Nature of Compliances Due Date
\nGSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source \u2018TDS\u2019) Aug 10, 2026
\nGSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source \u2018TCS\u2019) Aug 10, 2026
\nGSTR-1 Aug 11, 2026
\nIFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) Aug 13, 2026
\nGSTR-6 Input Service Distributor Aug 13, 2026
\nGSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) Aug 14, 2026
\nGSTR-3B Aug 20, 2026
\nGSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person) Aug 20, 2026
\nGSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider) Aug 20, 2026
\nPMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme) Aug 25, 2026
\nKey Highlights of the July 2026
\nSupreme Court upholds Section 16(2)(c) \u2013 ITC dependent on supplier paying tax
\nCase: Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India & Ors., \u2013 Supreme Court
\nFacts
\nThe constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 was challenged before the
\nSupreme Court after the Gujarat High Court, in Maruti Enterprise v. Union of India, upheld the
\nprovision. The petitioners contended that they had fulfilled all conditions for availing Input Tax
\nCredit (ITC), including possession of a valid tax invoice, receipt of goods\/services, and reflection
\nof invoices in GSTR-2B. However, ITC was denied solely because the supplier failed to deposit
\nthe tax with the Government.
\nThe petitioners argued that making the recipient's entitlement to ITC dependent upon an act
\nentirely within the supplier's control was arbitrary, impossible to comply with, and violates of
\nArticles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300A of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on judgments
\nrendered under the Delhi VAT Act, including On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. and Arise<\/p>\n
India Ltd., wherein bona fide purchasers were protected from the consequences of supplier
\ndefaults.
\nIssue
\nWhether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes the availment of Input Tax Credit
\nconditional upon the supplier having actually deposited the tax with the Government, is
\nunconstitutional or liable to be read down to protect bona fide purchasers who have acted
\ndiligently and paid the tax to the supplier.
\nHeld
\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the batch of Special Leave Petitions and affirmed the Gujarat
\nHigh Court's judgment, thereby upholding the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c). The
\nCourt held that ITC under the GST regime is a statutory concession and not an Section 16(2)(c).
\nabsolute or vested right. Consequently, a registered recipient cannot claim ITC unless the
\nsupplier has actually paid the tax to the Government, as mandated under Section 16(2)(c).
\nThe Court observed that the GST framework differs fundamentally from the erstwhile VAT
\nregime and, therefore, the principles laid down in On Quest Merchandising and Arise India could
\nnot be mechanically applied. It further noted that the CGST Act itself provides a mechanism
\nunder Section 41 read with Rule 37A permitting the recipient to re-avail the reversed ITC once
\nthe supplier subsequently discharges the tax liability. The Court, therefore, found no ground
\neither to declare Section 16(2)(c) unconstitutional or to read it down in favour of bona fide
\npurchasers.
\nProper Service of GST Orders is Mandatory \u2013 Mere Upload on the GST Portal May
\nNot Always Constitute Valid Service
\nFacts
\nIn several writ petitions decided by different High Courts, taxpayers challenged assessment
\norders and demand notices on the ground that they had never received the Show Cause Notice
\n(SCN) or the Order-in-Original. The tax authorities contended that the notices had been uploaded
\non the GST common portal and, therefore, stood validly served under Section 169 of the CGST
\nAct, 2017. The taxpayers argued that the notices were uploaded under obscure tabs such as
\n"Additional Notices and Orders" without any email, SMS, or other effective communication,
\ndepriving them of a reasonable opportunity to respond.
\nIssue
\nWhether mere uploading of a notice or order on the GST common portal, without ensuring that
\nthe taxpayer is effectively informed or without following the prescribed modes of service under
\nSection 169, constitutes valid service for initiating adjudication proceedings or computing the
\nlimitation period for filing an appeal.
\nHeld<\/p>\n
Several High Courts have emphasized that service of notices and orders must satisfy the
\nrequirements of Section 169 of the CGST Act as well as the principles of natural justice. Where
\nnotices are merely uploaded on the GST portal\u2014particularly under non-prominent sections of
\nthe portal\u2014and the taxpayer is not effectively put to notice, such service has been held to be
\ninadequate in certain cases. Consequently, ex parte assessment orders passed on the basis of such
\ndefective service have been quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after providing the
\ntaxpayer with a proper opportunity of hearing.
\nHowever, it is equally important to note that judicial opinion is not uniform. Some High Courts
\nhave held that making a notice or order available on the common portal is itself a statutorily
\nrecognized mode of service under Section 169(1)(d), and a registered taxpayer is expected to
\nregularly monitor the GST portal. Thus, whether portal upload alone amounts to valid service
\ndepends on the facts of each case and the approach adopted by the jurisdictional High Court.<\/p>\n
Retrospective Benefit of Section 16(5) \u2013 ITC Cannot Be Denied if Returns Filed
\nWithin Extended Time
\nCase: Excel Polymers v. State Tax Officer & Ors.
\nCourt: Kerala High Court
\nFacts
\nThe petitioner was denied Input Tax Credit (ITC) for FY 2018-19 on the ground that GSTR-3B
\nreturns were filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act.
\nSubsequently, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 inserted Section 16(5) granting a one-time
\nretrospective relaxation for claiming ITC pertaining to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21, subject to the
\nprescribed cut-off date. The petitioner contended that its returns had been furnished well within
\nthe extended timeline and, therefore, the benefit of Section 16(5) ought to be extended.
\nIssue
\nWhether ITC can continue to be denied under Section 16(4) after the insertion of Section 16(5),
\nwhere the taxpayer had filed the returns within the extended statutory period.
\nHeld
\nThe Kerala High Court held that the benefit of Section 16(5) is retrospective and intended to
\nremove the hardship caused by the earlier limitation under Section 16(4). Since the petitioner had
\nfiled the returns within the extended timeline prescribed under Section 16(5), denial of ITC was
\nheld to be unsustainable. The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remanded for
\nreconsideration.<\/p>\n
Parallel Proceedings under CGST and SGST Permissible Only Where Subject
\nMatter Differs
\nCase: Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder v. Union of India
\nCourt: Calcutta High Court
\nFacts
\nProceedings were initiated by both the State GST and Central GST authorities against the
\ntaxpayer. The petitioner contended that such parallel proceedings were barred under Section
\n6(2)(b) of the CGST Act since both authorities were examining the same issue.
\nIssue
\nWhether both CGST and SGST authorities can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter
\nagainst the same taxpayer.
\nHeld
\nThe High Court clarified that the bar under Section 6(2)(b) applies only where the proceedings
\nrelate to the identical subject matter. If the State and Central authorities examine distinct
\nissues, parallel proceedings are permissible. However, if one authority has already adjudicated a
\nspecific issue, the other authority cannot reopen the very same issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nature of Compliances Due Date GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source \u2018TDS\u2019) Aug 10, 2026 GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source \u2018TCS\u2019) 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,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[253],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-indirect-tax"],"yoast_head":"\n