anti-profiteering concerns. The discontinued mechanism concerns whether input tax credits availed by a registered person, or a tax-rate reduction, have resulted in commensurate price reductions for goods or services. The appointment is deemed effective from 30 September 2024.

External trade estimates for April-August 2026-27 show combined merchandise and services exports of US$399.27 billion and imports of US$459.65 billion, with a trade deficit of US$60.38 billion. Merchandise exports reached US$215.91 billion, while services exports were estimated at US$183.36 billion. Non-petroleum exports increased to US$180.61 billion. Growth in August merchandise exports was driven by electronic goods, petroleum products, engineering goods, chemicals, and cotton yarn, fabrics, made-ups and handloom products. Services-sector figures for August were estimated using data available through July.

Anti-profiteering jurisdiction is vested in the Principal Bench of the Appellate Tribunal to examine whether a registered person has passed on the benefit of input tax credits or tax-rate reductions through a commensurate reduction in the prices of goods or services supplied. The empowerment operates under the Goa goods and services tax framework, read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act.

Rupee depreciation against the US dollar in early trading reflected pressure from a stronger dollar and net foreign fund outflows, notwithstanding support from positive domestic equity-market performance. Dollar strength was associated with market expectations of a US Federal Reserve interest-rate increase to address inflation linked to higher oil prices. Elevated crude oil prices and risks to oil exports remained concerns, while domestic equity gains provided countervailing support.

The investigation concerned alleged fraudulent availment and passing on of inadmissible input tax credit through bogus invoices. Multiple suppliers were identified as non-existent, non-functional, suspended or cancelled, while field verification indicated an absence of genuine business activity at certain declared premises. Input tax credit was allegedly availed without receipt of goods and passed on through invoices without corresponding supplies. Statements recorded during investigation led to the arrest of a firm partner under the CGST Act.

UPI person-to-person transactions remain free irrespective of value, and person-to-merchant payments up to Rs.2,000 remain outside the merchant discount rate framework. Small merchants receiving qualifying UPI QR payments under the P2PM category continue to receive zero MDR treatment. MDR applies only to specified merchant payments above the threshold, with separate treatment for essential sectors and capital-market payments. Customers are not liable for MDR, merchants must not pass it on, and UPI application providers may not levy platform fees or hidden charges. MDR revenue supports payment ecosystem participants and small-merchant UPI adoption.

Proceedings initiated under GST against an amalgamating company after it has ceased to exist are analysed as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. Section 87 of the CGST Act is a limited deeming provision for inter se transactions during the merger transition and does not authorise notice or adjudication against a non-existent entity. Continued GST registration does not preserve juristic existence after amalgamation. Pre-merger tax liability may be pursued, subject to limitation, against the correct successor entity.

Section 74 of the CGST Act requires factual grounds for fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax before extended limitation may be invoked. Input tax credit mismatches, reconciliation differences, reporting errors, and audit objections may justify verification, but do not by themselves establish deliberate evasion. A show cause notice must identify the alleged suppression, wilfulness, and connection with tax evasion. The Proper Officer must independently assess the facts; protective demands or relabelling a time-barred discrepancy as suppression cannot replace the statutory threshold.

GST appeals may be filed in Form GST APL-01 even where a demand order shows NIL or zero demand because tax was paid before the order. Full payment under protest does not preclude a statutory appeal. In goods-detention and penalty proceedings, proper officers must consider e-way bills, invoices and transport documents produced by a claimed owner before determining liability. The discussion also stresses procedural fairness, reasoned administration and proper satisfaction of statutory conditions for invoking fraud- or suppression-based tax-demand provisions.

Direct proceedings under Section 74A may be initiated without prior return scrutiny where independent information indicates wrongful input tax credit, fictitious invoices, non-existent suppliers, or fabricated transactions. Section 61 and Rule 99 remain applicable where return scrutiny has actually been initiated and may be an important safeguard where action rests solely on return-based discrepancies. A show cause notice invoking fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression must disclose foundational factual allegations, though their truth is determined in adjudication. Independent information permits direct initiation, not determination of liability without a proper hearing and evaluation of evidence.

GST portal functionality permits appeals in Form GST APL-01 against demand orders reflecting NIL or zero demand where the disputed amount was paid before the order was issued. Removal of portal validation restrictions enables taxpayers to pursue their statutory appellate remedy despite the absence of an outstanding quantified demand in the order. For GST registration or amendment in Rajasthan, rent or lease agreements for a principal or additional place of business must be registered with the Sub-Registrar; an unregistered agreement is insufficient.

GST adjudication under section 74A must preserve the taxpayer's statutory period to pay tax and applicable interest without penalty and must comply with principles of natural justice. An adjudication order made before expiry of that period, without a personal hearing, is identified as procedurally unsustainable. Taxpayers may pay undisputed tax with applicable interest within the permitted period to avoid penalty, while tax officials must issue orders only after observing statutory safeguards and should correct procedural errors when identified.

Unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without a saving clause, removes the legal basis for proceedings founded solely on that Rule. The relevant issue is whether a legal foundation remains after omission, not merely whether the Rule existed during the tax period or when proceedings began. Section 74 provides procedural machinery but does not create the substantive restriction under Rule 96(10). Pending demands require examination of their surviving statutory foundation; independent allegations under other provisions must be assessed separately.