GST Update: Weekly Goods and Service Tax latest News – March 2026

GST WEEKLY UPDATE : 53/2025-26 (30.03.2026)

1. CBIC Clarifies Indefinite Validity of Self-Sealing Permission for Exporters: A Trade Facilitation Measure (Circular No. 14/2026-Customs):

The concept of self-sealing was introduced to enable exporters to seal export consignments at their premises without requiring physical supervision by Customs authorities. This facility, governed by earlier circulars such as:

• Circular No. 26/2017-Customs
• Circular No. 36/2017-Customs

was aimed at reducing transaction costs and dwell time at ports.

However, ambiguity persisted within trade circles and field formations regarding whether such permissions were subject to any time-bound validity or required periodic renewal.

Clarification Issued by CBIC

The CBIC has now put the issue to rest by categorically clarifying that:

• Self-sealing permission, once granted, does not have any prescribed validity period.
• Such permission shall continue indefinitely, unless specifically:
  • Withdrawn,
  • Suspended, or
  • Cancelled by the jurisdictional Customs authority.

This clarification removes interpretational inconsistencies and aligns the practice across field formations.

Safeguards and Regulatory Oversight

While granting indefinite validity, the Board has balanced trade facilitation with regulatory control by emphasizing that:

• The facility may be withdrawn in cases of misuse, non-compliance, or violation of conditions.
• Jurisdictional authorities retain full powers to review and revoke permissions where warranted.
• This ensures that the system is not abused while still promoting trust-based compliance.

Read more:Union Budget 2026: Key Expectations, Sector Signals, and the Road to Viksit Bharat

2. GSTAT Kolkata Bench Commences Operations: Strengthening GST Appellate Framework:

(Public Notice No. 01/2026 dated 23 March 2026)

• Operationalization of Bench:

The Kolkata Bench of GSTAT has commenced functioning and is now fully operational to hear appellate matters.

• Location: The Bench is situated at:

2/5, Judges Court Road, Alipore, Kolkata (Old Door Sanchar Bhawan).

• Jurisdiction:
  The Bench shall exercise jurisdiction over:
  • West Bengal
  • Sikkim
  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands

• Stakeholders Covered:
  The Bench will cater to:
  • Taxpayers
  • Departmental authorities

3. GSTAT Ernakulam Bench Commencement:

(Public Notice No. 01/2026) at 3rd Floor, CGST Headquarters, Central Revenue Building, I.S. Press Road, Kacheripady, Ernakulam, Kerala – 682018.

1. Commencement of GSTAT Bench

• The Ernakulam Bench of GSTAT has commenced judicial operations.
• This marks a significant step in operationalizing the appellate mechanism under GST.

2. Jurisdiction

• The Bench shall exercise jurisdiction over:
  • State of Kerala
  • Union Territory of Lakshadweep
• Jurisdiction notified vide Department of Revenue Notification dated 26.11.2024.

Read more: GST Revamp on the Horizon: What Businesses and Consumers Should Know

4. Action Points For Taxpayers To Do Before March, 2026:

Focus on TDS Changes Under New Tax Law

This becomes crucial in light of the newly introduced TDS provisions under Sections 392 and 393 of the Income Tax Act, 2025. Proper mapping from the beginning will help prevent accounting mismatches and return filing issues in FY 2026–27.

Advance Tax and Transfer Pricing Under Scrutiny

Taxpayers are advised to carefully review advance tax liabilities and promptly inform clients in writing in case of any shortfall. Special attention is required in transfer pricing matters, including re-evaluation of year-end provisions, mark-ups, and unbilled revenues.

Time-Barred TDS Defaults Need Immediate Attention

Pending TDS return-related defaults and liabilities, especially those nearing limitation periods, must be cleared on priority. Cases up to Quarter 3 of FY 2023–24 require urgent review to avoid irreversible consequences.

Foreign Transactions: Documentation Now Mandatory

Companies dealing with foreign parties must ensure mandatory collection of TIN, TRC, and other details at the agreement stage itself. This requirement applies to both existing and new foreign entities and aligns with compliance under Forms 15CA and 15CB.

Balance Confirmations and MSME Compliance

Obtaining balance confirmations and ledger confirmations is essential for accurate financial reporting. Additionally, businesses must review MSME payment timelines, ensuring dues are cleared within the prescribed 15/45-day limits to avoid reporting and compliance issues.

Banking and Investment Records for Closure

For year-end closure and reconciliation, companies should collect bank statements, fixed deposit statements, and capital gains statements. These documents are vital for tax computation and audit readiness.

LUT Filing and Export Compliance

Exporters must ensure that Letters of Undertaking (LUT) for FY 2025–26 are properly filed and also prepare for LUT compliance for FY 2026–27. Pending export cases should be reviewed carefully.

Stock Verification and E-Invoicing Readiness

A physical stock verification as of March 31, 2026, is critical, along with maintaining proper documentation. Businesses must also check e-invoicing applicability from April 1, 2026, particularly if turnover exceeded ₹5 crore for the first time. Implementation of the 6-digit HSN code requirement should also be verified.

New Financial Year Preparations

Before entering FY 2026–27, companies should create a new invoice series to ensure compliance from day one. Additionally, businesses must evaluate their eligibility for Composition Scheme, QRMP Scheme, or ISD registration, depending on their operational needs.

Timely Action is Key

Experts emphasize that proactive compliance and timely execution of these action points will help businesses avoid litigation, penalties, and operational disruptions. With increasing scrutiny and evolving regulations, year-end preparedness is no longer optional but essential.

5. AAR & Important Judgements:

        (i) Hon’ble High court decision regarding Inter-State Transfer of ITC on Amalgamation Cannot Be Denied for Want of Same-State Registration:

            (Applicant – Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.)

Issues for Consideration

1. Whether transfer of ITC under Section 18(3) read with Rule 41 is permissible where amalgamating entities are registered in different States?

2. Whether administrative or portal-based restrictions can override statutory provisions in absence of express legislative backing?

Held

The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and held as under:

• Statutory entitlement prevails: Section 18(3) of the CGST Act permits transfer of unutilized ITC in cases of amalgamation, subject to prescribed conditions. No restriction exists requiring both entities to be registered in the same State.

• No artificial restriction permissible: The Court held that the Department cannot impose conditions not contemplated under the statute, either through procedural prescriptions or system-based validations.

• Reliance on precedent: The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Umicore Autocat India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein inter-State transfer of ITC pursuant to restructuring was upheld.

• Procedural deficiency noted: The rejection of ITC transfer merely by endorsement within Form GST ITC-02, without assigning independent and reasoned justification, was held to be legally unsustainable.

• Portal limitations cannot defeat rights: The Court categorically observed that technological constraints of the GST portal cannot curtail substantive rights conferred by law.

Relief confined to CGST/IGST: The Petitioner restricted its claim to CGST and IGST components, and accordingly, the Court granted relief to that extent.

 (ii) Hon’ble Gujarat High court decision regarding Mandatory Personal Hearing under Section 75(4) of GST Cannot Be Waived by Assessee’s Option

(Applicant – Gurukrupa Tradelink Private Limited)

The Gujarat High Court, in the case of Gurukrupa Tradelink Private Limited vs State of Gujarat & Anr., has reiterated the mandatory nature of granting a personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the GST law, even where the assessee has opted against such hearing.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner had responded to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 by filing a detailed reply in Form GST DRC-06. However, while submitting the reply, the assessee had selected the option “No” for personal hearing. Despite this, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass an adverse order after providing only a single opportunity of hearing and without adequately considering the detailed submissions made by the petitioner.

Key Issue

Whether the selection of “No” for personal hearing by the assessee can override the statutory obligation of the adjudicating authority under Section 75(4) to grant an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order.

Held

The Court held that:

• Section 75(4) imposes a mandatory obligation on tax authorities to provide an opportunity of personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated.

• The option selected by the assessee in the reply form cannot override the statutory mandate.

• The adjudicating authority failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by:

  • Granting only a single hearing opportunity, and

  • Passing the order without proper consideration of the detailed reply.

Read more: GSTN Postpones Non-Editable Table 3.2 in GSTR-3B After Taxpayers’ Grievances

Disclaimer: The article or blog or post (by whatever name) in this website is based on the writer’s personal views and interpretation of Act. The writer does not accept any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of information and for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Also, www.babatax.com and its members do not accept any liability, obligation or responsibility for author’s article and understanding of user.

For Collaborating with us-

• Mail us at [email protected]
• Whatsapp us at +91-7024984925