|
|
|
|
|
Dear Reader,
Greetings for the day!!!
We are pleased to share the recent Tax notification and circulars.
|
|
Direct Tax
|
|
|
|
|
CBDT amends the definition of “specified fund” under
Rule 157 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CBDT exempts District Legal Service Authority, Jind (PAN:
AAAGD0053R) for specified income u/s 10(46) of ITA 61 (AY 23-24
to AY 26-27) & u/s 11 of ITA 25 (TY 26-27), subject to
conditions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CBDT exempts Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Kochi (PAN:
AAAJK1176F) for specified income u/s 10(46) of ITA 61 (AY 25-26
to AY 26-27) & u/s 11 of ITA 25 (TY 26-27 to TY 28-29),
subject to conditions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CBDT has notified the IT (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026, w.e.f 1
April 2026, introducing Appendix IV (ITR-BN) to be filed in
cases of search u/s 247 or requisition u/s 248 of ITA 2025
initiated on/after 1st April 2026.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goods And Services Tax
|
|
|
|
|
GSTAT Mumbai Bench Commences Hearing of Cases from 27
July 2026
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Mumbai
Bench has officially commenced hearing of cases with effect from
27 July 2026, pursuant to Public Notice No. 04/2026 dated 24
July 2026. The Tribunal has informed taxpayers, departmental
authorities, and authorised representatives that the daily cause
list will be published on the GSTAT e-Filing Portal under the
“Cause List” tab. Stakeholders are advised to
regularly monitor the portal for updates on the listing of their
matters. The commencement of hearings marks a significant
milestone in the operationalisation of the GST appellate
framework and is expected to facilitate timely resolution of GST
disputes in Maharashtra and Goa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CBIC Issues Clarification on Departmental Appeals before
GSTAT in CAA (DGGI) Cases
The CBIC has issued Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST dated 25 July
2026, prescribing a uniform procedure for filing departmental
appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal
(GSTAT) in cases where Orders-in-Original have been passed by a
Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) in DGGI investigations. The
circular clarifies that the jurisdictional CGST Principal
Commissioner/Commissioner of the taxpayer shall act as the
reviewing authority under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act and,
where considered appropriate, authorize the filing of an appeal.
It further provides that separate appeals are to be filed for
each taxpayer by the respective jurisdictional CGST
Commissionerate before the GSTAT Bench having territorial
jurisdiction over the taxpayer, rather than the Bench having
jurisdiction over the CAA. The clarification also establishes a
coordinated mechanism for communication of appellate orders and
exchange of recommendations between the CAA Commissionerate and
the jurisdictional Commissionerates, thereby promoting
consistency and procedural uniformity in departmental litigation
arising from DGGI cases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hon’ble Supreme Court Affirms Judgment of
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court: Bona Fide Recipient
Cannot Be Denied ITC for Supplier’s
Default
In Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 & Anr. v. M/s Safecon
Lifesciences Private Limited (SLP (C) No. 23993 of 2026), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 17 July 2026,
dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition and affirmed
the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dated 9
September 2025. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had held
that a bona fide recipient cannot be denied Input Tax Credit
(ITC) or proceeded against under Section 74 of the GST Act
solely on account of alleged defaults or irregularities
committed by the supplier or entities in the upstream supply
chain. The Court emphasized that where the recipient establishes
the genuineness of the transaction through contemporaneous
documentary evidence, including valid tax invoices, e-way bills,
actual movement of goods, payment through banking channels, and
GST returns reflecting the transaction, ITC cannot be denied in
the absence of any material establishing fraud, wilful
misstatement, or suppression of facts on the part of the
recipient. By declining to interfere with the judgment of the
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has reaffirmed the settled principle that the consequences
of a supplier’s default cannot, by themselves, be fastened
upon a bona fide purchasing dealer, particularly in the absence
of any evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of
facts on the part of the recipient.
|
|
|
|
|
