JK Gupta, Tax Litigators & Advisors

Call Directions Website Contact the business

JK Gupta, Tax Litigators & Advisors Our Associate is Powered by 10 Yrs of Experience in Litigations, advisories in the Customs, Central E

16/10/2026

GST on Export of Services: Important Proposed Changes
The GST Council has recommended omitting Section 2(6)(v) of the IGST Act, potentially affecting export-of-services treatment for businesses dealing with overseas offices and branches.
⚠️ The recommendation is not yet law. Verify the final amendments before claiming export benefits or refunds.
Follow J Gupta for important GST updates and legal developments.

ITC Claim Checklist: 5 Things Every Business Must VerifyBusiness use. Valid tax document. Invoice in GSTR-2B and supplie...
15/10/2026

ITC Claim Checklist: 5 Things Every Business Must Verify

Business use. Valid tax document. Invoice in GSTR-2B and supplier has actually paid the tax. Goods or services received. No blocked credit, within the Section 16(4) time limit, returns filed, supplier paid within 180 days.

Miss one and the credit is at risk with interest and penalty. Build the file before the notice.

JGupta

13/10/2026

GST enforcement rules may be heading for a significant change.
At its 57th meeting held on 8 October 2026, the GST Council recommended key changes to the CGST Act:
Section 69: Recommendation to omit the provision relating to arrest powers.
Prosecution threshold: Proposed increase from â‚ą1 crore to â‚ą5 crore.
Section 125: Proposed reduction in the maximum general penalty from â‚ą25,000 to â‚ą10,000.
Important: These are GST Council recommendations, not changes that have automatically become law. The relevant legal amendments and notifications must be followed before treating the proposals as effective.
For businesses, CAs, and tax professionals, tracking the final implementation is essential. Do not change your compliance or legal strategy based on headlines alone.
Follow J Gupta, Tax Advisors & Litigators for important GST updates, court judgments, and practical tax insights.
Share this update with your professional network.
IndirectTax CharteredAccountant TaxCompliance GSTIndia JGupta

12/10/2026

⚖️ GST Transition Can Create a Reimbursement Right for Contractors
In Naganath Constructions v. Government of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court dealt with additional tax liability arising when GST replaced VAT during the subsistence of State works contracts.
The Class I contractors had discharged the differential GST and sought reimbursement from the State. The Court held that the recipient of the works contract service was liable to bear the differential tax arising from the introduction of GST. Since the contractors had already paid the differential GST and the State had benefited from the works, they had a legal right to seek reimbursement.
The Court directed the State to determine the differential GST and reimburse the eligible amount within six weeks, subject to verification of records and calculations. The reimbursement is limited to the incremental liability attributable to the introduction of GST.
đź“Ś Case: Naganath Constructions v. Government of Karnataka
đź“Ś Court: Karnataka High Court
đź“Ś Date: 31 August 2026
Follow J Gupta for more GST and Tax litigation updates.
TaxLitigation WorksContract GSTTransition VAT GSTIndia TaxUpdate KarnatakaHighCourt

10/10/2026

🚨 GST Pre-Deposit: The SCN Date Changes the Game
In Krishan Pal Singh v. The Additional Commissioner, Delhi West Commissionerate, the Delhi High Court examined the applicability of the 10% pre-deposit requirement for an appeal against a penalty-only order.
The Department had issued the Show Cause Notice in July 2024, while the 10% pre-deposit requirement for penalty-only orders came into effect from 1 October 2025.
The Court, following Gaurav Jain, held that the applicable pre-deposit provision is determined with reference to the date of the SCN. Since the SCN in this case was issued before 1 October 2025, the new 10% pre-deposit requirement did not apply.
The Court did not decide the merits of the alleged fake ITC issue. That matter was left for the statutory appellate authority.
⚖️ Case: Krishan Pal Singh v. The Additional Commissioner, Delhi West Commissionerate
🏛️ Court: Delhi High Court
đź“… Date: 21 September 2026
đź“Ś W.P.(C) 13927/2026
Follow J Gupta for more GST and Tax litigation updates.
PreDeposit Section107 CGSTAct IndirectTax TaxLitigation DelhiHighCourt GSTIndia TaxUpdate GSTCompliance

⚖️ Can a GST search extend to a lawyer’s cabin and the files of other clients?In Puneet Batra v. Union of India, the Sup...
09/10/2026

⚖️ Can a GST search extend to a lawyer’s cabin and the files of other clients?
In Puneet Batra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court is examining important questions around search of professional premises and protection of privileged material.
The dispute arose after a GST investigation involving an online gaming company. The Department searched the premises of a tax consulting firm and seized a 1,250 GB CPU from a cabin occupied by an advocate representing the company.
The Delhi High Court had upheld the search, observing that the advocate’s privilege is not an absolute bar where the advocate’s own conduct is under investigation and there is prima facie material.
The Supreme Court later examined the question of who should separate privileged material from other seized files, particularly where the device contains information belonging to multiple clients.
The key issues remain pending:
🔹 Who decides what material is privileged?
🔹 Can the investigator make that determination himself?
🔹 What must the Department establish before searching a third party’s premises?
Status: Pending. The next hearing decides the rule.
LegalPrivilege AttorneyClientPrivilege GSTLaw GSTIndia IndirectTax SupremeCourt DelhiHighCourt TaxLaw JGupta

09/10/2026

🚨 GST Registration Dispute: Delhi High Court Directs Taxpayer to Statutory Appeal

In Adhvik Polychem v. Assistant Commissioner GSTO, Ward 58, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s GST registration cancellation application.

The Court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act and that the matter involved disputed facts and examination of the material on record.

The Court therefore relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s defence.

Importantly, the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.

⚖️ Case: Adhvik Polychem v. Assistant Commissioner GSTO, Ward 58
🏛️ Court: Delhi High Court
đź“… Date: 9 September 2026
đź“Ś W.P.(C) 13175/2026

Follow J Gupta for more GST and Tax litigation updates.

GSTCancellation Section107 CGSTAct IndirectTax TaxLitigation DelhiHighCourt GSTIndia TaxUpdate GSTCompliance

Within 24 hours: cancel the linked e-way bill, cancel the IRN in full, fix the invoice in your ERP, and raise a fresh IR...
06/10/2026

Within 24 hours: cancel the linked e-way bill, cancel the IRN in full, fix the invoice in your ERP, and raise a fresh IRN on a new invoice number. The cancelled number is dead for that financial year.

After 24 hours: the IRN stays. Excess value, tax or a cancelled supply goes through a credit note under Section 34. Short value or tax goes through a debit note. Each needs its own IRN if e-invoicing applies to you. Table 9A of GSTR-1 only where it genuinely fits.

Editing GSTR-1 does not rewrite the signed e-invoice. Tell the buyer in writing so their ITC stays clear.

Aggregate annual turnover of Rs 10 crore and above: invoices, credit notes and debit notes must reach the IRP within 30 days of the document date.

Pick the route by timing and type of error, not by convenience.

In Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhandari Scrap Tra...
05/10/2026

In Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Bhandari Scrap Traders, examined the evidentiary burden on a buyer claiming Input Tax Credit.

The case involved a cement trader who claimed ITC of Rs 7.26 crore from suppliers whose GST registrations had been cancelled before the relevant invoice dates.

The Court recognized that Section 16(2)(c) is valid and that a buyer may need to produce cogent material showing that the tax was actually deposited.

đź“Ś Relevant evidence can include:
• Transport records
• Delivery challans
• Payment trails
• Supplier's registration status on the invoice date

At the same time, a GSTR-2A mismatch alone is not proof of wrongful ITC.

The important takeaway: maintain the evidence before a GST notice arrives. Once the dispute begins, your documentation becomes critical.

🏛️ Case: Jain Cement Udyog v. Union of India
đź“Ť Court: Delhi High Court
đź“… Date: 17 September 2026
đź“„ W.P.(C) 13622/2026
Following: Bhandari Scrap Traders v. Union of India, Supreme Court

Address

206 C, Block A, Crystal Arcade Shankar Nagar
Raipur
492001

Opening Hours

Monday 10am - 8pm
Tuesday 10am - 8pm
Wednesday 10am - 8pm
Thursday 10am - 8pm
Friday 10am - 8pm
Saturday 10am - 8pm
Sunday 10am - 8pm

Telephone

+918516088888

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when JK Gupta, Tax Litigators & Advisors posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to JK Gupta, Tax Litigators & Advisors:

Shortcuts

Share

Category