DGIT(S)/ADG(S)-2/Reporting Portal/2026/3768 Government of India Ministry of Finance Central Board of Direct Taxes Directorate of Income Tax (Systems) Notification No. 1 of 2026 New Delhi, 10th September, 2026 Section 508 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and rule 237 of Income-tax Rules, 2026 require specified reporting persons to furnish statement of financial transaction (SFT). 2. For the purposes of pre-filling the return of income, sub-rule 6 of rule 237 specifies that ... ... ...

Registrar and Share Transfer Agents must furnish half-yearly SFT-2518 information on mutual fund transactions for return pre-filling, through prescribed SFTP filing and a control statement verified by the Designated Director. Reporting covers user-initiated debit transactions and uses FIFO matching to identify corresponding credits, determine holding periods, classify assets, and estimate sale consideration and acquisition cost. Prescribed files capture account summaries, transaction-level capital-gain data, and off-market transfers. Corrections and deletions require specified statements, while validation failures, information security, archival, and retrieval obligations apply to all reporting entities.

GST return scrutiny for FY 2017-18 requires observance of the taxpayer's 30-day period for replying or making a representation to a show-cause notice. A personal hearing should be scheduled after the reply is filed or after expiry of that period, as applicable, and must be afforded before any adverse order. Notices covering issues already concluded through audit or return scrutiny must be withdrawn to the relevant extent after verification and recording of reasons. Taxpayers must be informed where proceedings are dropped.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY For the Petitioners : Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate A.R. Mohanty, A. Hota, Naveen Kumar & N. Massey Advocates For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Advocate General Mr. P.K. Muduli, Additional Government Advocate JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. Pinaki Misra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. K. Parija, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. ... ... ...

Twenty-seven writ petitions pending before nine High Courts, concerning an issue already under consideration in a pending Supreme Court batch, were transferred for consolidated adjudication. The transfer centralises related challenges before one forum and enables coordinated consideration with connected special leave petitions, writ petitions and appeals. The Union of India may file counter-affidavits where not already filed, while designated nodal counsel must prepare a common compilation under the applicable standard operating procedure. The transfer petitions were allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Registration functions under sections 25 to 27 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are assigned to Assistant Commissioners and GST Officers posted in the Centralized GST Registration Cell, known as Seva Kendra. The officers perform the registration-related functions of a Proper Officer throughout the National Capital Territory of Delhi, subject to the continuing registration arrangement and partial modification of the territorial-jurisdiction framework.

GST registration applications are centrally processed by Seva Kendra, which handles only fresh applications and transfers post-registration matters to jurisdictional officers. Aadhaar-authenticated applications are ordinarily processed within seven working days, while non-authenticated, risk-flagged, or physically verified applications are processed within thirty days. Deficiency notices are issued in FORM GST REG-03 and answered in FORM GST REG-04; non-response or unsatisfactory clarification may lead to rejection with recorded reasons. Proper officers must scrutinise prior registrations, cancellations, tax liabilities and business genuineness. Physical verification may examine premises, business capability, ownership records, identity documents and tax records.

Draft Reserve Bank of India (Know Your Customer) Amendment Directions, 2026 propose a Standard Operating Procedure for banks to place temporary debit holds on amounts or accounts linked to money-mule activity and cyber-enabled financial fraud. The consolidated draft applies to commercial banks, including small finance banks, payments banks, regional rural banks and local area banks, and to urban cooperative banks. Feedback may be submitted through the Reserve Bank's Connect 2 Regulate portal or by email before final directions are issued separately.

Functions relating to recovery of tax under sections 78 and 79 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are assigned to all Assistant Commissioners and Goods and Services Tax Officers. The officers may perform the functions of a Proper Officer for tax recovery under those provisions and the rules made under the Act.

Export-duty refund limitation must run from the event that crystallises an enforceable refund right where the claimed excess was not part of the original assessment. An additional duty payment absent from shipping bills, let-export orders, and contemporaneous assessment records became ascertainable only through departmental reassessment. Section 27 continued to govern the refund claim; mistake of law or absence of authority of law did not create an alternative limitation route. Interest was to run after three months from reassessment because the refundable amount was not quantified earlier.

National Tribunals Commission is established as the central institutional body for tribunal selection and oversight. Its functions include conducting selections through Search-cum-Selection Committees, reviewing tribunal performance, preparing annual reports, overseeing complaint inquiries, and maintaining a National Tribunals Data Grid. The unified framework governs qualifications, appointment, remuneration, removal, service conditions and reappointment eligibility of tribunal Chairpersons and Members across specified tribunals, notwithstanding inconsistent provisions in their governing enactments.

GST appellate remedies operate through first appeals and second appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, though writ jurisdiction may remain relevant for serious defects in adjudication or appellate orders. Fraud-based demand proceedings require the revenue authorities to establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression when issuing the show-cause notice. Refund claims cannot be denied for allegedly ineligible input tax credit without prior determination under the prescribed demand process. Portal uploading alone may not constitute effective service, and input tax credit may be available for property constructed for leasing rather than own use.

The exclusion of duty credit scrips from exempt supplies under Explanation 1 to Rule 43 operates prospectively and does not extend the benefit to prior periods. Accordingly, common ITC attributable to sales of MEIS or RoDTEP scrips up to June 2022 requires reversal, whereas ITC directly linked to manufacturing activities is not subject to such reversal. Fraud-based tax proceedings require material evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression of facts to evade tax.

Supplementary GST refund claims concern additional amounts omitted from an earlier claim, subsequently becoming eligible, or arising under a specific statutory mechanism. They are not an independently defined general category and depend on underlying eligibility, the relevant date, limitation, documentary evidence, and whether the amount was previously claimed, rejected, or refunded. An unclaimed eligible amount may support a further application within limitation, while an amount previously rejected generally requires the applicable appellate or statutory remedy. FORM GST RFD-01, prescribed refund calculations, reconciliation, unjust enrichment requirements, and duplication checks remain material.

Customs query responses should substantiate declarations in Bills of Entry and Shipping Bills through accurate facts, consistent records and applicable customs requirements. Classification should be supported by objective product characteristics and tariff interpretation principles; valuation by transaction-specific commercial evidence and distinctions from comparable imports. Related-party pricing requires transparent disclosure and evidence that the relationship has not influenced price. Exemption and export-benefit claims require condition-wise proof, while origin claims must distinguish origin from shipment and invoicing. Quantity or description discrepancies should be reconciled across commercial and transport documents, with genuine errors addressed through appropriate amendment.

Customer-specific software development provided through end-to-end outsourcing, maintenance, implementation and support arrangements does not constitute a sale of goods where customers retain control over their systems and no property in marketable software transfers for consideration. Software created exclusively for a customer, with intellectual property vesting in or licensed to that customer solely for service use, remains a service contract rather than VAT-taxable software sales. Digital Signature Certificate issuance by a licensed certifying authority is likewise a certification service, not a transfer of goods. Service turnover cannot be recharacterised as turnover from software or other goods for VAT assessment.

Substitution of Serial No. 60 in Schedule B retained the expression "IT Products" in both the unamended and substituted entries. Because the claim for concessional tax treatment depended solely on whether Digital Still Image Cameras qualified as IT products, rather than on any item specifically listed in either entry, the substitution did not alter the claim's basis. The challenge to the notification was therefore academic and was not adjudicated, while the eligibility of Digital Still Image Cameras as IT products remained undetermined.

Depot and warehouse C&F services, including receipt, unloading, storage, handling and loading of goods sold from those locations, qualify as input services because a depot or consignment agent's premises may be the place of removal. Post-depot transportation, delivery and unloading in FOR-destination transactions require verification of contractual terms governing transfer of title and risk, freight and insurance responsibilities, assessable value, and whether delivery is a condition of sale. Extended limitation does not apply where credit was disclosed in statutory records, audited, and involved an interpretative dispute without fraud or deliberate suppression. Equivalent penalty is consequently unsustainable; only eligible credit within the normal limitation period requires quantification.

Central Excise liability for dolochar, fly ash, iron ore fines and similar residues requires manufacture or production; marketability, sale value and tariff classification alone are insufficient. Unavoidable coal residues and handling or screening fines do not become distinct commodities unless an independent process creates goods with a separate name, character or use. Where dolochar is treated as Chapter 26 waste from sponge-iron manufacture, an unconditional waste exemption applies, leaving no effective duty. An interpretational dispute, including divergent administrative views, does not establish fraud, suppression or intent to evade; extended limitation, interest and penalties therefore cannot apply.

Extended limitation for central excise duty requires proof that non-levy or short-levy resulted from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Departmental knowledge does not alter the statutory relevant date once the extended period applies, but contemporaneous possession of statutory records and knowledge of stock verification may negate deliberate suppression. Where notices identify no withheld fact, breached disclosure duty, deliberate concealment, or intent to evade, non-reporting of shortages or excesses does not itself establish suppression. The ordinary limitation period applies, and penalty depends on the same culpable conduct required for extended limitation.