The tax authority should send at least one reminder notice via Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) or any other valid mode as specified u/s 169 of the GST (Goods and Services Tax ) Act, the Madras High Court ruled before passing an ex-parte order. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, on June 11, 2025, furnished the ruling quashed| SAG Infotech Official Blog
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a specific rule in the tax regulations, known as Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, 2017, will apply going forward, but can also be used in current cases that are still being processed. The Division Bench of Justices Bhargav D. Karia and D.N. Ray on the issue said| SAG Infotech Official Blog
The Jharkhand High Court held that the State GST authorities are duty-bound under Section 76 of the Jharkhand GST Act (JGST), 2017, to initiate action against any person who collects tax but fails to remit it, regardless of whether the supplier is registered under the CGST or JGST. Jurisdictional excuses or supplier defaults cannot result| SAG Infotech Official Blog
A corrigendum has been issued via the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) to the notification G.S.R. 256(E), originally published on April 24, 2025, to improve and cite the norms under the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) framework. Technical errors are being addressed by the revised notification-published as G.S.R. 389(E) in the Gazette| SAG Infotech Official Blog
The extension GST notification issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017, which extended the time limit for adjudication, has been quashed by the Madras High Court. The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq ruled that the Notification No. 09/2023 has specified poor in law since its issuance was not occasioned via a force majeure| SAG Infotech Official Blog