GST Update: Bombay High Court Quashes ₹62.42 Lakh GST Demand Over Notices Placed in an Inaccessible Portal Section Date of update: 21 October 2026 Introduction: A GST notice is only effective if the taxpayer gets a fair opportunity to respond Can a GST demand survive when the department uploads notices on the GST portal in a manner that prevents the taxpayer from becoming aware of them and responding in time? In an important GST development reported on 20 October 2026, the Bo

The Finance Minister-led GST Council has recommended faster refunds, wider ITC eligibility, simpler compliance, removal of arrest provisions and a higher prosecution threshold. These remain recommendations requiring implementation. Relief for honest businesses is welcome. But weaker deterrence could embolden organised invoice fraud and make revenue recovery harder. Faster refunds demand stronger verification, sharper intelligence and swift prosecution. Reform must protect com

On 8 October 2026, the GST Council recommended removing officers’ arrest powers by omitting Section 69 of the CGST Act. This is a recommendation requiring legislative implementation—not an immediate repeal. The reform may protect honest businesses from excessive coercion. However, its enforcement implications deserve serious attention. Organised fake-invoice operators and fraudulent ITC networks could perceive the absence of departmental arrest powers as a reduction in person

The announced move to remove GST officers’ arrest powers raises a serious question: how will the department prevent organised fraudsters from exploiting weaker deterrence? Its precise legal effect will depend on the final amendments and commencement provisions. Protecting honest businesses from disproportionate action is essential. But deliberate fake invoicing, fraudulent input tax credit and organised tax evasion demand effective enforcement. Removing arrest powers without

By SD Legal Kore | 8 October 2026 The reported decision of the GST Council to remove the arrest powers of GST officers deserves support. It offers an opportunity to make tax administration more proportionate, protect personal liberty and improve the relationship between businesses and the department. Reports of the Council’s meeting on 8 October 2026 also indicate approval of a higher prosecution threshold of ₹5 crore. The precise scope, exceptions and effective date of these

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt Ltd v Assessment Unit | Punjab and Haryana High Court | 22 September 2026 | CWP 9316 of 2025 The issue The Income Tax Department passed a penalty order under section 270A even though the taxpayer had requested a personal hearing. The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered whether that procedure could stand under section 274. What happened The parties did not dispute that Perfetti Van Melle had asked for a personal hearing before the penalty orde

Vimal Oil and Foods Limited v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | Gujarat High Court | 22 September 2026 | SCA 12844 of 2026 The issue Can the Income Tax Department reopen an assessment because a company might have claimed an interest deduction, without checking whether it actually did? The Gujarat High Court answered that question in the context of a business acquired as a going concern after liquidation. What happened The department relied on a search involving an asset

M/s Sharma Transport Agency v. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Asansol Charge & Ors. | Calcutta High Court | 24 September 2026 A show cause notice must give the taxpayer a real chance to respond. The Calcutta High Court examined a Section 73 notice uploaded only under the GST portal’s “Additional Notices and Orders” tab without demonstrated separate intimation. The taxpayer said it learned of the notice and the resulting adjudication only much later. A consequential recovery

Jaiwanti v. Union of India & Ors. | Delhi High Court | 25 September 2026 A GST investigation does not necessarily end when the person under investigation dies. Section 93 of the CGST Act permits liability arising from a deceased person’s conduct to be determined after death, but does not make an heir personally guilty of that conduct. The department investigated Ankit Dabas over alleged fraudulent ITC and IGST refunds. After his death, it issued a show cause notice to his wif

Two GST Proceedings, One Taxpayer: When Does Section 6(2)(b) Apply? Case: M/s Vertilink Media Solutions Private Limited v. Anti Evasion Branch & Ors.Court: Delhi High Court | Judgment: 25 September 2026 | Case No.: W.P.(C) 13077/2026 Can a State GST authority proceed against a taxpayer when DGGI has already issued a show cause notice involving that taxpayer? The Delhi High Court’s answer turns on a precise question: are both proceedings about the same subject matter? Vertilin

Once tax liability is conclusively settled under Section 245D(4), the Assessing Officer cannot take a second route through Sections 147/148, rules the Supreme Court Case: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s Omaxe LimitedCitation: 2026 INSC 1000Court: Supreme Court of IndiaBench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. AnjariaDecision: 16 September 2026Civil Appeal: No. 9190 of 2013 🔑 Key Takeaway In an important ruling on the finality of proceedings before t

A GST show cause notice cannot become a Section 74 notice merely because it uses the words “fraud”, “wilful misstatement” or “suppression”. The Supreme Court has now made that point harder to ignore. In two decisions delivered within six days, the Court examined how far the tax department can go while invoking the extended limitation and harsher consequences under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The decisions are M/s G.R. Infra Projects Limited Rat