Bimal Jain is a FCA, ACS & LLB with 21 Yrs of Experience.He is Chairman of Indirect Tax Committee of PHD Chamber of Commerce and Member of Indirect Tax Committee of ASSOCHAM/ FICCI / ICAI / ICSI and also of GST Group of ICAI/ ICSI. His core competency and area of expertise is Indirect Taxation, International Taxation, Corporate Taxation and specializes in all aspects of GST, Excise, Service Tax, Customs, Sales tax/ VAT laws, Free trade/ economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping duty, foreign trade policy, etc., and carries a blend of industrial and professional experience. He has hands on experience in carrying out diagnostic review of business operations, opinion & advisory services, process review, structuring of business model, litigation services at all appropriate forum, representation before the TRU/ CBEC/ DGFT/ CBDT, etc. for various matters concerning to trade, industry and commerce. Contact: Bimal Jain Executive Consultants A2Z Taxcorp LLP I Tax and Law Practitioners Flat No. 34B, Ground Floor Mayur Vihar, Phase–I, Delhi – 110091 India Desktel:+91-11-22757595/42427056 Mobile:+91 9810604563 [email protected] www.a2ztaxcorp.com
No issues posted by the user yet!
No replies have been made yet!
Showing 1 to 20 of 1825 Results
Vested appellate rights preserve the earlier penalty pre-deposit regime when show cause proceedings began before the amendment.
Vested appellate rights under the CGST Act arise when adjudicatory proceedings commence through issuance of a show cause notice and include the applicable pre-deposit conditions. The substituted penalty-only pre-deposit requirement effective from October 1, 2025 does not apply to proceedings initiated before that date absent express or necessarily implied retrospective intent. Substitution and the absence of a saving clause do not divest accrued appellate rights. Although an Appellate Authority cannot waive an applicable statutory pre-deposit for financial hardship, appeals arising from pre-amendment show cause notices may be filed without the newly introduced penalty pre-deposit, subject to admitted liability. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Attorney-client privilege restricts summons for legal opinions, permitting disclosure only through statutory exceptions and careful investigative safeguards.
Attorney-client privilege restricts investigative summons requiring an Advocate to disclose professional legal advice. Advocates should ordinarily be summoned only in rare and exceptional circumstances, with due care and caution by authorities. Communications, documents and advice protected under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam may be disclosed only with client consent or where statutory exceptions concerning illegal purpose, crime or fraud apply. A summons invoking an exception should state its factual basis and carry superior-officer approval. Privilege does not bar production of pre-existing documents, and may not apply where the Advocate personally participates in alleged illegality. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
Show cause notice timelines under GST face scrutiny over whether minimum adjudication intervals are mandatory jurisdictional safeguards.
The six-month notice interval under Section 74(2) of the CGST Act is under examination as a potentially mandatory jurisdictional limitation or a directory procedural timeline. The provision requires a show cause notice to be issued at least six months before the outer deadline for an adjudication order under Section 74(10). The competing views turn on whether statutory silence on the consequence of breach permits non-compliance, or whether the interval protects natural justice by ensuring meaningful time for reply and hearing. The issue remains unsettled, with interim protection operating in the reported proceedings. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Bogus purchase additions require transaction-specific evidence when accepted sales, supplier confirmations, banking payments and GST credit corroborate purchases.
Alleged bogus-purchase additions require tangible, transaction-specific evidence where purchases are supported by audited books, supplier confirmations, invoices, transport records, banking-channel payments, production-yield reconciliation and accepted corresponding sales. Supplier GST registration, filed returns and allowed input tax credit may further corroborate the supply chain and weaken a parallel allegation that purchases are fictitious. The article distinguishes such documented transactions from cases where the taxpayer fails to establish the initial evidentiary foundation, and notes that undisputed sales may require focus on any embedded profit element rather than the full purchase value. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
Voluntary GST payment requires tax, interest and penalty completion before suppression-based proceedings may be precluded.
Voluntary GST payment does not automatically bar proceedings under Section 74 where fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression is alleged and remains uncontested. The pre-notice payment mechanism requires payment of tax, applicable interest and prescribed penalty, with written intimation to the proper officer. Incomplete payment may permit Section 74 proceedings to continue. The article also highlights that admissions of liability during adjudication and failure to contest suppression allegations may prevent a taxpayer from taking an inconsistent position in writ proceedings. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Input tax credit verification requires examination of supply evidence, not denial solely from a supplier's later non-existent status.
Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because a supplier was subsequently treated as non-existent or its registration was cancelled, without examining the recipient's evidence of genuine supplies. The claimant must prove eligibility through a credible documentary trail, which may include invoices, payment records, e-way bills, transport evidence, delivery acknowledgements and records of physical movement of goods. Revenue may seek proof and assess deficiencies, but should evaluate the material produced and provide a reasonable opportunity for further evidence. Tax-determination proceedings must also conform to the statutory basis stated in the show cause notice. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST appellate pre-deposit on reduced tax demand may be satisfied by an earlier deposit, but statutory filing fees remain mandatory.
GST appellate pre-deposit is calculated on the tax demand sustained in the first appeal. Where the amount already deposited at the first appellate stage against the same demand equals or exceeds the prescribed pre-deposit on the reduced tax in dispute, no duplicative fresh deposit is required for a Tribunal appeal. Amounts previously paid and reflected in electronic liability records may be claimed toward that obligation. Compliance with the statutory filing fee remains independent, and appellants should cure any fee shortfall while verifying the earlier deposit and calculating the pre-deposit on the modified demand. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Meaningful personal hearing in GST adjudication requires advance notice and cannot be replaced by same-day order issuance.
GST adjudication requires a meaningful personal hearing when requested in writing or when an adverse decision is contemplated. Same-day issuance of an adjudication order after filing a reply, without advance intimation of a hearing date, does not provide an effective opportunity to make oral submissions. A recital that hearing was granted cannot cure the lack of prior notice and genuine opportunity. The proper officer must consider the taxpayer's representation before determining tax, interest and penalty, and failure to provide a real hearing is inconsistent with natural justice. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Electronic cash ledger payment requires appropriation for GST discharge, though conflicting interpretations persist on interest and input tax credit.
Deposit of funds in an electronic cash ledger is distinguished from payment of GST through debit and appropriation towards Government dues. In reverse-charge transactions, a taxpayer may face interest consequences where ledger amounts are not timely appropriated, and input tax credit cannot be availed before such appropriation. The article notes conflicting approaches on whether timely ledger deposit itself discharges tax liability, affecting payment timing, interest exposure and input tax credit treatment. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Compensatory damages under GST are not consideration where arbitral-award settlement lacks an independent agreement to tolerate or forbear.
GST treatment of an arbitral-award settlement depends on whether an independent agreement requires a party, for consideration, to tolerate an act, refrain from an act, or perform an act. Payment solely towards damages awarded for contractual breach remains compensatory, even where enforcement proceedings are withdrawn or suspended upon satisfaction of the award. Such enforcement steps may be incidental to discharge of the award rather than a separate supply. CBIC guidance supports the position that breach-related damages are not consideration for taxable supply without a specific agreement and consideration for toleration or forbearance. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Outbound tour service taxability applies where Indian operators serve Indian tourists, despite overseas performance before the negative-list regime.
Outbound international tour packages arranged by an Indian tour operator for Indian tourists before the negative-list regime are examined as taxable Tour Operator Service where both provider and recipient are in India. The article explains that overseas performance does not by itself make the service an export, because pre-negative-list taxability is determined under the Finance Act, 1994 rather than taxable-territory principles. Conflicting legal views on the issue may preclude alleging suppression for extended limitation, confining liability and interest to the normal period and excluding penalties. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
GST proceedings against deceased taxpayers require notice to legal representatives before assessment, preserving statutory liability and natural justice.
GST proceedings against a deceased registered person require notice to and participation of the legal representatives. Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs liability after death: a continuing business may make the legal representative or other continuing person liable, while a discontinued business limits the legal representative's liability to the deceased person's estate. GST records should be updated, registration cancelled where appropriate, and fresh show-cause notices issued to identified legal heirs before adjudication. Failure to do so is described as a substantive jurisdictional defect. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST registration cancellation may follow fabricated input tax credit claims when actual movement and receipt of goods remain unproved.
GST registration cancellation may apply where input tax credit is claimed on allegedly fabricated invoices and the registered person cannot prove actual receipt or movement of goods. E-way bill print-outs alone may be insufficient without supporting evidence such as freight payments, lorry receipts, or loading and unloading records. Where material indicates fake invoices, inadequate business premises, or ineligible credit claims, cancellation is treated as a preventive mechanism. Failure to substantiate movement of goods after an opportunity to respond may constitute a GST contravention, alongside proceedings concerning blocked credit or tax demands. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Input tax credit requires independent verification of genuine supplies, not automatic denial following retrospective supplier registration cancellation.
Input tax credit cannot be assessed solely by reference to retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration. The recipient's claim requires an independent examination of statutory eligibility and the genuineness of underlying supplies. Relevant evidence includes tax invoices, e-way bills, transport records, delivery challans, proof of payment, and other corroborative material. Where supplies are genuine and supported by documentation, supplier defaults, retrospective cancellation, or return mismatches should not mechanically invalidate the bona fide recipient's credit claim. Recipients should maintain complete transactional evidence for input tax credit proceedings. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Uncompensated corporate guarantees lack taxable supply character where consideration is absent under the GST framework
The article explains that corporate guarantees issued by a holding company for subsidiary or group-company loans, with agreements expressly recording that no fee, commission, security, or other consideration is received, were treated as lacking the consideration required for a taxable supply under the CGST framework. It distinguishes in-house corporate guarantees from commercial bank guarantees and discusses Rule 28(2), which provides a deemed valuation of one per cent of the guaranteed amount per annum or actual consideration, whichever is higher. The article states that valuation provisions cannot independently create a taxable supply where consideration is absent. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Separate GST orders and temporary identification preserve appellate access for unregistered persons facing individual tax or penalty liability
A composite Order-in-Original and Form GST DRC-07 imposing liability on a company and its unregistered Managing Director may prevent the individual from pursuing a separate GST appeal. Rule 16A of the CGST Rules, 2017 permits temporary identification for a person who is not liable to registration but must make payment under the Act. The procedural framework discussed requires separate DRC-07 documents for the company and Managing Director and links appellate limitation to issuance of the fresh documents. The underlying tax and penalty merits are not addressed. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST on seigniorage fees: assessment set aside for natural justice breach, with enforcement kept in abeyance pending Supreme Court ruling.
Levy of GST on seigniorage fees under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was directed to be reconsidered after the assessment order was set aside for non-consideration of the assessee's reply, amounting to violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication without insisting on the usual pre-deposit condition, and final orders, enforcement, and further demand were to remain in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the underlying issue on the incidence of tax. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Section 74 invocation under GST requires opportunity to prove genuine supply before fraud-based penalty is sustained.
Invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act requires a proper opportunity to the assessee to place material on record where the assessee disputes the demand and asserts genuine supply of goods. A mere reversal of input tax credit does not by itself establish fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and the possibility that Section 74 was incorrectly invoked cannot be ruled out unless documentary evidence is allowed to be produced. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST arrest safeguards demand written grounds, place of arrest, and valid DIN; defective arrest memo can vitiate detention.
Arrest under the CGST Act must comply with mandatory safeguards requiring the arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the arrest memo to record the place of arrest, and the arrest documentation to satisfy the constitutional and procedural standards recognised in D.K. Basu. Where the arrest memo merely states that the grounds were "explained," without furnishing them in writing or annexing them to the memo, the arrest process is vulnerable to challenge for breach of the communication requirement under GST arrest instructions and Article 22 safeguards. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Section 74 demand and natural justice safeguards in GST assessment where turnover appears below registration threshold
A demand of tax and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act was challenged on the footing that the taxpayer's aggregate turnover appeared prima facie to be below the GST registration threshold and that the assessment order had been passed without granting a personal hearing. The Madras High Court noted the absence of hearing as a breach of natural justice and observed that the turnover records available with the department did not, on the face of it, support invocation of registration-based liability. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh consideration, subject to payment of the balance amount, with a direction to pass a fresh order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
08 Aug 2026 
