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.

Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act gives debts due to secured creditors priority over governmental dues, including State VAT, once effective from 1 September 2016. Where property was mortgaged to a bank and sold through a SARFAESI auction before certification of the VAT Department's charge, the secured creditor's prior security interest and the purchasers' title prevail over the later-recorded VAT charge. The mutation entry recording the subordinate VAT charge is liable to be removed.

Furnace Oil and Light Diesel Oil are distinct commodities where their commercial identity, technical characteristics and functional use materially differ. A tariff rate prescribed for the specific entry of Light Diesel Oil cannot be extended to Furnace Oil merely because both products are used as fuel. Relevant distinctions include composition, viscosity, distillation range, sulphur content, sedimentation, ash and water content, and end-use. Classification of Furnace Oil as Light Diesel Oil is therefore unsustainable without a specific entry covering Furnace Oil, requiring fresh classification on that basis. Constitutional objections to statutory pre-deposit requirements were left for the appellate mechanism, which could determine the classification dispute on merits.

Section 9D of the Central Excise Act requires investigation statements to be admitted through the prescribed procedure, including examination of the maker, a reasoned finding on admissibility, and cross-examination. Under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, recovery is confined to credit wrongly taken or utilised. Allegations that goods were not received cannot rest on untested third-party statements or general findings unconnected to the assessee. Where supplier-side manipulation is not linked to the assessee and stock verification or other corroborative evidence is absent, denial of CENVAT credit, interest and penalty is unsustainable.

Cable-laying under or alongside roads does not constitute erection, commissioning and installation service where it does not result in erection, installation or commissioning of specified plant, machinery, equipment or structures. Service-tax demands require a clear basis, taxable value, and year-wise and category-wise break-up; demands lacking these particulars are vague and unsustainable. The extended limitation period does not apply where transactions were recorded in regular books, routed through banking channels, disclosed in financial statements, and non-payment arose from a bona fide, interpretational understanding of taxability. In the absence of suppression, fraud, concealment, mala fides, or misstatement, fiscal liabilities based on such demands cannot be sustained.

Suppression of taxable receipts, understatement in ST-3 returns, non-reporting of a second unregistered firm's receipts, and unsupported threshold-exemption claims permit invocation of the extended limitation period under the service-tax regime. Service-tax liability may consequently be determined on actual taxable receipts. Cum-tax adjustment requires reliable evidence that tax was not separately collected; incomplete sample invoices covering only a negligible portion of receipts do not establish entitlement. Unutilised Cenvat credit must be timely availed through prescribed returns and supported by evidence; a claim raised at the appellate stage without fresh supporting material is not allowable. Interest and penalties remain consequentially sustainable.