Indirect Tax Amicus, July 2026

Click the 'View PDF' option above to read the full Amicus

Article

Signing is not always issuance: Examining the limitation requirement under GST

By Kunal Kapoor and Sameer Sharma

The article in this issue of Indirect Tax Amicus discusses the question as to whether an order under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act is time-barred if digitally signed within the limitation period but communicated later. The Calcutta High Court has held that Section 73 requires issuance of the order within time, not its service or communication. The article, however, highlights concern around transparency, especially where orders carry physical signatures and no independent mechanism exists to verify actual issuance. It also notes that appeal limitation begins only from communication of the order.

Goods and Services Tax (GST)

Notifications and Circulars

·         GSTAT – Revised classification of Category-I and Category-II cases in all Benches, except Bengaluru

·         GSTAT – Token mechanism introduced to help timely filing of appeals

Ratio decidendi

·         No GST on assignment of leasehold rights in land and building – Supreme Court dismisses Department’s appeal

·         ITC when supplier not paid tax – Supreme Court upholds Gujarat HC’s decision declining to read down Section 16(2)(c)

·         Mere uploading SCN or Order on the common portal is not service of such SCN/Order – Punjab & Haryana High Court

·         Printing manufacturer’s name on packaging to comply with statutory requirements is not use of brand name – GSTAT, Thane

·         Demand – Limitation for issuance of orders – Order ‘issued’ within limitation period but ‘served’ thereafter is legitimate – Calcutta High Court

·         GSTAT has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals on refund under CGST Section 142(3) – GSTAT, Thane

·         Refund of accumulated credit transitioned from old regime is not permissible under Section 54(3) – Gujarat High Court

·         Refund cannot be withheld merely because there was a scope for filing appeal against the refund order – Orissa High Court

·         Demand – Limitation – Extension of date of filing of annual return is not material – Tripura High Court

·         Passing separate orders for different assessment years simultaneously is not illegal – Kerala High Court

·         SCN issued primarily relying upon AI Tools – Non-application of mind by Department – SCN and consequent proceedings quashed – Punjab & Haryana High Court

·         Demand – Not mandatory to have a 3-month gap between SCN and adjudication order – Madras High Court

·         Demand – Requirement under Section 74(2) to issue SCN 6 months before the date of adjudication order is not mandatory – Telangana High Court

·         Prosecution of Director of a company in his personal capacity without arraigning the company is not sustainable – Section 141 of NI Act is pari materia to Section 137 of CGST Act – Punjab & Haryana High Court

·         Pre-deposit in cases involving only penalty – Amendment in Section 107(6) w.e.f. 1 October 2025, requiring pre-deposit, is not applicable where SCN issued earlier – Delhi High Court

·         Interest on delayed refund – Absence of unjust enrichment is not required to be proved – Telangana High Court

·         UK VAT – Dental aligners are not exempted as dental prostheses – UK Upper Tribunal

Customs and FTP

Notifications and Circulars

·         India-UK FTA – First tranche of concessions on imports from UK comes into effect from 15 July

·         Forced labour imports formally prohibited by India

·         Display assemblies – BCD exemption to goods for manufacture of display assemblies for automotive, medical or industrial applications

·         Lithium Ion Cells – BCD exemption to import of specified goods for manufacture of Lithium Ion Cells amended

·         Mobile manufacturing – BCD exemption on specified goods for use in manufacture of Inductor Coil Module

·         Courier imports – Automation of refund application and processing

·         Suspension grade PVC resin – Minimum Import Price imposed for six months

Ratio decidendi

·         ELFA diagnostic kits eligible for customs exemption available to ELISA kits – CESTAT Chennai

·         EOUs – No duty on destruction of obsolete duty-free inputs – Amendments to customs and excise notifications in 2015 are clarificatory – CESTAT Chennai

·         FTA imports – Benefit not deniable merely because overseas supplier did not cooperate during verification – CESTAT Kolkata

·         Operation Microscopes, Lensmeters/Focimeters and Chart Projectors, are correctly classifiable under Heading 9018 – CESTAT Chennai

Central Excise, Service Tax and VAT

Ratio decidendi

·         Manufacture – Grouping or fitting together of imported modules into photocopier machines does not amount to ‘manufacture’ – Supreme Court

·         No VAT on lease rentals for common amenities, furniture, fixtures, equipment, etc. – Telangana High Court

·         Retrospective withdrawal of exemption – No penalty for transactions before the change; interest also to be computed only from date of demand on reassessment – Supreme Court

·         Cenvat credit available on furnace oil used for exempt intermediate goods which is stock transferred to another unit and used in final dutiable goods – Madras High Court

·         Suo motu adjustment of tax paid on mistaken directions of audit when refund subsequently rejected on limitation – Madras High Court

·         Demand of service tax under reverse charge when SCN issued post implementation of GST – Pointless exercise, as assessee will receive cash refund under CGST Section 142(7)(b) – CESTAT New Delhi

·         Delay in filing appeal – Absence of COD application when not fatal – CESTAT Mumbai