"SAY IT, DON'T RECITE IT" Supreme Court Tells the GST Department: No Facts, No Fraud, No Section 74 A Comment on M/s. Tata Steel Limited v. Union of India [M/s. Tata Steel Limited Versus Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors. - 2026 (8) TMI 1587 - Supreme Court] I. Synopsis The Supreme Court has clarified when the GST department can use the extended 5-year period under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 to raise a tax demand. The Court held that t... ... ...

As on 01/07/2026 itself, the GST law entered the tenth year and on 13/07/2026 one adjudication order was passed in the State of Uttar Pradesh in clear violation of section 75 (7) by way of confirmation of higher demand than the one proposed in the show cause notice. The crux of the issue is not simple violation of section 75 (7) but violation on second occasion after the Allahabad High Court has given an opportunity to the tax official to correct the error by way of order dated 12/02/2026 pertai... ... ...

Automated issuance of Free Sale and Commerce Certificates allows eligible applications submitted through the online portal to be assessed against predefined system parameters and issued without routine officer-led scrutiny. Applications requiring verification or not satisfying automated parameters may be routed for manual examination. Auto-issued applications may also be selected for post-issuance review under risk-management parameters. Exporters must continue to meet substantive eligibility requirements, provide accurate and consistent information, retain supporting records and respond to any subsequent verification. The mechanism promotes faster, paperless processing while retaining risk-based regulatory oversight.

Penalties for cash acceptance or repayment transactions require recorded satisfaction in the latest operative assessment order that the relevant statutory prohibition has been violated and that penalty action is contemplated. Where an earlier assessment is set aside or annulled, satisfaction recorded in that assessment does not survive as the basis for penalty. A fresh, revised, reassessment, or de novo assessment must independently record the requisite satisfaction. Separate penalty proceedings do not dispense with this jurisdictional requirement.

RCMC certification establishes an eligible exporter's registration or membership with the appropriate Export Promotion Council or Commodity Board. The correct registration route depends on product category, export classification and applicable regulatory requirements. APEDA RCMC may apply to eligible agricultural and processed food exporters. Registration generally involves confirming product eligibility, preparing business records and Import Export Code details, completing the applicable online application, submitting required documents, paying applicable charges and maintaining registration records. Exporters should verify current procedures and fees through authorised channels and ensure that all application information is accurate.

Provisional release Rule 140 of CGST Rules, 2017 deals with bond and security for release of seized goods. The seized goods may be released on a provisional basis upon execution of a bond for the value of the goods in FORM GST INS-04 and furnishing of a security in the form of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable. The "applicable tax" shall include central tax and State tax or central tax and the Union territory tax, as the case may be and ... ... ...

Pre-Deposit as a Condition Attached to the Statutory Right of Appeal The right of appeal under a taxing statute is a statutory right. The legislature which creates that right can prescribe conditions subject to which the appellate remedy may be exercised. One such condition, familiar to indirect tax practitioners, is the requirement of making a specified pre-deposit before the appeal can proceed. The object is to strike a balance between two competing considerations. The taxpayer should not o... ... ...

Multi-valve CNG/LPG gas kits, cylinders and containers used exclusively in motor vehicles fall within the motor-vehicle accessories category rather than the separate LPG cylinders and containers entry. Classification depends on whether the goods serve as an adjunct, accompaniment or addition enabling convenient, effective or comfortable motor-vehicle use; indispensability to vehicle operation is not required. Their undisputed exclusive motor-vehicle use supports accessory classification, resulting in taxation at the higher rate applicable to motor-vehicle accessories.

Penalty for abetting clandestine removal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires proof that the goods were liable to confiscation. Although an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied on had been provided and was not used, recovery of a diary and notepad did not establish the truth of their contents. In the absence of affirmative corroboration of unaccounted manufacture, raw-material procurement, transport, clearance, buyers, or unaccounted consideration, clandestine removal was not established. As the allegedly purchased goods were not proved liable to confiscation, no Rule 26 penalty was imposable.

Intermixing superior kerosene oil (SKO) with high-speed diesel or motor spirit during pipeline transfer does not constitute manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the goods are not listed in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A departmental circular cannot, without statutory support, require duty on SKO at the higher HSD/MS rate. Nor can manufacture be sustained on a ground absent from the show-cause notice. Consequently, the higher differential central excise duty demand on interface-SKO clearances was unsustainable.

Cenvat credit is admissible on group mediclaim and group personal accident insurance policies obtained for employees where they are connected with employment and employer liability. The exclusion in Rule 2(l)(C) applies to specified services, including life and health insurance and vacation travel benefits, when used primarily for employees' personal use or consumption. Policies not obtained for vacation purposes and distinguishable from life-insurance policies specifically covered by the exclusion do not fall within that bar. Accordingly, employer-provided group medical and personal accident cover qualifies for Cenvat credit.

Composite irrigation-canal contracts involving labour and transfer of property in goods, with VAT paid on the goods component, fall outside Management, Maintenance or Repair Service, which applies to service contracts simpliciter. The resulting service-tax demand is unsustainable. Extended limitation requires deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; payment of VAT and the absence of such intent do not support its invocation. A one-time manpower supply activity may be taxable in nature, but no demand survives where its taxable value, after excluding exempt values, remains below the applicable threshold exemption.

Activities of an organisation formed by women workers to provide training, employment security and direct client engagement did not amount to manpower recruitment or supply agency service, because it was comprised of the workforce rather than supplying manpower as a service. The service-tax demand was therefore unsustainable. Reimbursed wages paid to members performing the work could not be included in taxable value unless established as consideration for a taxable service. As the remaining registration fee was negligible and below the taxable limit, adopting gross collections without excluding wage reimbursements was unsustainable.

Composite construction contracts involving both material supply and civil construction activity were not liable to service tax before works contract service became taxable on 1 June 2007. The applicable framework did not permit taxing such indivisible works contracts during the earlier period. Service tax and applicable interest voluntarily paid for the period from 1 June 2007 to March 2008 were subject to appropriation. Consequently, the pre-1 June 2007 demand and related penalties were set aside, while appropriation of tax and interest for the subsequent period was sustained.

Indirect-tax refund requires the claimant to establish independently that the tax incidence was not passed to the service recipient. A non-levy or non-recovery notification concerning electricity transmission and distribution services protects against recovery of tax not levied, but does not itself create an unconditional right to recover tax already collected and deposited. A non-taxability clarification likewise does not remove refund requirements. Where contractual consideration is inclusive of Service Tax, the statutory presumption of passing on applies unless rebutted by primary records, such as invoices, ledgers, credit notes, reduced consideration, or proof of repayment to the recipient.

Mere sub-letting of hoarding sites to advertising agencies before 1 May 2006, without supplying services within the taxable category, did not attract service tax as Advertising Agency Service. For the period after 1 May 2006, extended limitation was unavailable where advertising agencies discharged tax on client consideration, including hoarding-space charges, making the arrangement revenue-neutral. Demand particulars derived from statutory records, regular returns were filed, and no positive concealment was identified. A bare allegation of suppression could not displace the bona fide interpretational dispute arising amid conflicting views; the related tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Clinical-trial testing and analysis performed by a clinical research organisation for sponsors holding trial approvals falls within the service-tax exemption where separate approval for the organisation is not issued under the regulatory framework. Strict construction does not justify imposing an impossible approval condition. Employee bond-forfeiture recoveries following premature resignation are compensatory for breach of a service commitment, not consideration for commercial training, coaching, or tolerating an act. Extended limitation requires fraud, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade tax; prior disclosure and a tenable exemption belief do not meet that standard. Consequently, no interest or penalties arise where the underlying tax demands fail.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a panchnama does not replace disclosure of documents relied upon to authorise retention of seized material. Affected persons must receive those documents to make an effective response; non-supply denies a fair opportunity, although fresh proceedings or remand may be inequitable after substantial delay and filing of a prosecution complaint. Retention is justified only where seized material is relied upon in a prosecution or supplementary complaint and is necessary to prove allegations at trial. Material not so relied upon must be released within a reasonable time, while authenticated photocopies may be retained and evidentiary documents kept until trial concludes.

Equivalent-value attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires a demonstrable nexus between the targeted property and proceeds of crime, including evidence that tainted funds were passed on or layered and are unavailable for direct attachment. A subsidiary relationship or an unrelated gift to a holding company does not, by itself, establish that nexus or justify disregarding separate corporate identity. Provisional attachment also requires a substantiated likelihood that property will be concealed, transferred, or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. Existing mortgages, arbitration measures, and insolvency proceedings subjecting property dealings to the NCLT process do not establish that risk. Dealings with the properties remain governed by the insolvency process.

Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act may extend to proceeds of crime held by any person, including a person not named as an accused in the FIR or ECIR. Sections 5 and 8 focus on tracing and freezing tainted property rather than the holder's accused status. Where the property holder fails to establish disclosed, ancestral, or other legitimate sources capable of explaining acquisition, the statutory burden remains undischarged and attachment may be sustained. A prior Supreme Court order warrants release only where it demonstrably concerns the attached properties and directs such relief.