GST Calendar –Compliances for the month of June ’2026
| Nature of Compliances | Due Date |
| GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source ‘TDS’) | July 10, 2026 |
| GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source ‘TCS’) | July 10, 2026 |
| GSTR-1 | July 11, 2026 |
| IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) | July 13, 2026 |
| GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor | July 13, 2026 |
| GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) | July 14, 2026 |
| GSTR-3B | July 20, 2026 |
| GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person) | July 20, 2026 |
| GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider) | July 20, 2026 |
| PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme) | July 25, 2026 |
Key Highlights of the June 2026
Operationalization of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT):
The GSTAT has issued comprehensive directions governing the constitution of benches, allocation of judicial and technical members, and appeal procedures, while also extending the relaxed scrutiny mechanism for filing appeals until 31 December 2026.
Major GST Judicial Developments:
Courts have delivered significant rulings on corporate guarantees, eligibility of Input Tax Credit where the supplier defaults in tax payment, valuation of solar power projects under the mandatory 70:30 mechanism, online gaming, and taxability of leasehold rights, providing important guidance on long-pending GST controversies.
Technology & Compliance Updates:
GSTN has introduced important enhancements to the E-Way Bill portal, including mandatory reporting requirements for certain transactions and a voluntary E-Way Bill closure facility aimed at improving compliance.
Indirect Tax & Customs Developments:
The Compendium also analyses key developments impacting customs and trade, along with recent judicial precedents affecting valuation and procedural compliance.
Mandatory Application of 70:30 Valuation Mechanism for Solar Power Generating Systems- High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Tata Power Renewable Energies Limited v. Union of India and Ors.
Issue
Whether the 70:30 deemed valuation mechanism prescribed for the supply of a Solar Power Generating System (SPGS) can be denied merely because the supplier issued separate invoices for goods and services, instead of a single composite invoice.
Facts
The taxpayer supplied Solar Power Generating Systems under EPC contracts and discharged GST by applying the statutory 70:30 valuation formula (70% as goods and 30% as services). During assessment, the department contended that since separate invoices had been issued for goods and services, the transaction could not be treated under the prescribed mechanism and sought to levy 18% GST on the entire contract value.
Held
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the 70:30 valuation mechanism is mandatory for the supply of Solar Power Generating Systems as prescribed under the relevant GST rate notifications. The issuance of separate invoices does not alter the nature of the supply or defeat the statutory deeming fiction. Accordingly, the demand levying GST at 18% on the entire contract value was set aside
Corporate Guarantee Issued Without Consideration Held Not Taxable Under GST
D P Jain & Co. Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors
Issue
Whether a corporate guarantee furnished by a holding/group company to banks on behalf of its subsidiary or related entity, without charging any fee or consideration, constitutes a taxable supply of service under the CGST Act.
Facts
The petitioner had issued corporate guarantees in favour of banks to facilitate credit facilities for its subsidiaries/group companies without charging any commission, guarantee fee or any other consideration. The GST authorities sought to levy GST by relying upon Rule 28(2) of the CGST Rules and related CBIC circulars, treating the transaction as a taxable supply between related persons.
Held
The Bombay High Court held that a corporate guarantee provided without any consideration does not qualify as a taxable supply of service under Section 7 of the CGST Act, as consideration is an essential element of a taxable supply. The Court observed that such guarantees are merely in-house financial support arrangements and not commercial services rendered in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the GST demand was set aside. However, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 28(2), even though it held that the guarantees in the present case were not taxable due to the absence of consideration.
Section 16(2)(c) Upheld: ITC Cannot Be Claimed Where Supplier Fails to Deposit Tax
Maruti Enterprise vs. Union of India and Ors
Issue
Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, which makes availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) conditional upon the supplier depositing the tax with the Government, is unconstitutional and liable to be read down to protect bona fide purchasers.
Facts
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), contending that a genuine purchaser should not be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to deposit the tax collected from the recipient. It was argued that once the recipient had fulfilled all compliance requirements and had no control over the supplier’s subsequent default, denial of ITC was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Held
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and held that payment of tax by the supplier is a statutory pre-condition for availing ITC. The Court declined to read down the provision and observed that ITC is a concession created by statute, which can be availed only upon fulfilment of the conditions prescribed by the legislature. Accordingly, a recipient cannot claim ITC as a matter of right where the supplier has failed to remit the tax to the Government.