Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTBribery 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

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

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]

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GSTAT Dismisses Dept. Appeal Over Rs. 7.35 Lakh Interest Demand as Below Rs. 20 Lakh Monetary Limit

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has dismissed a Revenue...

GST Refund Can’t Be Denied by Questioning ITC Eligibility Without S. 73 or 74 Proceedings: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has held that a...

Education Provider Need Not Be University to Claim Service Tax Exemption for Recognised Degree Courses: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

Subsequent Deposit of Full 10% Meets Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirement: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)...

More like this

GSTAT Dismisses Dept. Appeal Over Rs. 7.35 Lakh Interest Demand as Below Rs. 20 Lakh Monetary Limit

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has dismissed a Revenue...

GST Refund Can’t Be Denied by Questioning ITC Eligibility Without S. 73 or 74 Proceedings: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Ernakulam Bench, has held that a...

Education Provider Need Not Be University to Claim Service Tax Exemption for Recognised Degree Courses: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...