GST Calendar \u2013Compliances for the month of January \u20192026<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
| Nature of Compliances<\/b><\/td>\n | Due Date<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n| GSTR-7 (Tax Deducted at Source \u2018TDS\u2019)\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n | February 10, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-8 (Tax Collected at Source \u2018TCS\u2019)\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n | February 10, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-1\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n | February 11, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | IFF- Invoice furnishing facility (Availing QRMP)<\/span><\/td>\n | February 13, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-6 Input Service Distributor<\/span><\/td>\n | February 13, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-2B (Auto Generated Statement)<\/span><\/td>\n | February 14, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-3B\u00a0<\/span><\/td>\n | February 20, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-5 (Non-Resident Taxable Person)<\/span><\/td>\n | February 20, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | GSTR-5A (OIDAR Service Provider)<\/span><\/td>\n | February 20, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | PMT-06 (who have opted for QRMP scheme)<\/span><\/td>\n | February 25, 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | <\/p>\n GST Update \u2013 January 2026<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Non-Leviability of GST on Assignment of Leasehold Rights: Bombay High Court<\/b><\/p>\n This update highlights a recent decision of the Bombay High Court examining whether Goods and Services Tax (GST) can be levied on the assignment of leasehold interests in an industrial property.<\/span><\/p>\n In the present matter, the petitioner was allotted an industrial plot under a long-term lease of 95 years. With the requisite consent of the lessor, the petitioner transferred its leasehold interest to a third party for consideration. The tax authorities sought to subject the transaction to GST by issuing a show cause notice, classifying the assignment as a taxable supply of services under Section 7(1) read with Schedule II of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Challenging the proposed levy, the petitioner approached the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition.<\/span><\/p>\n On the basis of the above reasoning, the High Court allowed the writ petition and annulled the show cause notice issued by the Revenue authorities.<\/span><\/p>\n Supreme Court on Taxability of Shares Received on Amalgamation\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The taxpayers (investment entities of a business group) held shares of group companies. These shares were shown in their books as investments, though the tax department claimed they were held as stock-in-trade.<\/span> Whether shares received by a shareholder on amalgamation, in exchange for shares held as stock-in-trade, result in taxable business income at the time of amalgamation, even when the shares are not immediately saleable or capable of being valued in money terms.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court held that taxability depends on the nature of holding and real income.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Adani Power Ltd. set up a thermal power generation unit within the Mundra Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and supplied electricity to buyers located in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). At the relevant time, customs duty exemption was available under Notification No. 21\/2002-Cus.<\/span><\/p>\n In 2010, the Central Government retrospectively amended the exemption framework by issuing Notification No. 25\/2010-Cus, attempting to impose customs duty on electricity cleared from SEZ to DTA. For a later period (16 September 2010 to 15 February 2016), Adani Power paid per-unit customs duty under subsequent notifications and thereafter claimed a refund.<\/span><\/p>\n In 2015, the Gujarat High Court held that customs duty could not be levied on electricity supplied from SEZ to DTA, as there was no valid charging provision under the Customs Act. Despite this, the tax authorities continued to demand duty under later notifications. In 2019, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court declined refund, holding that the 2015 ruling was limited to an earlier notification and period. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n Whether electricity supplied from a SEZ unit to the Domestic Tariff Area can be subjected to customs duty through exemption notifications, despite the absence of a valid charging provision under the Customs Act, and whether refunds can be denied merely because subsequent notifications were not separately challenged.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court ruled decisively in favour of the assessee and held that customs duty is not leviable on electricity supplied from SEZ to DTA<\/span>.<\/b> The Court observed that:<\/span><\/p>\n |