57th GST Council Meeting: Process Reforms Proposed and Process Reforms Already Operating
This article separates the GST process measures that are already in force from those that industry has put forward ahead of the 57th GST Council meeting, covering registration, returns, input tax credit, refunds and notices.
The meeting is now scheduled for 7 October 2026 in New Delhi, under a revised schedule from the Council Secretariat; the earlier date was in September. The communication said that agenda items would be conveyed separately, and no agenda is known. For a practitioner, the risk at this stage is advising a client on the strength of a proposal as though it were a decision. Each item below is therefore labelled by its legal status.
Issue 1: Registration and identity verification
Position in force
On the recommendation of the 56th Council, which met on 3 September 2025 and recommended rate rationalisation and trade facilitation measures (described as "GST 2.0"), an optional automated registration route within three working days exists for eligible low-risk applicants. This includes applicants whose self-assessed output tax on supplies to registered persons does not exceed Rs 2.5 lakh a month. As per a government statement, it was introduced from 1 November 2025.
The Delhi High Court, in Neha v. Union of India heard with Vikram Kaushal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), recorded allegations of registrations obtained with the PAN and Aadhaar of other persons. By its interim order dated 8 September 2026, it directed authorities across India, for the time being, not to allow GST registration without biometric-based Aadhaar authentication. The authorities were permitted to place implementation difficulties before the Court. This is an interim judicial direction. It is not a Council decision, and it may be modified.
Proposal
Industry representatives have suggested a uniform biometric registration process across the country. Such a process would reconcile speed with identity assurance only if three conditions are met: adequate appointment capacity, clear timelines for completion, and a route for genuine applicants whose authentication fails. Without these, biometric verification would undermine the three-day registration objective that the automated route is meant to serve.