The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) has recently released a circular (Circular No. 198/10/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023) to provide clarity on the applicability of e-invoicing under r. 48(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (‘CGST’) Rules, 2017 for transactions involving government departments, establishments, agencies, local authorities, and Public Sector Undertakings (‘PSUs’) registered for tax deduction at source under s. 51 of the CGST Act, 2017.
According to the circular, e-invoicing involves the issuance of electronically authenticated invoices through designated Goods Services and Tax Network (‘GSTN’)notified portals. It is applicable to supplies of goods and services made by registered persons whose turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold to government departments, establishments, agencies, local authorities, and PSUs registered under s. 51 of the CGST Act. The threshold for requiring e-invoicing has been revised several times since its introduction in 2020. Most recently vide Notification No. 10/2023 dated 10.05.2023, it applies to all registered persons with an aggregate turnover exceeding Rs. 5 crores in any preceding financial year from 2017-18 onwards.
The circular aimed to resolve any ambiguity regarding whether registered persons, whose turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold for e-invoicing, are required to issue e-invoices for supplies made to government departments, establishments, agencies, local authorities, and PSUs registered solely for tax deduction at source under s. 51 of the CGST Act.
The clarification from CBIC states that government departments, establishments, agencies, local authorities, and PSUs, which are mandated to deduct tax at source under s. 51 of the CGST Act and are also required to register as per s. 24(vi) of the CGST Act, are deemed as registered persons as defined under s. 2(94) of the CGST Act. As a result, any person registered whose turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold for e-invoicing, is obligated to issue e-invoices for supplies made to such government entities.
The circular issued by the CBIC on 17.07.2023 regarding the issuance of e-invoices for supplies made to government agencies under s. 51 of the CGST Act, provides much indeed clarification. It aims to eliminate the lingering uncertainty about whether registered individuals, whose turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold, must issue e-invoices under r. 48(4) of the CGST Rules for supplies to government bodies, including PSUs, responsible for tax deduction at source under s. 51 of the CGST Act. This circular plays a pivotal role in streamlining the e-invoicing process and promoting transparency in the taxation system. Additionally, it encourages stakeholders to promptly report any difficulties in implementing the circular to the CBIC.
*Authored by Kushagra Gahlot, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion. *
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
2026-04-23
18
min read
Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals in Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier to Justice?
Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.
2026-04-20
10
min read
Legal Strategy in Startup Ecosystems: Risk Mitigation and Value Maximisation from Formation to Exit
Legal structuring across the startup lifecycle extends beyond compliance to shape valuation, governance, and investor confidence. From intellectual property protection and entity selection to funding arrangements and exit mechanisms, each stage involves critical legal considerations that determine risk allocation and long-term scalability within a regulated framework.
2026-04-06
5
min read
Minority Exit under S. 66: The Supreme Court on Fairness, Valuation, and the Limits of Judicial Scrutiny
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Pannalal Bhansali v. Bharti Telecom Ltd. clarifies the contours of fairness under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013. It reinforces a market-based approach to valuation, affirms the permissibility of DLOM, and underscores judicial deference in the absence of oppression, marking a significant shift in minority exit jurisprudence.