Issues: Whether the accused-applicant should be released on bail pending trial.

Analysis: The limited role attributed to the accused-applicant as a mediator, the absence of apparent knowledge that the concerned firm was allegedly non-existent, filing of the charge sheet, and absence of criminal history were treated as relevant. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the prosecution case.

Outcome: Bail granted pending trial.

Issues: Whether the six-month period prescribed by executive circulars for filing a rectification application to avail input tax credit under Section 16(5) could override the substantive statutory entitlement and preclude extension of time.

Analysis: Section 16(5) confers a substantive entitlement to seek input tax credit but does not prescribe a period for making a rectification application. The circulars imposing a six-month period were issued in exercise of executive power and could only provide directory guidance; they could not override or curtail the statutory entitlement. In an appropriate case, Article 226 permits extension of time unless the delay is exceptional. The merits of the rectification claim were left for determination by the jurisdictional authority.

Conclusion: The executive six-month period is directory and cannot defeat the statutory entitlement under Section 16(5); the rejection founded solely on delayed filing of the rectification application could not stand.

Issues: Whether GST is leviable on affiliation fees connected with a school's affiliation to an educational board.

Analysis: The affiliation conditions applicable to schools were treated as pari materia with those applicable to colleges affiliated with universities. Affiliation is a statutory and regulatory institutional arrangement, rather than a supply of service for consideration. In any event, affiliation services fall within the exemption under Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate), including Entries 66(a) and 66(b)(iv).

Conclusion: Levy of GST on affiliation fees is unsustainable; the impugned circular, notice and consequential proceedings cannot stand.

Outcome: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

Issues: Whether detention penalty was required to be imposed under Section 129(1)(a), rather than Section 129(1)(b), where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and the petitioner's suspended registration was subsequently restored.

Analysis: The tax invoice accompanying the consignment established the petitioner as the deemed owner of the goods. The registration cancellation proceedings were dropped and the registration was restored; consequently, the consignor or consignee could not be regarded as bogus merely because the registration had been suspended during transit. The applicable detention provision was therefore Section 129(1)(a).

Conclusion: The penalty was required to be enforced under Section 129(1)(a) and not under Section 129(1)(b), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed under Section 74 after cancellation of registration could be sustained when the show cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal.

Analysis: Following cancellation of registration, the assessee was not obliged to regularly access the GST portal. Service of a show cause notice solely through that portal was inadequate, and alternative means of service were required to afford the assessee an effective opportunity to respond. The assessment consequently suffered from breach of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, with liberty to the department to issue a proper notice and undertake fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether rejection of the waiver application required reconsideration in view of prima facie evidence of payment of the disputed CGST dues.

Analysis: The GSTR-3B return prima facie recorded discharge of the CGST dues referred to in the rejection order. The waiver application was also filed within the prescribed period. These circumstances warranted fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.

Outcome: The rejection order was set aside and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration within two months.

Issues: Whether the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, without a savings clause, applies to pending refund-recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The authoritative pronouncement governing the omission of Rule 96(10) was applied. The omission, made without a savings clause, has retrospective effect and brings the rule to an end even in respect of pending proceedings; it cannot be relied upon to sustain continuing recovery action merely because the proceedings were pending.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10), without a savings clause, applies to pending proceedings, requiring the refund-recovery matters to be reconsidered in accordance with that position.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority may confirm a tax demand exceeding the demand proposed in the show cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand exceeding that proposed in the show cause notice. The confirmed demand was substantially higher than the proposed demand, contrary to the mandatory statutory restriction.

Conclusion: An adjudication order confirming a demand beyond the show cause notice is without jurisdiction and cannot stand.

Issues: Whether assignment by sale and transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and building is liable to GST.

Analysis: The transaction was covered by the binding decision concerning assignment of leasehold rights allotted by GIDC. Such assignment transfers benefits arising from immovable property to the assignee, who steps into the position of the lessee. It does not fall within the scope of supply under Section 7(1)(a) read with Clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III, and therefore does not attract GST under Section 9.

Conclusion: Assignment by sale and transfer of the leasehold rights was not liable to GST, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Validity of the appellate order concerning the sanctioned refund in light of the binding High Court precedent and dismissal of the challenge to that precedent.

Analysis: The impugned appellate order had proceeded on the basis that a challenge to the governing High Court decision was pending before the Supreme Court. That challenge had subsequently been dismissed. The appellate authority also acknowledged that the relevant High Court order had not been brought to its notice and that corrective steps had been taken in a subsequent matter. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not stand against the applicable binding precedent.

Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was quashed and set aside in favour of the assessee; the assessee was permitted to utilise the refund amount.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice and consequential cancellation of GST registration were valid despite failure to specify the date and time for personal hearing and failure to upload the physical-verification report and supporting documents on the common portal.

Analysis: Form GST REG-17, read with Rule 22(1), requires a cancellation notice to state the grounds, allow time for reply, and specify the date and time for personal hearing. Although time to submit a reply was granted, the notice omitted the date and time for hearing, contrary to the prescribed form and the requirements of natural justice. Rule 25 further requires the physical-verification report, documents and photographs to be uploaded in Form GST REG-30 within fifteen working days; the material showed that this was not done before the cancellation order. The availability of revocation proceedings did not bar writ jurisdiction where natural justice was breached.

Conclusion: The cancellation notice and consequential registration-cancellation order were invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure and principles of natural justice.

Issues: (i) Whether deferred annuity payments under the road concession agreements qualify for exemption as services by way of access to a road or bridge under Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate); (ii) Whether Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 impermissibly overrides the statutory exemption notification; (iii) Whether the earlier advance ruling exempting the petitioner precludes the Revenue from levying GST on the annuity payments.

Issue (i): Whether deferred annuity payments under the road concession agreements qualify for exemption as services by way of access to a road or bridge under Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: The agreements required design, construction, operation and maintenance of roads, with half the project cost paid during construction and the balance paid in biannual annuity instalments after commencement of operations. These reciprocal obligations constituted taxable works-contract services and a supply for consideration. Entry 23A covers only services of access to a road or bridge under Heading 9967; it does not extend to road-construction services falling under Heading 9954 merely because their consideration is paid by deferred annuities. An exemption entry cannot be expanded to cover works-contract services not expressly included.

Conclusion: The annuity payments are consideration for taxable works-contract services and are not exempt under Entry 23A. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 150/06/2021-GST dated 17.06.2021 impermissibly overrides the statutory exemption notification.

Analysis: The circular distinguishes exempt access-to-road services under Heading 9967 from taxable road-construction services under Heading 9954. Section 168 authorises the Board to issue instructions and clarifications to secure uniform implementation of the statutory scheme. The circular was treated as clarificatory of the proper classification and scope of the exemption, rather than as an amendment or curtailment of the notification.

Conclusion: The circular validly clarifies that deferred annuity payments for construction of roads do not receive the Entry 23A exemption. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier advance ruling exempting the petitioner precludes the Revenue from levying GST on the annuity payments.

Analysis: Taxability must be determined from the statutory notification and the true nature of the contractual services. An advance ruling based on a misreading of the applicable legal provisions cannot perpetually bind the implementing authorities where the statutory position is clarified under Section 168. The earlier ruling could not displace the conclusion that the services rendered were taxable works-contract services.

Conclusion: The earlier advance ruling does not bar GST levy on the annuity payments. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Deferred payments under the concession arrangements remain taxable as consideration for road-construction works-contract services, without the benefit of the exemption applicable to access-to-road services.

Ratio Decidendi: A deferred annuity paid as consideration for construction, operation and maintenance of roads is taxable as works-contract service and cannot be exempted as a service of access to a road or bridge merely because the payment is described as annuity.

Issues: Whether refund claims relating to tax paid on licence fees and conservancy charges by an airport duty-free outlet were liable to be processed despite having been filed beyond the specified period.

Analysis: The binding Division Bench precedent in substantially similar circumstances required the refund application to be processed. The revenue accepted that the precedent applied to the claims in question. Consequently, the rejection of the claims on the limitation ground could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The refund rejections were set aside, and the refund claims were required to be processed with applicable interest.

Issues: Whether GST can be levied on a penalty recovered from an employee for shortage of stock.

Analysis: Section 7 read with paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II applies where there is a supply of services, including an agreement to refrain from an act, tolerate an act or situation, or do an act. A penalty imposed for stock shortage in the course of employment arises from the employer-employee relationship and does not constitute a supply of goods or services between a supplier and recipient.

Conclusion: GST is not leviable on the penalty imposed upon the employee for stock shortage; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the impugned tax order and the rejection of the belated rectification application warranted interference and fresh adjudication.

Outcome: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent for fresh adjudication upon the petitioner making the stipulated tax deposit and filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment order notwithstanding limitation.

Analysis: The petitioner expressed willingness to clear the unpaid tax and interest and to make the prescribed deposit towards penalty. The writ jurisdiction was exercised to facilitate consideration of the statutory appeal on merits upon compliance with those requirements.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to make the stipulated payments and file an appeal, which shall be considered on merits without reference to limitation upon compliance.

Issues: Whether assignment by sale or transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and building constitutes a taxable supply liable to GST.

Analysis: Assignment of leasehold rights by the original lessee to a third-party assignee transfers benefits arising from immovable property, with the assignee stepping into the position of the lessee. Such a transaction is outside the scope of supply under Section 7(1)(a) read with Clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III, and is not chargeable to GST under Section 9. Consequently, no question arises of using input tax credit for discharging GST on that transaction.

Conclusion: Assignment of long-term leasehold rights in land and building is not subject to GST; the show-cause notice and demand order were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order passed without granting the requested personal hearing could be sustained.

Analysis: The requested personal hearing was admittedly not afforded. Such denial constituted a flagrant breach of the principles of natural justice. An adjudicating authority must independently consider the reply to the show-cause notice and provide reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanation; a reply cannot be treated as an empty formality.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice and was set aside, with the assessee entitled to a fresh merits adjudication after a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the six-month period prescribed by Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax for seeking rectification to avail the benefit of retrospective Section 16(5) is valid, particularly in the absence of a provision for extension in extraordinary circumstances.

Analysis: Section 148 authorises the Government to notify classes of registered persons and special procedures concerning registration, returns, payment and administration. The power to prescribe a special procedure was provisionally recognised. The remaining question requiring consideration is whether the notification's six-month limitation incorporates the safeguards required by Section 148, including a mechanism to address extraordinary circumstances.

Outcome: Matter listed for further hearing.