Bribery Allegations in GST Registration Spark FM Sitharaman’s Response, CBIC Issues Clarification
Bribery Allegations in GST Registration Spark FM Sitharaman’s Response, CBIC Issues Clarification
A social media post by chartered accountant Vinod Gupta alleging the need to pay a bribe to secure a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration has reignited concerns over corruption in the tax administration system. His remarks triggered a wave of online reactions, prompting an official response from Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and a detailed clarification from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
In a tweet posted earlier this week, Gupta expressed frustration over what he described as an unreasonably long wait for his GST registration to be processed. “Now I have decided to give bribe to get the job done,” he wrote, stating that his application had been pending for nearly 20 days.
The post quickly went viral, drawing support and outrage from netizens. One social media user commented, “What started as a smooth process in the early days of GST has now become a nightmare. Officers are deliberately delaying or rejecting applications unless bribes are paid. This is a blot on the promise of ease of doing business.”
Amid growing online pressure, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman responded with a firm statement underlining the government’s commitment to transparency. “To provide service to the taxpayer is our duty. While so serving the taxpayers, transparency and integrity are crucial in earning their trust and confidence. Confident that the Board and the field formations will remain sensitive and responsive,” she said.
Shortly thereafter, the CBIC released a comprehensive clarification addressing the specific case raised by Gupta. According to the Board, there was no delay on the part of the authorities and the application had, in fact, been submitted only on May 26 — not 20 days earlier, as Gupta claimed.
“The application was filed on 26th May (Monday) and was assigned to Delhi State GST. The Central GST authorities had no role in this matter,” CBIC clarified. “A query was raised regarding the missing designation of the person who signed the Rent Agreement on behalf of the Company. The application is pending a response from the taxpayer.”
CBIC also cautioned against spreading misinformation, stating, “You are kindly requested to not circulate wrong information on social media without knowing the facts.”
The incident has brought renewed focus on the state of GST administration, particularly the challenges faced by entrepreneurs during the registration process. While the CBIC’s response denies any misconduct in this instance, the episode highlights the continued perception of bureaucratic opacity that many in the business community believe undermines the government’s ease of doing business mission.
As the conversation around tax transparency and administrative accountability continues, the government’s handling of such grievances — both online and offline — will likely remain under close scrutiny.
Read More: 50% Reduction In Customs Duty On Crude Edible Oils: CBIC [READ NOTIFICATION]
