Gst Notice Interpreter

GST Notice Interpreter — Master Skill

Built by Rohan Vidhate Project: GST Notice Responder — Claude Plugin

What This Skill Does

This is the entry point for every GST notice query. When a user pastes or uploads a GST notice, this skill:

1. Identifies the notice type (ASMT-10, DRC-01 SCN, audit, etc.)
2. Extracts key metadata (GSTIN, period, section cited, demand amount)
3. Routes to the correct section/rule skill files
4. Directs the reply strategy

Step 1 — Extract These Fields from Every Notice

When a notice is shared, always extract:

After extracting the GSTIN, immediately run Step 1B below before proceeding.

Step 1B — State Code Detection and Overlay Loading

Extract the first 2 digits of the GSTIN. Match to the state code table and load the appropriate overlay:

When state code is NOT 27 or 29:

⚠ State overlay not available for [State Name] (code [XX]). This analysis applies the CGST Act and central rules. State-specific SGST rules, trade circulars, and local AAR rulings for [State Name] are NOT covered — the user should separately verify any state-specific obligations or deviations before filing. Skip Step 3F (Maharashtra Legal Audit).

When state code is 27: Run Step 3F as normal.

When state code is 29 (Karnataka): Load legal-archive/karnataka-sgst-overlay.md. Skip Step 3F (Maharashtra-specific). Apply Karnataka-specific DIN prefix, AAR, and trade circular notes from the overlay.

GSTIN from a Central Registration (97xx / 99xx): These are non-PAN entities (e.g., government bodies). Apply CGST rules only; no state overlay needed.

Step 2 — Identify Notice Type and Load Skill

Step 3 — Run the Notice Checklist

For every notice, check these before drafting the reply:

A. Jurisdiction check

• Is the officer from the correct ward/circle for this GSTIN?
• Is the GSTIN in the notice correct?

B. DIN check

• Is there a 20-digit DIN on the notice?
• MANDATORY TOOL CALL: Call validate_din with the DIN, state code, and notice date.
• If tool returns is_valid: false → notice is invalid per CBIC Circular 128/47/2019; use the tool's error_reason as the ground.

C. Limitation & Bundling Check

• MANDATORY TOOL CALL: Call calculate_limitation_date with the Financial Year and Section.
• Compare the tool's scn_deadline to the notice issue date.
• If notice date > scn_deadline → PRIORITY GROUND: Time-Barred.
• Bunched SCN Detection (v3.0 Intelligence):
  • Does the notice cover multiple FYs spanning both pre- and post-FY 2024-25?
  • If YES → PRIORITY GROUND: Jurisdictional Overreach.
  • Ground: "The SCN is bunched across the §74A transition boundary. Demands for FY 2024-25 onwards cannot be bunched with earlier years as the statutory limitation and penalty structures differ fundamentally. This constitutes a jurisdictional overreach per Bombay HC trends."

D. Reply deadline check

• When was the notice served?
• How many days remain for reply?
• If less than 7 days → immediately flag urgency to user

E. Fraud allegation check

• Does the notice use words like: fraud, willful misstatement, suppression, deliberately, intentionally, evade?
• If yes AND demand is FY 2023-24 or earlier → §74 fraud track (minimum 100% penalty)
• If yes AND demand is FY 2024-25 onwards → §74A unified track — penalty differs by fraud/non-fraud track:
  • Non-fraud track (no fraud/suppression language in SCN):
    • Pre-SCN voluntary payment: NIL penalty → SCN not served
    • Within 60 days of SCN: NIL penalty → proceedings close (extended from 30 days under §73)
    • After adjudication order: 10% of tax (or ₹10,000, whichever higher)
  • Fraud track (SCN uses fraud / suppression / willful misstatement language):
    • Pre-SCN voluntary payment: 15% penalty
    • Within 60 days of SCN: 25% penalty → proceedings close
    • Within 60 days of order: 50% penalty → proceedings close (50% is the ceiling — no higher surcharge)
  • For full penalty table and settlement decision tree → load section-74a.md
• If no → §73 or §74A non-fraud track applies (NIL penalty within 60-day SCN window for §74A; 10% at order stage)

F. Maharashtra Legal Audit (run for every Maharashtra GSTIN — state code 27)

Open a <maharashtra_legal_audit> block internally before drafting any reply strategy. Work through each point:

<maharashtra_legal_audit>

  <bombay_hc_check>
    **BOMBAY HC FIRST RULE**: Is there a Bombay HC ruling directly on the allegation?
    - If YES → cite it as the **PRIMARY BINDING AUTHORITY**.
    - If it conflicts with another HC (e.g., Delhi/Karnataka) → explicitly state: "Bombay HC ruling is binding on Maharashtra officers; other HC rulings are persuasive only."
    - If NO → cite the next-strongest HC (Karnataka → Gujarat → Madras → Allahabad).
  </bombay_hc_check>

  <trade_circular_check>
    Does any Maharashtra Trade Circular (issued by the Maharashtra GST Commissioner
    under §168 SGST Act) address the allegation?
    Key circulars to check:
    - Circular 7T/2023 — ITC mismatch procedure (GSTR-2A/2B vs GSTR-3B) — applies to FY 2017-18 and 2018-19 only; aligns with CBIC Circular 183/15/2022-GST
    - Circular 5T/2022 — Scrutiny of returns procedure (ASMT-10) — guidelines for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19; B2B/B2C misreporting; CA certificate for ITC differences > ₹2.5 lakh
    - Circular 11T/2023 — GSTR-3B Table 4 — ITC reversal and ineligible ITC reporting; uniform reporting across taxpayers per 47th GST Council recommendations
    - Circular 3T/2021 — Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears of Tax, Interest, Penalty or Late Fee (legacy pre-GST and early GST arrears)
    If a relevant Trade Circular exists → cite it alongside the CBIC circular.
    State officers follow Maharashtra Trade Circulars more strictly than CBIC circulars.
  </trade_circular_check>

  <amnesty_check>
    Is the demand for a period before FY 2020-21?
    If YES → check whether an active Maharashtra Settlement of Arrears / Amnesty Scheme
    covers this demand type. Amnesty typically offers:
    - Full waiver of interest and penalty
    - Payment of tax only (sometimes at reduced rate)
    Compare amnesty outflow vs. litigation cost before recommending "contest."
    Flag: "Maharashtra Amnesty may apply — verify current scheme before filing DRC-06."
  </amnesty_check>

  <commissionerate_check>
    Is the notice from MahaGST (State GST — GSTIN prefix 27, state officer) or
    CGST (Central commissionerate — Mumbai-I, Mumbai-II, Pune, Thane, Navi Mumbai)?
    This determines:
    - Correct reply recipient (State Tax Officer vs Central Superintendent)
    - Correct appellate forum (Commissioner Appeals SGST vs Commissioner Appeals CGST)
    - Whether Maharashtra Trade Circulars bind the officer (MahaGST yes; CGST no)
  </commissionerate_check>

</maharashtra_legal_audit>

Output a one-paragraph Maharashtra Legal Audit Summary as the first item in the reply strategy.

Step 3B — MANDATORY PROCEDURAL AUDIT (Run Before Any Merit Analysis)

This block is non-negotiable. Before computing any tax, interest, or penalty amount, or loading any defence playbook, run this audit in full. A single procedural kill can make the entire merits analysis unnecessary.

Open a <procedural_audit> block internally and complete all three checks:

<procedural_audit>

  <din_validity>
    PURPOSE: A notice without a valid DIN is void ab initio (CBIC Circular 128/47/2019).
    **MANDATORY TOOL CALL**: Call `validate_din` with extracted DIN, state code, and notice date.
    Output: Use the JSON result from the tool.
    If tool returns `is_valid: false` → "Notice invalid. [Tool's error_reason]. Raise as FIRST ground in reply."
    Output: DIN_STATUS = VALID | INVALID | ABSENT
  </din_validity>

  <section_74a_threshold>
    PURPOSE: §74A(1) proviso bars issuing a notice if the aggregate demand for the FY is below ₹1,000.
    Applicable ONLY for §74A demands (FY 2024-25+). For §73/§74 demands → mark N/A and skip.
    Checks to run:
    1. Is this a §74A demand (FY 2024-25 onwards)? If NO → THRESHOLD_STATUS = N/A; skip this check.
    2. What is the aggregate demand for the financial year? (Sum all grounds and all tax heads)
    3. If total < ₹1,000 → notice is void ab initio.
       Ground: "The aggregate demand for FY [___] is ₹[___], which is below the ₹1,000 statutory
       minimum under §74A(1) proviso. No notice can be issued below this threshold. The notice is
       void and must be dropped."
    4. If total ≥ ₹1,000 → threshold satisfied; proceed.
    Output: THRESHOLD_STATUS = VOID (< ₹1,000) | VALID (≥ ₹1,000) | N/A (§73/§74 demand)
    If VOID → flag as PRIORITY GROUND — RAISE FIRST IN REPLY, before all other grounds.
  </section_74a_threshold>

  <section_reclassification>
    PURPOSE: §74 demands a 100% penalty; §73 demands only 10%. Reclassifying saves the client
    the full penalty amount. Officers frequently invoke §74 lazily without establishing fraud.
    Run this test:
    1. Does the notice contain the words: fraud, willful misstatement, suppression, deliberately,
       intentionally, evade, collusion? → Count occurrences.
    2. If fraud words are present but NO specific facts are pleaded to support fraud (e.g., officer
       just copies the statutory language without case-specific reasoning) → §74 is unsustainable.
       Authority: Devi Enterprises v. CGST (Delhi HC), K.P. Sugandha Ltd. v. State (Allahabad HC).
    3. If demand is for mismatch, short payment, ITC reversal, or non-payment WITHOUT any allegation
       of intent → §73 must be applied, not §74.
    §74A-SPECIFIC NOTE: If demand is for FY 2024-25 onwards and officer cited §74A:
    - §74→§73 reclassification does NOT apply (§74A is a unified provision with no fraud/non-fraud split)
    - Instead check: Did officer wrongly apply §73/§74 for a FY 2024-25+ demand? That is a jurisdictional error
    - For mixed FY demands: each FY must be separately assessed under the correct section
    Output: SECTION_APPLIED = §73 | §74 | §74A | WRONG_SECTION_FOR_FY | RECLASSIFICATION_RECOMMENDED
    If RECLASSIFICATION_RECOMMENDED →
      1. Load `gst-common-defences/section74-to-73-reclassification.md` immediately for the full playbook.
      2. Insert as a PRIORITY standalone ground (before merit analysis): "The invocation of §74 is
         without jurisdiction. The facts disclose, at best, a §73 demand. Penalty must be capped at 10%."
      3. In Step 4 output, add a RECLASSIFICATION ALERT block:
         "⚠️ RECLASSIFICATION ALERT: §74 invoked without sufficient fraud pleading.
          Reclassification to §73 saves 90% of penalty (100% → 10%). Load section74-to-73-reclassification.md."
  </section_reclassification>

  <speaking_order_check>
    PURPOSE: A non-speaking order (template notice with no case-specific reasoning) can be
    challenged before the High Court on grounds of violation of natural justice / Article 14.
    Checks to run:
    1. Does the notice/order cite specific facts about THIS taxpayer (dates, invoice numbers,
       amounts, supplier names)? If NO → it is a template/non-speaking order.
    2. Does the notice explain WHY those specific facts constitute a violation? If NO → no application
       of mind; order is vulnerable.
    3. Was an opportunity of personal hearing offered before the order? If NO → natural justice
       violated (§75(4) CGST Act mandates hearing before adverse order if requested).
    4. Is this an assessment order (not just an SCN)? If it is a final order without addressing the
       taxpayer's reply → it is void for non-consideration of evidence.
    Output: ORDER_TYPE = SPEAKING | NON_SPEAKING | UNKNOWN
    If NON_SPEAKING → add ground: "The notice/order is a non-speaking order. No application of mind
    is evident from the facts. The order is liable to be quashed on principles of natural justice."
    Bombay HC authority: Bansal Buildwell v. UoI; Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. DGGI.
  </speaking_order_check>

  <officer_persona_check>
    PURPOSE: Different issuing authorities have different litigation "styles." Identifying the
    persona helps tailor the tone and defensive depth of the reply.
    Checks to run:
    1. **DGGI / Anti-Evasion / Intelligence:** High-conflict. Persona = "Enforcer."
       - Focus: Retraction of statements, Article 20(3) (self-incrimination), coercion.
       - Requirement: Load `gst-litigation/gstat-hc-appeal-strategy.md` immediately.
    2. **Audit Commissionerate (ADT-01):** Investigative. Persona = "Examiner."
       - Focus: Documentation trail, reconciliation, circular compliance.
       - Requirement: Use the `evidentiary-weight-matrix.md` for ALL document lists.
    3. **Ward Officer / Jurisdictional STO:** Compliance-driven. Persona = "Administrator."
       - Focus: Technical glitches, bona fide errors, time-bar, §73 vs §74.
       - Requirement: Prioritize "Pay and Close" or "Standard technicality" arguments.
    Output: OFFICER_PERSONA = ENFORCER | EXAMINER | ADMINISTRATOR
  </officer_persona_check>

  </procedural_audit>

Output a Procedural Audit Summary with one line per check and a clear verdict before proceeding to Step 4. If any check returns a kill ground, highlight it in bold as PRIORITY GROUND — RAISE FIRST IN REPLY.

Step 3C — §74A SCN Handler (Run Only When §74A Demand Identified)

Trigger: Skip this section entirely if demand is for FY 2023-24 or earlier (§73/§74 track). Run in full for any FY 2024-25+ demand.

Four Critical §74A Differences from §73/§74

1. Fraud/non-fraud determines penalty, not the notice form Under §74A the officer uses the same DRC-01 regardless of whether fraud is alleged. The distinction matters only for penalty. If the SCN is ambiguous about which track applies, challenge it immediately:

• Ground: "The SCN does not specify whether the fraud or non-fraud penalty track applies. The taxpayer is entitled to know the applicable penalty track before filing a meaningful reply under §75(4)."

2. Burden of proof for fraud track To invoke the fraud penalty track under §74A, the officer must positively establish deliberate concealment, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade. Generic fraud boilerplate without case-specific facts is unsustainable under §74A — apply the same challenge strategy as §74 reclassification (see section74-to-73-reclassification.md). Reclassifying to non-fraud track drops the penalty from 50% to 10% at order stage. [ASK USER: supply §74A Explanation 2 statutory text on suppression definition + any Bombay HC ruling specifically on §74A burden of proof for fraud track]

3. 60-day payment window — use the full window strategically Under §74A(8)(ii), non-fraud taxpayers pay tax + interest with ZERO penalty if paid within 60 days of the SCN (vs 30 days under §73). Advise the client:

• Do NOT rush to pay. Use the full 60 days to gather GSTR-2B reconciliation, supplier payment confirmations, and evaluate contest viability.
• If decision is to pay and close → target Day 55 (5-day buffer for portal processing).
• The 60-day window runs from SCN service date, not the issue date — verify registered email/portal service.

4. Pre-deposit for appeal against §74A order When a DRC-07 is issued under §74A and the client wants to file APL-01 under §107: [ASK USER: confirm the pre-deposit percentage under §107 for a DRC-07 order issued under §74A — is it the same 10% (§73) / 25% (§74) as the old regime, or a new rate specific to §74A?]

Mixed FY Demand — Mandatory Procedure

When a single SCN covers FYs straddling FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25:

1. Segregate by FY — List the demand amount for each FY separately.
2. Apply the correct section per FY:
   • FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24 → §73 or §74 (as cited in SCN)
   • FY 2024-25 onwards → §74A (mandatory regardless of what the SCN cites)
3. If officer applied §73/§74 to a FY 2024-25+ demand → jurisdictional error → priority ground: "The demand for FY 2024-25 cannot be assessed under §73/§74. §74A is the exclusive provision for FY 2024-25 onwards. The SCN is without jurisdiction for FY 2024-25 demand."
4. Reply structure: File a single DRC-06 but structure it in two parts — Part A (FY 2023-24 and earlier, §73/§74 submissions) and Part B (FY 2024-25+, §74A submissions).

§74A DRC-06 Reply Pre-Filing Checklist

• SCN specifies fraud or non-fraud track? If ambiguous → challenge on natural justice first.
• ₹1,000 minimum threshold met? If not → raise threshold defect as Ground 1.
• Is 60-day payment window still open? (Compute from SCN service date, not issue date.)
• Are all FYs correctly assessed under the right section? Flag jurisdictional error for FY 2024-25+ if §73/§74 cited.
• Bombay HC checked for §74A-specific rulings?

Step 3D — Heuristic Risk-Scoring Engine (v3.1 Intelligence)

Before finalizing the strategy, compute a 1–10 Risk Score for the notice:

<risk_scoring_engine>
  <logic>
    1. BASE_SCORE = 1
    2. QUANTUM: 
       - If Demand < ₹10L → +0
       - If Demand ₹10L - ₹50L → +1
       - If Demand ₹50L - ₹1Cr → +2
       - If Demand > ₹1Cr → +3
    3. FRAUD:
       - If §74 or §74A Fraud Track is invoked → +3
    4. URGENCY:
       - If Reply Deadline < 7 days → +2
    5. PROCEDURAL_MITIGATOR:
       - If DIN is MISSING → -3
       - If Demand is clearly TIME-BARRED → -3
       (Note: Risk score cannot drop below 1)
  </logic>

  <score_interpretation>
    - 1-3: LOW (Routine compliance matter)
    - 4-6: MEDIUM (Financial impact; merit defence needed)
    - 7-8: HIGH (High stakes; fraud allegations or large quantum)
    - 9-10: CRITICAL (Immediate risk of recovery or registration block)
  </score_interpretation>
</risk_scoring_engine>

Inject the score into the Step 5 — Notice Summary output under the Preliminary Flags.

Step 4 — Produce the Reply Strategy

After loading the relevant skills, output:

NOTICE SUMMARY
--------------
Form: [ASMT-10 / DRC-01 / etc.]
Section: [61 / 73 / 74 / 74A]
Period: [FY ____]
GSTIN: [___]
Demand: ₹[___] tax + ₹[___] interest + ₹[___] penalty
Reply due: [date] ([X] days remaining)
DIN: [present / MISSING — notice invalid]

PRELIMINARY FLAGS
-----------------
☐ Limitation expired? [Yes/No + deadline date]
☐ DIN present? [Yes/No]
☐ Fraud alleged? [Yes/No]
☐ Jurisdiction correct? [Yes/No]

ALLEGATION BREAKDOWN
--------------------
1. [Allegation 1]: [Brief — accept / dispute / partially accept]
2. [Allegation 2]: [Brief]
...

MAHARASHTRA LEGAL AUDIT
-----------------------
Bombay HC authority: [case name if found / "None — use [next HC]"]
Trade Circular: [Circular number + key point / "None found"]
Amnesty applicable: [Yes — check current scheme / No — post-2020 demand]
Commissionerate: [MahaGST (state) / CGST — [commissionerate name]]

OFFICER PERSONA & TONE
----------------------
Persona identified: [Enforcer / Examiner / Administrator]
Strategy tone: [Aggressive-Legal / Evidence-Heavy / Compliance-Cooperative]

EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT STRATEGY
---------------------------
(Rank the documents the user MUST provide for this specific notice)
1. [High Weight Doc 1] (Weight: 10/10) - [Purpose]
2. [High Weight Doc 2] (Weight: 9/10) - [Purpose]
3. [Medium Weight Doc 1] (Weight: 7/10) - [Purpose]

RECOMMENDED STRATEGY
--------------------
[Pay / Contest / Partial pay + contest]
[Key legal grounds]
[Skills to load for full defence: section-XX.md, etc.]


REPLY FORM TO USE
-----------------
[ASMT-11 (for §61) / DRC-06 (for §73/74/74A)]

Step 4B — Pre-Finalisation Verification Gate

Before outputting any reply strategy or draft, complete this checklist. Do not skip any item.

VERIFICATION GATE
-----------------
☐ DIN validated via tool?         [Call validate_din — result: valid/invalid]
☐ Limitation checked via tool?    [Call calculate_limitation_date — result: valid/barred]
☐ Interest/Penalty computed?       [Call calculate_interest / calculate_penalty as needed]
☐ Reply deadline?                  [___ days remaining — if <7 days, prepend URGENT FLAG]
☐ Correct section identified?      [§61 / §73 / §74 / §74A / other]
...
☐ Fraud track or non-fraud?        [Non-fraud (10%/NIL penalty) / Fraud (up to 100%/50%)]
☐ Penalty window identified?       [Pre-SCN NIL / 30d §73 / 60d §74A / post-order]
☐ §74A threshold check?            [Demand ≥ ₹1,000 for FY? / N/A (§73/§74 demand)]
☐ Mixed FY demand detected?        [Yes — segregated, correct section per FY / No]
☐ Bombay HC case cited?            [Yes — [case name] / No — cite next strongest HC]
☐ Maharashtra Trade Circular?      [Relevant circular noted / None found]
☐ Amnesty check (pre-FY 2020-21)?  [Applicable — flag for client / Not applicable]
☐ Commissionerate identified?      [MahaGST (state) / CGST — [name]]
☐ All allegations addressed?       [Yes — [count] allegations, all covered / Missing: ___]
☐ Reply template selected?         [ASMT-11 / DRC-06 / APL-01 / other]

If any box is unchecked → complete that step before proceeding.

Bombay HC First Rule: When citing case law for a Maharashtra GSTIN (state code 27):

• Bombay HC ruling = cite as primary binding authority on Maharashtra officers
• Delhi HC / other HC ruling that conflicts = cite as persuasive only; Bombay HC binding
• Explicitly state the conflict: "Note: Delhi HC held [X] but Bombay HC held [Y] — Bombay HC is binding on Maharashtra officers."

Step 5 — Extract Structured Notice Summary (Always Output This)

After reading any notice, always produce this block before any strategy or reply:

╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║                    NOTICE SUMMARY                            ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Form          : [ASMT-10 / DRC-01 / REG-17 / MOV-09 / etc.] ║
║ Section       : [61 / 73 / 74 / 74A / 29 / 70 / 83 / etc.]  ║
║ GSTIN         : [15-digit number]                            ║
║ Taxpayer name : [Legal name]                                 ║
║ Period        : [MM/YYYY to MM/YYYY]  FY: [XXXX-XX]         ║
║ Tax demand    : ₹[___] (IGST/CGST/SGST/Cess breakup if any) ║
║ Interest      : ₹[___]                                       ║
║ Penalty       : ₹[___]                                       ║
║ Total demand  : ₹[___]                                       ║
║ DIN           : [20-digit / MISSING]                         ║
║ Issuing officer: [Name, Designation, Jurisdiction]           ║
║ Notice date   : [DD-MM-YYYY]                                 ║
║ Reply deadline: [DD-MM-YYYY] ([X] days remaining)            ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║                  PRELIMINARY FLAGS                           ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ ⚠ Risk Score         : [X]/10 ([LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL])   ║
║ ⚠ DIN missing?       [YES — notice invalid / NO]            ║
║ ⚠ Limitation expired? [YES ✅ strongest ground / NO / CHECK] ║
║ ⚠ Fraud alleged?     [YES — §74/74A fraud track / NO]       ║
║ ⚠ Jurisdiction OK?   [YES / QUERY — verify ward/circle]     ║
║ ⚠ Hearing given?     [YES / NO — §75(4) right violated]     ║
║ ⚠ Urgency level:     [HIGH (<7 days) / MEDIUM / LOW]        ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║               ALLEGATION BREAKDOWN                           ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ 1. [Allegation 1] — [DISPUTE / ACCEPT / PARTIAL]            ║
║ 2. [Allegation 2] — [DISPUTE / ACCEPT / PARTIAL]            ║
║ ...                                                          ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║                RECOMMENDED STRATEGY                          ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Action        : [PAY / CONTEST / PAY-PART + CONTEST]        ║
║ Reply form    : [ASMT-11 / DRC-06 / REG-18 / REG-21 / etc.] ║
║ Skills to load: [list skill files]                           ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Golden Pairs — Quality Benchmark

Before finalising any reply, check if a Golden Pair exists for this notice type in samples/. If it does, your response should match or exceed its depth, structure, and citation quality.

Related Skills — Full Index

Statutory provisions

• cgst-act-reference/section-7-schedule-2.md — Scope of supply — Schedule I deemed supply, Schedule II goods vs services, Schedule III exclusions
• cgst-act-reference/section-9-3-rcm-schedule.md — §9(3) RCM rate schedule — GTA, legal, security, import of services
• cgst-act-reference/section-12-13.md — Time of supply — §12 goods, §13 services, RCM 60-day rule, vouchers, rate change
• cgst-act-reference/section-15.md — Valuation of supply — transaction value, inclusions, discounts, related-party Rules 27–31
• cgst-act-reference/section-16.md — ITC eligibility

…(truncated)