Personal guarantor liability persists after corporate resolution plan approval, allowing creditors to enforce guarantees against guarantors.
Approval of a corporate resolution plan does not extinguish the independent contractual liabilities of a personal guarantor; creditors may pursue recovery from guarantors and may initiate parallel insolvency proceedings under the Code. Where a resolution plan or assignment expressly excludes guarantees or does not transfer guarantee rights to the successful resolution applicant, those guarantees remain enforceable by the creditor. Principles of joint and several liability support creditor recourse against either the principal borrower or the surety, subject to the plan terms and limitation rules. (AI Summary)

Refund of compensation cess permissible where exports paid with IGST if final goods are not leviable to cess.
Unutilised input tax credit of compensation cess paid on coal used in manufacture of exported goods that are not leviable to cess is refundable under the refund mechanism for input tax credit and the IGST zero rating framework, because the proviso restricting utilisation of cess credit toward cess payment does not apply where no cess is payable on the outward supply; circulars disallowing utilisation for IGST do not bar refund of genuinely unutilised cess credit. (AI Summary)

Reversal of Input Tax Credit required where supplier fails to file GSTR 3B, with re availment permitted after supplier compliance.
Rule 37A requires recipients to reverse ITC availed on invoices where the supplier has not filed the required return for the relevant period by the prescribed cutoff; failure to reverse within the compliance window renders the ITC amount payable with interest. If the supplier subsequently files the outstanding return, the recipient may re avail the same ITC in a later return. The rule complements temporal eligibility restrictions on initial ITC claims and places monitoring and reversal obligations on recipients, with interest consequences for delayed reversal and non refundability of interest noted in the commentary. (AI Summary)

Parallel criminal prosecution can proceed despite quashed departmental adjudication if independent investigative evidence supports the complaint.
Criminal prosecution under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act can continue despite a departmental adjudication being set aside on procedural grounds where the complaint is founded on independent investigative material and factual irregularities revealed during search; a quashed or remanded adjudication that does not record exoneration on merits does not, by itself, preclude parallel criminal proceedings. (AI Summary)

Limitation period as three calendar months confirms notice timing and affirms adequacy of hearing opportunities.
Limitation for issuance of show cause notices under Section 73(2) of the CGST Act must be construed by calendar month computation rather than as a fixed 90 day period, with the phrase "three calendar months" requiring counting the same date across successive calendar months. Applying that approach to a reference date for passing an order on the annual return yields a window that includes an SCN issued on November 30 when counted back from the due date of February 28. The Court noted that, even under a day count approach, the interval equaled the 90 day span, so the notice was not time barred. (AI Summary)

Show Cause Notice requirement: GST DRC 01 summary cannot replace formal SCN; authenticated notice and hearing are necessary.
The FORM GST DRC-01 summary is supplementary and does not substitute for a formal, duly authenticated Show Cause Notice required under Section 73. A computation or statement of tax determination attached to DRC-01 cannot itself initiate proceedings; the Proper Officer must issue a proper notice stating reasons and must afford the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity to be heard as mandated by Section 75(4). Procedural deficiencies such as absence of authentication and omission of hearing particulars undermine initiation and adverse orders. (AI Summary)

Input Tax Credit time-limit extension allows retrospective ITC claims to be reconsidered and refunds re-adjudicated.
Refund denial based on the earlier ITC time-bar was unsustainable in view of the retrospective insertion extending the period to avail ITC for the initial GST years; both the refund rejection and the appellate order were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the extended filing timeline, with directions to conclude proceedings within a short prescribed period. (AI Summary)

Personal jewellery exemption protects foreign tourists' worn gold ornaments from classification as non ornamental metal for seizure.
The High Court applied the baggage rules' proviso for foreign tourists to hold that used personal effects and articles carried on the person, including bona fide jewellery, are exempt from treatment as non ornamental precious metal under the Annexure exclusion; a rule aimed at returning residents after extended foreign residence does not apply to foreign tourists. Consequently, ornaments worn by a foreign traveller qualify as jewellery within the exemption, limiting customs' power to treat such items as seizure eligible non ornamental gold or silver while permitting valuation and appraisal processes to operate. (AI Summary)

Right to cross examination requires opportunity when adjudication relies on witness statements, prompting remand for fresh proceedings.
Denial of an opportunity for cross examination where the adjudication relies on witness statements breaches natural justice; statements recorded under the statutory summons mechanism are not ipso facto admissible without testing, and procedural delay or alleged voluntariness do not justify refusal of cross examination. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication beginning from the stage of cross examination. (AI Summary)

Quasi-judicial immunity for tax adjudicators could safeguard independent GST decision-making from vexatious probes and ensure impartial orders.
The article argues that GST adjudicating officers perform quasi-judicial functions-issuing notices, holding hearings, evaluating evidence, determining liabilities and penalties-and therefore should receive statutory protection analogous to that afforded by the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. It highlights a chilling effect from vigilance and criminal probes that suppress discretionary adjudication and dilute natural justice, then proposes formal administrative recognition, a bar on initiating probes without satisfying statutory preconditions, mandatory training, and CBIC guidance to prevent misuse of oversight mechanisms. (AI Summary)

Natural justice in rectification: refusal to rectify does not trigger a hearing requirement under Section 161.
The third proviso to the rectification provision requires observance of natural justice only where a positive rectification is carried out that adversely affects the taxpayer; a mere refusal to rectify is not a 'rectification' and therefore does not trigger the statutory hearing requirement, leaving the remedy by way of appeal. (AI Summary)

Arbitration agreement validity: internal escalation to party representatives does not constitute an independent arbitration clause.
A valid arbitration clause requires a written agreement evidencing the parties' clear intention to refer disputes to an impartial private tribunal whose decision will be binding. Clauses prescribing internal discussions or referral to company representatives constitute in house mechanisms and fail the core requirements of arbitrator independence, impartiality and disclosure, and therefore cannot be treated as arbitration agreements. (AI Summary)

Attorney-client privilege requires prima facie justification before seizing or accessing an advocate's documents or devices.
Searches and seizures at an advocate's office must be supported by prima facie material showing the advocate's personal involvement in alleged illegality; client documents and communications are protected by attorney-client privilege except where used to further illegal purposes or to conceal crime or fraud. Seized electronic devices from an advocate must not be opened or accessed without the advocate or an authorised representative present, and the investigating department must file an affidavit detailing the basis and manner of the search. (AI Summary)

Duty drawback and ITC: lower drawback remains claimable even when input tax credit has been availed, avoiding double benefit.
The document explains that after GST, the higher integrated drawback (covering customs, excise and service tax) was discontinued and only a customs component drawback remains; availment of ITC or IGST refund bars taking the higher integrated rate to prevent double benefit, but where schedule rates for higher and lower drawback are identical those rates reflect only the customs component and are claimable despite availing ITC. Administrative circulars cannot override statutory refund entitlements, and exporters must comply with declaration requirements under the applicable notifications. (AI Summary)

Input tax credit reversal follows supplier nonpayment when purchaser cannot prove receipt of goods and supporting documents.
Recipient must reverse input tax credit where the supplier failed to discharge output tax and the purchaser failed to produce invoices, e-way bills, transport or other material establishing actual receipt of goods; consequently ITC cannot be retained because tax on the supply was not actually paid to the government, and issuance of a show cause notice does not validate supplies as genuine. (AI Summary)

Permanent Establishment expansion under MLI narrows agency exemptions, increasing taxable presence exposure for cross-border businesses.
The document explains that Indian taxation depends on the nexus of residence and source: corporate residency via Place of Effective Management subjects companies to tax on global profits, while business connection, Significant Economic Presence and Permanent Establishment rules determine source-based taxation. Dependent agents who habitually conclude or play a principal role in contracts can create taxable connections or PE; independent agents generally do not. The MLI broadens dependent-agent PE and includes anti-fragmentation rules. The "make available" test governs whether software or services amount to royalty or FTS; mere use without transfer of know-how does not meet that test. (AI Summary)

Attorney-client privilege protections limit tax searches of lawyers' offices unless prima facie personal involvement is shown.
Searches and seizures at an advocate's office must respect attorney-client privilege and confidentiality; electronic media containing other clients' material shall not be opened or downloaded without the advocate or an authorised representative. An advocate may be subjected to personal enforcement action only if the tax authority can show some prima facie material of the lawyer's personal involvement beyond client representation. (AI Summary)

GST on apartment maintenance charges clarifies exemption threshold and registration obligations under GST law.
Recent external tariffs pose near term risks to IGST and cross border receipts though domestic consumption underpinned modest year on year gross GST growth offset by sharply higher refunds. Kerala has launched a pilot faceless adjudication scheme enabling online hearings and electronic submissions through the GST portal. Parliamentary clarification states services by apartment associations to members are exempt up to a maintenance threshold, become taxable above it, and that associations below registration thresholds need not register; taxpayers may pay due tax with no or reduced penalty within prescribed timeframes. (AI Summary)

Wrongful invocation of section 74: challenge GST notices lacking proof of intent to evade tax and suppression of facts.
Wrongful invocation of section 74 requires proof of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts; where audit allegations are based on information already disclosed in GSTR returns there is no suppression and section 74 is inapplicable. Recent High Court decisions have quashed SCNs or orders under section 74 and treated assessments as under section 73, reducing the applicable period and demand. Tax authorities must establish the specific ingredients for section 74 before issuing notices, and advisers should challenge improper invocation and seek conversion to section 73 where warranted. (AI Summary)

Condonation of delay in GST appeals permits extension of filing periods when sufficient cause is demonstrated.
Condonation of delay in GST appeals depends on statutory appeal deadlines and the date of communication of the impugned order, with earliest effective service triggering limitation. Where the GST law does not expressly exclude other limitation provisions, the doctrine of sufficient cause permits appellate authorities and courts to admit appeals beyond the short statutory extension if cogent evidence demonstrates that the appellant was prevented from filing in time. Judicial practice favors substantive justice and equitable relief in deserving cases while requiring contemporaneous proof of impediment. (AI Summary)