View All Due Date - IT || Due Date - IT || Due Date - GST || Filing of SPL-01/ SPL-02 where payment made through GSTR 3B and other cases || Advisory on filing of Amnesty applications under Section 128A of the CGST Act || Due Date - GST || System Validation for Filing of Refund Applications on GST Portal for QRMP Taxpayers || Due Date - GST || Order u/s 119(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act,1961 regarding processing of returns filed u/s 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the prescribed time limit || Barring of GST Return on expiry of three years || Advisory regarding non-editable of auto-populated liability in GSTR-3B || Due Date - IT || Due Date - IT || Due Date - IT || Extension of due date for furnishing return of income for the Assessment Year 2025-26 || CBDT extends date of filing of Income Tax Returns (ITRs) due for filing by 31st July 2025 to 15th September 2025 || Due Date - GST || Due Date - GST || Attention - Advisory on reporting values in Table 3.2 of GSTR-3B || Due Date - IT || Advisory on Appeal withdrawal with respect to Waiver scheme || Due Date - GST || Due Date - GST || Due Date - GST || Updates in Refund Filing Process for Recipients of Deemed Export ||

GST

Levy under Rajasthan APMC Act is Fee and not Cess and therefore not abolished after rollout of GST

Civil Writ Petition No.1451/2018 in the Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has held that the levy under section 17 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 is a ‘Fee’ and not a cess and therefore, the same is not abolished after the rollout of GST. The Imarti Lakdi Vyapari Sansthan had filed petition contending that the State Government has no power to charge tax/cess payable under the provisions of Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 from its members. It was contended that the cess on the purchase and sale of timber from the members of the petitioner society is illegal, as the same is not an agricultural produce. It was also contended that after the introduction of GST, the impugned cess cannot continue. The High Court however negated such contentions.