GST Calendar \u2013Compliances for the month of December \u20192025<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n GST Update \u2013 December 2025\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n GST, Export-related GST implications, Customs & Indirect Taxes<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n December 2025 witnessed important indirect tax developments impacting exporters, SEZ units, valuation principles, jurisdictional overlap between Central and State authorities, and digitization of customs processes. Judicial scrutiny during the month continued to reinforce statutory discipline, transactional valuation, and procedural fairness, while regulatory changes provided tangible relief in export-related compliance.<\/span><\/p>\n The Reserve Bank of India has amended FEMA regulations to extend:<\/span><\/p>\n These extensions have <\/span>a <\/b>direct bearing on GST compliance, particularly in the following areas:<\/span><\/p>\n Since GST law does not prescribe an independent timeline for receipt of consideration, FEMA timelines are determinative. The extended 15-month period strengthens exporters\u2019 ability to establish export status even where remittances are delayed.<\/span><\/p>\n The requirement to realize export proceeds within one year or within the period permitted under FEMA is now substantially relaxed. This reduces the immediate risk of IGST demand with interest merely due to delayed realization.<\/span><\/p>\n Refunds already sanctioned are recoverable only if FEMA timelines are breached. The extension effectively postpones refund recovery exposure and improves cash flow certainty for exporters.<\/span><\/p>\n The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that trade conducted across the Line of Control constitutes intra-state supply for GST purposes. The Court emphasized that:<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also upheld the validity of composite SCNs covering multiple financial years<\/span>,<\/b> provided:<\/span><\/p>\n The Gujarat High Court reaffirmed that:<\/span><\/p>\n The Court recognized the commercial impracticality of suppliers claiming refunds in ISD structures and held that refund entitlement follows the zero-rated supply<\/span>,<\/b> not the source of credit.<\/span><\/p>\n The Gujarat High Court issued notice in a writ petition challenging the validity of:<\/span><\/p>\n The challenge argues that:<\/span><\/p>\n The Karnataka High Court invalidated notifications mandating levy of compensation cess based on MRP instead of transaction value for specified tobacco products.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that:<\/span><\/p>\n The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified the scope of Section 6(2)(b)<\/span> and held that:<\/span><\/p>\n Where State action is abandoned or closed without adjudication, Central authorities retain full jurisdiction to proceed.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBIC has launched a fully digital ICEGATE 2.0 platform for approvals under:<\/span><\/p>\n The platform replaces manual and hybrid processes and aims to:<\/span><\/p>\n 2025 \u2013 Rajasthan High Court<\/b><\/p>\n Whether the GST authorities were justified in initiating adjudication proceedings and passing orders without properly considering the taxpayer\u2019s replies and without adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a meaningful opportunity of hearing.<\/span><\/p>\n The petitioner was subjected to GST proceedings pursuant to issuance of a Show Cause Notice. Detailed written submissions were filed by the petitioner disputing the allegations on facts and law. However, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the order without dealing with<\/span> the petitioner\u2019s submissions in a reasoned manner and without granting an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations. The petitioner challenged the order on the ground of procedural arbitrariness and violation of natural justice<\/span>.<\/b><\/p>\n The Court held that mere issuance of notice and receipt of reply does not satisfy the requirement of natural justice. An adjudication order must demonstrate application of mind and must deal with the contentions raised by the assesse. Since the impugned order was passed mechanically, without proper consideration of the reply<\/span>,<\/b> it was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing<\/span>.<\/b><\/p>\n (Delhi High Court, Dec 2025)<\/b><\/p>\n Whether GST proceedings are sustainable when the Show Cause Notice and adjudication order are passed in a mechanical manner<\/span>,<\/b> without proper consideration of the assessee\u2019s reply and without granting an effective personal hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.<\/span><\/p>\n The petitioner was issued a GST Show Cause Notice proposing tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner submitted a detailed written reply, contesting the demand on facts and law. Despite the reply, the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the order without discussing or dealing with the submissions made, and without granting a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing. Aggrieved by the non-speaking order and procedural lapses, the petitioner approached the High Court.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that adjudication under GST cannot be reduced to a mere formality. Authorities are duty-bound to apply their mind to the reply, pass a reasoned order, and grant a meaningful opportunity of hearing, especially where civil consequences follow. Since the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice and without proper reasoning<\/span>,<\/b> the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Indirect Tax News Letter GST Calendar \u2013Compliances for the month of December \u20192025 Nature of Compliances Due Date GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source \u2018TDS\u2019)\u00a0 January 10, 2026 GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source \u2018TCS\u2019)\u00a0 January 10, 2026 GSTR-1\u00a0 January 11, 2026 IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP) January 13, 2026 GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor January 13, 2026 GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2730,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[253],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-indirect-tax"],"yoast_head":"\n\n\n
\n Nature of Compliances<\/b><\/td>\n Due Date<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source \u2018TDS\u2019)\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n January 10, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source \u2018TCS\u2019)\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n January 10, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-1\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n January 11, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP)<\/span><\/td>\n January 13, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor<\/span><\/td>\n January 13, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement)<\/span><\/td>\n January 14, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-3B\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n January 20, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person)<\/span><\/td>\n January 20, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider)<\/span><\/td>\n January 20, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme)<\/span><\/td>\n January 25, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n 1. FEMA Timeline Extensions\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
GST Implications<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
2. Goods and Services Tax \u2013 Key Judicial Pronouncements<\/b><\/h2>\n
a. Cross-LoC Trade Held to be Intra-State Supply<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
b. Refund of ISD-Distributed ITC Allowed to SEZ Units<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
c. Constitutional Challenge to 180-Day ITC Reversal Rule<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
d. MRP-Based Compensation Cess Struck Down<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n
e. Central Proceedings Valid Despite Prior State Action<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n
3. <\/span>Customs & Trade Facilitation \u2013 Digitalization Initiatives<\/b><\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Case Laws<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n
SHREE ARIHANT OIL AND GENERAL MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.<\/b><\/h3>\n
Issue<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n
Facts<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n
Held<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n
SHARMA TRADING COMPANY v. UNION OF INDIA<\/b><\/h3>\n
Issue<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n
Facts<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n
Held<\/i><\/b><\/h4>\n