Juristway Blog

Tag: GST Compliance

  • Gauhati High Court Upholds Consolidated Show Cause Notices Under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act: Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India

    Gauhati High Court Upholds Consolidated Show Cause Notices Under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act: Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India

    Gauhati High Court Upholds Consolidated Show Cause Notices Under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act: Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India

    Court: Gauhati High Court | Bench: Justice Devashis Baruah | Case No.: WP(C)/2922/2025 (with WP(C)/20/2026 and WP(C)/1113/2026) | Date: June 8, 2026 | Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:8028

    Key Takeaways

    • There is no statutory bar under the CGST Act, 2017 against issuing a consolidated show cause notice under Section 73(1) or Section 74(1) covering multiple financial years, provided limitation under Sections 73(2)/74(2) is independently satisfied for each year.
    • Proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 are adversarial and adjudicatory in character, falling under Chapter XV (“Demand and Recovery”) — they are structurally distinct from “Assessment” under Chapter XII, and the financial-year-specific architecture of Chapter XII does not control or restrict the demand machinery.
    • Where a consolidated notice covers some financial years that are within limitation and others that are time-barred, the doctrine of severability applies: the notice survives for the years within time and fails only for those that are not.
    • The Court expressly disagreed with the Kerala High Court (Tharayil Medicals, Dhanlaxmi Bank) and the Madras High Court (Oriental Lotus, Titan Company), and aligned with the Delhi High Court (Ambika Traders, Mathur Polymers), the Allahabad High Court (S.A. Aromatics), and the Karnataka High Court Division Bench (Chimney Hills Education Society).

    What the Case Was About

    Three unrelated writ petitions — filed by Tata Projects Limited (a works contract services provider), Quantum Infratech (a residential construction firm), and Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Limited (a road-building materials supplier) — were heard together because they raised a single, common jurisdictional challenge. Each petitioner had been served a show cause notice under Section 74 (or Section 73, in Tata Projects’ case for one year) of the CGST Act that clubbed together demands pertaining to multiple financial years — ranging from 2017-18 through 2022-23 in the most expansive case. Each petitioner contended that the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction because the CGST Act requires year-specific show cause notices and does not permit consolidation.

    The stakes were significant. Tata Projects had already exhausted its first appeal, with the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand. Quantum Infratech’s case originated in DGGI search operations, involved allegations of fraud under Section 74 read with Section 122(1A), and had penalties imposed on individual partners. Bitchem faced a demand of over ₹12.34 crore. In each case, if the jurisdictional challenge succeeded, the entire demand edifice would collapse without any adjudication on merits.

    What the Court Decided — and Why

    Justice Devashis Baruah, in a reserved judgment, ruled squarely against the petitioners on the jurisdictional question: there is no bar, explicit or implicit, in the CGST Act against issuance of a consolidated show cause notice or a consolidated adjudication order covering multiple financial years (para 70).

    The reasoning proceeds through several distinct analytical steps.

    The text of Sections 73(1) and 74(1) imposes no financial-year restriction. The Court observed that Sub-Section (1) of both provisions confers jurisdiction on the Proper Officer upon satisfaction of certain material facts — tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or ITC wrongly availed. Nothing in the language limits the notice to a single financial year. The only temporal constraint appears in Sub-Section (2), which requires the notice to be issued a specified period before the limitation deadline — but that constraint is about timing, not about the scope of years that can be covered (paras 48–49).

    Limitation runs independently per financial year, but that does not mandate separate notices. This is the heart of the judgment. The Court acknowledged that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) compute limitation by reference to the due date for filing annual returns “for the financial year to which” the default relates. But the Court drew a critical distinction: limitation governs whether a particular year’s demand can validly be raised at all, not whether it must be raised in a standalone proceeding. If a consolidated notice is issued on a date when limitation is still open for all the covered years, there is no infirmity (paras 53–55). The Court illustrated this with detailed worked examples and tabular computations for both three-year (Section 73) and five-year (Section 74) timelines.

    The doctrine of severability rescues partially time-barred consolidated notices. In an important practical holding, the Court addressed the scenario where a consolidated notice covers some years within limitation and some that are time-barred. Drawing an analogy to civil suits involving recurring causes of action (such as arrears of rent, where each rental period generates an independent cause of action), the Court held that the time-barred years can simply be severed — the notice and order survive for the years that are within time (para 59).

    Sections 73 and 74 are not “assessment” provisions — they are demand and adjudication provisions. The petitioners had argued that since the entire GST architecture (returns, annual returns, self-assessment) is financial-year-specific, Sections 73 and 74, being part of the “assessment” mechanism under Section 2(11), must also be year-specific. The Court rejected this by drawing a sharp structural distinction between Chapter XII (Assessment) and Chapter XV (Demand and Recovery). Assessment provisions — self-assessment under Section 59, scrutiny under Section 61, best judgment under Section 62 — are largely non-adversarial. Sections 73 and 74, by contrast, are adversarial and adjudicatory, requiring notice, reply, hearing, and a reasoned order. They also uniquely involve penalty and, in Section 74’s case, findings on fraud — matters that do not arise in assessment proceedings proper (paras 60–61).

    Sub-Sections (3) and (4) of both Sections 73 and 74 confirm the legislative design. The Court noted that these provisions allow the Proper Officer, after issuing a notice under Sub-Section (1) for “any period,” to serve a supplementary statement (Form DRC-02) covering “such periods other than those covered under Sub-Section (1).” The phrase “those covered under Sub-Section (1)” is deliberately pluralistic — it contemplates that the original notice itself may have covered multiple periods (paras 62–64).

    The insertion of Section 74A and Sub-Section (12) in Sections 73 and 74 does not help the petitioners. The petitioners pointed to the Finance Act, 2024 amendments (effective November 1, 2024) introducing Section 74A — which applies from FY 2024-25 onward and is expressly year-specific — as proof that the pre-amendment regime was also intended to be year-specific. The Court implicitly rejected this by treating the amendment as a prospective structural change, not a clarification of pre-existing law.

    How This Changes Practice

    This judgment is the most analytically detailed single-judge pronouncement on the consolidated-SCN question to date, and it lands on the side of a growing judicial consensus. With Delhi, Allahabad, Karnataka (Division Bench), and now Gauhati aligned on permissibility, and with the Bombay High Court’s contrary line (Milroc, Marfani Steel, Aasawa Brother) already referred to a larger bench in Rollmet LLP (2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2613), the practical balance has shifted decisively in the department’s favour.

    For practitioners, several operational implications follow. First, jurisdictional challenges to consolidated notices are now a diminishing-returns strategy in most High Courts. Counsel should assess whether the stronger defence lies on merits — limitation for specific years, factual defences on fraud or suppression, computation disputes — rather than on the consolidation point. Second, the severability holding at para 59 is a double-edged sword: it means that even if some years in a consolidated notice are demonstrably time-barred, the notice will not be quashed in its entirety. Counsel must raise limitation year-by-year during adjudication and cannot rely on a wholesale jurisdictional knock-out. Third, for assessees who have already received consolidated notices, the Court’s direction granting 30 days to file statutory appeals (with limitation condoned) provides a narrow but real window to get before the Tribunal or the Appellate Authority on merits.

    Relevant Provisions

    • Sections 73 and 74, CGST Act, 2017 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud and fraud cases respectively); Sub-Sections (1), (2), (3), (4), (9), (10) extensively analyzed
    • Section 74A, CGST Act — Determination of tax for FY 2024-25 onward (inserted by Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.11.2024)
    • Section 2(11), CGST Act — Definition of “assessment”
    • Sections 59–64, CGST Act — Chapter XII assessment provisions (self-assessment, provisional, scrutiny, best judgment, summary)
    • Section 75, CGST Act — General provisions relating to determination of tax
    • Rule 142(1)(a) and (b), CGST Rules, 2017 — Issuance of notice (DRC-01) and statement (DRC-02)
    • Sections 107, 108, 112, CGST Act — Appellate remedies
    • Article 14 and Article 141, Constitution of India

    What to Watch

    The consolidated-SCN question is now squarely headed for definitive resolution at two levels. The Bombay High Court’s larger bench reference in Rollmet LLP will be the most closely watched proceeding — if the larger bench disagrees with Delhi, Allahabad, Karnataka, and Gauhati, a genuine inter-High Court conflict crystallizes and a Supreme Court reference becomes almost inevitable. The SLP against Mathur Polymers was dismissed with the observation that the Supreme Court found “no good ground” to interfere, which the department treats as tantamount to approval under Kunhayammed principles — but whether that truly constitutes a declaration of law under Article 141, as the respondents argued here (para 31), remains contestable and will likely be tested. Practitioners should also monitor whether CBIC issues any clarificatory circular endorsing consolidated proceedings, which would give field formations explicit administrative cover. Finally, the interaction between this line of authority and the new Section 74A regime (which is expressly year-specific for FY 2024-25 onward) may itself generate fresh litigation on transitional cases straddling the old and new frameworks.

  • Gauhati High Court Reaffirms: GST Registration Cancelled for Non-Filing Can Be Restored If Assessee Clears All Dues

    Gauhati High Court Reaffirms: GST Registration Cancelled for Non-Filing Can Be Restored If Assessee Clears All Dues

    Gauhati High Court Reaffirms: GST Registration Cancelled for Non-Filing Can Be Restored If Assessee Clears All Dues

    Court: Gauhati High Court | Bench: Justice Kardak Ete | Case No.: WP(C)/3000/2026 | Date: June 10, 2026

    Key Takeaways

    • Where GST registration is cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act for non-filing of returns for six continuous months, the assessee can seek restoration by filing all pending returns and paying full tax dues with interest and late fee, as contemplated by the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
    • The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional officer within 60 days for restoration, even though the statutory time limit for filing a revocation application had lapsed.
    • The limitation period under Section 73(10) for issuing demand notices was directed to run from the date of this order (except for FY 2024-25, governed by Section 44), giving the department a fresh window to raise demands.
    • The decision follows and applies the coordinate bench ruling in Dhirghat Hardware Stores v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 5944/2025 (decided 17.10.2025), reinforcing a consistent line of authority from the Gauhati High Court on this issue.

    The Facts: A Familiar Story of Missed Returns and a Lapsed Remedy

    The petitioner, Sri Chongtham Manabandra Singh, is a proprietor operating a light motor vehicle hiring business in Duliajan, Dibrugarh, registered under both the CGST Act and the Assam GST Act. His trouble began when he failed to file GST returns for a continuous stretch of six months — a default he attributed to a breakdown in communication with his tax consultant.

    The department followed the prescribed procedure. A show-cause notice dated August 13, 2024 was issued in Form GST REG-17, calling upon the petitioner to explain within 30 days why his registration should not be cancelled. His registration was simultaneously suspended. When no satisfactory response came, the Superintendent, CGST, Duliajan Range cancelled the registration by order dated July 28, 2025 — notably, without recording any reasons in the cancellation order itself (para 5).

    By the time the petitioner attempted to apply for revocation of cancellation, the statutory window had already closed. He was, in effect, locked out of the GST system with no administrative remedy available. He had, however, filed all pending returns up to June 2025 and expressed willingness to pay all outstanding dues. Left with no other option, he moved the High Court under Article 226.

    What the Court Decided — and Why

    Justice Kardak Ete disposed of the petition at the motion stage itself, with the consent of both sides, on the strength of an earlier coordinate bench decision in Dhirghat Hardware Stores & Anr. v. Union of India & 3 Ors., WP(C) No. 5944/2025 (order dated October 17, 2025). The Standing Counsel for CGST fairly conceded that the earlier ruling covered the present facts (para 9).

    The legal reasoning, drawn from the Dhirghat Hardware Stores order and adopted in full by this bench, rests on two pillars.

    First, the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules expressly contemplates a situation where an assessee served with a show-cause notice for non-filing under Section 29(2)(b) or (c) furnishes all pending returns and clears all tax dues along with interest and late fee. In such a case, the proper officer is empowered — indeed, directed — to drop the proceedings and pass an order in Form GST REG-20 (paras 10 and 12 of the Dhirghat Hardware Stores extract). The proviso, in other words, builds a statutory escape hatch for assessees willing to come into compliance.

    Second, the Court underscored that cancellation of GST registration entails “serious civil consequences” (para 12 of Dhirghat Hardware Stores). This framing matters. It signals that the High Court views cancellation not as a routine administrative act but as a measure that effectively shuts a person out of legitimate commerce — an outcome disproportionate to the default where the assessee demonstrates willingness to regularize.

    The operative directions are precise. The petitioner must approach the jurisdictional authority within 60 days seeking restoration. If he files the application and complies with every requirement under the proviso to Rule 22(4) — meaning all returns filed, all tax paid with interest and late fee — the authority is bound to consider restoration “in accordance with law” and act “as expeditiously as possible” (para 13). There is no discretion to refuse on the ground that the statutory revocation period has lapsed; the Court’s writ jurisdiction effectively overrides that procedural bar.

    An important ancillary direction concerns limitation for departmental demands. The Court ordered that the period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act (and the corresponding State Act provision) shall be computed from the date of this order, except for FY 2024-25, which remains governed by Section 44. This protects the revenue’s interest by ensuring that the time spent in litigation does not erode the department’s ability to raise demands for the period during which registration was cancelled.

    How This Shapes Practice

    This judgment does not break new ground in doctrinal terms — it follows Dhirghat Hardware Stores, which in turn followed Sanjoy Nath v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 6366/2023 (order dated October 11, 2023). What it does is consolidate a now-settled line of authority from the Gauhati High Court. Three coordinate bench orders over three years, all reaching the same result on materially identical facts, create a body of precedent that the department will find difficult to resist in future cases.

    For practitioners advising small businesses and proprietors in the Northeast — many of whom rely heavily on tax consultants and are vulnerable to precisely this kind of procedural default — the practical takeaway is clear. A lapsed revocation window is not the end of the road. The writ remedy remains available, provided the assessee demonstrates genuine willingness to comply: file all pending returns, pay all dues, and move promptly.

    Counsel should note, however, the conditions that made this petition succeed. The petitioner had already filed returns up to June 2025 before approaching the Court (para 6). He did not seek a waiver of dues or interest. He offered unconditional compliance. Petitions that seek restoration without having first cleared the backlog are unlikely to receive the same treatment.

    From the department’s perspective, the Court’s direction on Section 73(10) limitation is a meaningful safeguard. Officers processing restoration applications under these orders should note the recalibrated limitation timeline and initiate assessment proceedings accordingly.

    Relevant Provisions

    • Section 29(2)(c), CGST Act, 2017 — Power to cancel registration for non-filing of returns for six continuous months
    • Rule 22, CGST Rules, 2017 — Procedure for cancellation; proviso to sub-rule (4) permitting dropping of proceedings on compliance
    • Section 73(10), CGST Act / State GST Act — Time limit for issuance of demand orders
    • Section 44, CGST Act — Annual return provisions (applicable to FY 2024-25 limitation computation)
    • Article 226, Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court

    What to Watch

    An appeal to a Division Bench or the Supreme Court appears unlikely here — the Standing Counsel conceded the point and the department has not resisted this line of cases. The more interesting question is legislative. The GST Council and the CBIC have periodically introduced amnesty schemes and deadline extensions for revocation applications (most recently through various notifications relaxing the time limits under Section 30). If the pattern of writ petitions on this issue continues to grow, it may prompt a more permanent procedural fix — perhaps an expanded revocation window or a standardized late-compliance mechanism that removes the need for High Court intervention altogether. Practitioners should watch for any upcoming GST Council recommendations on this front.

  • Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹69.57 Lakh GST Demand Against Silchar Scrap Dealer; Rules Buyer Cannot Be Penalised for Supplier’s Tax Default

    Gauhati High Court Quashes ₹69.57 Lakh GST Demand Against Silchar Scrap Dealer; Rules Buyer Cannot Be Penalised for Supplier’s Tax Default

    Court reaffirms that a bona fide purchasing dealer who has duly paid GST to a registered seller cannot be denied input tax credit merely because the seller failed to remit the tax to the government.

    Gauhati High Court | GUWAHATI

    In a significant ruling for trading and manufacturing businesses, the Gauhati High Court has set aside a demand order of ₹69,56,794 raised against Sri Gurucharan Kangsa Banik, proprietor of M/s Sree Guru Metals, Silchar. The demand comprised IGST of ₹50.19 lakh, CGST of ₹9.69 lakh, and SGST of ₹9.69 lakh, along with an equivalent penalty.

    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kardak Ete held that a purchasing dealer who acts in good faith and pays GST to a registered supplier cannot be penalised if the supplier subsequently fails to deposit the tax with the government.

    The Court followed the Division Bench judgment in National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam & Ors. [2024] 129 GSTR 544 (Gauhati), which in turn relied upon the Delhi High Court’s decision in On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi [2018] 56 GSTR 177 (Delhi). Counsel appearing for both the petitioner and the Revenue accepted that the issue was covered by these decisions.

    Facts of the Case

    M/s Sree Guru Metals is engaged in the business of procurement and sale of scrap and waste batteries.

    During the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the proprietorship purchased goods from suppliers located in Kolkata and paid the applicable GST along with the purchase consideration through banking channels. The transactions were supported by valid tax invoices.

    Following the introduction of the GST regime in July 2017, the business encountered certain compliance-related issues, including discrepancies between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B arising from data-entry errors relating to reporting of output tax liability and input tax credit.

    Pursuant to a summons issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Guwahati Zonal Unit, the petitioner appeared before the authorities on 5 April 2019 and furnished all relevant records, including GST returns and purchase invoices.

    A search conducted at the business premises on 9 July 2019 did not result in recovery of any incriminating material.

    The Demand and the Challenge

    Despite the petitioner’s cooperation, a Show Cause Notice dated 26 August 2022 was issued alleging wrongful availment of ITC amounting to ₹69.56 lakh under Section 16(2)(a) and Section 16(2)(b) of the CGST Act on the ground that the underlying goods had not actually been received.

    Thereafter, an Order-in-Original dated 28 March 2024 was passed confirming the demand together with interest under Section 50 and an equivalent penalty under Section 74(1) read with Section 122 of the CGST Act.

    The petitioner challenged the order on several grounds.

    It was contended that no effective opportunity of hearing had been granted, as notices were manually served after the dates fixed for hearing and were not uploaded on the GST portal. It was also argued that Form GST DRC-07 had not been issued prior to passing the order.

    On merits, the petitioner submitted that all statutory conditions prescribed under Section 16(2) had been fulfilled. The goods had been received, genuine tax invoices had been issued, and payment including GST had been made through banking channels.

    According to the petitioner, the sole basis for denial of ITC was the alleged failure of the suppliers to deposit the tax collected from the petitioner, a circumstance entirely beyond the purchaser’s control.

    The petitioner further raised a limitation challenge, contending that a part of the disputed period was governed by Section 73 of the CGST Act and that the statutory limitation for proceedings under that provision had already expired. Consequently, invocation of Section 74 was stated to be impermissible.

    An additional objection was raised against the clubbing of multiple assessment years into a single adjudication order.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court held that the controversy stood squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment in National Plasto Moulding, which had adopted the reasoning of the Delhi High Court in On Quest Merchandising.

    The Division Bench had held that where a purchasing dealer bona fide enters into transactions with a validly registered supplier, pays the tax component, and otherwise complies with the statutory requirements, denial of ITC merely because the selling dealer fails to deposit the tax with the government is impermissible.

    The Court referred to the following observation in National Plasto Moulding:

    “A purchasing dealer cannot be punished for the act of a selling dealer who has failed to deposit the tax collected by it.”

    The Court also noted that the Delhi High Court in On Quest Merchandising had read down Section 9(2)(g) of the Delhi VAT Act—the provision analogous to Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the CGST Act—to exclude bona fide purchasing dealers from its scope.

    The Delhi High Court had reasoned that a literal interpretation would impose an impossible burden on a purchaser and could render the provision vulnerable to challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution.

    The Court further noted that the Special Leave Petition filed against the Delhi High Court’s judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, while preserving liberty for the authorities to proceed in cases where the transactions were not bona fide.

    Accepting that the legal position stood settled, the Gauhati High Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Original.

    At the same time, the Court preserved the department’s right to proceed against the petitioner if material subsequently emerges showing that the transactions were not genuine or were entered into in collusion with the suppliers.

    Significance

    The decision adds to the growing body of judicial authority protecting bona fide purchasers from adverse consequences arising solely from a supplier’s failure to discharge tax liability.

    The ruling reiterates that where a purchaser has acted in good faith, obtained valid tax invoices, received the goods, and paid the consideration including GST, denial of ITC cannot be justified merely because the supplier defaults in remitting tax to the government.

    The Court, however, recognised the distinction between genuine transactions and collusive arrangements. Where the department is able to establish that transactions were not bona fide or lacked commercial substance, it remains open to the authorities to invoke the statutory provisions and deny the benefit of ITC.

    Citation: Sri Gurucharan Kangsa Banik v. Union of India & Ors. — Gauhati High Court, Writ Petition (arising from Order-in-Original No. 37/GST/AC/SIL/2023-24 dated 28.03.2024).

  • GSTAT Dismisses Dow Chemical’s ₹13.41 Cr GST Refund Bid, Rules Procurement Hub Services Are Not Intermediary

    GSTAT Dismisses Dow Chemical’s ₹13.41 Cr GST Refund Bid, Rules Procurement Hub Services Are Not Intermediary

    Tribunal holds that services rendered by Swiss entity Dow Europe GmbH to its Indian affiliate constitute an import of services liable to GST, rejecting the reclassification as exempt intermediary services.

    GST Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench | NEW DELHI

    The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, has dismissed a batch of six appeals filed by M/s Dow Chemical International Private Limited, declining to grant refunds aggregating approximately ₹13.41 crore in Integrated GST paid under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) for the period January to June 2022.

    The Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President, and Hon’ble Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Member (Technical), upheld the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Raigad Division, and held that the procurement services provided by Dow Europe GmbH, the Switzerland-based group entity, constitute an import of services taxable in India and do not qualify as “intermediary services” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.

    Background

    Dow Chemical India entered into a Procurement Agreement dated 1 July 2021 with Dow Europe GmbH, which functions as the centralised procurement hub for the global Dow Group.

    Under the agreement, Dow Europe undertook a wide range of procurement-related activities, including identification and approval of foreign suppliers, negotiation of procurement terms, development of sourcing strategies, and execution of contracts and purchase orders on behalf of the group.

    During the period in dispute, Dow India treated these services as an “import of services” under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act and discharged IGST under the Reverse Charge Mechanism on payments made to Dow Europe. The tax paid ranged from ₹38.56 lakh for June 2022 to ₹7.81 crore for January 2022, aggregating approximately ₹13.41 crore.

    Subsequently, the company revised its position and contended that the services were in the nature of “intermediary services” as defined under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. According to the company, the place of supply would therefore be outside India, namely Switzerland, by virtue of Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act.

    Based on this position, Dow India reversed the input tax credit and filed refund claims for the IGST paid under RCM. The refund applications were rejected by both the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

    Appellant’s Arguments

    Appearing for the appellant, counsel submitted that Dow Europe squarely satisfied the statutory definition of an “intermediary” as it arranged and facilitated the supply of goods between Dow India and independent foreign suppliers without supplying the goods on its own account.

    It was argued that the service fee, fixed at 3.5% of the procurement value, was commission-based and dependent upon actual procurement transactions, which is a characteristic feature of intermediary arrangements. It was further submitted that no consideration was payable in periods when no procurement activity took place.

    Reliance was placed on the Advance Ruling decisions in Airbus Group India Pvt. Ltd. and Global Reach Education Services Pvt. Ltd., where similar facilitation activities were held to qualify as intermediary services.

    The appellant also relied upon CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated 20 September 2021 and argued that all three conditions prescribed therein for intermediary classification were fulfilled, namely:

    • Existence of three parties;
    • Presence of two distinct supplies; and
    • Performance of a facilitative role rather than acting as a principal supplier.

    The appellant submitted:

    “The role of Dow Europe is not limited to a single transaction but extends to the entire procurement lifecycle—from strategy to contract negotiation to final sign-off.”

    Revenue’s Contentions

    The Revenue, represented by Ms. Shwetal Shepal, contended that Dow Europe was independently providing substantive procurement services, including procurement strategy, supplier relationship management, supplier risk management, quality audits, and spend analytics.

    According to the Revenue, the arrangement amounted to procurement outsourcing on a principal-to-principal basis and therefore fell within the exclusionary portion of the intermediary definition contained in Section 2(13) of the IGST Act.

    Reliance was placed on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. (26 April 2025), where buying support services rendered as an independent contractor were held not to constitute intermediary services.

    The Revenue further pointed out that Clause 6 of the Procurement Agreement expressly provided that Dow Europe was not authorised to bind Dow India, thereby reinforcing its status as an independent service provider.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    The Tribunal noted that there exist divergent judicial authorities on the scope of intermediary services.

    Reference was made to the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Blackberry India Private Limited and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., both of which held that services rendered by Indian entities to foreign affiliates constituted exports rather than intermediary services.

    However, the Tribunal observed that the present matter involved the reverse factual situation, namely a foreign entity rendering services to an Indian company.

    Applying the three-part test contained in CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST, the Tribunal accepted that three parties were involved in the broader transaction. However, it held that the requirement of two distinct supplies was not satisfied.

    The Tribunal observed that Dow Europe and Dow India are both subsidiaries of Dow Inc. and that the services rendered by Dow Europe as the group’s centralised procurement hub constituted a substantive group-level procurement function rather than a mere facilitation of supplies between independent principals.

    The Tribunal observed:

    “Dow Europe renders services on its own account to service receivers located in India, and its acts are those of an independent contractor that does not represent or bind the Indian client.”

    The Tribunal also disagreed with the First Appellate Authority’s observation that the refund claims were liable to be rejected merely because the tax had initially been paid voluntarily.

    It observed that Section 54 of the CGST Act permits refund claims even where tax has been paid under a mistaken understanding of law, and such claims cannot be rejected solely on that ground.

    Nevertheless, on the substantive issues relating to classification of services, intermediary status, place of supply, and entitlement to refund, the Tribunal decided all issues against the appellant.

    Accordingly, all six appeals were dismissed and the orders of the First Appellate Authority were affirmed.

    Key Takeaway

    The ruling highlights the importance of the exclusionary limb of Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. Where a foreign group entity independently performs substantive services on a principal-to-principal basis, the transaction may be treated as an import of services liable to GST in India even if multiple parties are involved in the broader commercial arrangement.

    Businesses relying upon intermediary classification for inbound group services may need to closely examine whether the overseas entity is merely facilitating supplies between independent parties or is itself providing substantive services on its own account.

    Citation: M/s Dow Chemical International Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax, Mazgaon, Mumbai — GSTAT, Principal Bench, APL/2–7/PB/2026.

  • GSTAT Dismisses Dow Chemical’s ₹13.41 Crore GST Refund Claims, Holds Swiss Affiliate’s Services Are Not “Intermediary”

    GSTAT Dismisses Dow Chemical’s ₹13.41 Crore GST Refund Claims, Holds Swiss Affiliate’s Services Are Not “Intermediary”

    India’s GST Appellate Tribunal upholds the Revenue’s position that procurement services rendered by Switzerland-based Dow Europe GmbH to its Indian affiliate constituted an import of services — rejecting six consolidated refund appeals spanning January to June 2022 and holding that a centralised group hub providing core services to a sister concern cannot be characterised as a mere facilitator.

     

    In a closely watched ruling, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal’s Division Bench — comprising President Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Technical Member Shri Anil Kumar Gupta — on June 4, 2026 dismissed six consolidated appeals filed by M/s Dow Chemical International Private Limited, confirming the rejection of IGST refund claims totalling approximately ₹13.41 crore.

    The appeals arose after Dow India concluded — following an internal review — that it had erroneously discharged Integrated GST under the Reverse Charge Mechanism on fees paid to Dow Europe GmbH, a Switzerland-incorporated affiliate that serves as the centralised procurement hub for the global Dow Group. Dow India had initially treated the payments as imports of services. It later formed the view that Dow Europe’s activities qualified as “intermediary services” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, which would have placed the supply outside India’s GST net entirely.

    Background

    Under a Procurement Agreement dated July 1, 2021, Dow Europe was engaged to identify and approve foreign suppliers, negotiate procurement terms, review and sign contracts and purchase orders, develop procurement strategies, manage supplier relationships, and oversee quality and spend analytics. In return, Dow India paid a service fee equal to 3.5 per cent of total monthly purchases — with no fee payable in months where no procurement occurred.

    Under Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act, the place of supply for intermediary services is the location of the service supplier. Since Dow Europe is based in Switzerland, Dow India argued the transaction fell outside India’s GST net altogether. It reversed the input tax credit previously availed and filed refund applications. Both the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority rejected the claims, finding that Dow Europe was rendering a core procurement outsourcing service — not mere ancillary facilitation.

    Arguments Before the Tribunal

    Before the GSTAT, counsel for Dow India argued that the statutory definition of “intermediary” is deliberately wide, covering brokers, agents, and “any other person, by whatever name called” who arranges or facilitates supply between two or more parties. The three-party structure — Dow India, Dow Europe, and the foreign supplier — together with the commission-linked fee and advance rulings from Karnataka and West Bengal (including Airbus Group India and Global Reach Education Services) were cited to support the intermediary classification.

    “The manner of remuneration is a key indicator of the nature of services. A commission-based structure clearly reflects a facilitative role.”

    — Shri Mihir Prashant Deshmukh, Counsel for Dow Chemical India

    The Revenue’s counsel countered by pointing to Appendix 1 of the Procurement Agreement, which detailed how Dow Europe independently conducted procurement strategy development, governance, supplier risk management, analytics, strategic sourcing, and quality audits. She characterised these as substantive, core operations rather than ancillary facilitation, and relied heavily on the Karnataka High Court’s April 2025 ruling in Columbia Sportswear India Sourcing Pvt. Ltd. — which held that a group entity providing buying-support services was an independent service provider, not an intermediary.

    The Tribunal’s Reasoning

    The GSTAT acknowledged a genuine tension in the existing case law. Two competing streams have emerged: one treating intra-group facilitation as intermediary services; the other — endorsed by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts — treating substantive support rendered on a principal-to-principal basis as independent services. The Tribunal noted that Revenue has applied these standards inconsistently depending on the direction of cross-border supply, observing that “both views cannot be taken — one view is to be taken.”

    Applying the four prerequisites for intermediary classification laid down in CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST, the Bench found that while the first requirement — a minimum of three parties — was satisfied, the second was not. The services provided by Dow Europe could not be characterised as an ancillary supply facilitating a main supply between two independent principals because Dow Europe is itself a dedicated procurement hub whose very existence and purpose is to serve the global Dow Group — including Dow India — as a core, structural function of the group’s operations.

    The Tribunal aligned with the reasoning in Columbia Sportswear and the Delhi High Court’s Blackberry India ruling, holding that Dow Europe renders services on its own account as an independent contractor without authority to bind Dow India. The place of supply was therefore confirmed to be India, and the transaction held to constitute an import of services outside the scope of Section 13(8)(b) — which was itself omitted by the Finance Act, 2026 with effect from March 30, 2026.

    The Final Holding — Para 26 : Operative finding of the Tribunal

    The Tribunal expressly held that Dow Europe’s services cannot be termed “intermediary services” and are not in the nature of ancillary services. Rather, they constitute a core service rendered by Dow Europe to a sister concern — Dow India — both being subsidiaries operating within the same global group, Dow Inc. The intra-group, global-hub character of the arrangement was itself a decisive ground for rejecting the intermediary classification, independent of the principal-to-principal analysis.

    This framing is significant for practitioners. The Tribunal did not merely apply the Columbia Sportswear/Blackberry line of reasoning about independent contractors. It went a step further: where a foreign entity exists specifically as a centralised service hub for an entire global group, the very nature of that entity’s role makes it structurally incapable of being a “facilitator” between two other principals — it is itself the principal service provider to each group company it serves.

    On the Refund Claim

    The Tribunal did take issue with one finding of the First Appellate Authority. The lower authority had partly dismissed the refund claims on the ground that Dow India had originally paid tax voluntarily and was raising the intermediary argument as an afterthought. The GSTAT rejected this characterisation, noting that Section 54 of the CGST Act expressly provides for refund of taxes paid within a prescribed limitation period, and that a bona fide change of legal interpretation cannot disentitle a taxpayer from seeking a statutory refund. That observation, however, carried no practical weight given the Tribunal’s conclusion on the substantive issue.

    All six appeals were dismissed and the orders of the First Appellate Authority confirmed.

    Significance

    The ruling carries two practical lessons. First, where a foreign group entity functions as a dedicated centralised hub — for procurement, treasury, IT, HR, or any other shared function — serving the entire group worldwide, courts and tribunals are likely to treat its services to Indian affiliates as core imports rather than intermediary facilitation, regardless of the fee structure or three-party appearance of individual transactions. Second, the Tribunal’s pointed observation that Revenue has applied contradictory standards to outbound versus inbound intra-group services may give future litigants a basis to press for parity in cases where the flow runs the other way. The omission of Section 13(8)(b) by the Finance Act, 2026 will, going forward, significantly narrow the practical scope of such disputes.

    Dow Chemical International Private Limited was represented by Shri Mihir Prashant Deshmukh and Shri Shamik Gupte. The Commissioner of State Tax, Mazgaon, Mumbai was represented by Ms Shwetal Shepal.

  • Allahabad High Court Refuses to Entertain Belated Writ Petition; Holds Statutory Appeal Deadline Under GST Act Cannot Be Circumvented

    Allahabad High Court Refuses to Entertain Belated Writ Petition; Holds Statutory Appeal Deadline Under GST Act Cannot Be Circumvented

    PRAYAGRAJ, May 26, 2026 — In a judgment that reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a backdoor to bypass statutory limitation periods, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order that was nearly a year old, holding that the petitioner’s failure to file a timely statutory appeal under the GST Act was fatal to his case.

    A division bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary was hearing a petition filed by M/s Mishra Security Services, whose proprietor Smt. Sunita Mishra had sought to quash an assessment order dated June 4, 2025, and the preceding show-cause notice dated March 17, 2025.

    The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in January 2026 — itself beyond the limitation period — which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars. The present petition was the second attempt.

    The court expressed its inability to countenance how the petitioner could file a writ petition at such a belated stage “merely to bypass the limitation prescribed for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act.”

    Section 107(1) provides for filing an appeal within three months from the date of communication of the order, with a further condonable period of one month under Section 107(4). The court noted that the outer limit had long since expired.

    Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncements in Singh Enterprises vs. C.C.E., Jamshedpur (2008) and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited (2009), the bench held that the appellate authority under the GST Act has no power to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed period. The court also drew from the coordinate bench ruling in Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025), where Justice Saraf himself had distilled the principles governing maintainability of writ petitions after expiry of the statutory appeal period.

    The Atlantis Intelligence ruling had established, among other things, that when a statute prescribes a maximum condonable delay (here, one additional month), Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act applies, and courts have no power to condone any further delay — even in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

    “We are rather surprised,” the bench observed, noting that the petitioner had been “a fence sitter” who had not been diligent in pursuing his rights. The court underscored the Latin maxim quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum — what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

    The court, however, clarified that if the petitioner files an appeal, the observations made in the order shall not affect the decision of the appellate forum.

    The judgment serves as a cautionary reminder to litigants that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not a substitute for statutory remedies, and that courts will not readily assist those who sleep over their rights.

  • Allahabad High Court Strikes Down ITC Blocking Order: “Reasons to Believe” Must Be Recorded in Writing Before Invoking Rule 86-A

    Allahabad High Court Strikes Down ITC Blocking Order: “Reasons to Believe” Must Be Recorded in Writing Before Invoking Rule 86-A

    PRAYAGRAJ, May 26, 2026 — In a significant ruling reaffirming procedural safeguards for taxpayers, the Allahabad High Court has set aside an order blocking the Input Tax Credit (ITC) of a private dairy company after finding that the tax authorities failed to record “reasons to believe” in writing — a mandatory precondition under the GST framework.

    A division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran quashed the order dated April 9, 2026, passed by the Joint Commissioner (Corporate-2), State Tax, which had blocked the ITC of M/s Mohan Milkfoods Private Limited in its Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86-A of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

    The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal along with counsel Nitin Kumar Kesarwani and Suyash Agarwal, contended that the essential precondition for exercising jurisdiction under Rule 86-A had not been fulfilled, as no “reason to believe” was recorded in writing before the extreme action of blocking ITC was taken.

    During the proceedings, the court directed the Standing Counsel for the revenue to produce clear written instructions confirming the existence of such recorded reasons. When the written instructions dated May 25, 2026, were produced, the court found that while several paragraphs offered reasoning to support the blocking order, the impugned order itself contained no recital of such reasons — it merely stated the conclusion that the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC.

    Drawing on established constitutional jurisprudence, the court cited the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978), famously holding that “orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older” — an order must stand on its own strength and cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits or reasoning.

    The bench also placed strong reliance on a coordinate bench ruling in M/s Pilcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2025), which had elaborated extensively on what constitutes a valid “reason to believe.” That ruling emphasised that there must be a rational basis for the belief, that the grounds must be germane to the formation of the belief, and that the belief must be held in good faith and not as a mere pretence.

    “It may not be forgotten, granting ITC and maintaining its chain is the soul of a successful GST regime,” the court had observed in Pilcon Infrastructure, a sentiment echoed by the present bench. “Any doubt or suspicion alone may not lead an action by the authorities to block the ITC of the assessee and disrupt the entire value addition chain.”

    The court declared the impugned order “jurisdictionally deficient” and set it aside, while granting liberty to the revenue to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

    The ruling underscores the judiciary’s consistent position that the requirement to record “reasons to believe” in writing is a non-negotiable, mandatory condition — even when the power is exercised ex-parte against the assessee.

  • GSTAT Upholds Profiteering Charge for Retaining Benefit of GST Reduction on Movie Tickets

    GSTAT Upholds Profiteering Charge for Retaining Benefit of GST Reduction on Movie Tickets

    The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has passed an ex parte order against M/s ASR Cinemas LLP, holding the multiplex operator guilty of profiteering to the tune of ₹9,67,589 by failing to pass on the benefit of a GST rate cut on cinema admission tickets to consumers. The Tribunal, in a strongly worded order, directed the Respondent to deposit the profiteered amount in the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds along with interest at 18% per annum.

    The Backdrop: GST Rate Cut and the Obligation to Pass It On

    The Central Government, acting on the recommendation of the GST Council, reduced the GST rate on cinema admission tickets priced at ₹100 or below — from 18% to 12% — with effect from 1 January 2019, vide Notification No. 27/2018-Central Tax (Rate) dated 31 December 2018.

    Under Section 171(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, every supplier is statutorily obligated to pass on any reduction in tax rate to the end consumer by way of a commensurate reduction in prices. The provision was conceived as a legislative anti-profiteering shield, ensuring that tax cuts announced by the Government actually reach the public rather than being pocketed by businesses.

    What ASR Cinemas Did

    According to the investigation report submitted by the Director General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) on 30 April 2024, ASR Cinemas did precisely the opposite of what the law required. Instead of lowering the effective selling price to reflect the 6% GST reduction, the multiplex increased its base ticket prices across all categories — Platinum, Gold Class, and Silver Class — thereby maintaining the identical cum-tax selling price that prevailed before the rate cut.

    The DGAP’s analysis, covering the period 1 January 2019 to 30 September 2019, revealed an average base price increase of approximately 5.37% across ticket categories. The following table from the DGAP report illustrates the pattern:

    Ticket Category Pre-Cut Price (incl. 18% GST) Post-Cut Price Charged (incl. 12% GST) What Should Have Been Charged
    Platinum (70mm) ₹100 ₹100 ₹94.92
    Platinum (35mm) ₹90 ₹90 ₹85.42
    Gold Class (70mm) ₹70 ₹70 ₹66.44
    Silver Class (70mm) ₹30 ₹30 ₹28.47

    The total profiteered amount was computed at ₹9,67,589, comprising a base profiteering of ₹8,63,919 plus GST of ₹1,03,670 collected on that excess realization.

    The Respondent’s Defence — and the Tribunal’s Rejection

    ASR Cinemas sought to justify its pricing by invoking an order dated 8 February 2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. No. 2482 of 2019, which permitted theatres to collect their proposed fares pending adjudication of pricing disputes by Government-appointed committees.

    The Tribunal rejected this argument outright. Citing the Telangana High Court’s own ruling in Sudarshan Theatre 35MM v. Union of India (W.P. Nos. 4760 and 5351 of 2021), the Tribunal held that any liberty granted under the State’s cinema regulatory framework is conditional and cannot override the statutory mandate of Section 171 of the CGST Act. The High Court had itself observed:

    “A plain reading of the said provision of law clearly indicates that the said provision has been introduced to ensure that the supplier of goods and services should not make profit from the reduction of the tax rate under the GST law.”

    The Tribunal further noted that ASR Cinemas had placed no material on record to demonstrate compliance with the conditions attached to the High Court’s order, even assuming the order applied to it.

    Ex Parte Proceedings: A Pattern of Non-Cooperation

    The proceedings before the Tribunal were marked by the Respondent’s persistent non-participation. Despite notices served through multiple modes — email, speed post, and through the jurisdictional Commissionerate — and despite confirmed service of notice (including an acknowledgment dated 13 February 2026 from a Partner of the Respondent company), ASR Cinemas neither appeared for any of the five hearings (held between December 2025 and May 2026) nor filed any written submissions.

    The Tribunal, satisfied that principles of natural justice had been complied with, proceeded to adjudicate the matter ex parte under Order IX Rule 6 and Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

    Interest: 18% — But Only Prospectively

    The Tribunal ordered interest at 18% per annum on the profiteered amount under Rule 133(3)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, relying on the coordinate Bench decision in DGAP v. Proctor & Gamble Group (2025), it held that the interest provision — inserted vide Notification No. 31/2019-Central Tax dated 28 June 2019 — operates only prospectively. Accordingly, interest runs from 28 June 2019 and not from the commencement of the profiteering period (1 January 2019).

    Penalty: No Retrospective Application

    On the question of penalty under Section 171(3A) — which prescribes a penalty of 10% of the profiteered amount — the Tribunal declined to impose it. The penal provision was brought into force only on 1 January 2020, whereas the entire period of profiteering in this case (1 January 2019 to 30 September 2019) predated its enforcement. Applying the settled principle that penal provisions operate prospectively unless made expressly retrospective, the Tribunal held that penalty was not leviable.

    The Directions

    The Tribunal issued the following directives:

    1. Deposit of ₹9,67,589 — 50% in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and 50% in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, Telangana (since the individual recipients are not identifiable);
    2. Interest at 18% per annum from 28 June 2019 till the date of actual deposit;
    3. The amounts to be deposited within 60 days of the order;
    4. The jurisdictional CGST/SGST Commissioner to ensure compliance and submit a report within three months.

    Commentary: A Signal to the Entertainment Sector

    This order reinforces a principle that has been consistently applied by GST adjudicatory bodies: regulatory pricing powers under State law do not exempt a supplier from anti-profiteering obligations under the CGST Act. The two operate in parallel, and a High Court order permitting collection of “proposed fares” is not a license to absorb a GST rate cut.

    For the cinema exhibition industry — where ticket pricing is often governed by State-level regulatory mechanisms — the ruling serves as a clear warning that the anti-profiteering provisions cut across regulatory silos. The obligation to pass on tax benefits is absolute, non-delegable, and enforceable irrespective of the pricing regime that governs the underlying service.

    The matter now shifts to the jurisdictional Commissionerate for enforcement. Whether ASR Cinemas will challenge the order before a higher forum remains to be seen.

    – DG Anti Profiteering, Director General… vs. ASR Cinema LLP, 2026-juristway.com-1361-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST