Pushkar Mer

In case of Petroliv Petrolium Vs State of Kerala, Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that uploading a Notice on the common portal amounts to valid service under GST law. Entrusting the matter to a lawyer does not absolve the taxpayer of the duty to track the proceedings, so a writ petition cannot be used to bypass the appellate remedy.

In case of Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles Vs. Commissioner of Kerala State GST , GSTAT (Thiruvananthapuram) held that The seven-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) of CGST Act for passing a penalty Order after service of the detention Notice is mandatory and not merely directory. A penalty Order passed well beyond that period is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

Payment outstandings are very common in business. Sometimes businesses are not considering outstandings seriously. However, payment outstandings might lead to many legal complications. ₹1 crore or more is the minimum threshold required to trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

For operational debts, the claim must be undisputed, and a proper demand notice must be served with no valid payment or dispute raised by the corporate debtor.

Not responding to an outstanding default of ₹1 crore easily breaches the minimum threshold under Section 4 of the IBC, allowing the aggrieved creditor to file a direct application at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to trigger the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Operational creditors having outstanding 1 crore or more (individually) should not ignore follow up communications from debtors and must raise letter of dispute mentioning reasons of not releasing payments.

The Supreme Court refused to interfere where the High Court had held that once actual movement of goods and payment of tax are proved by the purchasing dealer, proceedings alleging fraud or suppression are not justified merely because the supplier’s registration was later cancelled. This is a major taxpayer-friendly ruling that protects honest buyers.

Safecon Lifesciences Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court of India)

In the landmark case of M.M. Motors v. Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that limitation relates to the act of issuance, meaning the digital signing of the Order, and not to its subsequent service on the taxpayer. An Order digitally signed within the limitation period remains valid even though it was uploaded on the portal after the deadline.

In continuation of Trade Notice No. 26/2025-26 dated 20th February 2026, the DGFT has issued a new Trade Notice No. 09/2026-27 dated 1^st July 2026 containing amendments to the Guidelines for Trade Regulations, Accreditation and Compliance Enablement under Export Promotion Mission (EPM) – Niryat Disha.

The above notice is linked below for reference:

https://upload.eepcindia.com/eepc-download/eepc_files_03072026_072938.pdf

The RBI circular dated April 22, 2025, mandated that all scheduled commercial and cooperative banks migrate to the .bank.in domain by October 31, 2025. However, this is not a sudden shift, many banks began operations, phased integrations, and user-awareness campaigns running into 2026 to ensure a completely seamless and secure transition without disrupting access.

The .bank.in domain is managed by the Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT) and strictly implements advanced security protocols, including DNSSEC and high-assurance certificates.

What remains unchanged?

• No change in website content or services
• No change in customer’s user ID, password, or login process
• No change to any existing banking arrangements

This is a great initiative by Reserve Bank of India to reduce digital frauds and to make banking websites more secure & easily recognisable for customers.