
Loading...
Latest notifications, circulars, orders and compliance changes.
Showing 3 of 3 result(s)
Clear filtersSubject
RBI Draft KYC Amendment Directions 2026: What Banks Need to Know About Money-Mule Accounts and Temporary Debit HoldsSummary: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has sought public feedback on a proposed adjustment to the operation of accounts and funds deemed potentially related to money mule activity and cyber-enabled financial fraud. On 11 September 2026, RBI issued the Draft Reserve Bank of India (Know Your Customer) Amendment Directions, 2026 for consultation. The draft amendment relates to the Know Your Customer (KYC) Directions, 2025, which currently contain instructions relating to the operational aspects of banks' accounts and money mules. The draft follows an order passed by the Supreme Court on 4 August 2026. The Court directed the central bank to set up and circulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which explains what measures banks should take in the event that a temporary debit hold is required to be placed on an amount or account associated with suspected money mule activity or cyber-enabled fraud. However, it should be noted that the legal standing of the document is important for banks and other interested parties. This is a draft directive that is issued for consultation rather than an order that has been implemented. RBI has invited comments from regulated entities and members of the public on or before 2 October 2026. Following the review of feedback, RBI will issue the final Directions separately. RBI Draft KYC Amendment Directions 2026 at a Glance Particular Details Issuing authority Reserve Bank of India Document Draft Reserve Bank of India (Know Your Customer) Amendment Directions, 2026 Press release date 11 September 2026 Press release number 2026-2027/1109 Nature of document Draft issued for public consultation Existing framework referred to RBI Know Your Customer Directions, 2025 Existing subject area Operations of Bank Accounts and Money Mules Supreme Court order referred to 4 August 2026 Main issue Temporary debit holds linked to money-mule activity and cyber-enabled financial fraud Entities covered by consultation Commercial Banks and Urban Cooperative Banks, including specified categories of commercial banks Feedback deadline 2 October 2026 Feedback route Connect 2 Regulate or email with the prescribed subject line Final effective date Not stated in the press release Final Directions To be issued separately after RBI examines comments This release by RBI makes the process clear but still does not announce a final date for implementation. 2 October 2026 is just the deadline for comments, not implementation. What Are the Draft RBI KYC Amendment Directions, 2026? These Directions will seek to solve the following specific problem in the banking sector: how to react where there is an assumption that a bank account or the balance therein might have been affected by mules and cyber-fraud. Currently, RBI’s existing KYC guidelines have a section dealing with “Operations of Bank Accounts and Money Mules.” The 2026 Direction Proposal will try to modify these guidelines based on an SOP approach. That means this is not being presented as a completely new KYC law. Rather, RBI is proposing to modify an existing part of its KYC framework. The press release does not contain the entire operational procedure. For example, it does not state: exactly when a debit hold can be placed, how long it can continue, whether only a disputed amount or the whole account may be affected, who within the bank has to approve the action, what documents must be recorded, how the customer must be informed, when the hold must be reviewed, or how it may be released. Those details cannot safely be filled in from assumptions. Why Has RBI Proposed the KYC Amendment? "The immediate explanation from the RBI is the order from the Supreme Court regarding the need for a standard procedure for temporary debit blocks." Existing Instructions Already Deal With Money-Mule Activity The RBI has particularly cited current KYC instructions related to the use of bank accounts and money mules. So the issue is not about whether or not the RBI has ever taken care of mule accounts. It has done so. The current consultation is on revising that particular regulatory area and making connections between them and temporary debit blocks." Supreme Court Order Dated 4 August 2026 As per RBI, it was directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to implement and disseminate the SOP regarding the action to be taken by banks in the event of temporary holds on the amount/ account linked to money laundering and frauds via cybernetics. As for the RBI statement attached, it does not contain the entire order passed by the Court. Therefore, the reasoning behind the Court's verdict should not be interpreted based on the single-page RBI statement. Why an SOP Could Matter An SOP is meant to provide a uniform way of addressing a certain situation for operational teams. In the case of banking, an SOP might facilitate understanding of: the circumstances when a particular issue should be escalated, who should be involved in the process, any internal review processes that should take place, how decisions would be recorded, and how similarly-situated cases should be addressed. It is a purely practical comment on the relevance of an SOP. The exact RBI process will depend on the actual regulations. What Is a Money-Mule Account? While the press release of the RBI uses the concept of money-mule activity, the definition of a money-mule account has not been defined. In layman’s terms, the concept normally implies the use of a bank account for the purposes of receiving, transferring, or transmitting money that has anything to do with suspicious activity. The individual who uses their bank account for such activities normally does not perform the same task each time. This is one of the reasons why banks have to conduct an assessment before considering something as fraudulent. For this article, that general explanation should not be read as the exact statutory or RBI definition. The attached press release itself does not provide one. What Is a Temporary Debit Hold? A temporary debit hold can be understood, at a basic level, as a restriction on debits from an amount or account for a limited period while the suspected fraud-linked activity is dealt with. The concept differs from that of detecting suspicious transactions, as it involves placing a hold on the transactions, affecting the customers' ability to conduct their transactions. According to the press release by the Reserve Bank of India, it is clear that the proposed SOP relates to debit holds on amounts/accounts for money mules and cyber-fraud. However, there are some things that the RBI press release doesn't reveal. From the press release, we cannot find any mention of: the holding time limit, monetary value limit, possibility of restricting the full amount, investigation period, approving authority, notice period, limit for releasing the funds, or customer recourse process. Until all this information becomes available from an official source, it should not be considered a requirement by RBI. How Does the Proposed SOP Fit Into RBI's Existing KYC Framework? The regulatory structure can be better explained with the help of four tiers. Regulatory Layer What It Means KYC Directions, 2025 Existing RBI KYC framework referred to in the press release Operations of Bank Accounts and Money Mules Existing area within that framework Draft KYC Amendment Directions, 2026 Proposed changes now under consultation SOP for temporary debit holds Operational approach referred to following the Supreme Court direction Final Directions Separate RBI Directions expected after consultation This is important for the compliance division of the bank since the regulations need to be read in conjunction with the existing KYC regulations. They cannot be looked at as a separate regulation for cyber fraud. Which Banks Are Covered by the Draft Consultation? According to RBI, the following kinds of banks are covered under the consolidated draft consultation. The consultation applies to the Commercial Banks that include the following: Small Finance Banks, Payments Banks, Regional Rural Banks, and Local Area Banks. Also covered are the Urban Cooperative Banks. Applicability Matrix Entity Covered by This Consultation? Position Commercial Banks Yes Directly covered Small Finance Banks Yes Included within Commercial Banks Payments Banks Yes Included within Commercial Banks Regional Rural Banks Yes Included within Commercial Banks Local Area Banks Yes Included within Commercial Banks Urban Cooperative Banks Yes Directly covered NBFCs Not expressly stated Do not assume coverage Fintech companies Not separately listed May have indirect relevance depending on relationship with banks The last two rows are important. The press release should not be stretched to cover every financial-sector business simply because cyber fraud is involved. What Exactly Has RBI Proposed to Change? The one-page press release gives us the direction of the proposed change, but not every clause of the amendment. Regulatory Area Existing Position Referred To Proposed Development Status Bank-account operations Existing KYC Directions contain instructions Existing instructions proposed to be amended Draft Money-mule activity Already addressed under existing KYC framework Proposed revision/strengthening Draft Temporary debit holds SOP directed by Supreme Court Banks to be advised on the action to be taken Draft Cyber-enabled financial fraud Identified as part of the problem Proposed SOP-linked response Draft This is the safest way to describe the change from the available source. An in-depth “old versus new clause” comparison will need the full text of the draft amendment. What May Change in the Handling of Suspected Money-Mule Accounts? If the Directions adopt the approach outlined above, it may be necessary to examine whether the bank’s process of handling such accounts needs to be changed. 1. Detection of Suspicious Activity Fraud detection and KYC units might need to take into consideration how suspicious activity in the account could be detected. The problem here is that not only can a fraudulent transaction be recognized, but a suspicious transaction by a genuine customer might also be legitimate. 2. Internal Escalation A case that is suspected of being fraudulent may need to escalate rapidly from monitoring functions to fraud, compliance, legal, and other areas. Otherwise, either action will be postponed or inconsistent. 3. Debit Restrictions If the proposed framework allows the imposition of a debit block temporarily, then banks may require well-defined controls on when to impose it and how to document the decision. 4. Customer Handling Account blocks are not just an anti-fraud control measure. They are also going to be a customer service issue in no time. Customers may wish to find out: the reason why their money is not available, the disputed transaction, how much information they have to give, to whom they should speak, and the timeline of the review. The above details will depend on the final RBI framework. What Could the Draft Mean for KYC and AML Teams? The KYC (Know Your Customer) and Anti-Money Laundering departments would most certainly be amongst those which will have to read the final Directions carefully. They might have to check if there is any change required in the following areas: • account-monitoring practices, • suspicious-activity escalation, • customer-risk assessment, • policy wording, • record-keeping, and • internal reporting. That does not mean every one of these items has already been mandated by the current press release. They are areas that banks may reasonably need to review once the final framework is available. What Could It Mean for Fraud-Risk and Cybersecurity Teams? The draft explicitly mentions cyber-based financial fraud; hence, the fraud risk teams are expected to play an important operational role in this regard. They might be required to determine whether the current systems are capable of gathering information on: disputed transfers, suspicious account behaviour, linked transactions, fraud alerts, and information received from other internal functions. Cybersecurity teams may also become involved where the underlying incident involves compromised credentials, phishing, unauthorised access or another cyber-enabled event. The RBI Directions will determine which of the above become specific compliance obligations. What Could It Mean for Legal and Compliance Teams? Legal and compliance teams have a different task: they need to separate what is legally required from what is merely an internal fraud-control practice. This becomes crucial when dealing with the restriction of an account. Internal teams should be careful about considering all of the following as the same thing: a fraud alert, a KYC issue, the suspicion of a money mule, a temporary debit hold, an account freeze, and a court or statutory restriction. Different actions may arise from different legal or regulatory grounds. The current press release does not collapse these categories into one. Temporary Debit Hold and Account Freeze: Are They the Same? The RBI press release uses the term temporary debit hold. It should not automatically be replaced with the broader expression “account freeze.” Usage of the two terms can differ based on the type of legal document that uses them, the extent of the limitation, and the jurisdiction under which the measure is being enacted. Since this information does not explain the difference between the two terms, it would not be wise to make a definitive legal comparison. For banks, the practical lesson is simple: use the terminology contained in the applicable RBI Directions, SOP, or legal instruction instead of treating similar-sounding terms as interchangeable. What Could the Proposal Mean for Bank Customers? For customers, the biggest concern is access to funds. Where a debit hold is applied, the customer may be unable to move the affected money until the matter is dealt with according to the applicable process. This can actually make a difference because a genuine customer might require the money to fulfill such obligations as: salaries, purchases, payments, loans, personal expenses, or other immediate requirements. On the other hand, a bank that suspects an occurrence of fraud will have to move fast so as not to lose the funds. This dilemma of acting promptly and properly will definitely prove to be one of the key practical problems within any resulting framework. Customer Protection and Fraud Prevention: Where Is the Balance? This type of framework needs to cover both aspects of this issue. From the Fraud-Control Side The imposition of an account block can assist because it: reduces the flow of money from fraudulent transactions, enables banks to scrutinize the transaction more efficiently, promotes greater uniformity in responses, and facilitates faster resolution of cyber fraud. From the Customer Side Banks should also protect their customers from: mistakenly having their accounts blocked, prolonged restrictions without any review, lack of communication, inconsistent decisions and unnecessary hardship for legitimate customers. The enclosed press release does not list the safeguards that would be employed. That would have to be verified later in the final Directions. How Could Different Bank Functions Be Affected? Bank Function Possible Area of Impact Why It Matters KYC/AML Policy and account-monitoring review Existing controls may need alignment Fraud Risk Case identification and escalation Suspected fraud may require fast response Cybersecurity Cyber-fraud incident coordination Some cases may begin with cyber events Legal Legal basis for restrictions Actions must rest on proper authority Compliance Regulatory interpretation Draft and final requirements must be separated Operations Execution of account-level action Front-line processes may need clarity Customer Service Handling affected customers Restrictions can trigger immediate queries Internal Audit Review of controls Implementation may need later testing The proposal is not simply an issue for the KYC team. These figures represent operational implications rather than RBI’s obligations. Who Can Submit Comments on the RBI Draft? RBI has widened the consultation process to include non-regulated banks as well. Comments or feedback may be submitted by: regulated entities, other stakeholders, and members of the public. That gives banks, industry bodies and other interested persons an opportunity to point out practical issues before the text is finalised. Consultation responses might concentrate on issues like: Is the suggested procedure workable? Do the terms have to be clarified? Are there clearly delineated roles? Is the protection of customers workable? Will there be major changes to the system for implementation? How Can Feedback Be Submitted to RBI? RBI has provided two ways. Through Connect 2 Regulate Feedback may be sent using Connect 2 Regulate on the RBI website. Through Email RBI has also made provision for feedback to be sent by email under the subject line: “Feedback on Draft Reserve Bank of India (Know Your Customer) Amendment Directions, 2026”. The release that is attached mentions the procedure and subject line for sending feedback. Please do not use the unverified email ID for sending feedback to RBI. October 2, 2026: The Date Banks Should Track The consultation closes on or before 2 October 2026. Regulatory Timeline Bank Function Possible Area of Impact Why It Matters KYC/AML Policy and account-monitoring review Existing controls may need alignment Fraud Risk Case identification and escalation Suspected fraud may require fast response Cybersecurity Cyber-fraud incident coordination Some cases may begin with cyber events Legal Legal basis for restrictions Actions must rest on proper authority Compliance Regulatory interpretation Draft and final requirements must be separated Operations Execution of account-level action Front-line processes may need clarity Customer Service Handling affected customers Restrictions can trigger immediate queries Internal Audit Review of controls Implementation may need later testing The latter two rows are of particular significance from a compliance point of view. There is nothing in the above press release to suggest that 2 October marks the beginning of a new debit-holding policy. Draft Directions and Final Directions Are Not the Same Thing The banks should prepare for change in regulation without confusing a work in progress as being set in stone. The process is very straightforward as follows: RBI releases the draft. The draft policy is made available for review. Comments are provided. The banks and other stakeholders raise issues relating to legal, technical, and operational matters. RBI reviews the comments. The regulator reserves the right to retain, revise, modify, or even discard sections of the draft. The final directions are released. This is the document that the banks have to review to see what their obligations are. It is clearly stated by the RBI that the final directions will be issued separately. What Happens After the Consultation Ends? Next comes the review of feedback by the RBI. Then, the RBI will finalize its Directions for the regulated entities under consultation. There are certain things, however, which have not been revealed in the press release: When will the Directions come out? What will be their effective date? Will there be a phase-wise implementation? Will there be a transition period provided to banks? How many banks will be treated differently from other banks? And so forth. This situation will remain like this until such clarifications from the Reserve Bank of India are provided. What Should Banks Review Now? The fact that this proposal is not yet final does not imply that banks should pay no attention to it. Internal assessment during the period of consultations is helpful indeed. Existing KYC Policies Banks may evaluate if their policies contain procedures to handle misuse of accounts, suspicion of money mules, and fraud escalations. Fraud-Monitoring Process The teams may review the process through which fraud alerts get escalated to action. Things to be reviewed include: Who receives the initial alert, How the case gets escalated, Which teams get involved, What documentation is kept, and How priority cases are handled. Internal SOPs The existing SOPs can be compared to the topic of the RBI proposal. It is not necessary to rewrite everything before the finalization of the Directions, but identifying potential gaps now would save time later. Decision-Making Authority The banks can check which individuals currently have the power to give approvals on matters that may affect customer transactions. The press statement by the RBI does not outline a new approval process, and therefore, no new power structure is implied by the press statement. Customer Communication Banks can examine how customers are currently informed when transactions or account access are restricted for fraud-related reasons. Clear internal ownership may help prevent customers from being passed repeatedly between teams. Audit Trail A decision affecting a customer's money should be capable of later review. Banks may therefore want to assess whether existing records show: what triggered the case, what information was considered, who reviewed it, what action was taken, and when the decision was reconsidered. These are sensible preparatory checks. They are not being presented as final RBI-mandated record formats. Operational Challenges Banks May Need to Manage Distinguishing Fraud From Unusual but Genuine Activity Not all odd payments are frauds. A huge payment to the bank account can take place due to a property deal, business payments, insurance payments, or any other genuine reason. Hence, banks must have some controls that will be able to assess the risk without considering all odd transactions as evidence of fraud. Speed Versus Accuracy Fraud response often needs to be fast. But a rushed decision can create a different problem if legitimate funds are restricted without a sufficient basis. The final framework will need to be read carefully to understand how RBI expects banks to manage this balance. Multiple Teams Handling One Case A cyber-fraud case can move through: the branch, fraud-control team, AML team, KYC team, cybersecurity, operations, legal, compliance, and customer support. Weak coordination can lead to delays or inconsistent handling. False Positives Indeed, a customer can be flagged by the anti-fraud system. Therefore, banks must have a good review process in place in order to prevent automatic restrictions from occurring. Customer Communication Account restrictions are stressful for customers, particularly when they do not understand why they cannot access funds. Banks may need clear internal communication routes, though the exact customer-notice requirements cannot be taken from the press release alone. Could a Standardised Debit-Hold Framework Help Banks? Potentially, yes. The use of a standard framework can simplify the management of fraud response decisions. Advantages that could potentially arise include: Consistency of approach: Similar types of cases could be processed using a common approach instead of individual approaches by branches. Response time: They may know the departments that need to act once a certain threshold has been reached. Coordinated actions: The fraud team, KYC team, legal team, and operations team could collaborate on the basis of a single set of SOPs. Internal responsibility: Internal responsibility could be easy to assign and monitor. Documenting decisions: The process for making decisions may be documented properly. Controlling fraud more quickly: Once a certain level is achieved in the final framework, suspicious funds could be restrained before transferring further. These are possible benefits. The actual outcome will depend on the final design and implementation of the Directions. What Could Increase the Compliance Burden? A new operational process can require time, people, and technology. Depending on the final Directions, banks may have to review: 1. Technology Changes may be required in systems to accommodate fraud warning capabilities, account-level restrictions, or internal processes. 2. Monitoring Transaction monitoring guidelines may need adjustment to conform to the chosen regulatory approach. 3. Training Branch personnel, fraud personnel, operations personnel, and customer service personnel may need training. 4. Documentation There might be a need for revision of regulations, SOPs, escalation matrices, and internal documentation. 5. Customer Service More account activity might mean more customer complaints and queries. 6. Audit and Monitoring An internal audit or compliance monitoring exercise may need to verify whether the process is being adhered to properly. RBI has not stated any implementation cost in the attached release. Therefore, no rupee estimate should be attached to these possible changes. Is the RBI Proposal the Right Step or an Additional Burden? Neither cancels out the other. A procedure can serve the purpose where rapid action must be taken against the proceeds of cyber fraud. The banks cannot keep reinventing the wheel each time an account is identified as potentially being used by a mule. On the other hand, limitations on bank accounts are imposed on real customers and real firms. An overly wide, vague, or lengthy procedure may have its own drawbacks. Potential Regulatory Value The recommendation could assist with: quick response to possible cyber fraud, increased consistency across banks, responsibility inside banks, cooperation, and proper treatment of possible mule accounts. Possible Burden on Banks Banks might encounter: developing systems, training of employees, more workload in regard to fraud reviews, customer complaints, wrongful detections, documentations, and increased compliance monitoring. Therefore, the concluding evaluation will have to take into account the real Directions, especially regarding RBI’s approach to triggers, scope, protections, reviews, and releases of debits. What Are the Risks of Treating the Draft as Final Law? Consultation is another piece of regulatory content that is one of the most vulnerable to misinterpretations. Banks should refrain from: informing their customers that the draft has legal force, introducing a new deadline without being informed about such plans on the part of the RBI, expecting that the draft will remain unchanged until the adoption of the final version, imposing prohibitions that have no legal basis, taking the date of the end of consultation as the date when the document becomes legally effective, and talking about requirements as obligatory ones. Instead, it is advisable to examine the draft, determine the issues that can arise for the operations of banks, and submit comments if needed. What Could This Mean for Businesses Outside the Banking Sector? The consultation is directed at specified banks, but ordinary businesses can still be affected indirectly. Businesses Maintaining Bank Accounts If any firm is queried regarding suspected fraud in cases of transactions involving disputes in relation to money deposited in the company’s bank account, then proper accounting books will serve their purpose. Where there are proper accounting books, firms need to maintain books for: customer payments, supplier invoices, contracts, credits, inter-firm transfers, and unusual credits. This is just proper finance management and not something new that RBI has recently communicated in its press release. Fintechs and Digital Payment Companies There is no mention of Fintechs as specific coverage in the press release. However, companies dealing with covered banks may face future changes in partner bank procedures in case the ultimate Directions demand some different fraud management procedures. Corporate Finance Teams Finance teams may want to pay particular attention to unexplained credits, unusual counterparties and requests to receive or transfer money on behalf of third parties. Again, these are practical fraud-risk measures rather than new duties expressly imposed by this draft announcement. What Should Banks Do Next? Practical action at this stage would include: Priority Action Relevant Team Timing High Read the complete draft and identify affected policies Compliance/Legal During consultation High Map current fraud and money-mule handling process Fraud/KYC/AML During consultation High Identify operational concerns for feedback Compliance/Operations Before 2 October 2026 High Submit comments where required Authorised regulatory team On or before 2 October 2026 Medium Review current SOPs and escalation routes Fraud/Operations Preparatory Medium Assess possible technology impact Technology/Fraud Preparatory High Track RBI for final Directions Compliance/Legal Ongoing High Implement final requirements only after verification Relevant functions After final Directions The bottom line is that you do not want to begin the process until you know what is required. How Can Corpseed Help? Where the bank is concerned, a short regulatory announcement may become quite an involved compliance activity. The announcement may be only a few pages, but compliance staff will need to determine what policy, department, system, or process could be impacted. Corpseed can support organisations through relevant banking regulatory compliance services and regulatory review. 1. RBI Regulatory Applicability Assessment Corpseed can assist in examining whether a particular RBI direction, amendment, or compliance requirement applies to the organisation's regulated activity. The review can cover: type of regulated entity, applicable RBI framework, business activity, existing licences or registrations, and regulatory scope. 2. KYC Compliance Consulting With KYC compliance consulting, organizations have the opportunity to assess if their existing KYC policy and internal controls comply with the RBI regulations. This could be done by analyzing: KYC policy framework, customer risk controls, internal controls, monitoring of accounts, and documentation. 3. AML Compliance Services If AML regulations apply, Corpseed can help your organization assess the existing compliance controls and documentation. The focus should remain on requirements that are actually applicable to the entity rather than on using a generic AML checklist. 4. Compliance Gap Assessment Gap analysis is useful in determining the gap between current internal procedures and regulatory standards. In case of regulatory changes like: The RBI proposal, Existing policies, Internal SOPs, Processes, Control ownership, Documentation, and Reporting. 5. Review of Internal Policies and SOPs After RBI issues the Direction, there may be a requirement to review the internal policies and SOPs in light of the new regulatory requirements. Corpseed can assist in reviewing and restructuring the compliance documentation according to the final regulatory requirements. 6. Regulatory Change Management A new Direction can affect more than the compliance team. Corpseed can assist organisations in mapping a regulatory change across: compliance, operations, legal, technology, customer service, risk, and internal audit. It may assist companies in realizing where internal actions have to be taken. 7. Continuous Compliance Assistance Financial laws keep evolving due to amendments, circulars, clarifications, and directions. The continuous compliance assistance provided by Corpseed's regulatory compliance consulting will be useful for tracking any changes in laws, assessing the applicability of these laws, and evaluating their impact on the documents already in place. The idea is not to consider each RBI directive as a mandatory requirement. The idea is to find out what really matters, what remains under proposal, and what needs action upon finalization of the rule. Key Takeaways The RBI's notification dated 11 September 2026 commences a consultation on modifications being proposed to the KYC guidelines in relation to money mules and financial fraud. This modification is in reference to existing KYC guidelines mentioned in the KYC Directions, 2025. RBI refers to an order of the Supreme Court dated 4 August 2026. This SOP pertains to temporary debit holds on the amount or account involved in money mules and cyber fraud. Commercial Banks, including Small Finance Banks, Payments Banks, Regional Rural Banks and Local Area Banks, are covered. Urban Cooperative Banks are also covered. Feedback can be submitted until 2 October 2026. The deadline pertains only to the consultations, not its enforcement. The directions that follow will be released separately, after RBI considers the comments it receives. For the banks, the important step now is to go through the draft proposal, raise any issues, and implement the final RBI Directions.
Subject
Maharashtra GST Amendment Act 2026: What Has Changed in Discounts, Credit Notes and Refunds?Summary: Maharashtra has amended three crucial provisions in the State GST law. The Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Maharashtra Act No. XXVII of 2026) was published on 7 July 2026 in the Maharashtra Government Gazette as notified by the state’s Governor. The amendment relates to sections 15, 34 and 54 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which pertain to issues of discounts allowed after supply, credit notes raised for the same, and provisions regarding certain refunds. With reference to section 15, the amendments that specify the nexus among the post-supply discount, the credit note issued in respect of the discount by the supplier, and the reversal of the Input Tax Credit relating to the same by the receiver should be taken into account by the taxpayers. Further, organizations that are claiming a refund on account of the inverted structure of duties should keep in mind the amendments made to section 54. Another point needs to be considered. Although the Act was published on 7 July 2026, it is not appropriate to consider that date as the commencement date of each amendment. The Maharashtra Government can bring the provisions of the Act into force by a separate notification, it can apply them prospectively or retrospectively, and different provisions may commence from different dates. What Is the Regulatory Framework Behind the Amendment? The Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act) is the State GST law that operates in conjunction with the overall GST regime. The 2026 Amendment Act amends certain provisions of the said law instead of introducing a new tax system. There are three sections we need to focus on: Section 15 - Value of Supply Section 15 addresses the valuation of supplies and includes provisions relating to discounts and the circumstances under which a discount could be excluded when determining the value of supply. Section 34 - Credit and Debit Notes Section 34 governs the issue and GST treatment of credit notes and debit notes. Credit notes matter where the value or tax attached to an earlier supply needs to be adjusted in circumstances permitted under the law. Section 54 - Refund of Tax Section 54 covers GST refunds. It includes, among other things, refund of unutilized input tax credit in permitted situations and the mechanism for provisional and final settlement of qualifying refund claims. The 2026 amendments accordingly should be read in conjunction with Section 34 to understand Section 15 and read with the prevailing refund conditions to comprehend the changes made to Section 54 of the Maharashtra GST Act. Which Sections of the Maharashtra GST Act Have Been Amended? The following table provides a snapshot of the amendments before examining each change in detail. Section Subject What the 2026 Act Does Why Businesses Should Care 15(3)(b) Discount after supply Substitutes the existing clause Changes the statutory test for relevant post-supply discounts 34(1) Credit notes Adds post-supply discount as an express ground Connects Section 34 directly with revised Section 15(3)(b) 54(6) Provisional refund Expands the categories covered Relevant for specified unutilised ITC arising from inverted duty structure 54(14) Minimum refund restriction Adds an exception Relevant to tax refund on goods exported with payment of tax The amendments in Sections 15 and 34 go hand in hand, while the two amendments to Section 54 pertain to different refund issues and hence should be analyzed separately. What Has Actually Changed Under the Maharashtra GST Amendment Act, 2026? Businesses must focus primarily on three of the amendments that took place. 1. The Rule for Post-Supply Discounts Has Changed Section 15(3)(b) has been amended. According to the new rule, a discount received after the supply of goods or services can be regarded as a discount only if the supplier issues a credit note for the said discount and the recipient reverses the input tax credit in respect of such a discount as per section 34. Thus, the issuance of a credit note and reversal of input tax credit by the recipient become an integral part of adjusting such a discount. 2. Section 34 now expressly recognizes such discount credit notes A corresponding amendment has been made to Section 34(1). The provision now expressly includes a case where a discount referred to in Section 15(3)(b) is given. 3. Two GST refund provisions have been changed Section 54(6) has been expanded to include specified unutilized input tax credit. Section 54(14) has been separately amended for refund claims involving goods exported out of India with payment of tax. Though these amendments appear technically complex, they could impact internal approval processes for discounts, billing of credit notes, tracking of recipient ITC, and refunds of certain claims. Detailed Section-Wise Analysis Amendment to Section 15: What Has Changed for Post-Supply Discounts? Post-supply discount refers to a discount on account of which the consideration is paid or becomes payable after the supply, that is, the time when the right to payment has arisen. This transaction would attract GST based on conditions as specified in Section 15. In its original form, Section 15(3)(b) provided that for claiming such discounts, the said discount has to be arrived at by an agreement entered into at or before the time of supply and should be specifically mentioned in the invoices. The recipient shall reverse the input tax credit attributable to such discounted amount. The 2026 Act replaces that clause. The substituted wording now concentrates on two points: The supplier must issue a credit note for the discount, and The recipient must reverse the input tax credit attributable to that discount, in accordance with Section 34. The earlier explicit mention of a pre-existing agreement and the specific linkage of the invoice are absent from the substituted clause. In other words, there is a departure from the wording of section 15. Now, businesses need to be careful when interpreting this amendment to avoid taking it as 'all post-sale discounts are now automatically deductible'. Instead, the safer way to interpret would be: in instances where a business wants a post-supply discount to be treated as contemplated by amended section 15(3)(b), the credit note and recipient ITC will become relevant. And the question for Finance teams now is not only 'was a discount given?' but also 'was the GST aspect taken care of?' Amendment to Section 34: Why Is the Credit Note Now More Important? Section 34 already provided for credit notes in situations such as where the taxable value or tax charged in an invoice exceeded the amount payable, goods were returned, or the goods or services supplied were found to be deficient. The new law in 2026 contains an additional explicit situation, a discount mentioned under Section 15(3)(b). Section 15 has actually been amended to refer to a supplier who issued a credit note explicitly. As such, a more direct connection can now be made: Post-supply discount โ GST credit note โ recipient ITC adjustment As such, a commercial credit adjustment shouldn’t be treated in isolation from the GST position. So, if the sales team approves a discount, the accounts team raises a credit note, and the GST team looks at mitigating the tax effect, those three stories must be compatible. If the recipient’s ITC position isn’t consistent with the supplier’s adjustment where reversal is necessary, the GST side of the story may become challenging to justify. As such, GST compliance services and an appropriate internal reconciliation process may be necessary, particularly for businesses that issue a significant volume of dealer, distributor or customer credit notes. Amendment to Section 54(6): What Changes for Inverted Duty Refunds? The first refund amendment targets Section 54(6). An inverted duty structure broadly arises where the GST rate on eligible inputs is higher than the GST rate on output supplies, resulting in accumulation of input tax credit, subject to the conditions and exclusions contained in Section 54(3). The current Section 54(3) takes into account the existence of accumulated credit due to the difference between the input tax rate being greater than that of the output tax as one of the specified instances when a refund of unused ITC can be granted. Prior to the amendment, Section 54(6) provided for the provisional refund in the case of zero-rated supply claims. In particular, it gives authority to the proper officer, subject to certain conditions, to provisionally refund 90% of the amount of tax claimed in the category falling under that provision. The Maharashtra GST Amendment Act, 2026 inserts another category into Section 54(6): unutilized ITC allowed under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 54(3). In other words, it includes the category of inverted-duty ITC as aforesaid within the scope of the aforesaid Section 54(6) from the date of commencement of the amendment. This does not mean that every inverted duty refund automatically gets paid or that the claimant automatically receives 90% merely by filing an application. Businesses still need to consider: Whether the accumulated ITC is eligible for refund, Whether the claim falls within the applicable Section 54(3) category, the required conditions and safeguards, documentation for supporting the refund claim, date of commencement of the amendment in 2026, and other refund claim provisions. Businesses with regular accumulation of ITC may therefore want to review their refund position through suitable GST refund advisory services rather than treating the amendment as an automatic cash-flow benefit. Amendment to Section 54(14): What Changes for Certain Export Refunds? Section 54(14) currently imposes a minimum amount restriction. Section 54(14) provides that a refund under section 54(5) or 54(6) shall not be paid if it is less than โน1,000. The 2026 Amendment Act makes an exception to such a restriction. The newly inserted words carve out an exception to the effect that the restriction shall not apply where a claim for refund of tax is made on account of goods exported out of India with payment of tax. In other words, the restriction in Section 54(14) of โน1,000 would stop applying in respect of that particular category of export refunds from the date on which the amendment comes into force. The scope of the exception is specifically narrow. It is confined to: goods, exported out of India, and Exported with payment of tax. It must not be assumed to be a blanket exception to the minimum refund rule for all exporters, all zero-rated supplies and all categories of GST refunds. How Have the GST Rules for Post-Supply Discounts Changed? This is the most commercially significant aspect of the amendment to many businesses. Discounts are frequently negotiated by sales teams on grounds unrelated to tax. A dealer may be entitled to a year-end incentive, a distributor to a turnover rebate and a customer to a deferred price adjustment. The commercial discount is one thing. Its GST treatment is another. Under the earlier Section 15 wording, two issues were expressly built into the provision: the discount had to arise from an agreement entered into at or before supply and had to be specifically linked to relevant invoices. ITC attributable to the discount also had to be reversed. The 2026 substituted clause has deleted the first two conditions in their entirety. The focus now lies on the issuance of the GST credit note and the recipient's reversal of the ITC. For businesses, this creates an emphasis on the factual trail of tax recorded in the books of the supplier and the recipient. Was a valid credit note issued? Is the adjustment covered by the amended Section 15 provision? Has the recipient accounted for the attributable ITC? Do the supplier's and recipient's books show the same entry? Has the relevant amendment been in force for the transaction period? These procedural queries are much more relevant than simply classifying a discount without evidence. How Do Discount, Credit Note and ITC Reversal Work Together? The easiest way to understand the amendment is to consider the sequence. Stage What Happens Main Party GST Relevance 1. Supply is completed Original taxable supply takes place Supplier and recipient Original invoice and ITC position arise 2. Discount is given later Price is reduced after supply Supplier Section 15(3)(b) becomes relevant 3. Credit note is issued Supplier records the relevant adjustment Supplier Section 34 now expressly covers the relevant discount 4. Attributable ITC is addressed Related ITC is reversed where required Recipient Express condition under amended Section 15(3)(b) 5. Records are reconciled Parties align tax and accounting treatment Both Helps support the GST position The law looks beyond the supplier. The supplier may raise the discount and issue the credit note, but the recipient's ITC treatment also comes into play in light of the amended provision. Reconciliation therefore involves more than a purely accounts-focused exercise and instead becomes part of the compliance trail for GST adjustment. What Should Businesses Understand About GST Credit Notes After the Amendment? A credit note embodies a downward adjustment of any kind associated with an earlier supply that was permitted under the GST law. The 2026 amendment clarifies the role of a GST credit note in the context of post-supply discounts falling under Section 15(3)(b). Businesses should therefore assess whether their commercial and GST credit-note process flows are sufficiently distinct. A sales credit note issued solely for an internal commercial adjustment should not be treated as automatically having the same tax consequence as a GST credit note. Businesses should check: Why the credit note is being issued, Whether the discount qualifies under Section 15, Whether the credit note applies to an earlier transaction, Whether the method chosen by the supplier is appropriate in relation to GST, Whether the ITC status of the recipient has been taken into consideration, Whether the credit note is appropriately recorded for GST purposes, and Whether the amended provision is applicable to the relevant period. For businesses that make hundreds or thousands of such Adjustments, the manual process of going through all of them can be burdensome. A well-drafted GST review process can ensure that these sales adjustments, your accounting records, and tax treatments are in sync. What Has Changed in GST Refunds Under Section 54? The refund amendments have nothing to do with the changes introduced in the post-supply discounts. They relate to another aspect of the GST cycle. Provisional Refund for Specified Unutilized ITC The addition to section 54(6) refers to unutilized ITC allowed under the inverted-duty provision contained in section 54(3). In sectors where the input GST rate exceeds the output tax rate, the accumulation of ITC could affect businesses' working capital. The refund facility becomes critically important, as otherwise the credit would remain trapped in the books of account as an electronic credit ledger. The amendment to the law extends the provisional refund facility to the specified category. However, businesses should not expect that: Any ITC balance can be claimed, all the accumulated credit would be eligible for refund, all claims would be approved, Approval for provisional refund would negate final verification, or regular documentation requirements would not apply. The eligibility criteria cannot be ignored. Export Refunds Below the Existing Minimum Limit The reform to Section 54(14) addresses an entirely different issue. The existing law provides for a โน1,000 minimum threshold for refunds under the aforesaid subsections. The new exception refers to the refund of tax in cases of export of goods from India with payment of tax. Once it becomes effective, a qualifying refund in this category will not be barred simply because it does not meet the โน1,000 benchmark. Again, a close reading of the language is required. It is not a general exemption for all GST refunds pertaining to exports. When Will the Maharashtra GST Amendment Act, 2026 Become Effective? This is one of the most critical aspects of the Act, as a specific commencement date cannot be found in the substantive amendments. Section 1(2) empowers the State Government to notify the commencement of the Act by way of notification in the Official Gazette. It also provides for both prospective and retrospective commencement and allows different commencement dates for different provisions. That means three dates should not be confused: Act publication date: 7 July 2026 Commencement date: to be appointed through notification Transaction period affected: will depend on the notified commencement and its stated effect Can the Amendment Be Given Retrospective Effect? Yes, the Act does give the power to the State Government. However, the mere grant of power to notify a retrospective date does not imply that every amendment made shall be deemed retrospective. Businesses should examine the actual notification to determine whether to apply the provision to prior tax periods. Can Sections 15, 34 and 54 Start on Different Dates? Yes. The State Government may appoint different dates for different provisions. A business should therefore avoid making a blanket statement such as "the Maharashtra GST Amendment Act became effective on X date" unless the notification supports that position for all relevant sections. The correct compliance approach is to check the commencement of each provision relied upon. Maharashtra GST Amendment 2026: Old vs New Position Area Earlier Position 2026 Amendment What It Means in Practice Post-supply discount Section 15(3)(b) expressly required a pre-existing agreement and specific invoice linkage, along with ITC reversal Clause replaced with wording focused on supplier credit note and recipient's attributable ITC reversal The express agreement/invoice-linkage wording is no longer part of the substituted clause Credit notes Section 34(1) listed excess value/tax, returns and deficiency among credit-note situations Discount under Section 15(3)(b) is expressly added Stronger statutory connection between discount and GST credit note Inverted duty refund Section 54(6) provisional mechanism was framed around zero-rated refund claims Specified unutilised ITC under Section 54(3)(ii) is added Relevant inverted-duty claims come within the provisional refund provision once effective Export refund threshold Section 54(14) carried a โน1,000 minimum for specified refunds Exception added for tax refund on goods exported with payment of tax That specific export category is carved out once the amendment takes effect The table below indicates that the change introduced by the 2026 legislation goes well beyond mere amendment of the wording of the law. With regard to discounts, the very structure of the statutory test has been altered, whereas for refunds, the scope of application of existing provisions has been extended or modified. Which Businesses Are Likely to Be Most Affected? The Amendment Act is not restricted to one particular industry. Its scope of application is rather determined by the nature of the transactions a business is engaged in. Suppliers Who Grant Post-Supply Discounts Businesses that regularly grant dealer discounts, turnover bonuses, rebates or other post-supply price reductions should consider reviewing the procedures for such transactions. This review should include both the commercial documentation and the GST treatment of the said transactions. Recipients Claiming Input Tax Credit A recipient may be affected because the amended discount provision expressly refers to the reversal of ITC attributable to the discount. Recipient businesses should therefore have a procedure to identify credit notes of ITC consequence. Businesses With Inverted Duty Accumulation Manufacturers and other registered persons facing eligible ITC accumulation due to the inverted tax structure may have to reconsider the amendment to Section 54(6). The amendment may have implications for how qualifying refund claims are processed within the provisional refund regime. Exporters of Goods Paying Tax on Export The amendment to Section 54(14) is especially applicable to taxpayers claiming a refund of tax on goods exported from India with tax paid. Its application should be judged in the context of the precise refund category, not the broader category of exports. What Will Be the Practical Impact on Businesses? The amendment can touch several internal processes at the same time. Business Area What May Change Main Team Involved What Should Be Reviewed Sales discounts GST treatment of later discounts Sales + Tax Discount structure and tax impact Credit notes Greater importance under Section 15 Accounts + GST Credit-note controls ITC Recipient reversal becomes central GST + Accounts ITC reconciliation Refunds Wider Section 54(6) scope Finance + GST Refund eligibility and procedure Export refunds Specific Section 54(14) exception Export + Tax Type of refund claim ERP systems Existing workflow may need adjustment IT + Finance + GST Invoice-credit note mapping Internal controls More cross-team coordination may be needed Management + GST Review and approval process Effect on Discount Policies A business may have a legitimate commercial motive to give a discount. However, it does not address the GST issue. Tax teams must have visibility of the post-supply discount scheme before the corresponding tax adjustment is booked. Effects on the Accounting System The accounting chain should allow you to recognize: The initial supply, The subsequent discount, The credit note, The GST element, The recipient, and the related ITC process, where applicable. The situation is especially serious in case of bulk transaction processing. Effect on GST Reconciliation Process When the amended Section 15(3)(b) comes into play, the supplier's correction and the recipient's ITC process are no longer separate processes. Effect on Working Capital The amendment to Section 54(6) could provide a commercial benefit to taxpayers who have eligible and unutilized input tax credits under an inverted duty regime. The establishment of a provisional refund regime will affect the period during which qualifying credit amounts are blocked. Still, taxpayers should refrain from considering cash flow implications until the availability and commencement date have been confirmed. How Will Finance, Accounts, Sales and GST Teams Be Affected? Finance Team Finance teams should identify discount arrangements that will have a tax impact rather than assuming every post-sale adjustment is a commercial matter. They may also need to revise expected cash flows if inverted-duty refunds constitute a significant element of working capital. Accounts Team The accounts team is typically responsible for issuing and recording credit notes and adjustments. This should be captured in their records notwithstanding the fact that the amended statutory provision does not capture the connection between the original transaction and the later adjustment. GST & Tax Team The GST team should consider: Section 15 application, GST credit notes, ITC recipient adjustment, recipient/supplier agreement, return filing treatment, inverted duty refund application, export refund characterization, and commencement notification. Where the volume is large, businesses may consider a GST compliance consultant or structured indirect tax compliance services to review the position before changing tax treatment. Sales and Commercial Team Sales teams may negotiate discounts but don't always factor in GST. A bare minimum internal communication process avoids a scenario in which a discount is approved commercially. Still, it arrives posthaste on the tax team's desk after the credit note. GST Compliance Checklist for Businesses Review Point What the Business Should Check Team Status Commencement Has the relevant section been notified? GST/Legal Essential Discount classification Is it a post-supply discount relevant to Section 15(3)(b)? Sales/GST Essential Credit note Has the appropriate credit note been issued? Accounts Statutory relevance ITC reversal Has attributable ITC been dealt with where required? Recipient GST team Statutory relevance Reconciliation Do supplier and recipient records align? GST/Finance Statutory relevance Return treatment Is the GST adjustment reflected correctly? GST Compliance review Inverted duty refund Does the claim fall within Section 54(3)(ii)? Tax/Finance Eligibility review Provisional refund Is amended Section 54(6) applicable? GST Subject to commencement Export refund Is the claim for goods exported with payment of tax? Export/GST Eligibility review Documentation Is there a clear record supporting the position adopted? Accounts/GST Recommended control Key GST Compliance Risks Businesses Should Avoid Applying the Amendment From the Publication Date Without Checking The Act was published on 7 July 2026. However, this shall not be considered to give effect to every provision. Treating Every Post-Sale Discount the Same The various trade discounts may give rise to different GST implications, and hence each arrangement must be examined under the appropriate provision. Issuing the Credit Note but Ignoring Recipient ITC In relation to the amended Section 15(3)(b), the recipient's attributable ITC is part of the statutory requirements. Poor Supplier-Recipient Reconciliation It is possible that the supplier may assert one GST position whereas the recipient's records reflect another position. Such a position should be reconciled before it becomes part of a return or adjustment. Assuming All Inverted Duty Refunds Automatically Get Provisional Payment The amendment enlarges the statutory scheme. It makes no change to eligibility criteria, protection, or verification. Applying the Export Exception to Every Export Refund Section 54(14) specifically refers to the refund of tax on goods exported from India with payment of tax. The wording should not be stretched beyond that category. Is the Maharashtra GST Amendment a Simplification or an Additional Compliance Burden? There are arguments on both sides. Where the Amendment May Make Things Easier The revised Section 15(3)(b) does not repeat the earlier express requirement that the post-supply discount must be established through an agreement entered into at or before supply and specifically linked to invoices. Instead, the provision now focuses on the credit note and the recipient's ITC reversal. So, for businesses that have found the previous agreement condition a difficult hurdle to clear in order to effect genuine later commercial adjustments, the new wording may constitute a more viable format once it becomes effective. Section 34 also becomes more understandable as it clearly acknowledges that such a discount is a basis for issuing the credit note. The modification of Section 54 would also benefit the claimants eligible for inverted-duty under the said refund category. Where Businesses May Have More Work The revised framework still requires coordination. The treatment of a supplier may turn on exactly what the recipient does with the associated ITC. Larger businesses with a significant distribution, dealer or customer network may require enhanced confirmation and reconciliation processes accordingly. The operation of ERP systems may need to be reviewed, as a system designed around the former Section 15 conditions may not automatically satisfy the amended provision. Finally, businesses must pay particular attention to commencement, as different amendments may be scheduled to take effect on different dates. A Practical View It is not just about decreasing or increasing compliance. It is about changing the locus of compliance. While under the earlier formulation of Section 15, the pre-supply agreement and invoice connection were explicitly important, under the new language, the credit note and reversal of recipient ITC become important. This creates the potential to simplify the legal formulation in one area while entailing transaction-level coordination in another. What Should Businesses Do Next? Businesses affected by the amendment can begin preparations without implementing provisions that do not yet apply. Step 1: Confirm the Applicable Commencement Check the Government of Maharashtra notification about which clause would be applicable. Step 2: Map Existing Discount Schemes Categorize the discounts that are provided prior to supply and those that are decided after supply. Step 3: Evaluate Controls Over GST Credit Notes Ensure there are controls over individuals authorizing and preparing credit notes and their effect on GST. Step 4: Coordinate ITC Reversal Information If there is any reversal of ITC, arrange a system to get the necessary information. Step 5: Examine existing Inverted Duty Claims Companies that are able to accumulate ITC will need to assess how the amendment to section 54 will affect their refunding process. Step 6: Segregate Export Refund Categories Do not mix the refund of tax on goods exported with payment of tax with every other zero-rated or export-related claim. Step 7: Review ERP and Accounting Logic System changes should be made only after the legal applicability and internal process have been confirmed. Step 8: Carry Out a GST Compliance Gap Review In a high-transaction-volume scenario, a formal review can help identify mismatches between credit notes, ITC, and refunds before they become an issue in GST reporting. How Can Corpseed Help Businesses With the Maharashtra GST Changes? The amendment of GST Rules regarding discounts, credit notes, and ITC can span multiple departments within the business. Corpseed can assist at the right levels for businesses without treating all taxpayers and transactions the same way when it comes to GST compliance services. 1. GST Applicability Review Corpseed can assist companies in determining which amendments are applicable to specific transactions and which provisions are not applicable. 2. Post-Supply Discount Review Existing discount policies and transaction flows can be analyzed to determine the impact that the amended Section 15 is likely to have on their GST treatment. 3. GST Credit Note Compliance Support The government can help organizations determine the tax treatment of the credit notes and any discrepancies between commercial adjustments and the GST records. 4. Input Tax Credit Compliance Services Corpseed can help you understand the ITC treatment, the need for reversal and other reconciliations in connection with appropriate credit notes. 5. GST Compliance Gap Assessment A more general review can help determine whether there is a consistent process for discounts, credit notes and ITC followed by finance, accounts and sales departments. 6. GST Refund Advisory Services Businesses that apply for a GST refund may receive assistance in understanding which refund category they may be eligible for, the required documentation, and statutory conditions. 7. Inverted Duty Structure Refund Support Businesses that find themselves having too much ITC eligibility because of the inverted duty structure may ask for help in examining their refund eligibility and requirements. 8. Export GST Advisory Support Exporters may be offered assistance to understand the refund provisions that apply to their export transactions and whether the Section 54(14) change applies. Businesses that don't know how the new provisions apply to them can seek professional GST advisory services to assess the situation before altering returns, credit notes, ITC, or refund claims. Key Takeaways The Maharashtra GST Amendment Act 2026 contains some amendments that will have an impact, but not directly on day-to-day business operations. This Act was published on 7 July 2026 under No. XXVII of 2026 of the State of Maharashtra. This Act seeks to amend Sections 15, 34 and 54 of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017. The amendment of Section 15(3)(b) relates to relevant post-supply discounts. The new section relates to a credit note issued by a supplier and reversal of attributable ITC. Section 34(1) now expressly includes a discount referred to in Section 15(3)(b). Section 54(6) has been expanded to include specified unutilized ITC under the inverted-duty provision. Section 54(14) is amended to provide for the refund of tax on goods exported from India with payment of tax. Businesses should not assume that 7 July 2026 is automatically the effective date of every amendment. A separate notification can give provisions prospective or retrospective effect and can prescribe different dates for different provisions. For business taxpayers, the primary focus should be on determining the commencement, identifying the transactions that will be affected, and ensuring that discount, credit note, ITC, or refund records are in order prior to changing the GST position.
Subject
Credit Guarantee Scheme for Exporters made OperationalSummary: The Credit Guarantee Scheme for Exporters (CGSE) became operational from 1 December 2025 through the Jan Samarth Portal. The scheme supports Indian exporters during uncertain global conditions by improving access to finance. Exports play a key role in India’s economy and contribute nearly 21% of GDP. Export-related industries also support employment for more than 45 million people, with MSMEs contributing around 45% of total exports. The CGSE provides a 100% government-backed credit guarantee for additional loan facilities given by banks and financial institutions. The scheme allows collateral-free credit support up to 20,000 crore rupees for direct and indirect exporter MSMEs. This support improves liquidity, ensures smooth business operations, and helps exporters enter new and emerging markets. Within the first month, 1,788 applications worth 8,599 crore rupees were received. Out of these, 716 applications amounting to 3,141 crore rupees were sanctioned. These figures show strong confidence among exporters and lending institutions. Exporters can receive additional working capital loans of up to 20% of existing export credit limits. The scheme helps improve competitiveness, maintain employment, and strengthen India’s export ecosystem. CGSE remains open until 31 March 2026 or until the full guarantee limit is reached.
Subscribe to Us
Find different law updates directly in your inbox. Subscribe now.