Bijoy Das – [2026] 186 taxmann.com 182 (Article)

Can Section 148 Proceedings Initiated Under the 1961 Act Survive the Repeal? The GM Polyplast Constitutional Challenge, the ‘Deemed Information’ Fault Line, and Five Unresolved Issues for Practitioners

1. The Problem – Thousands of Legacy Notices at a Constitutional and Transitional Crossroads

On 1 April 2026, the Income-Tax Act, 1961 stood repealed by Section 536(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 2025. With 536 sections, 16 schedules, and a comprehensive savings architecture under Section 536(2), the new Act intended a seamless transition. On the most frequently litigated question whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act survive the repeal the official answer is a settled yes – Section 536(2)(c) expressly provides that any proceeding pending as on 1 April 2026 shall continue and be disposed of under the 1961 Act as though the 2025 Act had not been enacted. The Income-Tax Department’s own FAQ portal, updated on 25 April 2026, confirms this with worked examples.

Yet just five days before this article was written, the Bombay High Court in G.M. Polyplast Ltd. v. Union of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 8508 of 2026, B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla JJ., decided 24 April 2026) granted an interim stay of a Section 148 notice issued on 30 March 2025 and issued notice to the Attorney General of India. The Court found that the petition raised “arguable questions” on the constitutional validity of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and clause (c) of the proviso to Section 148A, as they stood prior to the amendments dated 31 August 2024. The ruling signals that while Section 536(2)(c) settles the transitional continuation question, it does not cure a deeper constitutional infirmity that infected a large class of legacy Section 148 notices issued between April 2024 and March 2025.

This article analyses the two-level problem – first, the Section 536(2)(c) savings architecture and its five transitional fault lines; and second, the constitutional challenge raised in G.M. Polyplast against the pre-August 2024 ‘deemed information’ provisions and its implications across the stock of legacy reassessment notices. Together, these two levels define the ‘reassessment conundrum’ the largest class of pending direct tax litigation entering the ITA 2025 era.

2. The Section 536(2)(c) Savings Architecture

Section 536 of the Income-Tax Act, 2025, titled ‘Repeal and Savings’, is the transitional backbone of the new Act. Sub-section (1) repeals the 1961 Act with effect from 1 April 2026. Sub-section (2) contains 22 sub-clauses addressing specific transitional situations. The provision was notably reinforced by sub-section (4), which applies Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to cover any unforeseen situation not directly addressed by sub-section (2) ensuring that rights and obligations accrued under the 1961 Act are preserved beyond what is explicitly stated.

For reassessment proceedings, the operative sub-clauses are Section 536(2)(a), (b), and (c). Sub-clause (a) preserves the ‘previous operation’ of the repealed Act and anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Sub-clause (b) preserves any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the 1961 Act. Sub-clause (c) the most directly relevant provides that any proceeding pending as on 1 April 2026 before any income-tax authority, tribunal or court shall be continued and disposed of under the 1961 Act as though the 2025 Act had not been enacted.

The practical effect, as confirmed by the CBDT FAQ dated 25 April 2026, is comprehensive:

(i) a Section 148A(1) notice issued before 1 April 2026 continues under the 1961 Act even if the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice are passed after 1 April 2026;

(ii) fresh reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years up to 2026-27 may be initiated under the 1961 Act after 1 April 2026;

(iii) the approval hierarchy under Section 151 of the 1961 Act governs even post-1 April 2026 reassessments for prior years; and

(iv) the return filed in response to a Section 148 notice must follow 1961 Act forms, not the new Tax Year framework.

3. The GM Polyplast Constitutional Challenge – What the Court Actually Held

The GM Polyplast ruling arises from a Section 148 notice issued on 30 March 2025 – three days before the ITA 2025’s effective date for Assessment Year 2021-22. The notice relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 (as it stood prior to 31 August 2024), which deemed the Assessing Officer to have ‘information’ in cases where:

(i) a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A was initiated;

(ii) a survey under Section 133A was conducted;

(iii) assets, documents or liabilities discovered in a search/survey on a third party related to the assessee; or

(iv) information was received under an agreement referred to in Section 90/90A.

The deeming mechanism was a legal fiction – the AO need not have actual evidence; the fact of a search, survey, or third-party discovery was itself treated as ‘information suggesting income has escaped assessment’.

The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, with effect from 31 August 2024, significantly amended Explanation 2. The post-amendment version tightened the threshold – the AO must now have specific ‘information’ as defined under Section 148 itself, rather than relying on the deeming fiction. The government’s own amendment implicitly acknowledged that the pre-August 2024 version had provided overly broad deeming powers. This is the interpretive foundation of the GM Polyplast petitioner’s challenge – if the government found it necessary to tighten the deemed-information provision in August 2024, the pre-August 2024 version was defective and notices issued under it are constitutionally suspect under Article 14 as arbitrary and unreasonable.

The Bombay High Court, through Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, found that the petition raised ‘arguable questions’ of constitutional validity – the standard for issuing Rule and granting interim stay. Three features of the Order deserve attention:

(i) the Court issued notice to the Attorney General of India, indicating the constitutional question is significant enough for Union of India’s highest law officer to defend;

(ii) the Court granted a stay, preventing the Revenue from proceeding with the reassessment pending final adjudication; and

(iii) the Court noted the specific targeting of the pre-31-August-2024 version – implicitly recognising that the post-August 2024 position may not suffer the same infirmity.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] The Reassessment Conundrum Under the Income Tax Act 2025 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 09, Dated 06.05.2026

1. Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Authorised Persons) Regulations, 2026 (“AP Regulations, 2026”) with the objective of rationalising the regulatory framework governing Authorised Persons under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”). The revised framework seeks to improve the delivery of foreign exchange services while easing compliance requirements applicable to regulated entities.

The AP Regulations, 2026 have been notified vide Notification No. FEMA 401/2026-RB dated April 30, 2026 and published in the Official Gazette on May 06, 2026. Consequent to the issuance of the revised regulations, RBI has amended the Master Direction – Money Changing Activities and the Master Direction – Other Remittance Facilities. Additionally, several earlier A.P. (DIR Series) Circulars issued between 2000 and 2015 have been superseded.

2. Discontinuation of Franchisee Model

One of the significant changes introduced under the revised framework relates to the discontinuation of the franchisee model for money changing activities. Earlier, Authorised Dealer Category-I (“AD Category-I”) banks, Authorised Dealer Category-II (“AD Category-II”) entities and Full Fledged Money Changers (“FFMCs”) were permitted to enter into agency or franchisee arrangements for carrying out restricted money changing business, including conversion of foreign currency notes, coins and travellers’ cheques into Indian Rupees.

RBI has now clarified that authorised persons shall not enter into any fresh franchisee arrangements henceforth. Existing franchisee arrangements are required to be discontinued gradually, and in any event, within two years from May 06, 2026.

3. Revision in Reporting Framework

The revised framework also modifies the reporting requirements applicable to FFMCs and non-bank AD Category-II entities. Under the earlier framework, such entities were required to maintain minimum Net Owned Funds (“NOF”) on an ongoing basis and submit annual audited balance sheets along with statutory auditor certificates relating to NOF.

The AP Regulations, 2026 replace the earlier NOF-based reporting mechanism with a revised certification framework based on net worth and annual forex turnover. Accordingly, FFMCs and non-bank AD Category-II entities are now required to submit annual audited balance sheets along with statutory auditor certificates regarding net worth by October 31 every year, and separate statutory auditor certificates regarding annual forex turnover by April 30 every year.

4. Rationalisation of Existing Directions

As part of the revised framework, RBI has omitted several provisions from the Master Direction – Money Changing Activities, including provisions relating to authorisation, operational requirements and other procedural compliances. RBI has also omitted Para 2 of the Master Direction – Other Remittance Facilities.

The amendments reflect RBI’s broader objective of consolidating and streamlining the regulatory architecture governing foreign exchange and money changing activities under FEMA. Further, various earlier A.P. (DIR Series) Circulars issued between 2000 and 2015 stand superseded pursuant to issuance of the AP Regulations, 2026.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post RBI Notifies FEMA Authorised Persons Regulations 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Integrated Promoters (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2026] 185 taxmann.com 971 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member & Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
• Pranav Yadav, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Jitender Singh, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee declared rental income of Rs. 8.25 lakhs in the return of income. As per the amended rent deed executed between the parties due to Covid-19, rent for April to June 2021 was waived, rent for July 2021 was fixed at Rs. 0.75 lakh, and the monthly rent for the remaining period was fixed at Rs. 1.50 lakh. The assessee stated that it raised invoices only for the period from July to December and declared a total rent of Rs. 8.25 lakhs.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee had shown rental income of Rs. 8.25 lakhs. In contrast, the actual rental income was Rs. 13.75 lakhs, resulting in a difference of Rs. 5.50 lakhs. AO made an addition under Section 22 after allowing 30% deduction under Section 24(a) on the alleged difference.

Aggrieved-assessee filed an appeal to CIT(A) against the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the additions. The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee declared rental income in the return of income and the GST returns. The GST returns showed a total rent of Rs. 11.75 lakhs, with a credit note of Rs. 3.85 lakhs, leaving a balance of Rs. 8.25 lakhs, as per the GST Act. The assessee raised invoices for the rent of a certain period and declared the rental income in the GST returns. The GST returns were filed without any qualification or disclaimer. Therefore, the assessee had received rent of only Rs. 8.25 lakhs, which was declared in the GST returns.

Since the assessee had not raised any bills for the rent of the remaining period, there was no occasion to hold that the assessee also received the rent for the remaining period. Accordingly, the additions made by AO were to be deleted.

The post ITAT Deletes Addition on Waived Rental Income During Covid appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Global Financial Insights is a weekly feature for the Accounts and Audit Module subscribers of Taxmann.com. It provides you with the latest updates on financial reporting and auditing practices from across the globe. Here is this week’s financial update:

1. IFRS Foundation Revises Due Process Handbook to Align IASB and ISSB Standard-Setting Processes

The IFRS Foundation Trustees have issued a revised Due Process Handbook that outlines the procedures to be followed by the IASB and the ISSB in developing, amending, and maintaining Standards.

The revisions primarily reflect the establishment of the ISSB and clarify that both the IASB and ISSB follow the same rigorous, transparent, and inclusive due process framework.

The updated Handbook also incorporates stakeholder feedback received during the public consultation process and includes enhancements relating to:

• Post-implementation reviews of the Standard
• The role of the IFRS Interpretations Committee
• Consultation procedures for minor amendments
• Review processes for educational materials

Importantly, the Handbook now formally sets out the due process for amendments to SASB Standards, which entities are required to consider while applying ISSB Standards. Such amendments will be subject to public consultation and deliberation in ISSB public meetings.

Source –  The International Financial Reporting Standards

2. FRC Issues Final Revisions to UK Auditing Standards on Fraud and Going Concern

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published final revisions to:

• ISA (UK) 240, The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements
• ISA (UK) 570, Going Concern

The revisions follow public consultation and align UK auditing requirements with the latest amendments issued by the IAASB to the corresponding international standards.

Key highlights include:

• Enhanced auditor responsibilities relating to fraud risk assessment.
• Greater transparency in audit reporting, particularly for publicly traded entities.
• Strengthened guidance on evaluating and reporting going concern assumptions.
• Incorporation of lessons from recent corporate failures and evolving stakeholder expectations.

The FRC noted that many of these enhanced requirements were already reflected in UK practice, as the UK standards had been updated ahead of the international revisions. Accordingly, only a limited additional implementation effort is expected for auditors.

The revised standards will be effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2026.

Source – Financial Reporting Council

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Global Financial Insights] IFRS Foundation Revises Due Process Handbook and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Premlata Rakesh Jain, In re [2026] 186 taxmann.com 31 (AAR-GUJARAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sushma Vora & Vishal Malani, Member
• Mehul Pandya, Adv. for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant, a GST-registered provider of storage and warehousing services, sought clarity on eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of cement, steel, beams, columns and works contract services used for the construction of a warehouse or shed intended for storage and leasing activities. It was stated that the applicant was in the process of constructing a warehouse and would procure construction materials and services for the said purpose. The applicant submitted that ITC on construction-related goods and services was earlier treated as blocked under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, even when used for furtherance of business. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the eligibility of ITC was required to be examined in light of Section 17(5)(c) and Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act read with Section 16 of the CGST Act. It was observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. had distinguished the expression ‘plant and machinery’ under clause (c) from ‘plant or machinery’ under clause (d), and clarified that the statutory explanation excludes land, building or other civil structures. It was further held that warehouse construction using cement, steel, beams, columns and works contract services results in the creation of immovable property in the nature of building or civil structure, which is specifically excluded from the ambit of ‘plant and machinery’ under the explanation to Section 17. It was concluded that ITC on such goods and services is not admissible.

List of Cases Referred to

• Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 73/106 GST 250/90 GSTL 3 (SC) (para 8).

The post ITC on Warehouse Construction Blocked u/s 17(5) | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Hemang Bipin Varaiya vs. State of Maharashtra [2026] 185 taxmann.com 557 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
• Nirmal Pagaria for the Petitioner.
• Ms Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. Govt. Pleader & Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the action of blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules and Maharashtra GST Rules. It was contended that a show cause notice (SCN) was issued proposing such blocking; however, the electronic credit ledger was blocked even before the petitioner had a chance to reply and before the SCN proceedings were completed. The petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, the electronic credit ledger reflected a negative balance and no available credit existed, which could be subject to blocking. It was further contended that Rule 86A did not permit negative blocking. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Rule 86A of the CGST Rules empowers restriction of use of credit only to the extent of available balance in the electronic credit ledger under Section 49 of the CGST Act, and does not contemplate any concept of negative blocking. It was further held that where no ITC exists in the ledger, any action seeking to block beyond such available credit is ultra vires Rule 86A and inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing utilisation of ITC. It was concluded that the impugned action exceeded the permissible limits of law. Accordingly, the Court directed the unblocking of the electronic credit ledger.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Rawman Metal & Alloys v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [2025] 179 taxmann.com 387/112 GST 585/[2026] 104 GSTL 57 (Bombay) (para 6) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Samay Alloys India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2022] 135 taxmann.com 243/91 GST 338/61 GSTL 421 (Gujarat) (para 5)
• Rawman Metal & Alloys v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [2025] 179 taxmann.com 387/112 GST 585/[2026] 104 GSTL 57 (Bombay) (para 5).

The post Negative ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Not Allowed | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Amrendra Jha vs. Punjab National Bank [2026] 185 taxmann.com 715 (HC-Patna)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ. & Harish Kumar, J.
• Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Avinash Kumar, Ajay Kumar Mehta & Kumar Satyam, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Mritunjay Kumar, Ajit Kumar & Suryakant Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was an employee of the respondent bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement, which the Appellate Authority affirmed.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the appellate order affirming the punishment. When the writ petition was taken up, the respondent bank raised a preliminary objection to its maintainability on the ground that a statutory alternative remedy was available before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.

Taking note of the statutory alternative remedy and the delay attributable to the long pendency of the writ, the Single Judge directed the appellant to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ordered expeditious disposal within 90 days, and directed the bank to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

It was noted that Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is a power exercised in appellate jurisdiction by the High Court as a Court of correction of errors, if any. If there is no evidence of any perversity, palpable unreasonableness or any inconsistency with any particular position of law, order cannot be interfered with in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since there was no perversity in the order of the Single Judge, the Letters Patent Appeal against said order was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Awadhesh Singh v. Punjab National Bank [CWJC No. 5753 of 2018] (para 2)
• Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15596 of 2022] (para 5).

The post HC Dismisses LPA Over Availability of Statutory Remedy appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Balaji Madhukar Konkanwar vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporattion [2026] 185 taxmann.com 717 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjay Karol & Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
• Varinder Kumar Sharma, Aor, Shantanu Sharma & Ms Deeksha Gaur, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• Ms Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Aor, Vyom Raghuvanshi & Ms Akanksha Rathore, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant-employee was engaged as a Cleaner with the respondent-State Transport Corporation on a daily wage basis. He was orally terminated from service. The Labour Court held the termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of back wages.

The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court, wherein interim relief against reinstatement was declined and the respondent was directed to deposit the back wages. Consequently, the appellant was taken back into service as a daily wager.

Thereafter, the appellant approached the Industrial Court seeking regularisation upon completion of 180 days of service. The Industrial Court directed regularisation from the date on which the appellant completed 180 days of service. However, despite the said direction, the respondent failed to comply with the order until 2011, when the appellant was finally regularised in service.

Subsequently, in IDA Case No. 10 of 2016, the Labour Court granted back wages for the period from October 1993 to 20 January 2011 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The High Court, however, set aside the award passed by the Labour Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had already completed 180 days of service prior to being unceremoniously relieved from employment and had continuously pursued legal remedies to secure what was rightfully due to him. Therefore, the doctrine of estoppel could not be invoked by the respondent to avoid payment of the appellant’s legitimate dues, which represented compensation for services rendered and not a gratuitous payment.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the Industrial Court granting compensation of Rs. 8,09,218/- towards back wages for the period from October 1993 till 20 January 2011. However, considering the financial implications arising from grant of interest at 12% per annum from October 1993 onwards, the Supreme Court reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 8% per annum.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WP-299-2022, dated 01-08-2022 (para 7) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Kisan Narayanrao Kale [ Writ Petition 3720 of 2011, dated 11-6-2013] (para 3).

The post SC Restores Back Wages to Illegally Terminated Worker appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Income Tax Officer vs. Tej Partap Singh [2026] 185 taxmann.com 1007 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Surya Kant | CJI., B.V. Nagarathna & Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
• Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, N. Venkataraman, Rahjavendra P. Shankar, S. Dwarakanath, Raghavendra P. Shankar, A.S.Gs., V. Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Zoheb Hussain, Bhuvan Kapoor, Karan Lahiri, Ms Shilpi Ohri, Udit Dedhiya, Ms Pallavi Mishra, Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Abhyudey Kabra, Rajat Vaishnaw, Mudit Bansal, S. Vijay Adithiya, Gaurang Bhushan, Yogya Rajpurohit, Mrs. Uma Prasunna Bachu, Sandeep Sapra, Udai Khanna, Praneet Pranav, Padmesh Mishra, Shashank Bajpai, Chitvan Singhal, Shantanu Bhowmick, Ranjeet K. Ranjan, Gautam Barua, Abhaya Nath Das, Ms Monica Goel, Mohd Yasin, Ms Sarita Verma, Ms Shubhangi Pandey, Naresh Jain, Ms Arati Debnath, Rishabh Jain, Mahaveer Jain, Alok Kumar, Ms Kavya, Ankit Daga, Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advs., Sudarshan Lamba, Vinay Garg, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Satish Kumar, Vikash Chandra Shukla, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Ms Kheyali Singh, Aniket Deepak Agrawal, AORs and Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Rupender Sinhmar, Samarvir Singh, Kartik Bansal, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Ms Smriti Puri, Srajan Sinha, Nitin Kumar, Dushyant Nayak, Shivam Jain, Krishan Kant Kumar, Monu Kumar, Chander, Rajasaheb S. Patil, Ms Supriya Wankhede, Sukhbir Hooda, Ms Pushpanjali Singh, Vipul Kumar, Ms Gursimrat Kaur, Manoj Kumar, Saurabh Sharma, Karan Seth, Jaiveer Singh Bali, Nithin K. Raj, Mohd. Amaan Deewan, Gaurave Bhargav, Ms Anshu Gupta, Shubham Gupta, Ms Siddhi Gupta, Satyam Aneja, Aniket Singh, Ms Megha Shaw, Abhisek Das, Amit Mathur, Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Vishnu Sharma A.S., Pratik Shah, Ms Tani Malik, Ms Vidhatri, Sumit Mangal, Ms Radhika Sharma, D. Manmohan, Yashas R.K., Venkatram Reddy Mantur, Percy Pardiwala, Gunjan Kakkad, Raghav Deshpande, Rushabh Tripathi, Madhur Agrawal, Satyajit A. Desai, Sachin Singh, Pratik Kumar Singh, Shashank Upadhyay, Parth Johri, Sanchit Agrahari, Madhur Duggal, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Somil Aggarwal, Gautam Thacker, S. Sukumaran, Bhupesh Pathak, Mrs. Ruche Anand, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Aditya Jain, Yogit Kamat, Dr. Shine P. Sasidhar, Kamal Singh Bisht, V.R. Raman, Ms Aakriti Gupta, Ms Urvi Khanna, J.S. Prakyat, Nishant Thakkar, Hiten Thakkar, Ms Jasmin Amalsadvala, Nikhil Ranjan, Rahul Hakani, Rajesh Ranjan Prasad, Nihar Mankad, A. Raghuram, Ms Devyani Mahra, Poli Naidu Vudamala, Vivek Sarin, Ms Divyanshi Singh, Dhruv Dev Gupta, Ms Nandita Singhal, Satish C. Kaushik, Ms Tamanna Rohilla, Vibhu Tiwari, Saksham Singhal, Ms Priyanka Jain, Samrath Choudhary, Viabhav Kulkarni, Ms Mahima Goud, Ms Mahima Thakur, Bhanu Thakur, Ms Swati Mishra, Amit Sangwan, Bharat Mishra, Ms Sneha Chandna, Ms Shivangi Singh, Ms Vaibhavi Parikh, Pranay Bhardwaj, Ms Pragya Jaiswal, Sholab Arora, Ms Madhumitha Kesavan, Karan Khetani, Ms Sriharshitha Chada, Ram Avtar Sharma, Ms Ananya Kapoor, Salil Kapoor, Ms Soumya Singh, Tarun Chanana, Sumit Lalchandani, Shivam Yadav, Ravi Kumar, Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Ms Nazuk Singhal, Rajat Khattry, Aman Gupta, Ms Srishti Ghoshal, Ms Divya Jain, Kshitij Kumar, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Ms Shambhawi Shiva, Dinesh H. Godara, Amarnath Munjampalli, Ms Daggu Pallavi, S. Siddarth, Devvrat Singh, Ankit Midha, Ms Komal Mundhra, Rishay Raj, Rahul Tyagi, Rohit Gupta, Mohit Singhal, Ms Dhanshri S. Mandhale, Ms Surbhi Sharma, Siddhant Sharma, Shubham Soni, Satyen Sethi, Ms Gargi Sethee, Akshay Singh, Ms Sanjana Jain, Venkata Prasad Pasupuleti, Aayush Agarwala, Gaurav Verma, Kushal Kumar Chauhan, Ms Prapti Shrivastava, Amit Kumar Singh, A. Anisha, Ravi Sawana, Ms Neha Sharma, Ms Neha Choudhary, Ms Nitum Jain, Swastik Mishra, Ms Medha Sinha, L. Badri Narayanan, Vishal Kalra, Anil Kumar, Saumyendra Singh Tomar, Ms Suvandna Kalra, Inder Paul Bansal, Vivek Bansal, Sanjay Goyal, Vamsikrishna Thota, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Aditya Dassaur, Syed Ahmed Saud, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Daanish Ahmed Syed, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Aqib Baig, Mohd. Shahib, Mohd. Shakim, Seemab Qayyum, Mohammad Aadil Khan, Kislay Pandey, Ankur Khurana, Arnav Kumar, Ms Manya Gupta, Keshav Mittal, Ms Priya Agarwal, Ms Shardha Zutshi, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Ritik Arora, Shivam Mishra, Ms Gulshan Jahan, Sewa Sangh, Shashank Manish, Ms Pragati Singh, B. Veera Swamy Raju, Mohammad Mukhairuddin, Akarsh Garg, Ms Ritika Aggarwal, Ms Abhipsa Anamika, Ms Uditie Aggarwal, Saksham Garg, A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, Nikhil Swami, Ms Divya Swami, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Alok Yadav, Anshuman Srivastava, Abhinabh Garg, Ms Ameesha Malhotra, Ms Sayaree Basu Mallik, Ms Madhur Agarwal, Rachit Thakur, Ms Jineshi Thakur, Ms Niharika Singh, Aneesh Vempati, Partik, Rohit Dhamija, Puneet Dewan, Dharmesh Shah, Kapil Hirani, Dharan Gandhi, Nishit Gandhi, Devendra Jain, Kumar Kale, Tanzil Padvekar, Nalin Bajaj, Dhaval Shah, Kushagra Gehlot, Amar Gahlot, Prashant, Pravin Gambhir, Rakesh Agarwal, Subham Kumar, Priyanshu, Ms Krati Agrawal, D. Bharat Kumar, Aman Shukla, Ms Yatika Gupta, Bhoumik Nayyar, Ms Manasvi Reddy Jakka, M. Chndrakanth Reddy, Thandra Sai Yeshwanth Goud, Mahipal, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Jas Sanghavi, Ms Aasavari Kadam, Mihir Mehta, Suyog Bhave, Ms R.K. Batra, Abhay Mann, Ms Amanat Kaur Chahal, Prabhat Chaurasia, Daleep Singh, Anirudh Jamwal, Aditya Bajaj, Ms Kenisha Savla, Ms Prerna Priyadarshini, Syed Faraz Alam, Atharva Gaur, Ms Ayesha Choudhary, Pramothesh Mukherjee, Ved Jain, Nischay Kantoor, Sparsh Kapoor, Vivek Punjabi, Jasmeet Singh, Ms Rusheet Saluja, Saif Ali, Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Vijay Sharma, Pranav Menon, Saurav, Ms Rutuja N. Pawar, Saurabh Upadhyay, Ms Hardikaa Kalia, Manish Chaurasia, Ms Hetal Laghave, Ms Sneha More, Pranaya Ramesh, Adhyatamik Khanna, Ms Saloni Sankhe, Ms Khushi Chhetri, Piyush Garg, Sushant Harit, Sandeep Goel, Abhishek Garg, Mahesh Gupta, Basa Mithun Shashank, Tanmay Sadh, Devaang Savla, Ved P. Singh, Ms Ankita Gupta, Ms Shreya Kasera, M. Ramasamy, Mrs. K. Balambihai, Ms Pooja Lakshmi, Prasad Lotikar, Ankur Savadikar, Suyash Gadre, Ms Srija Singh, Nishant Sharma, Kartik Sharma, Vachan Budke, Piyush Bhardwaj, Shivam Sengupta, Bharat Raichandani, Deepak Kumar Khokhar, Mahesh Raichandani, Ms Komal Mittal, Maasir Javed, Rahul Jain, Rahul Sharma, Dr. Saurab Kapoor, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Sanjay Sanghvi, Ajay Bhargava, Atul S. Mathur, Prabal Mehrotra, Vishal Shrivastava, Sarvapriya Makkar, Ms Tijil Thakur, Ms Shagun Mishra, Vikrant Kackria, S.K. Verma, Shailesh Sharma, Ms Nandita Sharma, Ms Alka Goyal, Khubaib Shakeel, Pradyoth Tadikonda, Shravan Yammanur, Ms Pankhuri Shrivastava, Abhishek Bhoot, Alekshendra Sharma, Deepankar Kumar, Ms Shradha Narayan, Ms Mallika Agarwal, Mohit Soni, Advs., Naman Tandon, P.N. Puri, Ayush Anand, Ms Alpana Sharma, Kaustubh Shukla, Ms Shalu Sharma, Niraj Gupta, Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, Saurabh Agrawal, D. Abhinav Rao, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mayank Pandey, Ms Aditi Anil Dani, Kunal Cheema, Ms Anagha S. Desai, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Anand Sukumar, Parminder Singh Bhullar, Abhijit Sengupta, Ms Christi Jain, Naveen Nagarjuna, Shibu Devasia Olickal, Pawanshree Agrawal, Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, Manish Paliwal, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Siddharth Jain, Aakarshan Aditya, Kunal Verma, Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Ms Madhulika Upadhyay, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, M.P. Srivignesh, Niteen Kumar Sinha, Praveen Swarup, Ivan, Siddhartha Iyer, Ravi Raghunath, Nikhil Jain, Ram Naresh Yadav, Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Sandeep Singh, Anand Dilip Landge, Rajiv Tyagi, Abhishek Gautam, Artatrana Panda, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Pushkar Karni Sinha, Shashank Singh, Rahul Gupta, Ms Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Nirmal Goenka, Anil Kumar Gautam, Prateek K. Chadha, Ms Devina Sehgal, Ms priyanjali Singh, Shakil Ahmad Syed, Mudit Gupta, Pulkit Prakash, Ashok Mathur, Tushar Giri, Ms Nidhi Sahay, Kaushik Choudhury, Mrs. Prabha Swami, Prabhat Kumar Rai, E.C. Agrawala, Rohit Anil Rathi, Naveen Hegde, Bharat Bhushan, Rajat Mittal, Gopal Jha, Kush Chaturvedi, Subodh S. Patil, Ms Shweta Bhagchandani, Dhananjay Garg, Bhushan Mahendra Oza, Vikas Mehta, Anurag, Ms Akanksha Mehra, Kushagra Pandey, Sahil Tagotra, Aniruddha Deshmukh, B. Karunakaran, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Abhinav Agrawal, Aneesh Mittal, Ms Qurratulain, Deepak Goel, Manish K. Bishnoi, Ms Mitali Chauhan, Ms Neelam Sharma, Anantha Narayana M.G., Ms Anubha Agrawal, Divyanshu Sahay, Akshay Sahay, AORs, Salil Dev Singh Bali, J.D. Mistri, S. Ganesh, Puneet Jain, Sandeep Goyal, T. Suryanaryan, Tushar Hemani, Sanjay Bansal, V. Sridharan, Ms Radhika Suri, Balbir Singh, Kavin Gulati, Vikram Pooserla and Prakash Shah, Sr. Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

A large batch of reassessment matters arose under the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the Finance Act, 2021, overhauled Sections 147 to 151 with effect from 01.04.2021. Subsequently, on 29.03.2022, the CBDT notified the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 under Section 151A, providing that reassessment under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 would be carried out through automated allocation and in a faceless manner.

This gave rise to a dispute on whether, after this Scheme, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or the National Faceless Assessment Centre/Faceless Units (NFAC) had authority to act at the pre-notice and notice stages under Sections 148A and 148.

In several cases, JAOs issued orders under Section 148A(d) and consequential notices under Section 148 without routing them through the faceless mechanism. Multiple writ petitions were filed before various High Courts. Divergent views emerged; some High Courts held that the JAO and NFAC had concurrent jurisdiction and that the Scheme did not displace the JAO, others quashed the notices and proceedings on the ground that they were not issued through the faceless mechanism, thereby rendering the subsequent reassessment steps invalid.

During the pendency of appeals arising from these judgments, Parliament enacted the Finance Act, 2026 (effective 01.04.2026), inserting Section 147A into the Act with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021 to clarify that the Assessing Officer, for purposes of Sections 148 and 148A, shall mean an Assessing Officer other than the NFAC or any assessment unit referred to in Section 144B(3).

Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant writ petition contending that the High Court quashed the reassessment notice only on the ground that it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation, the impugned judgment in favour of the assessee should be set aside, and the matter should be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court had to decide whether to quash the reassessment notices on the ground that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) lacked competence to initiate such proceedings or not.

The Supreme Court has set aside the orders of various High Courts holding that the JAOs have no jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment under Section 148A(d) and Section 148, and that such notices should be issued by the NFAC. The Apex Court held that the Parliament, from the outset, intended that while notices could be issued by either the Jurisdictional AO or the Faceless AOs, the subsequent quasi-judicial adjudication of such notices was to be undertaken by the FAOs.

The power to enact retrospective amendments is well settled in law, and fresh notices will now be issued to assessees in accordance with the clarified position, so that pending reassessment proceedings may be concluded in accordance with the law.

It is not necessary for the Supreme Court to examine the merits of the rival submissions concerning the correctness of the impugned judgments or the scope of the competing precedents at this juncture. The High Courts have primarily quashed the reassessment notices on the ground that the Jurisdictional AOs lacked competence to initiate such proceedings, and the very foundation of that view now stands altered by the amending legislation.

Thus, the impugned judgments in favour of the assessee were set aside on this limited ground. The matter was remitted to the respective High Courts for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to amend their writ petitions, if so advised, within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order, so as to enable them to challenge Section 147A of the IT Act, as introduced by Act No. 4 of 2026, or to any other connected or consequential provision.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)/[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) [Para 22] Partly set aside
• Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 114 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2024] 300 Taxman 437 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2024] 467 ITR 52 (Punjab & Haryana)
• Order dated 08-04-2025 in CWP No. 10149/2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana [Para 22] set aside

The post SC Revives Reassessment Notices Issued by Jurisdictional AOs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

The Finance Act, 2026 which received Presidential assent and came into force on 30 March 2026 has made a set of targeted but consequential amendments to the Customs Act, 1962. Some of these are ease-of-doing-business reforms long sought by trade; others resolve legacy anomalies that had been producing unnecessary litigation and working-capital costs for importers, exporters, and the Indian shipping and fishing industries. This note walks through the nine substantive amendments, paragraph by paragraph, in the same sequence in which they appear in the CBIC's classification of the changes. Each amendment is cross-referenced to the 28th edition of Taxmann's Customs & Foreign Trade Policy Ready Reckoner by V.S. Datey, where the underlying section is analysed in full against the accompanying rules, circulars, and judicial authority.

Table of Contents

1. Extension of the Customs Act to Indian-Flagged Fishing Vessels Beyond Territorial Waters
2. Special Provisions for Fish Harvested by Indian-Flagged Fishing Vessels—New Section 56A
3. Penalty Paid Before Adjudication Order—Deemed a Charge for Non-payment of Duty (No Stigma)
4. Advance Ruling Validity Extended from Three Years to Five Years
5. Warehouse-to-Warehouse Transfer Without Prior Officer Permission
6. Custody of Goods Imported or Exported by Post or Courier
7. Baggage Rules, 2026 and CBDPR, 2026
8. Deferred Payment of Duty—Extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers, on Monthly Cycles
9. Courier Exports—No Upper Value Limit
10. Summarisation of Finance Act 2026
11. The Reference Work

Check out Taxmann's Customs & Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) Ready Reckoner which is now in its 28th Edition, is the standard single-volume treatise on India's cross-border indirect tax regime—covering the Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, FT(D&R) Act, SEZ Act, IFSCA Act, and FTP 2023 with the HBP in one integrated work, updated to the Finance Act 2026 with the Baggage Rules 2026, CBDPR 2026, and CBIC Customs Manual 2025. Structured across 61 chapters in two Divisions (Customs Law and FTP) with a concept-to-compliance-to-enforcement progression, its defining feature is a four-layer citation density—statute → subordinate legislation → administrative guidance → judicial authority—at every paragraph, making it fit for direct use in advisory work, written submissions, and examination preparation.

1. Extension of the Customs Act to Indian-Flagged Fishing Vessels Beyond Territorial Waters

Section 1(2) of the Customs Act has been amended with effect from 30 March 2026 by inserting the words “fishing and fishing related activities by Indian-flagged fishing vessels beyond territorial waters of India” after “whole of India”.

Historically, an Indian-flagged fishing vessel that crossed the 200-nautical-mile limit to catch fish was treated, on its return, as if it were importing the catch into India—with all the attendant valuation, Bill of Entry, and duty exposure. Equally, a direct sale of the catch at a foreign port was not treated as an export, depriving the operator of export benefits. The amendment to Section 1(2), read together with a new Section 2(28A) defining “Indian-flagged fishing vessel” and the newly inserted Section 56A (discussed below), together resolve this anomaly.

In the Ready Reckoner, the full textual amendment, its legislative history, and the treatment of territorial waters under UNCLOS are analysed in Chapter 1 (Introduction to Customs Duty), Paras 1.1-1 and 1.1-3, with the Supreme Court’s observations on extra-territorial legislative competence in Union of India v. Mohit Minerals (P.) Ltd. cited at the relevant paragraph.

2. Special Provisions for Fish Harvested by Indian-Flagged Fishing Vessels—New Section 56A

A new Section 56A has been inserted with effect from 30 March 2026. In its operative part, it provides that notwithstanding anything in the Customs Act or any other law, fish harvested by an Indian-flagged fishing vessel beyond Indian territorial waters:

• may be brought into India free of duty in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by rules [Section 56A(1)(a)]; and
• where landed at a foreign port, may be treated as an export of goods in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed by rules [Section 56A(1)(b)].

The CBIC has been empowered under Section 56A(2) to make regulations covering the form and manner of entry, declaration, custody, examination, assessment of duty, clearance, transit, and transhipment of such harvested fish. The net effect is a duty-free import regime for Indian fishing operations, coupled with export recognition when the catch is sold abroad—a two-way relief that directly addresses the commercial reality of the industry.

The Ready Reckoner discusses Section 56A in its chapter on warehousing and connected provisions, with cross-references to Chapter 10 on general procedures for import and export.

3. Penalty Paid Before Adjudication Order—Deemed a Charge for Non-payment of Duty (No Stigma)

Section 28(6)(i) of the Customs Act has been amended with effect from 30 March 2026. The earlier language—”be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein”—has been substituted with “be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein, and penalty so paid under section 28(5) on determination under section 28(6) shall also be deemed to be a charge for non-payment of duty”.

The consequence is significant. Where a person voluntarily pays both duty and penalty before the adjudication order is issued, the penalty so paid is treated as a charge for non-payment of duty—not as a penalty stricto sensu. This carries three direct benefits:

• no stigma attaches to the assessee;
• the amount is allowable as a deduction under the Income-tax Act; and
• no reporting is required in the books of account or to the stock exchange (for listed companies), as it is not a “penalty” in the reporting sense.

The policy rationale is to encourage voluntary compliance and to remove the disincentive that attached to pre-adjudication payment under the earlier regime.

In the Ready Reckoner, the demand and adjudication framework under Section 28—including the three tracks of ordinary demand, undervaluation, and suppression/wilful misstatement/collusion—is analysed in Chapter 20 (Demands under Section 28), with the amended Section 28(6)(i) treatment set out at the relevant paragraph.

4. Advance Ruling Validity Extended from Three Years to Five Years

Section 28J(2) of the Customs Act has been amended with effect from 30 March 2026 to extend the validity of an Advance Ruling under Customs from three years to five years. A proviso has been added to permit the validity of an existing ruling to be extended to five years on a request by the applicant.

For importers and exporters structuring long-horizon supply chains, especially where classification, valuation, or exemption eligibility is the pivotal question, this doubles the period during which the ruling provides binding certainty. The relief is particularly material for capital-equipment imports under EPCG and for long-tail supply contracts where the five-year window now aligns more naturally with the export obligation period.

Chapter 21 of the Ready Reckoner (Adjudication and Advance Ruling) covers the Advance Ruling machinery end-to-end—application, bench composition, binding nature, and the now-extended validity period—with the amendment to Section 28J(2) set out at the relevant paragraph.

5. Warehouse-to-Warehouse Transfer Without Prior Officer Permission

Section 67 of the Customs Act has been amended with effect from 30 March 2026 to provide that the owner of any warehoused goods may remove them from one warehouse to another subject to such conditions as may be prescribed—dispensing with the earlier requirement of obtaining prior permission from the proper officer for each transfer.

This is a textbook ease-of-doing-business reform. Under the earlier regime, each inter-warehouse movement—including routine operational transfers between an importer’s own facilities—required an individual permission from the proper officer, creating a persistent friction cost. Post-amendment, the movement operates on a conditions-prescribed basis, aligning warehousing with the self-assessment philosophy that the Customs Act otherwise embraces.

The full warehousing regime—public and private warehouses, bonded manufacturing, the MOOWR scheme, period of warehousing, interest, and now the liberalised Section 67 transfer—is set out across Chapters 22 to 27 of the Ready Reckoner, with the amended Section 67 and the pre-amendment position both retained for transitional matters.

6. Custody of Goods Imported or Exported by Post or Courier

Section 84(b) of the Customs Act has been amended with effect from 30 March 2026. For the words “the examination”, the words “the custody, examination” have been substituted, enabling the CBIC to make regulations covering the custody of goods imported or exported by post or courier, in addition to their examination.

This is a structural enabling provision: it gives the CBIC the regulatory headroom to formalise custody arrangements for the rapidly expanding e-commerce and courier export traffic, including Dak Niryat Kendras and E-Commerce Export Hubs (ECEHs). The operational regulations flowing from this section will, in all likelihood, be issued separately.

The courier and post regime—including the CHAPTER-level changes for e-commerce consignments—is analysed in Chapter 14 of the Ready Reckoner, with Chapter 55 on Cross-Border Trade in the Digital Economy tracking the FTP 2023 / Handbook of Procedures provisions on ECEHs and Dak Niryat Kendras.

7. Baggage Rules, 2026 and CBDPR, 2026

The Baggage Rules, 2026 and the Customs Baggage (Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2026 have been notified with effect from 2 February 2026, in supersession of the earlier regime. While the revised general free allowance, transfer-of-residence entitlements, and duty rates are not radically different from the pre-amendment position, the 2026 framework is better structured—the declaration and processing regulations now sit in a separate, dedicated instrument, and the substantive entitlements are consolidated cleanly in the Rules.

Chapter 13 of the Ready Reckoner on Baggage has been fully rewritten for the 2026 Rules and CBDPR, with the general free allowance, transfer-of-residence allowance, rates, and the control provisions set out as they now stand.

8. Deferred Payment of Duty—Extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers, on Monthly Cycles

The deferred payment of duty regime has been extended to “Eligible Manufacturer Importers”, and the cycle has shifted from the earlier fortnightly basis to a monthly basis. This is a meaningful working-capital reform—the monthly cycle brings the duty payment cadence closer to the cash-conversion cycle of most manufacturing operations, and the extension to Eligible Manufacturer Importers widens the pool of beneficiaries beyond the earlier narrower set.

The Ready Reckoner tracks the deferred payment of duty framework in its chapter on Import Procedures (Chapter 11), with the new eligibility and cycle changes reflected at the relevant paragraphs.

9. Courier Exports—No Upper Value Limit

With effect from 1 April 2026, there is no upper value limit for export of goods through courier. The earlier value ceiling had been a binding constraint for D2C exporters, small-consignment exporters of jewellery and specialty goods, and MSMEs using courier as their primary export channel. The removal of the ceiling brings the courier channel structurally in line with the policy direction of the E-Commerce Export Hubs and Dak Niryat Kendras initiative under FTP 2023.

Chapter 14 of the Ready Reckoner, on courier and post imports/exports, reflects the removal of the value ceiling and its interaction with the FTP 2023 framework.

10. Summarisation of Finance Act 2026

Taken together, the nine amendments can be summarised in one line: they remove anomalies (fishing vessels, Section 67 transfers, courier value ceilings), reduce stigma and working-capital friction (Section 28(6)(i), deferred payment), and extend certainty (Advance Ruling validity). None of the changes is a headline-grabbing structural overhaul. All of them matter at the ground level of day-to-day compliance.

For the practitioner, the challenge is that each amendment lands in a different section of the Act, interacts with a different set of rules and regulations, and carries its own case-law history. That is precisely why a single-volume reference that sets out the amended provision, the subordinate legislation, the administrative circular and manual, and the relevant judgment together at the paragraph is where most day-to-day Customs advisory work actually gets done.

11. The Reference Work

Taxmann’s Customs & Foreign Trade Policy Ready Reckoner, 28th Edition (2026), by V.S. Datey, is the single-volume treatise in which the Finance Act, 2026 amendments—together with the Baggage Rules, 2026, CBDPR, 2026, and CBIC Customs Manual, 2025—have been integrated section by section, paragraph by paragraph, with the relevant case-law cited at the point of discussion.

The book runs to 61 chapters across two Divisions—Division A on Customs Law (Chapters 1–41) and Division B on Foreign Trade Policy (Chapters 42–61)—and moves from the conceptual framework through transactional compliance to the full enforcement and appellate cycle. Its defining feature is a four-layer citation density at every paragraph: statutory text, then subordinate legislation, then administrative guidance (CBIC circulars, Customs Manual 2025, DGFT policy circulars, MCI-DC(SEZ) instructions, RBI circulars), and finally the leading judicial authority—a citation architecture that allows the book to be used directly in written submissions, replies to Show-Cause Notices, and appellate pleadings.

For a practitioner, in-house team, or officer working through the Finance Act, 2026 amendments and their operational consequences, the Reckoner is the primary desk reference—and has been so, in its continuously maintained series, for nearly three decades.

The post Customs Act Amendments – What They Mean for Indian Trade appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source