CENVAT credit on input services remains available despite write-off as bad debts, and promotional services qualify for credit.
The tribunal held that the appellant's claimed CENVAT credit related to input services and, under the CENVAT Credit Rules, was legitimately availed. No provision in the Rules or the Finance Act requires reversal of credit where consideration for services is not recovered and written off as bad debts. The tribunal set aside the demand for reversal and also found that invoices from the co-brand partner constituted promotional/advertisement services, not catering, entitling the appellant to credit. (AI Summary)

Reasonable belief requirement: documented, record based justification needed before issuing inspection, search and seizure authorisation.
Section 67 read with Rule 139 and FORM GST INS 01 requires that the Appropriate Authority (not below Joint Commissioner) hold a demonstrable reasonable belief, grounded in cogent record materials, that suppression of transactions, excess ITC claims, contraventions to evade tax, or concealment of taxable goods have occurred before issuing inspection, search and seizure authorisation; subjective or routine authorisations without recorded reasons are vulnerable to challenge and inspection must be re assessed to ensure non compliance persists at time of execution. (AI Summary)

Personal hearing vested right must be granted in faceless assessment upon request, subject to procedural safeguards.
Under the faceless assessment scheme Section 144B permits an assessee to request a personal hearing when a variation is proposed in a draft assessment order, and the ReAC head may approve such requests; the CBDT SOP allows video conference hearings with written submissions and documentary supplementation. Courts have held issuance of a Show Cause Notice is mandatory before prejudicial variation and that denial of requested personal hearing violates principles of natural justice, leading to set aside and remand for issuance of proper notice, draft order and a reasoned order. (AI Summary)

Best judgment assessment: non-filers can be assessed within five years, withdrawal on valid return still leaves interest and fees payable.
Section 62 authorises the proper officer to make a best judgment assessment in FORM GST ASMT-13 of registered persons who fail to file returns under section 39 or 45 after service of a mandatory notice under section 46, to be completed within five years from the annual-return due date; a valid return filed within thirty days of service deems the assessment withdrawn but interest under section 50 and late fees under section 47 remain payable, and a summary of the assessment must be uploaded in FORM GST DRC-07. (AI Summary)

Input tax credit availment should be tied to books or invoice period, not denied for late summary GSTR filing.
The core contention is that the statutory time limit for claiming input tax credit should be applied to credit recognised in the taxpayer's books or in returns for the invoice period, not mechanically to disclosure in a later-filed summary return; suspension of the invoice-level return and lack of portal facilities make return-based availment ambiguous, and evidence of availment in books within the prescribed cutoff should demonstrate compliance. (AI Summary)

High Court appellate power under section 37 limited to legal and jurisdictional questions; merits of arbitral awards not re examined.
The High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is limited and does not permit rehearing the merits of claims decided by an arbitral tribunal; interference is confined to narrow, record based legal and jurisdictional questions. Awards may be judicially disturbed only on grounds such as conflict with fundamental policy of Indian law, interest of India, justice or morality, or where the award is patently illegal, and not by reappraising evidentiary findings or acting as a fact finding court. (AI Summary)

Undervaluation of goods not a ground for detention; seizure for valuation discrepancies lacks legal basis.
Undervaluation of goods in an invoice does not by itself authorise detention of goods or the vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime; detention and seizure based solely on valuation discrepancies lack legal authority and cannot sustain consequent tax and penalty demands without a clear statutory basis and proper procedure. (AI Summary)

Trademark registration requirements: applicant documents, identity proofs, filing forms and authorisations enable valid application filing and prosecution.
Trademark registration requires applicant-specific documentation to prove identity, authority and the claimed scope of goods or services. Individuals and sole proprietors must submit Form TM-A, a DSC for e filing where applicable, an optional mark image, list of goods/services, translations of non English matter, first use date if claimed, Form 48 authorization and identity/address proof such as Aadhaar, PAN or passport. Corporate or entity applicants must file in the legal entity's name with incorporation or partnership evidence, proof of signatory authority, MSME certificate where relevant, the same filing forms, mark details, translations and a signed Form 48. (AI Summary)

IGST and Compensation Cess exemption on re imported repaired goods challenged; levy limited to basic customs duty on repair costs.
Whether re imported goods sent abroad for repair attract IGST and Compensation Cess when Notification No. 45/2017 grants exemptions on such re imports. A tribunal construed the exemption to limit levy to basic customs duty on the fair cost of repair, freight and insurance, concluding that integrated tax and compensation cess did not apply to these re imports. Subsequent administrative amendment addresses levy of integrated tax and compensation cess and appellate review has been initiated. (AI Summary)

Input tax credit reversal applies where payment exceeds the prescribed period, prompting addition to output tax liability and interest.
The article explains that when input tax credit is availed but payment to the supplier is not made within the prescribed period, the recipient must reverse the ITC by adding an equal amount to output tax liability and pay interest from the date of availing the credit until reversal. The rules require disclosure and addition in a specified return and month, but practical compliance is impeded because that return was not implemented on the portal; alternative disclosures may be made but do not strictly follow the prescribed procedure. (AI Summary)

Parallel investigation may proceed by multiple jurisdictional authorities, subject to consolidation under a single agency when appropriate.
Section 6 enables cross-empowerment of Central and State tax officers to prevent multiple jurisdictional burdens, but does not categorically prohibit concurrent investigations; the Circular's scope is limited to avoiding jurisdictional overlap, and consolidation or transfer of multiple inquiries to a single all India agency depends on case-specific factual considerations such as complexity and territorial spread. (AI Summary)

Recovery of self-assessed GST liabilities: CBIC guidelines require notice and opportunity before initiating recovery under section 79.
CBIC guidance clarifies recovery under section 79 where tax declared in GSTR-1 but unpaid in GSTR-3B is treated as self-assessed tax: the proper officer must issue a DINed communication allowing the registered person a reasonable time to explain mismatches or pay the shortfall; if the taxpayer fails to satisfactorily explain or remit the amount within the prescribed or extended time, recovery proceedings under section 79 may be initiated. (AI Summary)

Summons power under GST affirmed where proper officers, including superintendents via administrative circular, may issue summons in inquiries.
The issue concerned issuance of summons in a GST inquiry into alleged incorrect IGST refunds and whether officers relying on an administrative circular could assume authority to issue summons. The court noted that a "proper officer" may summon persons and require document production in inquiries akin to civil court powers, and that the July 5, 2017 circular delegates powers to revenue officers, designating them as proper officers under the CGST Act for purposes of issuing summons in connection with inquiries. (AI Summary)

Exclusion of Limitation Period: the court applies higher-court extension orders to GST refund limitation computation.
The court applied the Supreme Court's orders in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation to exclude the period from 15.03.2020 to 02.10.2021 when computing limitation for GST refund applications, held that the Assistant Commissioner is bound by those orders and directed that the balance limitation runs from the court-specified date, resulting in the third refund application being treated as within time for departmental consideration. (AI Summary)

Inclusion of alco beverages in GST regime urged to simplify taxation and enable predictable business and distribution reforms.
The note urges inclusion of alco beverages within the GST regime and stable medium term state excise policies to reduce layered levies and enable predictable business planning. It advocates permitted online sales and regulated home delivery to broaden market access, and highlights tax incentives for ethanol production and blending to support fuel policy and feedstock diversification. It also records state experimentation with new levies and penalties during demand changes and calls for reasonable tax structures and clarity on new charges. (AI Summary)

Provisional attachment under GST must meet strict statutory conditions before depriving taxpayers of property rights.
Provisional attachment powers under GST are draconian and require strict compliance with statutory conditions before depriving a taxable person of property, including receivables and bank accounts; availability of an alternative statutory appeal does not preclude judicial review of whether those preconditions were satisfied. (AI Summary)

Limitation exclusion restored; balance limitation periods revived and a ninety day limitation window provided starting March.
The order excludes March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022 from computation of limitation for all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings, restores earlier extension orders, makes any balance of limitation as on October 03, 2021 available from March 01, 2022, and grants a ninety day limitation window from that date for matters whose limitation expired during the excluded period, subject to any longer actual remaining balance; the exclusion is specified to apply to limitation provisions in arbitration, commercial courts, negotiable instruments legislation and other laws prescribing limitation or outer limits for condonation or termination. (AI Summary)

Input tax credit eligibility now requires supplier-submitted outward-supply details and presence in GSTR-2B before a recipient may claim credit.
Input tax credit entitlement under Section 16(2)(aa) requires supplier-furnished invoice or debit-note details in the outward-supplies statement and communication to the recipient, with Rule 36(4) prescribing reliance on GSTR-2B; because GSTR-2B omits invoices uploaded after the supplier's GSTR-1 due date until the following month, recipients must verify supplier filing, reconcile GSTR-2B with their books, and adopt contractual, operational or automated measures to protect claimable input tax credit. (AI Summary)

Refund entitlement under FTP: EOU may use DTA supplier entitlements but cannot pass the benefit back to supplier.
An EOU cannot claim a direct cash refund of Terminal Excise Duty; EOUs are ab initio exempt on DTA supplies but may avail DTA supplier entitlements under Chapter 8 of the FTP provided they do not pass the benefit back. Refunds involving CENVAT credit or rebate must be addressed by reversing amounts to the CENVAT account rather than paying cash. FTP-implemented authorities, not Central Excise Act authorities, are the proper forum to process such FTP-based refund claims, and the DGFT Circular is clarificatory of that legal position. (AI Summary)

Proof of business premises: registration cannot be denied for not producing an electricity bill when an allowed alternative is submitted.
The court held that when a show cause notice permits submission of either a recent electricity bill or a house tax receipt to prove possession of business premises, furnishing the house tax receipt and other required documents constitutes compliance; authorities cannot reject a GST registration application for not producing an electricity bill without pointing out defects in the submitted house tax receipt or giving reasons for insisting on a specific document. (AI Summary)