57th GST Council: what has changed for your GST notice or appeal, as of 1 November 2026

Since the 57th GST Council met on 8 October 2026, CBIC has told its Central GST officers not to issue show cause notices where the tax is under ₹10,000 (Instruction 02/2026-GST, 30 October) and has issued guidelines on writing notices and orders (Circular 258/04/2026-GST, 26 October). Everything that needs an amendment to the CGST Act, including the validation clause for multi-year notices, is still only a recommendation, with no Bill found; until then, whether one notice can cover several years turns on your High Court.

What has changed since 8 October, and what has not?

The 57th meeting was held on 8 October 2026. Its release (PIB, release ID 2320934; GST Council copy) has eight items we track; on 1 November 2026 we checked each against CBIC's tax information portal.

Does the ₹10,000 floor apply to my notice?

If a Central GST officer is about to issue it, yes. Instruction 02/2026-GST directs CBIC's Central tax field formations:

"show cause notices may not be issued in cases where the amount involved is below Rs. 10,000/-"

CBIC, Instruction No. 02/2026-GST, 30 October 2026, para 3.3

On its text it is a direction to Central officers. It says nothing on notices already issued and states no consequence for one issued below the floor. It lasts only "till the amendments in CGST Act, 2017 as recommended by the GST Council in its 57th meeting come into force" (para 3), and does not bind State officers: it goes to the GST Council Secretariat for State formations, "which may, if deemed appropriate, issue similar instructions". The Act has only the s.74A(1) floor of ₹1,000 a year (FY 2024-25 on).

What does Circular 258 change for my notice and order?

Circular 258/04/2026-GST is the circular the Council asked for (release para 7.1). On multi-year notices:

"In case of notices which span across multiple financial years, efforts should be made to demarcate the demand financial year wise."

CBIC, Circular No. 258/04/2026-GST, 26 October 2026, para 4.5

That is drafting advice, not a ruling that such notices are valid. Para 17 says the guidelines "must not be cited by proper officers in show cause notices, final or appellate orders"; it is silent on a taxpayer citing them.

Is the validation clause law yet?

No. The release recommends:

"introduction of a validation clause in CGST Act, 2017, for validation of notices which have been held invalid by various courts on the ground of having been issued for multiple financial years."

57th GST Council recommendations, PIB release 2320934, 8 October 2026, para 18(3)

A validation clause is a provision Parliament adds to an Act to save past actions that courts have struck down. We found no Bill, ordinance or notification with it; the Instruction and Circular 258 do not mention it.

Where do the courts stand on multi-year notices?

Whether one notice under s.73 or s.74 may cover several financial years depends on the forum.

Read from the judgments in Nira on 1 November 2026, except Milroc, Rollmet, the Supreme Court order and the last row, which are read as quoted in judgments cited here. Another bench of the same court can differ from a single judge; any row can change.

Where one notice is allowed

"we conclude that show cause notices issued under Sections 73/74 do not prohibit coverage of multiple financial years. Such notices are neither tax period–specific nor financial year–specific. There is no statutory bar to issuance of a common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods or financial years."

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench), WA 1751/2024, 23 April 2026, para 57

Ambika Traders and Mathur were alleged fraudulent-ITC cases, but Delhi has since widened: Technosys was "unable to agree" with confining Ambika Traders "only to cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC across financial years", and read it as accepting consolidation "under both Section 73 and Section 74" (paras 21-22). Telangana declined to interfere with a composite s.74 order on that footing: that Mathur concerned ITC "would make no difference so far as the principle of law as regards issuance of show cause notice and passing of adjudication order for multiple years under Section 74 of the CGST Act is concerned" (Goldstone Infra, p. 15, read from the PDF as the text on file is badly scanned).

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition against Mathur on 7 November 2025. Whether that declares the law is contested: the Chandigarh Tribunal calls it "a speaking order" (para 14); the Bombay Division Bench says the Court "dismissed the petition in limine and not on merit", so nothing merges (Shree Balaji Traders, para 13).

The Chandigarh bench (para 9): "clubbing of more than one financial year in one show cause notice will not adversely affect the rights of the noticee", within the s.74(10) limit. The J&K and Ladakh High Court sets conditions: a year-wise break-up of tax, interest and penalty, allegations that are not vague, each period within limitation, and a speaking, detailed notice (New Gee Enn & Sons, para 39, quoted at para 47 of the Karnataka judgment).

Where a separate notice for each year is required

"the entitlement to proceed and assess each year being separate and distinct, and further the time limit being prescribed under the Statute for each assessment year being distinct, we see no reason as to why we should not hold that separate show cause notices are required before proceeding to assess the assessee for different years of assessment under Section 74."

Kerala High Court (Division Bench), WA 627/2025, 8 April 2025, para 11

Bombay: a larger Bench is to decide

In Rollmet LLP on 17 April 2026, a Bombay Division Bench "has expressed doubt regarding the view taken by the earlier Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Milroc Good Earth Developers (supra) and has referred the matter to a larger Bench" (as the Karnataka Bench records it, para 54). On 28 August 2026 another Division Bench still quashed a bundled notice, with liberty to revive "if the Larger Bench takes a different view in the matter" (Mehadia and Sons, para 15). We found no larger Bench decision.

Which ruling binds me?

A Supreme Court ruling binds everyone in India (Article 141 of the Constitution); we found none on multi-year notices. A High Court's ruling binds the officers and tribunals under its superintendence:

"It would be anomalous to suggest that a tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that court and start proceedings in direct violation of it."

Subba Rao J. in East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, [1963] 3 SCR 338, 366 (1962 INSC 210), as quoted in Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, [1973] 2 SCR 495, 500 (1972 INSC 241)

Bombay applies it to its own State ("the authorities working within the jurisdiction of the State of Bombay, will be bound by the law laid down by this Court", Mehadia and Sons, para 12). Until a competent High Court differs, it treats "the law declared by the High Court, though of another State" as "the final law of land" (Shree Balaji Traders, para 15, citing Godavaridevi Saraf).

Tribunal benches generally follow their own High Court: the Delhi bench would "prefer to follow the view taken by the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court of Delhi" (para 39). The Kolkata bench allowed consolidation for a West Bengal taxpayer two months after the Calcutta High Court's contrary State Bank of India ruling; we have not seen how it reconciled them.

What about my appeal and the pre-deposit?

Nothing in the Act has changed. A penalty-only appeal needs 10% of the penalty as pre-deposit, with no cap (s.107(6), s.112(8)). Where tax is in dispute the 10% is already capped at ₹20 crore, and the APL-01 form says ₹20 crore each for CGST and SGST, and ₹40 crore for IGST (Notification 20/2024-Central Tax). The Council proposes the same 20 plus 20, ₹40 crore together, for penalty-only orders; that needs an amendment. In Circular 259/05/2026-GST, the Tribunal-stage 10% "is to be computed with reference to the liability confirmed by the Appellate Authority, which is disputed by the appellant" (S. No. 2).

From 1 April 2027, Notification 05/2026-Central Tax makes rule 86A a block (DRC-26), an objection (DRC-27) and "a reasonable opportunity of being heard" before the decision (DRC-28). It also substitutes a new FORM GST DRC-01 and adds the notice's number and date to DRC-07 (items 60-62).

What to do now

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• Primary PIB release 2320934, 8 October 2026; GST Council copy.
• CBIC tax information portal: Instruction 02/2026-GST, Circulars 258 and 259/2026-GST, Notifications 05/2026-Central Tax and 20/2024-Central Tax.
• Statute CGST Act s.74A(1), s.107(6), s.112(8).
• Judgments Karnataka, Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society, WA 1751/2024, 23 April 2026; Delhi, Mathur Polymers, W.P.(C) 2394/2025, 26 August 2025, and Technosys Integrated Solutions, W.P.(C) 5581/2025, 16 March 2026; Telangana, Goldstone Infra, WP 1498/2026, 27 January 2026; Gauhati, Bitchem Asphalt Technologies, WP(C) 1113/2026, 8 June 2026, and HD Associates, WP(C) 3066/2026, 3 September 2026; Kerala, Tharayil Medicals, WA 627/2025, 8 April 2025; Madras, R A and Co, WP 17239/2025, 21 July 2025; Bombay, Shree Balaji Traders, WP 1829/2026, 27 February 2026, and Mehadia and Sons, WP 4844/2026, 28 August 2026; Calcutta, State Bank of India, WPA 433/2026, 30 June 2026; Supreme Court, Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, [1973] 2 SCR 495.
• Tribunal GSTAT orders: Chandigarh, Delhi, Kolkata.