Author: Pushkar Mer

Tvl. Metro Computers, the applicant, contested the assessment order based on all the prior notices that have been uploaded only on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section.

The applicant was not informed about these notices and, therefore, cannot submit a reply in time. They said that they desired to file 25% of the disputed tax and asked for the chance to show their case afresh.

The bench said that “No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities.”

Hon’ble Madras High Court overturned the original tax order and sent the case back to the GST officer, but with conditions: –

The petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks

After that, they must submit a reply within three weeks

A personal hearing will be arranged

A new decision will be made based on the facts, not just formality

However, it is always advisable to tax payers to keep logging into GST portal periodically to avoid such incident.

Referring to the MCA notification dated October 27, 2023, and February 12, 2025, regarding the issuance of securities in dematerialized form by Private Companies and facilitating the dematerialization of all their Securities.

Following the amendment to the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023, a new rule has been inserted after rule 9A, known as “9B – Issue of Securities in Dematerialized Form by Private Companies.” This rule mandates that:

1. Every Private company, except for small companies, shall issue securities exclusively in dematerialized form and facilitate the dematerialization of its securities, in accordance with the provisions of the Depositories Act, 1996, and the accompanying regulations.

2. Private companies that are not considered small companies, as per audited financial statements ending on or after March 31, 2023, must comply with this rule by June 30, 2025

3. Private companies referred to in sub-rule (2), making any offer to issue securities, buyback securities, or issue bonus shares or rights offers after the compliance date must ensure that the entire holding of securities of its promoters, directors, and key managerial personnel is dematerialized in accordance with the Depositories Act, 1996, and related regulations.

4. Any holder of securities of a private company referred to in sub-rule (2) who intends to transfer such securities after the compliance date must dematerialize them before the transfer. Also, anyone subscribing to securities of the concerned private company after the compliance date, whether by private placement, bonus shares, or rights offers, must ensure that all their securities are held in dematerialized form before such subscription.

July 2025 tax period onwards, the auto-populated liability in GSTR-3B, flowing from GSTR-1, will become non-editable. Any changes to this auto-populated liability must be made through Form GSTR-1A.

(GSTN Advisory dated June 7, 2025)

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Union of India and CGST authorities against Gujrat High Court’s ruling in the case of Yasho Industries Ltd.

Apex Court dismissed Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) against High Court order which held that pre-deposit can be made through credit ledger.

This judgement is a major relief for businesses.

In case of Savex Technologies Pvt Ltd, the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court held that refund application filed after issuance of deficiency memo is not a fresh application and cannot be rejected on the ground that limitation period is over since the original application was filed within the time prescribed under GST law.

In case of Krishna Enterprises Vs Union of India, the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court held that Goods purchased by assessee from a non-existent (fake) were liable to be confiscated under section 130 of CGST Act, 2017.

CBDT has entered into 174 APAs with Indian taxpayers in FY 2024-25. These includes UAPAs, BAPAs and Multilateral APAs (MAPAs). With this, the total number of APAs since the inception of the programme has reached 815, comprising 615 UAPAs, 199 BAPAs and 1 MAPA. This marks the highest number of APAs signed in a single FY since the programme’s launch. Of the 174 APAs signed, 65 were BAPAs, the highest number of BAPAs finalized in any year so far. These were a result of Mutual Agreements with India’s treaty partners, including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, UK and the USA. CBDT has maintained a consistent pace in concluding APAs, having signed 125 in FY 2023-24 and 95 in FY 2022-23. Notably, this year also saw the signing of India’s first-ever MAPA. Additionally, on 27th March 2025 a record 34 APAs were signed on a single day

(Press Release issued by CBDT on 31^st March, 2025)

Currently many litigations are going on. Many tax payers filed appeal before GST Commissioner (Appeal) which had been rejected. Now such tax payers are waiting for GST Appellate Tribunal to be operational so that they can file appeal and proceed further. Currently if any tax payer didn’t get favorable judgement by GST Commissioner (Appeal), then they have to wait for filing appeal because GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is next authority where appeal can be filed against decision of Commissioner (Appeal).

Now, rules have been introduced for regulating the powers, procedures and functioning of GSTAT.

(Notification dated Apr 24, 2025)

In case of Solvi Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner (GST) honourable Allahabad High Court made a judgement that the assessee cannot be held liable for the subsequent cancellation of the selling dealer’s registration, as all transactions were duly reflected in Form GSTR-2A at the time of claiming ITC. Consequently, the demand order issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, has been set aside.   

In case of Zhuzoor Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs Additional Commissioner (GST) honorable Allahabad High Court made a judgement that technical error in shipping address on e-way bill cannot justify seizure or penalty when no discrepancy exists in quantity or quality of goods.