Ritesh Arora & Associates

Celebrating 80 Years of Independence

On this Independence Day, we celebrate the freedom, unity and progress of our nation.
At Ritesh Arora & Associates, we remain committed to contributing to India's growth through professional excellence, integrity and responsible practices.
Wishing everyone a proud and meaningful Independence Day 2026.

NCLT UPDATE | e-Inspection and e-Certified Copy Services Launched

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has launched e-Inspection and e-Certified Copy Services, making access to judicial records faster, more convenient and technology-enabled.

Key Highlights:
• e-Inspection Service provides online access to NCLT judicial records.
• e-Certified Copy Service enables stakeholders to obtain certified copies through a digital process.
• The services can reduce the need for physical visits to the NCLT Registry.
• Advocates, litigants, insolvency professionals, companies and other stakeholders can benefit from easier access to records.
• The initiative supports greater efficiency, transparency and digital transformation of NCLT services.

Can penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act be imposed when the SCN does not specifically propose such penalty, and can proceedings continue under Section 74 without considering Section 74A?

No. In M/s. Ai-Safa Industries Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that penalty under Section 74 cannot be imposed unless it is specifically proposed in the SCN/DRC-01. The Court further held that the applicability of Section 74A must be examined for proceedings after 01.11.2024.

Key Highlights:
• The SCN and Form GST DRC-01 did not propose any penalty under Section 74.
• Despite this, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty in the final order.
• An adjudication order cannot travel beyond the scope of the SCN.
• Authorities must examine the applicability of Section 74A for proceedings after 01.11.2024.
• The Allahabad High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Can an Assistant Commissioner adjudicate a DGGI-issued Show Cause Notice when the applicable notifications vest such power in the Additional/Joint Commissioner?

No. In M/s. Kay Arr Engineering Services v. The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise & Ors., the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that an Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate a DGGI-issued Show Cause Notice where Notifications No. 02/2017-CT and 02/2022-CT specifically confer such powers on the Additional/Joint Commissioner.

Key Highlights:
• The DGGI issued the Show Cause Notice, but it was adjudicated by an Assistant Commissioner.
• The taxpayer challenged the order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
• The Court held that the applicable GST notifications specifically assign adjudication of DGGI-issued SCNs to the Additional/Joint Commissioner.
• An officer cannot exercise powers beyond those conferred by statutory notifications.
• The adjudication order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority.

Can late fee under Section 47(2) and general penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act be levied for failure to file the Annual Return (GSTR-9)?

Yes. In Tvl. KPK Fuel Services v. State Tax Officer, Hosur, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that late fee under Section 47(2) is applicable even where GSTR-9 is not filed at all, and general penalty under Section 125 may also be imposed where no specific penalty is prescribed.

Key Highlights:
• Filing of the Annual Return (GSTR-9) is mandatory under Section 44 of the CGST Act.
• Section 47(2) applies to both delayed filing and complete non-filing of GSTR-9.
• Section 125, being a residuary provision, may be invoked where no specific penalty is prescribed.
• The Madras High Court upheld the levy of both late fee and general penalty.

Punjab OTS Scheme Extended | Last Date to Apply Now 30 September 2026

The Punjab Government has extended the last date for filing applications under the Punjab One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme for Recovery of Outstanding Dues, 2025 from 31 July 2026 to 30 September 2026. This extension gives eligible taxpayers additional time to settle outstanding tax dues under the Scheme.

Key Highlights:
• The last date to apply has been extended to 30 September 2026.
• Eligible taxpayers now have two additional months to avail the benefits of the OTS Scheme.
• The Scheme is available for eligible outstanding dues covered under the notified Punjab State tax laws.
• Taxpayers should review their eligibility and complete the application well before the revised deadline.

GST UPDATE | GSTN Puts Proposed e-Way Bill Enhancements on Hold

The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has announced that the proposed e-Way Bill enhancements, which were scheduled to be implemented from 1 August 2026, have been kept on hold until further notice.
This is an important update for businesses, transporters, taxpayers, and GST professionals. There is no requirement to implement the proposed changes at this stage. Businesses can continue using the existing e-Way Bill system until GSTN issues fresh instructions.

Key Highlights:
• The proposed e-Way Bill enhancements will not be implemented from 1 August 2026.
• Continue generating e-Way Bills through the existing system.
• No changes are required to ERP systems, billing software, or operational processes at present.
• The advisories issued on 9 June 2026 and 17 June 2026 will no longer be acted upon.
• The FAQs issued on 2 July 2026 relating to these enhancements will also be withdrawn from the GST Portal.

Can partners be personally penalised under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act for fraudulent GST transactions, even if the transactions commenced before the provision came into force?

Yes. In Mayank Bansal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court held that partners who direct and retain the benefit of fraudulent GST transactions can be personally penalised under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act. The Court further held that the provision is not retrospective merely because the transactions commenced before 01.01.2021, provided the penalty proceedings were initiated after the provision came into force.

Key Highlights:
• Partners who direct and benefit from fraudulent GST transactions may be personally penalised under Section 122(1A).
• Section 122(1A) extends liability to persons involved in GST fraud and does not create a new offence.
• The provision is not retrospective merely because the transactions commenced before 01.01.2021, if proceedings were initiated later.
• Mere designation as a partner is not sufficient; active involvement and personal benefit must be established.
• The ruling strengthens action against the real beneficiaries of fraudulent GST transactions.

Who will file departmental appeals before the GSTAT where the Order-in-Original has been passed by a Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) in DGGI cases?

The jurisdictional CGST Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of the taxpayer will act as the Reviewing Authority under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act. If the order requires a departmental appeal, the jurisdictional CGST Commissionerate will file the appeal before the GSTAT Bench having territorial jurisdiction over the taxpayer.

Key Highlights:

• The appellate authority will forward the Order-in-Appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the Common Adjudicating Authority.
• The jurisdictional CGST Commissioner of each taxpayer will examine the order as the Reviewing Authority.
• Separate departmental appeals must be filed for each taxable person covered by the order.
• Appeals will be filed before the GSTAT Bench having territorial jurisdiction over the taxpayer, not the Commissionerate of the Common Adjudicating Authority.
• The Circular establishes a uniform procedure for departmental appeals arising from DGGI investigations.

Should the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act be computed as a calendar month?

Yes. In M/s Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors., the Hon'ble Orissa High Court held that limitation expressed in months under Section 107 should be interpreted as calendar months, and the date of communication of the order must be excluded while calculating the limitation period.

Key Highlights:
• Limitation expressed in months should be computed as calendar months unless the statute provides otherwise.
• The date of communication of the order is to be excluded while calculating the limitation period.
• On the correct computation, the appeal was found to be within the statutory condonable period.
• The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.