GSTN has extended the implementation timeline for the mandatory capture of “Ship-to GSTIN” in Bill-to\/Ship-to transactions and the Voluntary Closure of e-Way Bill functionality. The extension has been granted in response to representations received from trade bodies, ERP vendors, GST Suvidha Providers (GSPs) and taxpayers seeking additional time for system readiness.<\/p>\n
The revised timeline allows businesses adequate time to modify their ERP systems, API integrations and internal compliance processes before the new functionalities become operational. GSTN has advised taxpayers to complete necessary testing and deployment during the extended period to ensure smooth implementation.<\/p>\n
The extension is expected to facilitate a smoother transition while promoting uniform adoption of the enhanced compliance framework across industries.<\/p>\n
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued Circular No. 255\/01\/2026-GST dated 25 June 2026, clarifying the jurisdictional issues arising when a registered person shifts its principal place of business from one GST jurisdiction to another. The circular addresses uncertainty regarding the authority competent to continue proceedings initiated prior to such migration.<\/p>\n
The Circular clarifies that any investigation, audit, scrutiny, adjudication, review or appellate proceedings validly initiated by the proper officer having jurisdiction at the relevant point of time shall continue to remain legally valid notwithstanding the subsequent transfer of jurisdiction. However, once the migration becomes effective, the transferor jurisdiction cannot initiate fresh proceedings against the taxpayer.<\/p>\n
The clarification is expected to eliminate jurisdictional disputes and ensure seamless continuation of GST proceedings where taxpayers migrate from one Commissionerate or State jurisdiction to another.<\/p>\n
Case: Directorate General of GST Intelligence (HQS) & Ors vs Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Supreme Court examined the scope of levy of GST on activities involving betting, gambling and wagering transactions where consideration is involved in the form of money stakes. A key issue before the Court was whether the taxability would depend upon the classification of the underlying activity as a \u201cgame of skill\u201d or \u201cgame of chance\u201d.<\/p>\n The Court observed that the decisive factor for levy of GST is not the nomenclature or the nature of the game, but the existence of consideration linked to an uncertain outcome. Once an individual places money on an outcome that is uncertain in nature, the transaction assumes the character of a taxable supply under the GST framework.<\/p>\n The Court further clarified that attempts to structure betting activities as skill-based games cannot override the substantive nature of the transaction when monetary stakes are involved. The economic reality of the transaction must prevail over its form.<\/p>\n This ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for online gaming platforms, casinos and betting operators. Businesses will need to reassess valuation mechanisms, classification of supplies and GST rate applicability, particularly in cases involving mixed offerings of skill-based and chance-based gaming models.<\/p>\n Case:<\/strong> State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. Federation of Gaming Platforms & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)<\/p>\n The Supreme Court considered challenges to the constitutional validity of State legislations regulating or prohibiting online money gaming within their respective territories. The principal issue involved the extent of legislative competence of States vis-\u00e0-vis online gaming activities in the context of constitutional distribution of powers.<\/p>\n The Court upheld the authority of State legislatures to regulate online gaming activities, including the power to impose restrictions or prohibitions on online money gaming. It was held that betting and gambling fall within the legislative domain of States and such competence extends to their digital manifestations as well.<\/p>\n The Court further observed that the rapid evolution of technology does not dilute the constitutional allocation of legislative powers. Accordingly, online platforms offering real-money gaming services may be subject to varying regulatory regimes depending on State-specific laws.<\/p>\n The ruling is expected to significantly impact the online gaming industry, requiring businesses to undertake detailed State-wise regulatory mapping and compliance planning before offering services across multiple jurisdictions.<\/p>\n Case: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. M\/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Supreme Court examined the legal validity of service of GST notices and orders uploaded on the common GST portal under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The controversy arose from the contention that mere electronic uploading of notices does not always constitute valid communication unless actual knowledge is established.<\/p>\n The Court stayed the High Court ruling which had held that uploading of notices on the portal alone is insufficient for valid service in all circumstances. The Supreme Court noted that the issue involves interpretation of statutory provisions governing electronic communication and principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n The matter primarily concerns whether the GST portal can be treated as the sole and conclusive mode of service and whether taxpayers can claim lack of knowledge despite availability of notices on the portal.<\/p>\n The outcome of this issue will have significant implications on limitation periods for filing replies, appellate timelines and validity of adjudication orders, particularly in cases where taxpayers rely on physical communication standards rather than electronic portal updates.<\/p>\n Case: M\/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Supreme Court is presently seized of the issue relating to the validity of issuance of consolidated Show Cause Notices (SCNs) covering multiple financial years under the GST law. The core question is whether tax authorities are empowered to combine alleged contraventions across different financial years into a single SCN.<\/p>\n Taxpayers have challenged this practice on the grounds that it violates principles of procedural fairness and creates significant difficulty in reconciliation, defence preparation and year-wise verification of records. It is contended that each financial year constitutes a separate and independent cause of action and therefore requires issuance of separate SCNs.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the Revenue has justified consolidated notices on the basis of administrative efficiency, avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings and better coordination in investigations involving long-term tax patterns.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court\u2019s eventual ruling is expected to have a substantial impact on GST audit practices, investigation methodologies and adjudication proceedings. It will also determine whether consolidation of multiple assessment years is permissible within the framework of GST law or whether year-wise adjudication is mandatory.<\/p>\n Case: Leighton India Contractors Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors (Rajasthan High court)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court examined whether GST authorities could reject an application for registration in one State on account of pending statutory non-compliances relating to the applicant’s registrations in another State.<\/p>\n The petitioner contended that each GST registration is a distinct registration under the GST law and that defaults in one State should not prejudice the grant of registration in another State.<\/p>\n The Court observed that while registrations are State-specific, the authorities are entitled to examine the overall compliance history of the applicant before granting registration. Persistent non-compliance in another State was held to be a relevant consideration while determining the applicant’s eligibility.<\/p>\n The ruling highlights the need for businesses operating in multiple States to maintain consistent GST compliance across all registrations, as defaults in one jurisdiction may have implications for registrations elsewhere.<\/p>\n Case: Komal Jayeshbhai Hemavat Vs State Tax Officer (4) & Anr. (Gujarat High Court)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court examined whether an adjudicating authority could deny a personal hearing solely because the taxpayer had inadvertently selected “No” against the option for personal hearing while filing the reply to the Show Cause Notice on the GST portal.<\/p>\n The taxpayer argued that despite the incorrect selection, detailed submissions had been filed disputing the proposed demand and principles of natural justice required an opportunity of personal hearing before passing an adverse order.<\/p>\n The Court held that Section 75(4) of the CGST Act mandates grant of personal hearing whenever an adverse decision is contemplated. The statutory requirement cannot be defeated by an inadvertent procedural error committed while filing the online reply.<\/p>\n The decision reinforces that substantive justice should prevail over technical lapses and authorities must provide an effective opportunity of hearing before finalising adjudication.<\/p>\n Case: Huma Power & Tower Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Assam (Gauhati High Court)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court considered the validity of cancellation of GST registration on account of non-compliance relating to bank account verification without issuance of notice in FORM GST REG-31.<\/p>\n The taxpayer challenged the cancellation on the ground that the prescribed statutory procedure requiring issuance of a thirty-day notice had not been followed before initiating cancellation proceedings.<\/p>\n The Court observed that Rule 10A read with the relevant provisions of the GST Rules requires issuance of FORM GST REG-31 granting reasonable time to rectify the default before cancellation proceedings are initiated.<\/p>\n The judgment reiterates that cancellation of GST registration has serious civil consequences and authorities must strictly adhere to the statutory procedure prescribed under the GST law.<\/p>\n Case: Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes9Karnataka High Court)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court examined whether GST exemption available to healthcare services would be denied merely because such services were rendered through another hospital under a revenue-sharing arrangement.<\/p>\n The Revenue argued that the contractual structure amounted to a commercial arrangement between two entities and therefore the exemption was unavailable.<\/p>\n The Court observed that the nature of the underlying healthcare service remains unchanged irrespective of the revenue-sharing mechanism adopted between hospitals. The exemption depends upon the character of the service rendered to the patient and not upon the commercial arrangement between service providers.<\/p>\n The ruling provides significant relief to hospitals and healthcare institutions operating under collaborative service models and reinforces that genuine healthcare services continue to remain exempt from GST.<\/p>\n Case: Akal Trade Links Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court examined whether Input Tax Credit could be denied merely because the taxpayer failed to produce lorry receipts and e-way bills during departmental verification.<\/p>\n The taxpayer established that purchases had been made from registered suppliers, tax invoices were available and the suppliers had duly discharged GST liability on the transactions.<\/p>\n The Court held that where the genuineness of the transaction is otherwise established and tax has reached the Government, Input Tax Credit cannot be denied solely on account of procedural deficiencies relating to transportation documents.<\/p>\n The judgment reiterates that substantive compliance under the GST law should prevail over technical lapses where there is no allegation of fraud, collusion or fictitious transactions.<\/p>\n Case: Akshaya Borewells Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (Karnataka High Court).<\/strong><\/p>\n The Court examined whether an application seeking waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A could be rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit.<\/p>\n The petitioner contended that the object of the provision was to facilitate settlement of disputes and therefore the prescribed timeline should be construed as directory rather than mandatory.<\/p>\n Accepting the contention, the Court observed that procedural timelines should not defeat the beneficial object of the provision unless the statute expressly provides for automatic rejection. Consequently, the delay in filing the application was held not to be fatal.<\/p>\n The ruling is expected to provide relief to taxpayers seeking benefits under Section 128A where genuine reasons exist for delayed filing.<\/p>\n Applicant: M\/s Swapnil Shripati Parkhande (Maharashtra AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling examined whether supply involving goods along with installation services such as wallpapers, glass partitions and related interior works would constitute a composite supply or mixed supply under GST law. The applicant also sought clarity on classification and applicable rate of GST in cases involving multiple goods with installation.<\/p>\n The AAR observed that where goods and services are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other, the transaction would qualify as a composite supply, with the principal supply determining the applicable tax rate. However, where supplies are independent and not naturally bundled, they would constitute a mixed supply, attracting the highest rate applicable to any of the components.<\/p>\n The ruling emphasises that classification of such contracts must be determined based on the factual matrix, contractual terms and the dominant intention of the supply arrangement.<\/p>\n The decision is significant for real estate developers, interior contractors and EPC service providers, as it directly impacts valuation, tax rate determination and invoicing structure under composite works contracts.<\/p>\n Applicant: M\/s Sahrudaya Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Maharashtra AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling considered whether GST exemption available to healthcare services extends to medicines, consumables, implants and allied items supplied by hospitals to in-patients as part of treatment packages.<\/p>\n The applicant contended that such supplies are naturally bundled with healthcare services and should therefore be exempt as part of composite healthcare services.<\/p>\n The AAR held that the supply of medicines and consumables to in-patients, when provided as an integral part of treatment, forms part of composite healthcare services and is eligible for exemption under the relevant exemption notification. However, supplies made to out-patients or sold independently would not qualify for the exemption.<\/p>\n The ruling provides clarity to hospitals operating under package-based treatment models and reinforces the principle that the dominant nature of healthcare service governs taxability rather than individual line items.<\/p>\n Applicant: M\/s Aditya Auto Products & Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. (Karnataka AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Karnataka Authority for Advance Ruling examined whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) is admissible on GST paid on catering services provided to employees where such provision is mandated under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948.<\/p>\n The applicant argued that such expenditure is statutory in nature and directly linked to business operations, thereby qualifying as eligible input service for ITC purposes.<\/p>\n The AAR observed that although the provision of canteen facilities is mandatory under labour law, the restriction under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act must be strictly applied. It held that ITC on catering services may be restricted unless the cost is borne by the employer without recovery from employees and subject to the conditions prescribed under law.<\/p>\n The ruling highlights continuing interpretational issues around employee welfare expenses and reinforces the need for careful structuring of canteen recovery mechanisms and HR policies.<\/p>\n Applicant: M\/s Neelam Kalpesh Jain (Maharashtra AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Maharashtra Authority for Advance Ruling considered the classification of in-vitro diagnostic ELISA kits under GST, particularly whether they fall under a specific HSN heading applicable to diagnostic reagents or general pharmaceutical classifications.<\/p>\n The applicant sought clarity due to differing interpretations impacting applicable GST rates and compliance classification.<\/p>\n The AAR held that classification must be determined based on the principal functional use of the product, supported by technical specifications, usage methodology and tariff explanatory notes. Diagnostic kits used for medical testing would generally fall under the specific HSN classification prescribed for diagnostic reagents.<\/p>\n The ruling is relevant for pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers as classification directly impacts GST rate, valuation and customs alignment.<\/p>\n Applicant: M\/s Rangaraj (Tamil Nadu AAR)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling examined whether auction proceeds collected by temple authorities for collection of human hair fall within the scope of \u201csupply\u201d under Section 7 of the CGST Act and whether such transactions are liable to GST.<\/p>\n The applicant contended that temple-related activities are religious in nature and should not be treated as business activities liable to GST.<\/p>\n The AAR observed that where goods such as human hair are collected and auctioned, the transaction may constitute a taxable supply, depending on the nature of consideration and commercial arrangement. However, exemption applicability would depend on whether the activity is incidental to religious functions or constitutes an independent supply of goods.<\/p>\n The ruling highlights the continuing complexity in determining GST applicability on religious and charitable activities involving sale of goods.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" GSTN Extends Timeline for Mandatory “Ship-to GSTIN” and Voluntary Closure of e-Way Bill GSTN has extended the implementation timeline for the mandatory capture of “Ship-to GSTIN” in Bill-to\/Ship-to transactions and the Voluntary Closure of e-Way Bill functionality. The extension has been granted in response to representations received from trade bodies, ERP vendors, GST Suvidha Providers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":16751,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[33,101,28],"class_list":["post-16976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-indirect-tax","tag-gst","tag-indirect","tag-tax"],"yoast_head":"\nStates\u2019 Power over Online Gaming \u2013 Constitutional Validity of State Regulation Upheld<\/h2>\n
Section 169 \u2013 Validity of Communication of Notices Through GST Common Portal<\/h2>\n
Consolidated Show Cause Notices Across Multiple Financial Years \u2013 Supreme Court to Decide Validity<\/h2>\n
GST Registration in One State Can Be Denied Due to Non-Compliance in Another State<\/h2>\n
Mandatory Personal Hearing Cannot Be Waived Merely Because Taxpayer Selected ‘No’ in SCN Reply<\/h2>\n
Mandatory Notice in FORM GST REG-31 Before Cancellation of Registration<\/h2>\n
Healthcare Services Exempt Even Under Revenue Sharing Arrangement<\/h2>\n
No Denial of ITC Solely for Absence of Lorry Receipts and E-Way Bills<\/h2>\n
Time Limit Under Section 128A for Waiver Application is Directory<\/h2>\n
GST Classification of Works Contract and Installation Services \u2013 Composite Supply vs Mixed Supply<\/h2>\n
GST Exemption on Healthcare Services \u2013 Clarification on Supply of Medicines and Consumables by Hospitals<\/h2>\n
Input Tax Credit on Mandatory Catering Services under Factories Act \u2013 Eligibility Determination<\/h2>\n
GST on In-vitro Diagnostic Kits \u2013 HSN Classification Dispute<\/h2>\n
Taxability of Goods Supplied During Temple Auction Activities \u2013 GST Applicability<\/h2>\n