GST Rule 90(5) Allows Electronic Withdrawal of Refund Applications Before Sanction or Payment
Under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules, a registered taxpayer may claim a refund of excess tax or balance in the electronic cash ledger by filing an application electronically. The refund must be processed within 60 days if the application is complete. Previously, taxpayers could not withdraw refund applications once filed, but Rule 90(5) now permits withdrawal before issuance of any refund sanction, payment, or notice orders by submitting a withdrawal application electronically via FORM GST RFD-01W. Withdrawal is allowed only until the refund application receives an acknowledgment. Upon withdrawal, the debited ledger amount is restored, and the taxpayer may file a fresh refund application for the same or different periods. The GST portal provides a detailed procedure for withdrawal, including submission of reasons and supporting documents, and updates the application status to "Refund Application Withdrawn." - (AI Summary)

New GST Appellate Tribunal Rules 2025 Set Procedures for Appeals, Document Handling, and Witness Examination
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, effective from April 24, 2025, establish procedures for appeals under GST. They govern discovery and production of documents, summoning procedures, and document marking, aligning largely with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribunal can suo motu summon public documents and requires applications for document production to specify relevance and prior attempts to obtain certified copies. Witness examination procedures, including oath administration, examination in camera, and recording of depositions, follow prescribed forms and standards. Witnesses are numbered sequentially, and allowances for travel and daily expenses are regulated. The Tribunal may issue discharge certificates to witnesses, and records necessary for commissions must be furnished to the Commissioner with proper acknowledgment. The Commissioner may also collect specimen handwriting, signatures, or fingerprints from witnesses when required. - (AI Summary)

Direct-to-consumer brands speed customs clearance using pre-uploaded docs, expert codes, and AEO status for faster processing
Certain direct-to-consumer brands expedite customs clearance by pre-uploading all required documents on electronic platforms before shipment arrival, ensuring no delays due to incomplete files. They avoid misclassification by thoroughly researching tariff codes and obtaining expert certifications, minimizing legal risks. These brands obtain Authorised Economic Operator status to benefit from faster clearance, duty deferrals, and priority processing. Maintaining a sufficient and reconciled electronic cash ledger prevents payment-related release issues. Additionally, they closely integrate customs clearing agents into their operations through training and collaboration, reducing errors and last-minute complications. This strategic planning and proactive approach enable significantly faster customs clearance compared to typical delays. - (AI Summary)

Passengers Must Declare Goods Using Customs Channels Under Customs Act, 1962 Section Rules
Passengers returning from abroad must declare goods through designated Customs Channels-Red for dutiable or restricted items, Green for no dutiable goods, and Orange for pre-declared goods-under the Customs Act, 1962 and related rules. Accurate declaration via a Customs Declaration Form, either electronically or manually, is mandatory for dutiable goods, followed by assessment and payment of duties. Non-declaration or false declaration constitutes an offense, attracting penalties including seizure, fines, prosecution, and recovery of duties with interest. Repeat violations may lead to increased scrutiny in future customs clearances. Compliance with these procedures is a legal obligation to avoid severe consequences and ensure smooth customs processing. - (AI Summary)

Understanding GST Structure, Rates, Registration, ITC, Returns, and Audit Requirements for Businesses in India
The article explains the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework in India, highlighting its role as a unified indirect tax system replacing multiple prior taxes. GST is categorized into CGST, SGST, and IGST, depending on intra- or inter-state transactions. It outlines the four main GST rate slabs and the mandatory registration thresholds based on turnover and business type. The article emphasizes the importance of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for offsetting tax paid on inputs against output tax liabilities. It details the filing requirements for various GST returns and stresses timely compliance to avoid penalties. Businesses with turnovers exceeding Rs. 5 crores must undergo a GST audit to ensure accurate filings. The article advises maintaining proper records, reconciling returns, and staying updated on regulatory changes to optimize tax management and compliance under the GST regime. - (AI Summary)

GST Show Cause Notices Must Be Issued Separately for Each Financial Year Under Section 73
The Madras High Court ruled that under GST law, show cause notices (SCNs) must be issued strictly on a per financial year basis and cannot be clubbed to cover multiple financial years, even in audit cases where the department combines periods for convenience. Issuing a single SCN for more than one financial year is impermissible and such orders are liable to be quashed. The court emphasized that tax authorities must adhere to the statutory framework governing tax periods when issuing SCNs, whether based on monthly or annual returns. This judgment clarifies that taxpayers receiving SCNs spanning multiple financial years have grounds to challenge them through writ petitions, reinforcing compliance requirements for tax administrators and protecting taxpayer rights. - (AI Summary)

India's Legal Rules for Exporting Certified Organic Textiles Under NPOP, GOTS, and Customs Laws
India regulates the export of organic textiles through a comprehensive legal framework involving domestic laws, foreign trade policies, and international certification standards. Organic textiles must be certified by bodies accredited under the National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) or recognized international standards such as GOTS or OCS. Exporters must register with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade, classify products correctly, obtain valid organic certification, and comply with customs and labeling requirements. The NPOP accreditation does not cover organic textiles; thus, exporters must secure transaction certificates from certification bodies designated by Textile Exchange or GOTS as required by buyers. Non-compliance or misrepresentation can result in penalties under Indian customs laws and de-accreditation. Exporters must also adhere to destination country regulations, including those of the EU, US, UK, and Canada. The legal regime supports sustainable trade while emphasizing certification integrity, ethical labor, and environmental standards throughout the supply chain. - (AI Summary)

Foreign Trade Act 1992: Licensing Required for Restricted Imports and Exports to Protect Security and Health
India's import and export of restricted goods are governed by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, and related policies issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. Restricted goods require prior authorization through licenses, with import and export controls enforced to protect national security, public health, and environmental interests. Non-compliance leads to confiscation, penalties, and possible imprisonment under the Customs Act. Various allied laws and regulatory bodies also oversee specific categories such as pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and strategic materials. Judicial rulings affirm that ignorance of licensing requirements is not a defense, and trade regulation is a permissible restriction under the Constitution. The regulatory framework aligns with international obligations and continues to evolve with emerging trade challenges, emphasizing strict compliance by businesses and individuals involved in foreign trade. - (AI Summary)

Customs Law Adjudication Ensures Fair Dispute Resolution Under Natural Justice Principles and Section Rules
Adjudication in customs law involves judicial decisions by designated customs authorities to resolve disputes related to goods classification, valuation, duty determination, refunds, and enforcement actions. The process ensures fairness and transparency by adhering to natural justice principles, including the right to be heard and personal hearings before orders are issued. Competent authorities range from appraising officers to commissioners, excluding appellate commissioners. Parties may appeal decisions first to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), then to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, followed by the High Court and Supreme Court for specific matters. Technological advancements have enhanced efficiency and transparency in adjudication. Legal representation plays a critical role in navigating complex procedures and safeguarding parties' rights. This multi-tiered framework balances enforcement with fairness, supporting compliance and dispute resolution in customs operations. - (AI Summary)

Filing Form GST TRAN-1 Not Mandatory to Claim Refund of Unutilised VAT Input Tax Credit Under Section 174(2)(c) CGST Act
The Gujarat High Court ruled that filing Form GST TRAN-1 is not mandatory to claim a refund of unutilised input tax credit under the erstwhile VAT regime. The court held that the right to refund accrued under the repealed VAT law survives repeal under Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and cannot be denied due to non-filing of TRAN-1. The petitioner's refund claim was upheld despite the department's rejection based on procedural grounds and limitation timelines. The judgment emphasized that procedural requirements like TRAN-1 filing are facilitative and not conditions precedent to refund rights, reinforcing that substantive rights cannot be defeated by procedural defaults during transitional phases. This decision provides relief to dealers who missed TRAN-1 filing but had valid VAT credits, ensuring equitable tax administration and preventing unjust enrichment of the state. - (AI Summary)

Supreme Court's Safari Retreats ruling not directly applicable to CENVAT Credit Rules Rule 2(l) claims, says tribunal
The appellate tribunal held that the Supreme Court's ruling in Safari Retreats, which restricts input tax credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, cannot be directly applied to disallow credit claims under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 without establishing that the provisions are pari materia. The Commissioner erred by mechanically relying on the Safari Retreats judgment without comparing the legislative intent and scope of the two provisions. Rule 2(l) has a broader definition of input services and permits credit on expenses related to immovable property under certain conditions, unlike the more restrictive GST provision. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with liberty to the appellant to make further submissions, emphasizing that judicial decisions must be applied within the context of the statute under which they are delivered. - (AI Summary)

Systemic barriers block cycling talent from reaching top international events despite large population and potential
A country with a vast population and sporting talent has yet to produce a competitor in a premier international cycling event due to multiple systemic barriers. These include the dominance of other sports in funding and media, inadequate cycling infrastructure, absence of grassroots programs, and high costs associated with competitive cycling. Additional challenges encompass geographic and climatic constraints, cultural perceptions of cycling, lack of sports science support, bureaucratic travel hurdles, and insufficient domestic race structures. Social pressures favoring academic pursuits over uncertain sports careers, limited sponsorship, and language barriers further impede progress. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive investment in training academies, safer infrastructure, sponsorship, media promotion, and role model development to build a supportive ecosystem capable of nurturing cycling talent to compete globally. - (AI Summary)

Section 108 CGST: Revisional Authority Must Form Opinion Before Staying Refund Orders
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Delhi High Court's decision that the Revisional Authority under Section 108 of the CGST Act cannot stay a refund order without forming an opinion that the order is erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The Revisional Authority had suspended a sanctioned refund without recording such a finding. The courts held that mere allegations of wrongful input tax credit do not justify staying a refund order. Both electronic credit and cash ledger balances are considered tax, but this does not eliminate the requirement for a valid opinion before revisionary powers are exercised. The ruling emphasizes that Section 108 powers must be based on an independent opinion regarding the refund order's legality, and absent this, the stay is invalid. The Supreme Court's refusal to interfere upholds procedural safeguards against arbitrary withholding of refunds. - (AI Summary)

Supreme Court blocks retrospective IGST on aircraft parts sent abroad for repairs under Notification 45/2017-Customs
The Supreme Court dismissed a customs department appeal seeking retrospective imposition of IGST on aircraft parts sent abroad for repairs and re-imported by airlines. The dispute arose when customs authorities argued that post-GST implementation in July 2017, "duty of customs" implicitly included IGST, despite Notification 45/2017-Customs making no explicit reference to IGST. Airlines had previously paid only Basic Customs Duty and Countervailing Duty on repair costs, not full part values. The tribunal ruled in favor of airlines in 2020 and 2024, finding IGST was not payable as it wasn't clearly mentioned in the 2017 notification. Despite a 2021 retrospective amendment attempting to include IGST, the Supreme Court rejected this approach, stating retrospective amendments cannot impose taxes not covered in original notifications. The court emphasized that ambiguity in tax statutes must be interpreted favoring the assessee. This Rs. 100 crore case establishes important precedent against retrospective taxation without clear legislative mandate, benefiting major airlines and reinforcing principles of tax certainty and notification clarity in customs matters. - (AI Summary)

Bakery businesses face GST classification challenges between 1% manufacturing rate and 5% restaurant service rate under Section 10
The GST regime presents classification challenges for bakery businesses, particularly distinguishing between manufacturing activities and restaurant services under the Composition Scheme. Under Section 10 of the CGST Act 2017, manufacturers qualify for 1% composition tax rate while restaurant service providers pay 5%. Bakeries operating solely as goods suppliers (selling packaged items like cakes, breads, pastries without dine-in facilities) qualify as manufacturers under Section 2(72) definition, as they process raw materials into distinct products. These businesses are eligible for the 1% composition rate under Section 10(1)(a) as supported by Notifications 8/2017 and 1/2018. Conversely, bakeries providing dine-in services with seating arrangements and staff service are classified as restaurants under heading 9963, subject to 5% composition tax under Section 10(1)(c) per Notification 11/2017. CBIC Circular 164/20/2021 clarifies that even takeaway services from restaurant-style operations attract 5% tax. Mixed operations require careful analysis of composite versus mixed supply provisions. Businesses must maintain separate records for different service types to ensure compliance and avoid disputes regarding scheme eligibility and applicable tax rates. - (AI Summary)

Hotel loses challenge after GST notices sent to former manager's registered email deemed valid service under Section 169
The Allahabad High Court ruled that service of GST notices through registered email addresses constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. A hotel company challenged assessment orders and bank account freezing after claiming non-receipt of notices sent to their former manager's email and mobile number provided during GST registration. The company argued it was unaware of proceedings due to the manager's departure and inability to access the registered contact details. The court held that notices served through prescribed modes under Section 169 are deemed complete upon transmission to registered email addresses, referencing Section 13(2) of the Information Technology Act. The company's failure to update contact details could not invalidate the proceedings or constitute a breach of natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petition, noting that an efficacious appellate remedy existed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and no exceptional circumstances warranted high court intervention under Article 226. - (AI Summary)

Exporter seeks IGST refund despite date mismatch between customs invoice and GSTR-1 filing through CBIC ICEGATE revalidation
An exporter faces delayed IGST refund due to date mismatch between customs invoice (shipping bill) and GSTR-1 filing, with the amendment window having expired. The primary resolution involves customs-side revalidation through CBIC ICEGATE mechanism per Circular No. 12/2018-Customs. The taxpayer must submit a formal application to the jurisdictional customs officer including shipping bill copies, GSTR-1 filings, tax payment proof, and explanation of discrepancies. Additional steps include filing grievances on GST and ICEGATE portals, contacting helpdesk services, and if unresolved within 30-60 days, pursuing RTI applications or legal recourse through High Court writ petition. The process requires comprehensive documentation proving export and tax payment while requesting system revalidation to enable refund processing despite the expired amendment period under Rule 59(5). - (AI Summary)

Legal Metrology Rules 2011 mandate accurate labeling and packaging standards for pre-packed commodities ensuring consumer protection
The Legal Metrology (Package Commodity) Rules, 2011, formulated under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, govern packaging and labeling of pre-packed commodities in India to ensure fair trade and consumer protection. The rules mandate proper labeling requirements including manufacturer details, accurate quantity declarations, net weight/volume, retail price, and manufacturing date. They ensure compliance with prescribed measurement units and authorize legal metrology officers to inspect commodities and impose penalties for non-compliance. The rules have undergone multiple amendments from 2014-2023, introducing provisions for bar codes, eco-friendly packaging, digital labeling, e-commerce regulations, and country of origin disclosures. Notable case laws demonstrate strict judicial enforcement, with courts consistently ruling against major companies for non-compliance. Cases involving consumer protection councils and companies have emphasized accurate labeling requirements and imposed penalties for violations. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have upheld the importance of consumer rights and maintained strict adherence to packaging standards, reinforcing regulatory authority in protecting consumer interests through transparent and accurate product information. - (AI Summary)

Tax authorities must provide minimum four personal hearing opportunities before passing adjudication orders under Section 33A
The Patna High Court ruled that adjudicating authorities must provide at least four opportunities for personal hearing before passing adjudication orders in service tax matters. The court relied on Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Master Circular 1053/2/2017-CX, which mandate three adjournment opportunities during proceedings. The court emphasized that separate communications must be issued for each hearing with sufficient intervals, and proper records must be maintained. This decision applies to GST proceedings as well due to similar provisions in Section 75(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, this ruling conflicts with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, which held that no minimum adjournments are required, only maximum limits exist. The Patna High Court noted that natural justice principles require fair hearing opportunities, and tax authorities should be generous in granting the minimum three adjournments to ensure procedural fairness and reduce litigation. - (AI Summary)

Milk processing services including chilling, pasteurization, standardization qualify as manufacture, not taxable Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19)
A dairy company provided milk processing services including chilling, pasteurization, standardization, and pouch packing for another entity. The tax department issued a demand for service tax treating these activities as Business Auxiliary Service. The tribunal held that these collective activities constitute "manufacture" under Chapter Note 6 of Chapter 4 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which defines manufacture broadly to include "any treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer." Since the activities qualified as manufacture, they were excluded from Business Auxiliary Service taxation under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, which specifically exempts manufacturing activities. The tribunal distinguished cases involving only chilling services, emphasizing that the combination of processing activities transformed the milk into a marketable consumer product, thereby constituting manufacturing rather than auxiliary services. - (AI Summary)