GST Calendar –Compliances for the month of July ’2026

Nature of Compliances Due Date
GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source ‘TDS’) Aug 10, 2026
GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source ‘TCS’) Aug 10, 2026
GSTR-1 Aug 11, 2026
IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) Aug 13, 2026
GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor Aug 13, 2026
GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) Aug 14, 2026
GSTR-3B Aug 20, 2026
GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person) Aug 20, 2026
GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider) Aug 20, 2026
PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme) Aug 25, 2026
Key Highlights of the July 2026
Supreme Court upholds Section 16(2)(c) – ITC dependent on supplier paying tax
Case: Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors., – Supreme Court
Facts
The constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 was challenged before the
Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court, in Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India, upheld the
provision. The petitioners contended that they had fulfilled all conditions for availing Input Tax
Credit (ITC), including possession of a valid tax invoice, receipt of goods/services, and reflection
of invoices in GSTR-2B. However, ITC was denied solely because the supplier failed to deposit
the tax with the Government.
The petitioners argued that making the recipient's entitlement to ITC dependent upon an act
entirely within the supplier's control was arbitrary, impossible to comply with, and violates of
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on judgments
rendered under the Delhi VAT Act, including On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. and Arise

India Ltd., wherein bona fide purchasers were protected from the consequences of supplier
defaults.
Issue
Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes the availment of Input Tax Credit
conditional upon the supplier having actually deposited the tax with the Government, is
unconstitutional or liable to be read down to protect bona fide purchasers who have acted
diligently and paid the tax to the supplier.
Held
The Supreme Court dismissed the batch of Special Leave Petitions and affirmed the Gujarat
High Court's judgment, thereby upholding the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c). The
Court held that ITC under the GST regime is a statutory concession and not an Section 16(2)(c).
absolute or vested right. Consequently, a registered recipient cannot claim ITC unless the
supplier has actually paid the tax to the Government, as mandated under Section 16(2)(c).
The Court observed that the GST framework differs fundamentally from the erstwhile VAT
regime and, therefore, the principles laid down in On Quest Merchandising and Arise India could
not be mechanically applied. It further noted that the CGST Act itself provides a mechanism
under Section 41 read with Rule 37A permitting the recipient to re-avail the reversed ITC once
the supplier subsequently discharges the tax liability. The Court, therefore, found no ground
either to declare Section 16(2)(c) unconstitutional or to read it down in favour of bona fide
purchasers.
Proper Service of GST Orders is Mandatory – Mere Upload on the GST Portal May
Not Always Constitute Valid Service
Facts
In several writ petitions decided by different High Courts, taxpayers challenged assessment
orders and demand notices on the ground that they had never received the Show Cause Notice
(SCN) or the Order-in-Original. The tax authorities contended that the notices had been uploaded
on the GST common portal and, therefore, stood validly served under Section 169 of the CGST
Act, 2017. The taxpayers argued that the notices were uploaded under obscure tabs such as
"Additional Notices and Orders" without any email, SMS, or other effective communication,
depriving them of a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Issue
Whether mere uploading of a notice or order on the GST common portal, without ensuring that
the taxpayer is effectively informed or without following the prescribed modes of service under
Section 169, constitutes valid service for initiating adjudication proceedings or computing the
limitation period for filing an appeal.
Held

Several High Courts have emphasized that service of notices and orders must satisfy the
requirements of Section 169 of the CGST Act as well as the principles of natural justice. Where
notices are merely uploaded on the GST portal—particularly under non-prominent sections of
the portal—and the taxpayer is not effectively put to notice, such service has been held to be
inadequate in certain cases. Consequently, ex parte assessment orders passed on the basis of such
defective service have been quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after providing the
taxpayer with a proper opportunity of hearing.
However, it is equally important to note that judicial opinion is not uniform. Some High Courts
have held that making a notice or order available on the common portal is itself a statutorily
recognized mode of service under Section 169(1)(d), and a registered taxpayer is expected to
regularly monitor the GST portal. Thus, whether portal upload alone amounts to valid service
depends on the facts of each case and the approach adopted by the jurisdictional High Court.

Retrospective Benefit of Section 16(5) – ITC Cannot Be Denied if Returns Filed
Within Extended Time
Case: Excel Polymers v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
Court: Kerala High Court
Facts
The petitioner was denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) for FY 2018-19 on the ground that GSTR-3B
returns were filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
Subsequently, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 inserted Section 16(5) granting a one-time
retrospective relaxation for claiming ITC pertaining to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21, subject to the
prescribed cut-off date. The petitioner contended that its returns had been furnished well within
the extended timeline and, therefore, the benefit of Section 16(5) ought to be extended.
Issue
Whether ITC can continue to be denied under Section 16(4) after the insertion of Section 16(5),
where the taxpayer had filed the returns within the extended statutory period.
Held
The Kerala High Court held that the benefit of Section 16(5) is retrospective and intended to
remove the hardship caused by the earlier limitation under Section 16(4). Since the petitioner had
filed the returns within the extended timeline prescribed under Section 16(5), denial of ITC was
held to be unsustainable. The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded for
reconsideration.

Parallel Proceedings under CGST and SGST Permissible Only Where Subject
Matter Differs
Case: Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder v. Union of India
Court: Calcutta High Court
Facts
Proceedings were initiated by both the State GST and Central GST authorities against the
taxpayer. The petitioner contended that such parallel proceedings were barred under Section
6(2)(b) of the CGST Act since both authorities were examining the same issue.
Issue
Whether both CGST and SGST authorities can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter
against the same taxpayer.
Held
The High Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where the proceedings
relate to the identical subject matter. If the State and Central authorities examine distinct
issues, parallel proceedings are permissible. However, if one authority has already adjudicated a
specific issue, the other authority cannot reopen the very same issue.