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 175 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.
No issues posted by the user yet!
No replies have been made yet!
Showing 1 to 20 of 178 Results
GST search safeguards require communicated DIN, clear authorisation, recorded reasons, and genuinely voluntary pre-notice tax payments.
GST search and seizure powers require communicated DIN, clear statutory authorisation and recorded reasons to believe based on relevant material. Inspection, search and seizure are distinct powers and cannot be combined through an unclear authorisation. Payment during a search is not voluntary merely because a challan exists; pre-notice payment requires written self-ascertainment, a stated basis of liability and prescribed intimation procedures. Seized goods may be provisionally released through bond and security or applicable payment. Search may support investigation, but tax collection must follow lawful assessment, adjudication or voluntary statutory payment procedures. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Effective GST communication requires portal service to provide taxpayers genuine notice, response opportunities, and meaningful access to appellate remedies.
Section 169 of the CGST Act recognises portal availability as a mode of service, but portal upload must still provide a genuine opportunity to respond, participate, comply or appeal. Actual knowledge and participation may establish effective notice; however, an unnoticed portal-only show cause notice can impair the right to reply and lead to procedural unfairness. Appeal limitation may not commence merely on portal upload where the taxpayer had no effective notice of the order. Digital GST service must be visible, traceable and capable of preserving fair access to statutory remedies. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST multiplicity rules permit parallel investigation but require coordinated single adjudication for the same or overlapping tax dispute.
GST cross-empowerment permits concurrent Central and State action, but section 6(2)(b) restrains duplicate formal proceedings on the same or overlapping tax liability arising from the same contravention. Summons, inquiry, search and seizure are investigative measures and do not alone initiate formal proceedings or confer exclusive jurisdiction. Where overlap is alleged, taxpayers should disclose earlier action and authorities should compare, communicate and coordinate. Parallel investigation may continue, but duplicate adjudication should be avoided through one fair and coordinated adjudicatory path. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Duplicate GST adjudication is barred for overlapping liabilities, while separate investigations may continue for genuinely distinct tax contraventions.
Section 6(2)(b) prevents duplicate GST adjudication only where Central and State/Union Territory authorities pursue the same or overlapping transactions, alleged contravention, and proposed liability. Summons, searches, seizures, and inquiries are fact-finding measures and do not alone commence formal proceedings. A show cause notice ordinarily identifies the adjudicatory dispute and provides the basis for comparing subject matter. Authorities may separately pursue genuinely distinct infractions, but must coordinate and share evidence where liability overlaps. Taxpayers should disclose prior actions in writing and comply with subsequent communications while the overlap is examined. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Parallel GST Proceedings require substantive overlap assessment, while summons and investigations alone do not automatically bar separate enforcement action.
Section 6(2)(b) restricts cross-empowered GST officers from initiating duplicate proceedings on the same subject matter, while preserving investigation of distinct violations. A summons, search or seizure alone does not automatically initiate proceedings because it is ordinarily investigative; a show cause notice crystallises the alleged contravention and proposed liability. The same taxpayer or tax period does not establish the same subject matter. The decisive question is whether the actions concern substantially the same transactions, allegations and tax liability. Fresh intelligence should be shared with the authority already handling an overlapping matter rather than creating parallel proceedings. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Corporate Guarantee GST requires taxability, valuation and compliance analysis before applying tenure-based benchmarks, charge mechanisms and input tax credit rules.
Corporate guarantee GST treatment requires first determining taxable supply, then applying the valuation rule in force, and finally addressing compliance. A lender takeover alone does not create a fresh guarantee supply unless the guarantee is renewed or replaced. Co-guarantors are valued according to their respective exposure, while guarantee tenure determines the period for applying the annual benchmark. Domestic guarantors pay under forward charge; overseas guarantors shift liability to the Indian recipient under reverse charge. Input tax credit does not depend on loan disbursement, subject to statutory conditions and proper documentation. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Corporate guarantee valuation under GST depends on the applicable period, annual guarantee exposure, actual consideration and full input tax credit.
Corporate guarantees issued or renewed before 26 October 2023 are valued under the general Rule 28 framework, including invoice-value deeming where the recipient has full input tax credit. From that date, Rule 28(2) prescribes, subject to that relaxation, a value of one per cent per annum of the amount guaranteed or actual consideration, whichever is higher. Valuation is proportionate to the guarantee period, based on the guaranteed amount rather than loan disbursement, and must reflect changes, renewals, recipient location and applicable export-of-services conditions. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Corporate guarantees between related persons may be GST supplies without consideration, requiring separate taxability and valuation analysis.
Corporate guarantees between related persons may constitute supplies under GST even where no guarantee commission is charged, because Section 7 read with Schedule I covers specified related-party supplies made without consideration. This differs from the service tax framework, where consideration was essential to establish a taxable service and notional guarantee commission could not create taxability. Once supply is established under GST, valuation must be determined separately. General related-party valuation applied until 25.10.2023; Rule 28(2), effective from 26.10.2023, introduced a special corporate-guarantee valuation mechanism. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Corporate GST prosecution requires arraigning the company before directors face vicarious liability for alleged wrongful input tax credit offences.
Vicarious criminal liability under Section 137 of the CGST Act arises from an offence alleged to have been committed by a company. Where the company is the registered person and the entity alleged to have availed or utilised wrongful input tax credit, it must be arraigned as the principal accused before directors or officers may be proceeded against on a vicarious basis. Allegations of a director's active involvement do not replace the requirement to include the company, while responsibility, consent, connivance, or negligence must be established under the statutory framework. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Taxability by legal substance requires proof of taxable service, not merely accounting entries, return mismatches, or broad revenue labels.
Service taxability depends on the real legal character of each receipt and satisfaction of statutory elements, not merely on accounting descriptions or differences between returns and financial statements. Investment profit received in the capacity of an investor cannot be equated with consideration for management services merely because the same person also provides taxable services. Copyright royalty cannot be taxed as Intellectual Property Service where copyright is statutorily excluded. Genuine CENVAT credit should not be denied for curable procedural defects, and extended limitation requires positive evidence of suppression or intent to evade beyond disclosed accounting records. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Export of services classification depends on supply timing, so delayed invoicing cannot ordinarily convert completed intermediary services into exports.
Export status for intermediary or commission services is determined by the law applicable when the service is supplied, not solely by a later invoice or foreign-exchange payment. A service completed before 30.03.2026 ordinarily remains subject to the pre-amendment intermediary place-of-supply rule, under which the place of supply was the Indian supplier's location. Delayed invoicing cannot ordinarily change that result, particularly where time of supply relates to the earlier service date. Post-amendment treatment may be arguable only for segregable later supplies, continuous services, or commission entitlement crystallising after the effective date, supported by contemporaneous records. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Extended limitation requires proven intent to evade, not merely interpretational disputes disclosed through returns and accounting records.
Extended limitation for unpaid or short-paid service tax requires proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment or an interpretational dispute over taxability or exemption is insufficient. Registration, return filing, payment of tax on other services, and disclosure of income in books may rebut allegations of suppression, particularly where audit identifies the issue from available records. A disputed small-scale exemption claim does not automatically establish evasion. Penalty based on the same culpable conduct is weakened if extended limitation is not justified. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Goods transport agency classification turns on consignment note substance, not transporter status or document labels, affecting service tax and GST.
Goods Transport Agency classification depends on the substance of the transport arrangement and whether a consignment-note-like document is issued, not on the transporter's status or the document's title. Records such as pay slips, freight slips, or route slips may qualify if they evidence goods movement and contain material particulars including vehicle details, goods description or quantity, origin, destination, and transporter acknowledgment. Individual truck owners are not automatically included or excluded. Under GST, the same enquiry applies, subject to the exclusion for specified electronic commerce operators connected with local delivery services. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Service tax appellate forum selection requires taxability and assessment-linked Tribunal disputes to follow the specialised Supreme Court route.
Legacy Service Tax appeals require issue-based forum selection. Appeals involving ordinary substantial questions of law follow the High Court route, while disputes concerning taxability, classification, rate, valuation, or assessment-linked questions fall within the specialised Supreme Court route. Taxability is connected with rate and assessment because it determines whether the levy applies at all. Saving provisions preserve pending Service Tax proceedings and remedies but do not change the applicable appellate mechanism. Filing before an incorrect forum may cause delay and limitation-related concerns without determination of the merits. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Avoidable appellate remand should yield to final reasoned adjudication when settled tax precedent applies to an adequate factual record.
Avoidable remand in tax appeals may prolong litigation where the appellate record permits application of settled precedent. Remand may be appropriate for necessary factual verification, unexamined documents, denial of opportunity, or defects requiring fresh adjudication, but should not be a routine disposal method where the appellate forum can decide the merits. A specialised appellate forum should address applicable precedent, relate it to the established facts, and issue a speaking order. Where the law is settled and the record is sufficient, a final reasoned determination promotes finality and reduces repetitive proceedings. (AI Summary)
Service Tax
Tested evidence and year-wise GST adjudication require fair cross-examination, properly proved documents, and separate tax-period proceedings.
GST adjudication under Section 74 must rest on reliable, tested evidence and a fair opportunity to contest relied-upon statements and documents. Cross-examination of ordinary witnesses should ordinarily be allowed where their statements influence the demand; non-retraction or presumed witness bias does not by itself justify refusal. Documents requiring explanation from their authors or custodians must be properly proved. Multi-year GST demands cannot be determined through a composite block assessment, as liability, credit, interest, limitation and compliance are tax-period-wise. Confiscation proposals likewise require a sound evidentiary and procedural foundation. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Recurring GST legal issues may justify departmental appeals where identical statutory questions repeatedly govern future transactions and assessments.
The recurring nature exception under the GST departmental litigation policy applies where substantially the same question of law can arise repeatedly under substantially similar facts, notwithstanding monetary limits. It is not determined by the number of disputes, taxpayers affected, or prospective revenue. In GST, classification, valuation, exemption eligibility, place of supply, taxability of continuing arrangements, refunds and input tax credit may be recurring where the same statutory principle governs successive transactions or tax periods. Disputes dependent on evidence unique to an individual transaction ordinarily remain fact-specific and are not recurring merely because similar litigation may arise again. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
GST adjudication timing requires timely notices, meaningful opportunity, and consistent treatment of supplies without a mandatory post-notice waiting period.
Section 73(2) requires a GST show cause notice to be issued at least three months before the Section 73(10) deadline for passing an order; it does not impose a compulsory three-month gap between notice and order. Adjudication must nevertheless provide a meaningful opportunity to respond, supported by natural justice. The same supplies for the same tax period must be treated consistently as either exempt or taxable, since contradictory treatment affects the basis of liability and input tax credit consequences. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Recurring GST Issues: monetary appeal limits yield where identical legal questions affect future assessments and taxpayers.
GST departmental appeal policy permits scrutiny beyond monetary limits where a legal issue is capable of repeatedly affecting future transactions, tax periods, or similarly placed taxpayers. Section 120 authorises monetary thresholds while preserving the Department's ability to contest the same or similar issue in another appropriate case. A recurring issue concerns repeated applicability of the same legal question under substantially similar facts and law. It is distinct from a continuing wrong, involving a persisting wrongful state, and from merely repeated fact-specific disputes. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Provisional release of seized imports requires independent discretion, reasonable safeguards, and no premature determination of disputed classification or restrictions.
Provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act is an interim mechanism and should not predetermine disputed classification, import restrictions, confiscation, or penalties. Restriction or prohibition does not automatically bar release; the authority must exercise statutory discretion on the facts and impose reasonable safeguards. Administrative instructions cannot curtail that discretion. Bonds, security, and conditions may protect revenue, but cannot make release commercially impossible. Re-export may address import-policy concerns by preventing domestic circulation while avoiding continuing detention losses and preserving adjudication. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
11 Aug 2026 
2 Replies 
