Raj Jaggi
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, COMPANY SECRETARY AND COST ACCOUNTANT
Contact Info
CA. Raj Jaggi is a Chartered Accountant based in New Delhi, primarily practising in the field of Goods and Services Tax (GST) consultancy, litigation support, and advisory services. After being associated for nearly nineteen years, from June 2007 to March 2026, with the leading indirect tax firm A.K. Batra and Associates, he has now started his own independent professional practice with a focused specialization in GST consultancy and allied indirect tax matters.
Over the years, he has developed a strong inclination towards professional writing, research, and analytical commentary on evolving issues under GST and indirect taxation laws. During the past one year alone, more than 180 of his articles have been published on various reputed online tax and professional platforms such as CAclubIndia, VATINFOLINE, VILDirect, and TaxTMI. In addition, a few of his professional articles have also been published in The Chartered Accountant Magazine as well as in the December 2025 issue of the NIRC Newsletter of ICAI.
His writing style combines legal analysis with practical insight, lucid narration, and motivational reflections, making complex GST provisions easier to understand for professionals, students, and industry readers alike. Besides writing on Indirect Taxes, he occasionally writes on a wide range of other topics such as motivational, related to famous personalities, etc.
No issues posted by the user yet!
No replies have been made yet!
Showing 1 to 20 of 241 Results
E-way bill integrity requires timely statutory extensions; altered invoice data and dispatch details can evidence deliberate portal circumvention.
Rule 138(10) is treated as the exclusive mechanism for extending an E-Way Bill during exceptional transit delays. The transporter must update Part B and act within the stipulated period around expiry; a fresh or secondary E-Way Bill for the same invoice is not an alternative route. Section 129 proceedings apply the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, requiring reliable evidence of any claimed breakdown. Altering an invoice identifier to bypass duplicate-bill portal controls, especially with a changed dispatch location, is distinguished from a minor clerical error and treated as deliberate portal circumvention. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Outsourced hospital catering remains taxable because patient consumption cannot transform a standalone food supply into exempt healthcare.
GST exemption for in-patient diets depends on the supplier's own supply. A hospital may supply prescribed food as an ancillary part of exempt healthcare, but an independent caterer supplying food to the hospital makes a standalone taxable food supply. Ultimate consumption by in-patients and institutional communications do not alter classification. A mistaken reliance on a healthcare clarification does not by itself establish fraud-based non-payment; liability may proceed under the normal-demand route, with cum-tax valuation where tax was not separately collected. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Statutory appeal limitation bars excess condonation while implemented registration restoration limits later departmental challenges in GST disputes.
Section 107 fixes a mandatory appellate timetable: an appeal must be filed within three months, with condonation on sufficient cause for no more than one additional month. The First Appellate Authority has no equitable or inherent jurisdiction beyond that ceiling, and Article 226 relief cannot enlarge its statutory power. Yet, where delayed appeals were implemented, registrations restored, compliance verified, and businesses resumed operations, a later departmental challenge may be incapable of effective relief because reversal could disturb supplies, invoicing, and recipients' input tax credit. Revocation and appeal remain distinct remedies, though an appeal remains subject to statutory limitation. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Same subject matter in GST proceedings requires identity of liability, not shared registered persons, periods, suppliers, or ITC.
Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars parallel action by Central and State GST authorities only where both proceedings concern the same liability, deficiency, or contravention requiring adjudication. Common registered person, financial year, supplier, input tax credit amount, or overlapping factual background does not establish identity. Changing provisions cannot avoid the bar if the underlying contravention is unchanged; however, a later fraud-based input tax credit proceeding involving invoices without actual supply may remain distinct from a general input tax credit eligibility or mismatch proceeding. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Advocate-client privilege protects confidential communications but permits GST inquiry into counsel's own alleged operational conduct under controlled digital safeguards.
Advocate-client privilege protects confidential professional communications, not every record held in an Advocate's office or digital device. A GST inquiry may distinguish privileged advice from the Advocate's own alleged commercial, financial or operational conduct where prima facie material connects that conduct to the investigation. Search powers may apply to an Advocate's cabin within authorised premises, while examination of seized electronic data requires cloning, supervised access, segregation of unrelated client files, and use confined to material relevant to the identified investigation. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST document authentication requires a valid signature; portal upload and officer login alone cannot establish legal validity.
Rule 26(3) makes authentication of GST notices and adjudication orders mandatory through the prescribed signature or verification method. Portal upload, reference numbers, electronic generation, and an officer's authenticated login may evidence system access or transmission, but cannot replace authentication of the statutory document. Complete absence of authentication is a foundational defect: the notice or order is non est, cannot be cured as a minor procedural error, and cannot sustain recovery founded on it. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST electronic authentication requires prescribed signatures; portal access, scanned signatures, or service cannot replace valid document authentication.
GST electronic authentication requires use of the prescribed verification mode and identification of the authorised signatory. Digital signatures, e-signatures, and Electronic Verification Codes are distinct mechanisms, while scanned signatures, typed names, portal access, and service do not by themselves establish document authentication. Departmental notices and orders must be attributable to the issuing officer through the applicable statutory method. An unsigned annexure may nevertheless form part of a digitally authenticated order when expressly incorporated. Electronic record admissibility remains distinct from authentication, proof, and substantive correctness. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Statutory limits on GST seizure require return of goods when timely notice or valid extension is absent.
Section 67(7) of the CGST Act imposes a statutory limit on retention of goods seized under Section 67(2). Where no notice in respect of the seized goods is given within six months from seizure, the goods must be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized. Although the first proviso to Section 67(2) permits a prohibition order where physical seizure is impracticable, such restraint remains subject to the same temporal safeguard. Continuation of an investigation does not by itself sustain detention or restraint beyond the permitted period. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Recipient status for maintenance services determines whether a registered tenant may receive invoices and claim input tax credit.
GST treatment of maintenance invoices turns on the person legally liable to pay for the maintenance supply, not merely the person occupying the premises or making payment. A tenant's direct payment of charges contractually payable by the owner does not alone make the tenant the recipient or support input tax credit. Direct invoicing to a registered tenant is more supportable where a genuine tripartite arrangement makes the tenant directly liable to the developer, aligns the allotment and lease arrangements, and is consistently implemented in invoices, records and accounting practices. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Vested appellate rights preserve the pre-deposit regime applicable when GST penalty proceedings first commence under the governing law.
Vested appellate rights attach when adjudicatory proceedings commence. The substituted pre-deposit condition in Section 107(6), effective from 1 October 2025 for penalty-only orders, does not govern appeals arising from show cause notices issued before that date. The applicable appellate condition is the law in force when the lis begins, not the date of the adjudication order or appeal. A later order cannot impose a newly introduced pre-deposit requirement on an appeal arising from an already commenced proceeding. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Independent GST information permits direct demand proceedings, while return-only discrepancies may require scrutiny safeguards before adjudication.
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. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Unconditional omission of a GST rule prevents continuation of proceedings lacking a saving clause or independent statutory foundation.
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. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Specific tariff classification prevails over residuary entries, while recovery powers require a duty demand and proven culpable conduct.
Customs classification must reflect the imported goods' intrinsic function and specific tariff description, with specific entries prevailing over general or residuary entries. Section 28 is a duty-recovery mechanism and cannot independently alter classification in a completed assessment without a differential duty demand. Wrong classification alone does not establish suppression or wilful misstatement for extended limitation; cogent evidence of culpable conduct is required. Penalties and confiscation require independent statutory grounds, while interest on differential IGST requires clear statutory authority. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
Refund limitation follows departmental reassessment when excess duty becomes ascertainable, while statutory procedures continue to govern repayment claims.
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. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
Respondent GSTAT replies should answer departmental appeal grounds within the prescribed period, while separate remedies address adverse findings.
Respondent taxpayers should ordinarily file a ground-wise Counter/Reply with supporting documents within one month of receiving a departmental appeal under Rule 36 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. The Reply should address the specific factual and legal challenges, link them to favourable appellate findings, and organise the relevant record. Written Submissions are distinct hearing-oriented materials and may later present detailed legal propositions and precedents. An affidavit is not automatically required, but may be relevant for additional factual material or where specifically required. Any adverse part of the Order-in-Appeal may require separate consideration of a Cross-Objection or other statutory remedy. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GSTAT appeal fees should track the monetary dispute, not aggregate tax, credit, interest, and penalty consequences in one order.
Rule 110(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 bases GSTAT appeal fees on tax or input tax credit involved, the difference in tax or input tax credit involved, or fine, fee or penalty determined in the appealed order, subject to prescribed limits. Its repeated use of "or" supports alternative, rather than automatically cumulative, computational bases. The applicable limb must follow the actual dispute, grounds and relief in appeal, not the appellant's preference. Interest, though mentioned in the no-demand proviso, is omitted from the main proportional formula. Amounts accepted and not challenged should be distinguished from amounts actually involved in appeal. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Director remuneration characterised as salary remains outside indirect tax when paid within a genuine employer-employee relationship.
Directors' remuneration paid as salary under a genuine employer-employee relationship is excluded from Service Tax and falls outside GST supply. A director's designation does not determine taxability; the relevant inquiry is the capacity in which services are rendered. Salary accounting, salary-related tax deduction, and disclosure as salary income support the employment character of payment. Form 26AS and financial statements may trigger scrutiny but cannot establish taxable value without reconciliation and verification of underlying transactions. Extended limitation requires evidence of wilful suppression or comparable culpable conduct, not merely return default or financial discrepancies. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
GSTR-2A mismatch requires verification of records and supplier compliance before input tax credit denial can be sustained.
GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatches may trigger scrutiny and verification of input tax credit, but cannot alone establish wrongful availment. Final liability requires examination of reconciliation, invoices, books, electronic credit ledger, proof of receipt, and supplier-related material. Where denial relies on supplier non-payment under Section 16(2)(c), such default must be verified rather than presumed from non-reflection in GSTR-2A. A show-cause notice limits the grounds and tax heads of adjudication, while competing computations must be reconciled through a reasoned speaking order. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Section 74 suppression requires evidence of deliberate tax evasion; wrongful ITC or audit non-response alone is insufficient.
Section 74 requires specific evidence that wrongful ITC arose from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Mere inadmissibility of ITC, an incorrect claim, or failure to respond during audit does not by itself establish culpable suppression. The show cause notice must disclose the factual foundation and supporting material for the alleged conduct. Information already reflected in GST returns, reconciliation statements, financial records, or portal disclosures cannot readily be treated as suppressed. A new factual basis for invoking Section 74 cannot be introduced at the appellate stage when it was absent from the original notice. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Pre-deposit timing turns on whether appellate statutes bar filing or only entertainment of an appeal.
Statutory pre-deposit conditions are mandatory, but the timing of payment depends on the governing language. Under the post-2014 Central Excise and service-tax framework, an appeal cannot be entertained without deposit, supporting curability where payment is made before appellate consideration. GST instead provides that no appeal shall be filed unless admitted liability and the prescribed deposit are paid. Delayed GST payment may therefore affect whether a valid appeal existed within limitation. Pre-deposit is security during the dispute, not final discharge of the contested liability. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
25 Sep 2026 
