CBIC circulars, GSTR portal changes, AAR rulings, ITC disputes, e-invoice and e-way bill updates — decoded the same day they drop.
The GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, has upheld a ₹3.24 lakh Section 129(3) penalty for transporting an excavator without an e-way bill, rejecting the taxpayer’s “no sale, own machinery” defence for lack of evidence — what businesses moving their own equipment need to document.
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Maruti Enterprises v. State of U.P. clarifies that a transit state’s GST authorities can inspect inter-State goods movement but cannot detain or penalise it under Section 129 absent any tax incidence within that state.
The Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Thane, has ruled in CEAT Limited’s favour on a ₹107 crore GST demand relating to tubes and flaps supplied with tyres, holding that Section 74 proceedings do not apply to a genuinely interpretational classification dispute.
Editorial Correction & Update — 8 September 2026 (CONFIRMED) The revision flagged as an unconfirmed report in the 7 September
(Labelled KNOWLEDGE/EXPLAINER, not NEW TODAY — the governing Supreme Court position was settled by Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India
Nearly 250 companies walked into the Madras High Court asking essentially the same question: before the GST department can even
Every taxpayer who lived through the July 2017 transition into GST made a choice, whether they realised it at the
The Story Sometimes the law catches up with a taxpayer years after the fact — in their favour, for once.
The Story Rule 86A of the CGST Rules is meant to be a fire extinguisher, not a life sentence: the
The Rajasthan High Court holds that a GST show cause notice and order bearing neither a digital nor physical signature cannot be sustained — a system-generated reference number is not authentication under Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules.