The framework clarifies which GST officers can issue SCNs and adjudicate demands under Sections 73 and 74. Jurisdiction depends strictly on assigned functions and monetary limits.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Circular No. 3/3/2017 is legally valid, holding that the Board acted within its statutory powers under the CGST Act. The Court emphasized the presumption of validity and rejected the claim that only the Commissioner could assign functions.
The new framework mandates that proceedings under Section 74A must be initiated by officers formally designated through Circular 254/11/2025-GST. Notices issued without valid jurisdiction are void ab initio.
The analysis highlights that Section 122 of the CGST Act lacked designated “proper officers” until Circular 254/11/2025-GST. Proceedings initiated before this assignment may be void for want of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that where there is a serious dispute over title and possession, a suit for injunction alone is not maintainable. Plaintiffs must seek possession and appropriate declaratory relief instead of filing an injunction simpliciter.
This case explains situations where ITC is availed and utilised without receipt of goods or services. The ruling clarifies that such ITC is recoverable with interest and penalty under Section 74.
This article explains how Section 6 of the CGST Act reconciles single interface with cross-empowerment. It highlights how taxpayers are protected from dual control while enabling effective GST enforcement.
Explains how GST law distinguishes detention under Section 129 from confiscation under Section 130, highlighting when authorities can legally invoke each provision.
Authorities have clarified that compulsory service charges violate consumer law, reaffirming that tips must be voluntary and cannot be added by default to bills.
Courts held that Section 16(2)(c) cannot be applied mechanically to deny ITC to honest buyers. ITC denial must be confined to fraudulent or collusive transactions.
