GSTexperts

One-stop solution for all latest news, updates, rulings and analysis pertaining to indirect tax matters.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

Follow us for the latest updates on GST law, compliance related updates, recent rulings, AAR on GST and analysis of various issues.

Team Gstexperts

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

10/10 Want a short explainer thread on Entry 34, List II and what this means for online gaming businesses? I’ll draft it.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

🧵 BREAKING: SC overturns Madras HC — States can ban betting & gambling under Entry 34, List II.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

9/10 Full judgment not released yet — will share quotes, analysis & next-steps when available.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

8/10 Practical takeaway: platform operators, regulators and players — watch state rules now. Patchwork regulation likely unless Parliament steps in.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

7/10 Respondent teams featured Aryama Sundaram, Abhishek M. Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sajan Poovayya & others.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

6/10 Senior counsel for TN included Kapil Sibal and Sr. AAG Amit Anand Tiwari; big-name teams appeared for both sides.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

5/10 That means state governments can legislate or ban online gaming/skill platforms if they choose. Regulatory landscape just shifted.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

4/10 SC: States have power to prohibit activities “relating to” betting and gambling — broad state competence affirmed.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

3/10 Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan. Verdict: Madras HC’s reading of Entry 34 was too narrow.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

2/10 The appeals were filed by Tamil Nadu after the Madras HC struck down blanket restrictions on online games involving skill.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

8/ Takeaway: Personal hearing is NON-NEGOTIABLE under GST law, even if no written reply. Natural justice can’t be bypassed.
#GST #TaxLaw

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

🚨 GST update: Parv Alloys & Metals v. Union of India – Delhi HC strikes down adjudication order for violating natural justice principles.
#gst #gstupdate

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

7/ Result: Order set aside. Revenue gets liberty to re-proceed, BUT only after strictly following Section 75(4).

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

6/ Even without a reply, hearing could have allowed petitioner to produce records (ledgers, books) or oral arguments to defend itself.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

4/ HC rejects this outright.
5/ Key reason: Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017 mandates opportunity of hearing BEFORE any adverse decision – regardless of written reply.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

3/ Revenue’s defense? “Petitioner didn’t file a written reply to the SCN, so no hearing needed.”

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

2/ The core issue: Revenue passed an adverse order WITHOUT giving the assessee a personal hearing.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

9/ Takeaway: At least in Delhi, consolidated SCNs for multiple financial years remain valid under the CGST framework, as per this line of judgments.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

1/ GST update: In JBN IMPEX Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Adjudication, CGST Delhi North, the Delhi High Court once again upheld the validity of consolidated show cause notices (SCNs) for multiple financial years.
#gst #gstupdate

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

7/ The Court also noted that just because the Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court have taken a different view, it would not change its own consistent position.
8/ Result: the writ petitions were dismissed.

[GSTexperts @TexpertsGs]

6/ In fact, the Court said it has consistently taken the view that combining SCNs for different financial years is allowed.