A fully navigable, expandable digest of this week's most consequential GST judgments, customs & DGFT notifications, income-tax developments and the news that matters to practitioners — every ruling summarised, then unpacked in depth.
Originally compiled in the A2Z Taxcorp LLP Communique
Non-consideration of the assessee's reply on delay is an error apparent on the face of record
Orissa HCAssessee winS.107 CGST
Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST [WP(C) 17373/2026, 05-Jun-2026].
The appellate authority computed delay as 31 days and rejected the appeal as time-barred, ignoring the assessee's portal-filed reply showing the delay was actually 29 days — well within the one-month condonable window. The Orissa High Court held that disregarding an on-record reply is an error apparent on the face of the record, set aside the order and remanded for fresh consideration.
Facts
An adjudication order u/s 73 of the OGST/CGST Act, 2017 for tax periods Apr 2022–Mar 2023 was uploaded on the portal on 15-Oct-2025. Under Section 107(1), an appeal was due within three months (by 15-Jan-2026); Section 107(4) permits a further one month, taking the outer limit to 15-Feb-2026.
The petitioner filed the appeal in Form GST APL-01 on 13-Feb-2026 — a delay of 29 days, within the condonable period. A SCN dated 10-Mar-2026 alleged a 31-day delay; the petitioner's reply dated 14-Mar-2026 (filed 17-Mar-2026, duly acknowledged) explained the correct 29-day position. Despite the reply being on record, the authority's order dated 23-Mar-2026 rejected the appeal as beyond the statutory cap.
Issue
Whether rejecting the appeal by computing delay as 31 days and ignoring the on-record reply (showing 29 days) was justified.
Held
The word "month" under Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 means a British-calendar month — not 30 days. Section 9 mandates exclusion of the first day where "from" is used. The three-month period therefore ran from 16-Oct-2025 and expired 15-Jan-2026; the condonable month extended to 15-Feb-2026. The 13-Feb-2026 filing meant the delay was 29 days, not 31.
The "Acknowledgment for Reply" proved the reply was on record before the impugned order. Treating it as if not filed was an error apparent on the face of the record; the order was untenable, and relegating the petitioner to the Section 112 remedy would serve no purpose. Matter remanded to decide delay and then merits.
Precedents relied on
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 349] — limitation in "months" follows the British calendar; first day of receipt excluded.
State of H.P. v. Himachal Techno Engineers [(2010) 12 SCC 210] — a "month" ≠ 30 days.
Practitioner takeaways: Always compute limitation by the calendar-month rule, not a mechanical 30/31-day count. Preserve the ARN / "Acknowledgment for Reply" to prove timely filing. A writ under Article 226 remains maintainable despite the Section 112 remedy where the order shows a glaring error on record.
02JUDG
ITC cannot be denied solely for absence of lorry receipts & e-way bills where the supplier was registered and tax stood discharged
Madras HCAssessee winS.16 / S.155
Akal Trade Links v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) [W.P. 20601/2023, 05-Jun-2026].
The Court quashed an order confirming ITC reversal that rested only on non-production of lorry receipts, weighment slips and e-way bills. Where the supplier was registered during the relevant period, invoices carried vehicle particulars, and the supplier filed returns and paid tax, the department must holistically test genuineness rather than mechanically demand one class of transport document. Remanded for fresh examination.
Facts
Eight tax invoices (Jan–Aug 2018) were issued by the supplier, M/s Eco-Friendly Coco Products, each carrying the vehicle registration number; the supplier arranged conveyance.
The supplier was duly registered throughout, filed returns reflecting the supplies and discharged tax; its registration was cancelled only afterwards.
The Assistant Commissioner (Kangeyam Circle), by order dated 28-Apr-2023, confirmed wrongful ITC solely for want of lorry receipts, weighment slips and e-way bills.
Rival contentions
Petitioner: registration subsisting at delivery; invoices bore vehicle particulars; supplier paid tax — no revenue loss; denial only for missing LRs is unsustainable.
Revenue: Section 155 r/w Section 16 places the burden of proving ITC admissibility on the claimant; absent proof of physical movement, the burden was undischarged.
Held
The order itself referred to the eight invoices with vehicle numbers and recorded that the supplier arranged conveyance. With supplier-side registration, returns and tax payment, a deeper examination of genuineness was warranted; mechanical confirmation for want of LRs/weighment slips could not stand. Order set aside; petitioner may file additional documents within 15 days and the officer must pass a fresh order within 3 months after a personal hearing.
The wider jurisprudence — note the conflict
Aligned with Engineering Tools Corporation [W.P. 3505/2024] and Slitina Metal Sales LLP [W.P. 17112/2024] — ITC not deniable merely for the supplier's later de-registration or for documents not even sought in the SCN. A contrary line (a Madras Division Bench, Apr 2026, and Devi Traders) holds that e-way bill printouts alone don't prove movement, and the recipient must show freight, loading, LRs etc.
Takeaway: Genuine recipients dealing with then-registered suppliers can resist arbitrary reversals, but should still preserve the full evidentiary trail — invoices, e-way bills, LRs, weighment slips, delivery challans, banking proofs and supplier GSTR-1/3B confirmation — to discharge the Section 155 burden, since officers on remand are now empowered to probe genuineness.
03JUDG
Partners personally liable to penalty u/s 122(1A) — even for pre-2021 transactions
Gauhati HCRevenue-favourS.122(1A)
Mayank Bansal v. Union of India [WP(C) 24/2026, 08-Jun-2026].
The Court upheld personal penalty on partners equal to tax evaded by the firm, holding that "any person" in Section 122(1A) is not confined to a "taxable person" and covers anyone who retained the benefit of, and at whose instance, the offending transactions occurred. As the provision only identifies the natural person behind pre-existing clauses (i), (ii), (vii), (ix), it can apply to periods before 01-Jan-2021 — there is no retrospective new offence and Article 20(1) is not attracted to a civil penalty.
Facts
Partners of M/s Quantum Infratech faced a consolidated SCN (03-Aug-2024) u/s 74(1) r/w 122(1A) & 122(3)(a) for Jul 2017–Mar 2023, alleging GST evasion on construction supplies to landowners, non-payment of RCM on transfer of development rights, and ineligible ITC. The partners filed no substantive reply. The OIO (04-Feb-2025) imposed personal penalty equal to the tax evaded on each partner; the OIA (26-Aug-2025) confirmed it.
Issues
Can partners — not "taxable persons" u/s 2(107) — bear personal penalty u/s 122(1A)?
Can Section 122(1A) (w.e.f. 01-Jan-2021) reach pre-insertion periods?
Held
The legislature deliberately uses "taxable person", "registered person" and "any person" distinctly. Section 122(1A) targets "any person" with a twofold qualifier — (a) retention of benefit of a clause (i)/(ii)/(vii)/(ix) transaction, and (b) the transaction being conducted at his instance. A juridical entity cannot commit those contraventions without a natural person; reading "any person" as "taxable person" would render 122(1A) otiose. The Court respectfully disagreed with the Bombay HC in Shantanu Sanjay Hundekari & Amit Manilal Haria and followed the Delhi HC in Gurudas Mallik Thakur [2025 SCC OnLine Del 3108] and Bhupender Kumar [2025 SCC OnLine Del 4848].
Section 122(1A) creates no new offence — it only identifies the responsible natural person behind clauses that existed since inception; hence no retrospectivity issue. Distinguishing an "offence" (S.132) from a civil "penalty" (S.122) via Jawala Ram v. State of Pepsu [1961 SCC OnLine SC 47], Article 20(1) does not apply. As the partners filed no reply and findings concurrently established benefit + instance, the twin tests stood satisfied.
Direction
Liberty to appeal to the GSTAT within 30 days (no limitation objection); interim protection against coercive recovery continues until the Tribunal takes up stay; merits (whether benefit retained / instance) left open.
The bigger picture — an unresolved conflict: Bombay (Hundekari, Haria) protects mere employees/officers and reads retrospective 122(1A) as hit by Article 20(1); Delhi & Gauhati (Bhupender Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Garg, Mayank Bansal) expand liability to directors, partners, KMPs and consultants. The SC in Mukesh Kumar Garg (SLP, 04-Aug-2025) stayed recovery subject to 25% deposit — the law is at large. Until settled, noticees should (i) contest benefit/instance on facts, (ii) carve out pre-01-Jan-2021 periods, and (iii) invoke Bombay precedent where binding. File a substantive SCN reply — the Gauhati Bench weighed heavily against the silent partners.
04JUDG
A direction of 7 days' prior notice before coercive action is not a blanket anticipatory-bail protection
Delhi HCBalancedS.69 / S.70
DGGI v. Girish Sachdeva [CRL.M.C. 2300/2021, 05-Jun-2026].
The Court dismissed the department's challenge to an ASJ order which — while refusing anticipatory bail — directed seven days' notice before any coercive action. Such a procedural notice, coupled with a direction to join the investigation, is consistent with natural justice and is not a blanket shield against future offences.
Facts
DGGI alleged M/s Daak International Pvt. Ltd. issued high-value e-way bills without filing returns; the registered address was a virtual office. The directors allegedly evaded over ₹8 crore via ineligible ITC and circular trading during ~10 months of operation, and ignored repeated summons u/s 70 & 174. The ASJ dismissed their anticipatory bail but directed 7 days' notice before coercive action; the department challenged that direction u/s 482 CrPC.
Held
Economic offences are serious, but here only summons had issued and no arrest proposal had reached the Commissioner; yet, the investigation being ongoing, future arrest could not be ruled out. No blanket protection was granted and the department's investigative rights were untouched — the respondents were specifically directed to join the investigation. The 7-day notice merely affords an opportunity to seek legal remedies if arrest is apprehended; non-cooperation entitles the department to proceed. Petitions dismissed. (Consistent with Rajeev Jhawar, Siddharth Chattopadhyaya and Ram Chandra Panda.)
Takeaway: Read alongside Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India [2025 INSC 272] — CrPC/BNSS safeguards apply to CGST arrests; the officer must hold concrete "reasons to believe," record them, and communicate written grounds. Section 69 arrest is potent but not a pre-adjudicatory recovery tool. A 7-day notice survives only because it is tied to a specific ongoing investigation, not future offences at large (per Padam Narain Aggarwal / Sushila Aggarwal). Summons under Section 70 must be honoured.
05JUDG
Recovery cannot be initiated while the statutory appeal period is still available
Bombay HCAssessee winS.112
Matrix Cellular (International) Services v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [WP 4194/2026, 02-Apr-2026].
Coercive recovery before the GSTAT appeal window closes would render the appellate remedy illusory. The petitioner could appeal up to 30-Jun-2026 (Notification S.O. 4220(E) r/w S.112). The Court restrained recovery, recording the petitioner's undertaking to appeal with a stay application within four weeks.
Held
The statutory remedy (appeal to GSTAT up to 30-Jun-2026) cannot be defeated by recovery before that date; on filing, a 10% pre-deposit applies and recovery is otherwise stayed. No coercive action till the appeal is filed within four weeks; failing which the department may recover in accordance with law.
The framework
Section 112(1) allows an appeal within three months of communication or the date notified by Government, whichever is later, extendable by a further three months for sufficient cause. Notification S.O. 4220(E) dated 17-Sep-2025 fixed 30-Jun-2026 as the cut-off for appeals where the order was communicated before 01-Apr-2026; orders communicated on/after 01-Apr-2026 follow the ordinary three-month rule.
Takeaway: Recovery during a live appeal window is liable to be stayed. Keep the S.O. 4220(E) timeline handy — it is the operative cut-off for legacy GSTAT appeals and was relied on directly here.
06JUDG
A penalty order passed without a SCN violates natural justice and is liable to be quashed
P&H HCAssessee winS.75(4)
Ankur Kampani v. Union of India [CWP 9100/2026, 20-Apr-2026].
A penalty of ₹4,03,26,803 imposed under Sections 122(1)(a) & 122(1)(xvi) without any prior show-cause notice or hearing was held to violate natural justice and Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, and was quashed — with liberty to the department to initiate fresh, lawful proceedings.
Held
It was admitted that no SCN issued before the order dated 15-Dec-2025. Absence of notice and hearing renders the order violative of natural justice and in conflict with Section 75(4), which mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The order was quashed; the department may proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Context
The Court applied audi alteram partem as non-negotiable in tax adjudication. The SC in M/S Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST [2025 INSC 982] reaffirmed that a show-cause notice is a mandatory precondition for a demand — the bedrock for recovery of tax, interest and penalty, marking the start of quasi-judicial adjudication.
Takeaway: Any demand or penalty raised without a SCN/opportunity of hearing is vulnerable to being set aside — irrespective of the merits of the underlying allegation.
07JUDG
Uploading an SCN under the 'Additional Notices' tab, without effective service, vitiates the proceedings
Delhi HCAssessee winS.169 / S.73
NHD Motors v. Government of NCT of Delhi [W.P.(C) 17505/2025, 15-Apr-2026].
An SCN (FY 2018-19) uploaded only under the hard-to-find 'Additional Notices' tab, followed by an ex-parte demand of ₹23,67,282, was held to be improperly served. Later portal redesign cannot cure earlier defective service. Order set aside and remanded with a fresh hearing.
Held
The SCN sat under the 'Additional Notices' tab when it was not readily visible; subsequent portal changes making the tab visible cannot cure a prior defect, and a reminder in the same hidden tab is not effective service. The petitioner was denied a real opportunity to respond. Order dated 05-Apr-2024 set aside; reply due by 08-May-2026, with personal hearing and a fresh order.
Supporting line of authority
Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner, Delhi GST — intent is to ensure the assessee can reply and be heard; orders shouldn't pass by default.
ACE Cardiopathy Solutions [2024:DHC:4108-DB] & Kamla Vohra [2024:DHC:5108-DB] — uploading under 'Additional Notices' is not sufficient service.
East Coast Constructions [W.P. 26457/2023] — Madras HC directed merging the 'View Notices' and 'View Additional Notices' tabs.
Takeaway: Service merely "on the common portal" under S.169(1)(d) must still be effective. Practitioners should routinely check the 'Additional Notices/Orders' tab, and can challenge ex-parte orders flowing from notices buried there.
08JUDG
A restrictive refund-limitation amendment applies prospectively and cannot curtail vested rights
Delhi HCAssessee winS.54
Kanika Exports v. Union of India & Malik Seasoning [W.P.(C) 12512/2021 & 17538/2022, 18-Apr-2026].
For refund of unutilised ITC (exports without payment of tax / inverted duty) for periods before the amendment, the two-year limitation runs from the end of the financial year under the unamended Explanation 2(e). The amendment (w.e.f. 01-Feb-2019) is prospective and cannot retrospectively curtail a vested right.
Facts
Kanika Exports (readymade garments) sought refund of accumulated ITC for Jul 2017–Mar 2018 (application 29-Mar-2020). Malik Seasoning sought inverted-duty ITC refunds (applications Mar 2021). The department rejected both as time-barred, computing limitation from the date of exports and applying the amended Explanation 2(e).
Held
Section 54 prescribes different "relevant dates" by refund type; refund of tax paid and of unutilised ITC are distinct. Explanation 2(a) (date of export) governs refund of tax paid on exports, not unutilised ITC. Unutilised-ITC refund is governed by Explanation 2(e) r/w S.54(3); pre-amendment, the relevant date was the end of the financial year. The 01-Feb-2019 amendment cannot operate retrospectively to curtail a vested right — the provision existing on the date of transaction applies. Rejection orders set aside; refunds to be processed within three months.
Reasoning aligns with
Bharat Oil Traders v. Assistant Commissioner [(2025) SCC OnLine J&K 1416] — a vested refund right for a pre-amendment period cannot be unilaterally curtailed unless the amendment is expressly retrospective. Substantive-right amendments are presumed prospective.
Takeaway: For legacy unutilised-ITC refunds, anchor limitation to the financial-year-end under the unamended Explanation 2(e) and resist department attempts to apply the date-of-export rule or the 2019 amendment to earlier periods.
GST · Notifications & Circulars
5 items
09NOTF
GSTAT benches roll out dedicated help desks & a court-fee payment clarification
GSTATProcedural
Help desks at Jodhpur, Surat and Delhi State benches, plus an advisory on court-fee status.
Multiple GSTAT benches have set up walk-in help desks to assist with appeal filing, and an advisory confirms that an unconfirmed online court-fee status will not block filing.
Help desks established
Bench
Location
Hours
Notice
Jodhpur
GST Seva Kendra, Jodhpur Commissionerate, Basni, Jodhpur–342003
10:00 AM–12:00 PM
PN 01/2026 (16-Jun-2026)
Surat
Solarium Business Centre, VIP Road, Vesu, Surat–395007
3:00–5:00 PM
PN 02/2026 (16-Jun-2026)
Delhi State
Room 350, Hotel Samrat, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi–110021
3:00–5:00 PM
PN 02/2026 (12-Jun-2026)
Each was approved by the respective Hon'ble Vice-President and designates contact officers (e.g., Jodhpur: Shri Ashish Choudhary, Asst. Registrar).
Court-fee payment advisory
If online court-fee status doesn't show "Success", wait up to 72 hours for processing.
Even after 72 hours without "Success", the system will not block appeal filing.
Payment is reconciled at the backend; filing is unaffected.
New functionality on the GSTAT e-filing portal.
Taxpayers can now claim a higher-court-granted exemption from pre-deposit, or correct an auto-populated pre-deposit figure via self-calculation, with supporting-document upload — and link earlier DRC-03 payments to demands via Form GST DRC-03A.
How it works
For ARN/CRN-based filings, pre-deposit is auto-fetched from GSTN. Where it differs from the taxpayer's computation, or a higher court has granted relief, the new "Amount Exempted or Self-Calculation Correction" tab lets the taxpayer enter the exemption/correction percentage within prescribed limits.
Where ARN/CRN is unavailable, demand particulars are entered manually under Demand Details.
Pre-deposit must be paid via GSTN; on confirmation the portal verifies payment and allows the appeal fee + filing to proceed.
Upload Higher Court Orders (exemption) or Self-Calculation Sheets for a complete digital record.
DRC-03A reference
Per Notification No. 12/2024 dated 10-Jul-2024, Form GST DRC-03A links voluntary/"Others" DRC-03 payments to demand orders (DRC-07, DRC-08, MOV-09, MOV-11, APL-04), regularising prior payments and updating the electronic liability register.
11NOTF
Haryana mandates postal intimation of GST SCNs & demand orders
HaryanaService
Instruction No. 02/2026/GST-II dated 01-Jun-2026.
In addition to portal communication, Form GST DRC-01 (SCN) and DRC-07 (demand) under Sections 73/74/74A/122 must also go by registered/speed post — though the date of service remains the date of portal availability under Section 169(1)(d) r/w 169(2).
Postal intimation goes to the addressee/authorised representative at the last known place of business or residence.
Portal availability still fixes the date of service; the post is supplementary and does not alter statutory service rules.
Jurisdictional officers must dispatch within 15 days of portal issuance and maintain a dispatch register, reviewed fortnightly.
The district Deputy Commissioner supervises and countersigns ward-wise registers monthly.
Takeaway: A welcome safeguard reducing non-receipt disputes — but note that limitation still runs from portal upload, so don't rely on the postal copy to compute deadlines.
12NOTF
Haryana One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, 2026 — comprehensive FAQs
HaryanaRelief
Settles pre-GST legacy dues up to 30-Jun-2017 under seven enactments.
Covers VAT, CST, Luxury/Entertainment/Entry taxes etc. Full waiver of interest & penalty, slab-wise tax waivers (100%–35%), automatic waiver where tax dues ≤ ₹1 lakh per year, online Form OTS-1 filing, and a new Declaration Linked Waiver for missing statutory forms.
Scope & eligibility
Seven Acts covered — Haryana VAT 2003; CST 1956; Luxury Tax 2007; Entertainment Duty 1955; General Sales Tax 1973; Local Area Development Tax 2000; Entry of Goods 2008. Any person (registered or not) with quantified dues up to 30-Jun-2017 may apply. Excluded: those facing criminal proceedings, erroneous-refund cases, and pending un-rejected 2023/2025 OTS applications.
Key reliefs
Dues ≤ ₹1 lakh per assessment year under an Act → entire amount (incl. interest & penalty) waived automatically, no application needed.
All interest & penalties in quantified dues are fully waived; tax-component waivers run 100%–35% slab-wise. Under the General Sales Tax Act, 1973: 100% waiver up to ₹1 lakh, 70% above ₹1 lakh.
Declaration Linked Waiver (DLW): relief where demand arose from non-submission of forms — VAT D-1/D-2, Tax Invoice/C-4, C/H/F/E-1/E-2 forms, subject to genuineness verification.
Selective settlement permitted (any eligible year/Act), but all dues for a chosen year under that Act must be included.
Procedure & finality
Apply online via the Excise & Taxation Dept. portal in Form OTS-1 with payment proof; pay lump sum or in three instalments (first at filing).
Appeals pending before any forum (incl. HC/SC) eligible if unconditionally withdrawn with proof.
Final order → no further tax/interest/penalty; settled matters not reopened; no prosecution.
Payments in cash mode only; ITC cannot be used.
13NOTF
Haryana revises monetary limits for GST adjudication
HaryanaAdmin
Instruction No. 03/2026/GST-II dated 04-Jun-2026.
New adjudication thresholds for Excise & Taxation Officers and Deputy Commissioners under Sections 73/74/74A, differentiated by district group and tax type — effective immediately.
India's exports grow 14.66% in Apr–May FY27; total exports reach US$162.69 bn
Trade
Cumulative exports US$162.69 bn vs US$141.89 bn a year earlier.
Strong momentum across merchandise (+16.09%) and services (+12.99%); a services trade surplus of US$36.31 bn. May 2026 exports US$81.96 bn (+15.83%).
Top growing destinations: Singapore, South Africa, Tanzania, Italy, Sri Lanka. Import sources: Russia, China, US, Oman, Brazil.
15UPDATE
GSTAT launches its official website — www.gstat.gov.in
GSTATDigital
Launched 15-Jun-2026.
A single digital interface for e-filing, a judgements/orders repository, cause lists, case-status tracking, bench pages, a user's guide and live statistical dashboards.
Key features
GSTAT E-Filing System; Judgements & Orders Repository; Cause List & Case-Status Tracking; Display Board for real-time court-room updates.
Principal Bench + State Benches pages; User's Guide with instructional videos on registration, login, filing and re-filing.
Dynamic dashboards on appeals filed, registered, disposed and pending.
Dashboard snapshot (as on 14-Jun-2026)
16,042 cases filed; 1,405 registered; 4,206 filed in June 2026 alone.
President GSTAT, Dr. Justice (Retd.) Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, described it as a transformative phase for the Tribunal.
16UPDATE
GSTN: e-Invoice & e-Way Bill API changes — mandatory Ship-to GSTIN & voluntary EWB closure
APIw.e.f. 01-Aug-2026
Advisory No. 664 dated 17-Jun-2026 — effective 1 August 2026.
Ship-to GSTIN becomes mandatory whenever Ship-to details are provided (use "URP" if unregistered); it must differ from Bill-to GSTIN. A new voluntary EWB closure facility/API is introduced. Export transactions allow Ship-detail updates; B2B/SEZ restrict them. Sandbox testing is required before go-live.
Instruction No. 08/2026-Customs (12-Jun-2026) implements MeitY S.O. 1246(E) (10-Mar-2026). HSE is exempt from compulsory registration if made/imported in <100 units per model per year and meets any one: three-phase supply; single-phase >16 A; dimensions >1.5 m × 0.8 m; or weight >80 kg. Effective 15-Jun-2026.
2 · Standalone Hard Disk Drives — CRO entry
Instruction No. 09/2026-Customs implements MeitY S.O. 2204(E) (05-May-2026). Serial No. 50 of the CRO Schedule is substituted with "Standalone Hard Disk Drives" (IS 13252 (Part 1):2010). USB-type external HDDs continue under existing rules; other standalone HDDs come under the CRO from 05-Nov-2026.
3 · MOT charges waived at cruise ports
Circular No. 27/2026-Customs (15-Jun-2026): no Merchant Overtime charges for clearance of international cruise passengers/baggage at 24×7-notified locations — a boost to the Cruise Bharat Mission.
4 · SAED hiked on diesel & ATF exports
Notifications 30 & 31/2026-Central Excise (15-Jun-2026): SAED on diesel exports ₹14/litre, on ATF ₹12.5/litre; no change on petrol or domestic fuels. Effective 16-Jun-2026. A temporary ~90-day cap of 200 litres/person/day on retail diesel (notified 11-Jun-2026) protects common consumers amid an offtake shift.
5 · NABL/EPC lab reports accepted for exports
Circular No. 28/2026-Customs (15-Jun-2026): for export consignments, the proper officer shall accept NABL/EPC-accredited lab reports without mandatorily referring samples to CRCL — ending duplicate testing — except in risk-based/intelligence cases. Import-sample procedure unchanged.
6 · Mumbai customs jurisdiction redrawn
Notification No. 56/2026-Customs (N.T.) (16-Jun-2026) amends N.21/2022. Mumbai air-customs jurisdiction now expressly covers Thane, Palghar and Raigad districts (with CSMIA international terminal and Greater Mumbai). Also: Navi Mumbai added as a notified place via Notification No. 57/2026-Customs (N.T.) (18-Jun-2026).
7 · DIGIT data-entry overhaul
Instruction No. 10/2026-Customs (18-Jun-2026), superseding Instruction 07/2023, with the upgraded DIGIT live from 01-Apr-2026. Cases classed as outright smuggling / commercial fraud / NDPS-Wildlife-allied. Minor-case thresholds (not entered unless reward): <₹5 L baggage at airports; <₹20 L assessment-group cases at sea ports/ICDs/ACCs; <₹1 L at courier/FPO & land borders. Nine data-entry stages; most actions within 5 days; three-tier nodal monitoring. MPR reconciled with DIGIT; Circular 38/2013 reporting withdrawn from FY 2026-27.
Income Tax
8 items
19I-TAX
Direct tax collections rise 14.6% to ₹5.21 lakh crore in FY27; advance tax +15.3%
Revenue
Net collections ₹5,21,024.82 cr as on 17-Jun-2026 (vs ₹4,54,499.18 cr).
Gross collections +12.46% to ₹6.10 lakh cr; refunds up marginally 1.19%; advance tax ₹1,78,373.06 cr (+15.30%).
New Income Tax Act mandates affidavit-backed statements during surveys
S.253 / IT Act 2025
Statements recorded during surveys must now be on affidavit.
Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 2025, survey statements carry the evidentiary value previously reserved for search operations — making retraction (claims of "pressure") far harder. Applies to regular, TDS and charitable-trust surveys.
Earlier, statements under Section 133A lacked search-level evidentiary weight and could be withdrawn; now they are affidavit-backed and usable as evidence.
Expanded survey powers: officers may survey locations where books/records/financial data are kept (incl. accountants'/representatives' offices) and may inspect and seize such data.
Surveys remain restricted to daytime hours.
Significant for cases involving cash-balance, accounting-record and compliance discrepancies.
A ₹5.8 lakh short-deduction demand (seller's PAN inoperative → S.206AA) was deleted.
The seller later linked Aadhaar–PAN within the CBDT-circular timeline and had paid tax on the capital gain, so the buyer could not be treated as an "assessee in default."
Facts & ruling
A Mumbai buyer holding a 15% share (₹28.50 L) of a ₹1.9 cr flat deducted ₹28,500 TDS u/s 194-IA. The department demanded >₹5.8 L alleging the seller's PAN was inoperative (S.206AA). The ITAT deleted the demand: the PAN was regularised within the CBDT (July 2025) timeline and the seller disclosed and paid tax on the gains.
Practical cautions
Resident sellers: deduct 1% u/s 194-IA on the higher of consideration or stamp-duty value, on the total (incl. parking, club fees etc.), with no lower-deduction route.
Non-resident sellers: compute taxable capital gains and deduct u/s 195 at applicable rates — not the flat 1%; a heavier compliance burden (TAN, forms, certificates).
Jointly held property: correct allocation of sale price and TDS can be hard where one spouse funded the purchase but both names appear.
22I-TAX
Retrospective Finance Act, 2026 amendments challenged before Madras HC
Madras HCConstitutional
Revenue Bar Association (RBA) writ petition; Centre given 4 weeks to reply; next hearing ~21-Jul.
The RBA challenges Sections 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 32, 33 of the Finance Act, 2026 — which insert provisions into the IT Act 1961 with retrospective effect (some back to 01-Jun-2007) — as violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246/265 and the separation-of-powers and basic-structure doctrines.
What's under challenge
S.92CA(3AA) — limitation for TPO to determine ALP; deemed effect from 01-Jun-2007.
S.144C (4A/4B/13A/13B) — assessment-order time limits; deemed from 2009 (DRP mechanism).
S.292BA & 292BC — validation clauses: assessments not invalid for DIN-quoting defects; approvals deemed administrative/supervisory and not invalid for insufficiency of reasons or authentication defects.
The constitutional argument
Senior counsel argued Parliament cannot nullify judicial rulings merely by a non-obstante clause ("notwithstanding any judgment…") without curing the defect courts identified — that would breach the separation of powers. The Centre's ASG countered that an association must show a cause of action and cannot challenge a law in the abstract. The RBA also invokes Entry 82, List I (no Union tax on agricultural income).
23I-TAX
AI-driven scrutiny & data-matching · ITR-3 utility released · SC on ST tax relief
CBDT / SCCompliance
Three connected income-tax developments.
Filing is now a data-matching exercise; more scrutiny notices are expected as the department cross-checks AIS/26AS/TDS/GST. CBDT has released the ITR-3 utility for AY 2026-27. The SC declined to entertain a plea seeking a creamy-layer cap on ST tax exemption in the North-East.
Why more scrutiny notices this year
Returns are cross-verified against AIS, Form 26AS, TDS records, capital-gains and bank-interest statements, GST filings and agency data. Common triggers: unreported FD/interest income, undisclosed capital gains, mismatched deduction claims, and turnover mismatches (e.g., ₹25 L in ITR vs ₹35 L in GST). Under-reporting can attract penalties up to 50% of tax on the under-reported income. A notice is often only a request for clarification — the best defence is reconciling AIS/26AS/TDS/capital-gains/deduction records before filing.
ITR-3 utility — AY 2026-27
CBDT released the ITR-3 Excel Utility (v1.0) with JSON Schema & Validation Rules on 18-Jun-2026 for individuals/HUFs with business or professional income.
SC on ST tax exemption (North-East)
In a plea by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking a "creamy layer" cap on the income-tax exemption for Scheduled Tribes in specified north-eastern/tribal areas, the SC (CJI Surya Kant & Justice V. Mohana) declined to entertain it as essentially a policy/legislative matter — granting liberty to approach the Parliamentary Committee on Petitions (Rule 306) and the Finance Ministry.
Also noted — Madras HC notice
The Madras HC has sought the Centre's reply on the RBA plea (item 22), granting four weeks for a counter-affidavit and two weeks for a rejoinder; next hearing ~21-Jul-2026.
News Flash
Round-up
24NEWS
Headlines round-up
Briefs
The week's notable tax headlines at a glance.
Call to extend duty cuts on critical inputs soon
Trade policy
Gold merchants seek settlement of pre-GST tax cases
Legacy disputes
Rewari surpasses Faridabad to become No. 2 in GST mop-up
Haryana
Flipkart moves Kolkata HC for GST exemption on delivery charges
E-commerce
GST claim on online gaming: finally, a sense of finality
Gaming
Hospital told to pay ₹72,000 for bills with different GST numbers
Consumer
FPI debt tax relief may cost ₹10,000 cr but 'gains outweigh the hit'
Markets
States' own tax mop-up now >half of total revenue receipts
Fiscal
Tax reforms needed to deepen corporate bond market — CareEdge
Bonds
RBI injects ₹72,300 cr as advance-tax outflows squeeze liquidity
Liquidity
India takes shine off silver as imports plunge 82% in May after duty hike
Commodities
Delhi launches 2-week GST training programme
Capacity
June 30 deadline for appeals in older GST cases
GSTAT
Punjab records 14.59% GST growth in May 2026 — FM Cheema
Punjab
CBIC Chairman: customs' role in semiconductor, pharma, energy
Customs
Revised Kerala Budget combines tax relief with fiscal consolidation
Kerala
Income-tax scrutiny rules: why June 30 matters for ITRs
Compliance
Govt weighs extending zero-duty import on 40 products beyond 30-Jun-2026
Imports
No matches. Try a different term — e.g. "ITC", "limitation", "refund", "cruise", "TDS".
