Cemindia Projects has received a demand order from the Assistant Commissioner, Ghatak 1, Division-1, Range – 1, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, regarding a Goods and Services Tax (GST) liability. The order, issued under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cites a mismatch between the input tax credit (ITC) claimed in GSTR3B returns and the ITC reflected on the GST portal for the fiscal year 2020-21. The company disclosed the receipt of the order to stock exchanges on August 8, 2026, stating it does not anticipate any material financial impact from the matter.

The regulatory filing was made pursuant to Regulation 30 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, read with SEBI Master Circular No. HO/49/14/14(7)2025-CFD-POD2/I/3762/2026 dated January 30, 2026. The order itself is dated August 7, 2026, and was received by the company on August 7, 2026, at approximately 6:30 p.m. The company’s Board has been informed of the development, and management has decided to challenge the assessment through legal recourse.

Demand Breakdown

The total tax demand and penalty imposed are identical at ₹1.24 crore each. The composition of the tax liability includes Integrated GST (IGST), Central GST (CGST), and State GST (SGST). The specific breakdown of the tax component is detailed below.

The penalty amount matches the tax demand exactly, reflecting the standard provisions under section 74 of the CGST Act for cases involving suppression of facts or misrepresentation of information, although the specific allegation here relates to an ITC mismatch. The total potential outflow, if the order stands unchallenged, would be ₹2.48 crore.

Company Response and Next Steps

Cemindia Projects stated that it proposes to file an appeal against the said order. The company emphasized that it does not anticipate any material financial impact arising from this order, suggesting that management believes the appeal will be successful or that the provision required will be immaterial relative to its overall financial position. No further details on the legal strategy or expected timeline for the appeal were provided in the initial disclosure.

What the Numbers Show

The core issue revolves around input tax credit reconciliation, a common area of scrutiny in GST enforcement actions. A mismatch between GSTR3B filings and the GST portal often indicates discrepancies in vendor compliance or data entry errors during the return filing process for FY 2020-21. While the financial exposure is quantified at ₹1.24 crore in tax and an equal penalty, the company’s stance that the impact is not material suggests this figure is small relative to its annual revenues or cash reserves. Investors should monitor subsequent disclosures for updates on the appeal outcome, as a dismissal could result in the full realization of the ₹2.48 crore liability.

Cemindia Projects Limited disclosed on August 8, 2026, that the State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Central Investigation Unit (CIU), Andhra Pradesh has challenged its recent legal discharge in a bribery investigation. The opposition party filed Criminal Revision Cases (CRLRCs) along with interim applications for condonation of delay before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. This development reverses the momentum gained by the company following the discharge order issued by the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, on April 13, 2026.

The procedural update was made available to the company on August 7, 2026, at 17:52 hours IST and subsequently communicated to stock exchanges under Regulation 30 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015. The filing also references SEBI Master Circular No. HO/49/14/14(7)2025-CFD-POD2/I/3762/2026 dated January 30, 2026. The company stated it will issue further updates on the outcome of the CRLRCs in due course.

Case Background

The underlying dispute stems from a criminal case registered against a former employee and a former representative of the company, both of whom are no longer associated with the organization. The prosecution subsequently filed a charge-sheet against these individuals and the company, alleging offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with the Indian Penal Code 1860. The specific allegation involved an attempt to bribe public servants.

Prior to the recent revision filing, the former employee and the company had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking discharge from the case. The Special Judge granted this petition via an order dated April 13, 2026. The current CRLRCs filed by the State ACB directly challenge this discharge order, keeping the legal proceedings active at the appellate level.

Legal Implications

The disclosure explicitly states that there are no expected financial implications or quantum of claims associated with these proceedings at this stage. Furthermore, the litigation does not currently involve any Key Managerial Personnel, promoters, or ultimate persons in control of the company. The proceedings remain focused on the corporate entity and the named former individuals.

The company's compliance team, led by Company Secretary Rahul Neogi, confirmed that all requisite details were enclosed as Annexure A in the regulatory filing. The matter remains sub-judice, with the next significant milestone being the hearing of the interim applications and the main revision cases before the High Court.