Earlier, Notification dated 17th September 2025 had prescribed 30th June 2026 as the last date for filing appeals before the GSTAT. However, based on representations received from various stakeholders, the Government has now issued a fresh notification superseding the earlier notification.

Revised Due Date for Filing before GSTAT

As per the notification dated 30th June 2026, the following timelines shall apply:

For Appeals under Section 112(1):

• Orders communicated before 1st May 2026: Appeal can now be filed up to 31st July 2026.
• Orders communicated on or after 1st May 2026: Appeal shall be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order.

For Applications under Section 112(3):

• Orders passed before 1st February 2026: Application can now be filed up to 31st July 2026.
• Orders passed on or after 1st February 2026: Application shall be filed within six months from the date of the order.

To download the official notification, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Government Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline to 31st July 2026 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The petitioner challenged a GST assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2022-23 along with consequential recovery proceedings initiated through Form GST DRC-16. The dispute primarily related to levy of GST at the rate of 18% on works contract services executed for a State Government department. However, the petitioner questioned the very validity of the assessment order on the ground that the DRC-07 order dated 25.07.2023 did not bear the signature of the Proper Officer. The Revenue contended that the order had already been served by uploading it on the GST portal and that the writ petition had been filed with considerable delay. The matter was therefore placed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court to determine whether an unsigned assessment order could survive in law and whether the delay in approaching the Court would disentitle the petitioner from relief.

Arguments by the Appellant (Taxpayer)

The petitioner contended that the impugned DRC-07 order was void and unenforceable as it lacked the signature of the Proper Officer. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, including A.V. Bhanoji Row, SRK Enterprises and SRS Traders, wherein the Court had consistently held that an assessment order without a valid signature is legally defective and cannot be sustained. The petitioner further submitted that the assessment order had not been served through conventional means and was merely uploaded on the GST portal. It was argued that the petitioner became aware of the proceedings only subsequently and therefore the delay in approaching the Court ought not to defeat a challenge against an order suffering from a patent legal defect.

Respondent’s Response (Revenue Department)

The Revenue opposed the writ petition on the ground of delay and submitted that the petitioner had failed to explain the prolonged period between issuance of the assessment order and filing of the writ petition. The department further argued that Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act specifically recognizes uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal as a valid mode of service upon a registered person. Accordingly, the department contended that the petitioner could not avoid the consequences of the assessment merely by claiming lack of knowledge of the order. The Revenue therefore sought dismissal of the writ petition while defending the validity of the assessment proceedings.

Court Findings and Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier judgments which had categorically ruled that the absence of the Proper Officer’s signature renders an assessment order invalid and that such a defect cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the GST Act. While the Court acknowledged the department’s objection regarding delay and recognized that uploading of orders on the GST portal is generally treated as a valid mode of service, it also took note of the practical difficulties faced by taxpayers under the GST regime and the recurring disputes relating to access and awareness of portal-based communications. Balancing the interests of both parties, the Court set aside the unsigned DRC-07 assessment order and remanded the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the relief was made subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed tax within six weeks. The Court further directed that the period during which the writ petition remained pending shall be excluded for limitation purposes and left all issues open for reconsideration by the Proper Officer.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Unsigned GST Assessment Order appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Background of the Case

The present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court arose from criminal proceedings initiated against an Advocate practicing in indirect taxes and corporate laws. The petitioner, an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and also an Advocate-on-Record before the Allahabad High Court, had been engaged by his client to file statutory GST appeals under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Act against assessment orders passed under Section 74 of the GST Act involving substantial tax demands for FY 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. While filing the appeals, the petitioner utilized the assessee’s Electronic Credit Ledger and Input Tax Credit for payment of the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement in accordance with CBIC Circular dated 06.07.2022 and relying upon the Gujarat High Court judgment in Yasho Industries Ltd., which had also been upheld by the Supreme Court.

However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeals on the ground that payment of pre-deposit through Electronic Credit Ledger was not maintainable. Subsequently, instead of proceeding merely against the assessee, the GST Department lodged an FIR against both the assessee and the Advocate alleging criminal conspiracy, tax evasion and financial loss to the State Exchequer. During pendency of the writ petition, a charge-sheet and cognizance order were also passed against the Advocate, which were additionally challenged before the High Court.

Arguments by the Appellant (Advocate)

The petitioner contended that he had acted purely in his professional capacity while advising and filing the statutory appeals on behalf of his client. It was argued that utilization of Input Tax Credit for payment of mandatory pre-deposit was based on a bona fide interpretation of law supported by the CBIC Circular and the judicial precedents of the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court in Yasho Industries Ltd.

The petitioner further submitted that even assuming the legal interpretation adopted by him was erroneous, the same could never constitute a criminal offence or conspiracy with the client. It was emphasized that the petitioner had no business connection with the assessee and merely discharged his professional obligations as an Advocate. The petitioner argued that criminal prosecution of an Advocate for legal advice or procedural actions taken during representation of a client would strike at the very independence of the legal profession and adversely affect the constitutional right of citizens to obtain legal assistance.

Respondent’s Response (GST Department/State)

The GST Department defended the FIR by alleging that the assessee had wrongfully utilized Input Tax Credit for payment of the statutory pre-deposit requirement and thereby attempted to evade tax liability. The department alleged that such actions caused financial loss to the State Exchequer and were undertaken in conspiracy between the assessee and the petitioner Advocate.

However, during the course of hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General and the Deputy Commissioner of GST were unable to satisfactorily explain the basis on which the petitioner Advocate had been implicated in the criminal proceedings merely for filing statutory appeals and adopting a particular legal interpretation regarding pre-deposit through Electronic Credit Ledger.

Court Findings and Decision

The Allahabad High Court strongly deprecated the action of the GST Department and held that the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance proceedings against the Advocate were wholly unsustainable in law. The Court observed that an Advocate, by virtue of his profession, is entitled to represent and defend clients fearlessly and independently, irrespective of the allegations involved against such clients. Merely because an Advocate adopts a particular legal position or files proceedings on behalf of a client, he cannot be treated as a conspirator in the alleged acts of the client.

The Court further observed that criminal prosecution of Advocates for professional acts performed during legal representation would strike at the very foundation of the legal profession and undermine the constitutional protections available under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The High Court specifically held that even if the GST Department believed that pre-deposit through Electronic Credit Ledger was legally impermissible, the petitioner’s action was still a professional act based on a particular interpretation of law and could never amount to criminal conspiracy.

Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order against the petitioner Advocate and held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to gross abuse of the process of law.

To download official order, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against GST Advocate: Filing Appeal Using ITC Cannot Amount to Criminal Conspiracy appeared first on Tax Unplug.

The GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has issued an important update for taxpayers and professionals filing appeals through the GSTAT Portal. Considering the practical difficulties being faced during the initial phase of portal-based appeal filing, the Principal Bench, GSTAT has extended the relaxed procedural guidelines till 31st December 2026.

Background of Earlier Orders

Earlier, the GSTAT had issued Office Order dated 20.01.2026 and Instructions dated 10.03.2026 providing temporary procedural relaxations and clarity regarding filing requirements on the GSTAT portal.

Now, vide latest Instructions dated 14.05.2026, the Tribunal has clarified that the same guidelines shall continue to remain applicable till 31st December 2026 for ease of filing appeals by appellants.

Key Relief for Taxpayers & Professionals

The latest instructions primarily focus on reducing unnecessary defects during scrutiny of appeals and simplifying procedural compliance during the transition phase of GSTAT operations.

The Registrar / Joint Registrar / Deputy Registrar / Assistant Registrar have been directed to verify whether Form APL-05 contains:

• Show Cause Notice (SCN)
• Order-in-Original (OIO)
• Order-in-Appeal (OIA)
• Statement of Facts
• Grounds of Appeal
• Proof of Pre-deposit and Court Fees wherever applicable

No Defect for Certified Scanned Copies

A significant practical relief has also been provided in cases where the appellant uploads scanned certified copies of OIO/OIA.

The instructions clarify that where the scrutiny officer is satisfied from the endorsement appearing on the uploaded copy that it is a certified copy issued by the concerned authority, no defect flag should be raised merely because a physical certified copy is not separately uploaded.

Authorization / Vakalatnama Mandatory

The taxpayer is also required to upload:

• Authorization in favour of the tax professional, or
• Vakalatnama executed in favour of the Advocate

Digital Verification Requirement

The instructions also clarify that:

• One Verification and
• Digital Signature of Appellant

Special Clarification for Departmental Appeals

For applications filed by the Revenue Department under Section 112(3), the following documents have been prescribed:

• Show Cause Notice
• Order-in-Original
• Order-in-Appeal
• Opinion of Commissioner authorizing filing
• Statement of Facts
• Grounds of Appeal

To download the official instructions, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post GSTAT Extends Relaxed Filing Guidelines for Appeals till 31st December 2026 appeared first on Tax Unplug.

Below is a detailed overview of the latest modifications introduced in the IMS, effective from the October 2025 tax period.

Pending Action for Specified Records

Taxpayers can now keep certain specified records in the pending category, but only for a limited period.

• For monthly filers, the pending status can be maintained for one month (one tax period).
• For quarterly filers, the pending status can be maintained for one quarter (one tax period).

The following types of records can be kept pending in the system:

• Credit Notes or upward amendments of Credit Notes
• Downward amendment of Credit Note where the original Credit Note was rejected
• Downward amendment of Invoice/Debit Note where the original Invoice was already accepted and GSTR-3B has been filed
• ECO-document downward amendment where the original document was accepted and GSTR-3B has been filed

This new control ensures that the pending option is used within a defined timeframe, encouraging timely reconciliation and reducing open items in the system.

Declaring ITC Reduction Amount

To bring more clarity on the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC), the GSTN has specified the following:

• If the recipient has not availed ITC on a particular invoice or document, no ITC reversal is required.
• If ITC has been availed only partially, the reversal obligation will be limited to the extent of ITC actually availed.

Accordingly, a new facility has been added in the IMS where taxpayers can declare the amount of ITC actually availed and, where applicable, enter the amount to be reversed.

This facility allows taxpayers to:

• Reverse ITC either in full or in part, by specifying the amount.
• Declare reversals that have already been made earlier or where ITC was never availed.

Such transparency helps prevent unnecessary reversals and ensures accurate ITC reporting in line with Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Option to Save Remarks

A new “Remarks” feature is being introduced in IMS, allowing taxpayers to add short notes or explanations while marking any record as rejected or pending.

• This feature is optional and will be rolled out shortly.
• The remarks entered will appear in the taxpayer’s GSTR-2B for future reference.
• The same will also be visible to suppliers in their Outward Supplies View Dashboard, helping them identify issues and make necessary corrections.
• This improvement enhances communication and transparency between suppliers and recipients.

Effective Date and Due Date

• The new functionalities related to keeping credit notes pending and declaring ITC amounts will be made effective from the October 2025 tax period.
• The due date for keeping records pending will be calculated based on the date or tax period in which such documents are communicated by the supplier.

Conclusion

GST Portal Update: New Changes in Invoice Management System (IMS)

The above-mentioned changes will apply only to records filed by suppliers after the rollout of these new features. Taxpayers are advised to carefully review the new provisions and utilize them while taking actions and filing returns for upcoming periods.

These updates in the IMS mark another progressive step towards a more transparent and efficient GST compliance system. By allowing partial ITC reversals, restricting the pending period, and introducing remarks for better communication, the GSTN aims to strengthen invoice-level accuracy and reduce disputes in ITC reconciliation. To read more about IMS Facility, click here to read our blog on “GST Portal new Facility “Invoice Management System (IMS)”

To download official advisory, Click Here

“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”

The post GST Portal Update: New Changes in Invoice Management System (IMS) appeared first on Tax Unplug.