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.

Issues: Whether an assessee that replied to a show-cause notice may invoke the applicable remedy of appeal where the order-in-original was served only by uploading it on the common portal.

Analysis: The petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice established knowledge of the notice. The governing principle for an order passed after contest and served solely through the common portal is that such portal upload does not trigger the limitation period for appeal; the assessee may avail the appellate remedy within the period prescribed by the applicable directions. The challenge to the State notifications was not pressed, while the challenge to the Central notifications remained subject to the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

Conclusion: The petitioner may avail the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with the governing directions; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest is payable on the refund of IGST collected on ocean freight from the date of its original payment.

Analysis: The claim was accepted as identical to the precedent governing refund of IGST levied on ocean freight. That precedent treats the declaration invalidating the levy as operative from inception, absent an express prospective limitation, and recognises that interest compensates the taxpayer for being deprived of the refunded amount during its retention by the authorities.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest on the refunded IGST in the manner specified in the governing precedent.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution alleging GST evasion through transportation of goods without invoices and e-way bills.

Analysis: The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The record indicated that the accused was a transporter rather than a manufacturer or supplier, no computation or determination of GST liability attributable to him had been made, the charge sheet had been filed, he had remained in custody since 12.04.2026, and the trial was likely to take time. The assessment was made without commenting on the merits of the prosecution.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to regular bail.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice and consequential cancellation of GST registration, which do not disclose the particulars of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression and contain no reasons, are valid; and whether availability of an alternate remedy bars writ jurisdiction in the presence of apparent illegality.

Analysis: The show-cause notice merely reproduced the statutory grounds without stating the factual particulars required to enable an effective response. It fixed the date of appearance on the very date of issuance, affording no sufficient opportunity to reply. The cancellation order did not disclose the ground for cancellation and revealed non-application of mind. Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked despite an alternate remedy where the impugned action disclosed glaring illegality affecting the rights of a registered trader.

Conclusion: The deficient show-cause notice and the unreasoned cancellation order were invalid and liable to be set aside.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation and the underlying adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing the petitioner from responding.

Analysis: Uploading the show-cause notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, prevented the petitioner from filing a response. This amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without examining the merits, interference was warranted on the peculiar facts.

Conclusion: The impugned appellate and adjudication orders cannot be sustained for breach of natural justice; the petitioner is entitled to respond to the show-cause notice and to a fresh reasoned determination after an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the assessment order should be set aside for fresh adjudication upon the petitioner's undertaking to make a deposit of the disputed tax.

Analysis: The statutory period for appeal had expired, and the petitioner had not availed the opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner nevertheless undertook to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash and to submit a reply with supporting documents.

Outcome: The assessment order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication upon compliance with the stipulated deposit and reply requirements.

Issues: Whether the challenge to a communication seeking commercial justification and supporting documents during an ongoing tender evaluation was premature.

Analysis: The communication neither rejected nor disqualified any bidder, nor did it determine the petitioners' rights. It sought material to assess the commercial sustainability of quoted discounts and avoid disruption of medicine supplies. The petitioners had already furnished their responses and supporting documents. Since no final decision on the bids had been made, the tendering authority was required to evaluate the material and issue a reasoned decision.

Conclusion: The challenge was premature; the tendering authority must decide the bids after considering the responses and documents, with aggrieved bidders left free to pursue remedies available in law.

Issues: (i) Whether a no-fee corporate guarantee furnished by a holding company for its subsidiary is a taxable supply of services, including where accompanied by a share pledge; (ii) Whether such guarantee is a continuous supply of services; (iii) Whether Section 15(4) and Rule 28(2), prescribing valuation of corporate guarantees, are constitutionally valid; (iv) Whether Rule 28(2) can apply to guarantees furnished before 26 October 2023 and to guarantees for foreign recipients; (v) Whether the impugned circulars and the differential treatment of governmental and directors' guarantees are valid; and (vi) Whether proceedings under Section 74 could be invoked for non-payment of GST on corporate guarantees.

Issue (i): Whether a no-fee corporate guarantee furnished by a holding company for its subsidiary is a taxable supply of services, including where accompanied by a share pledge.

Analysis: Section 7(1)(c) read with Entry 2 of Schedule I treats supplies between related persons in the course or furtherance of business as supplies notwithstanding absence of monetary consideration. The statutory incidents of a guarantee, including the benefit of credit to the subsidiary, the surety's indemnity and subrogation rights, establish a service supplied by the holding company for the subsidiary's benefit. The guarantee is incidental or ancillary to the holding company's business under Section 2(17), and the subsidiary is its recipient under Section 2(93). A guarantee is a contingent secondary obligation, not a direct transferable claim to a debt or beneficial interest, and therefore is not an actionable claim excluded by Schedule III. Entry 5(e) of Schedule II classifies the undertaking as an agreement to do an act. The substance and terms of a pledge arrangement may also disclose an undertaking to discharge the subsidiary's default, notwithstanding its nomenclature.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessees: a corporate guarantee furnished by a holding company for its subsidiary is a taxable supply of services, even if issued without a separately charged fee.

Issue (ii): Whether such guarantee is a continuous supply of services.

Analysis: Although a guarantee has a continuing operative obligation, Section 2(33) requires periodic payment obligations. A gratuitous corporate guarantee lacks that essential feature. Its time of supply is instead determined under Section 13(2)(c) by the subsidiary's accounting recognition, with the subsisting guaranteed debt relevant for each financial year.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessees: a gratuitous corporate guarantee is not a continuous supply of services; its annual valuation may nevertheless arise from the recipient's yearly accounting recognition of the outstanding guarantee.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 15(4) and Rule 28(2), prescribing valuation of corporate guarantees, are constitutionally valid.

Analysis: Sections 15(4), 15(5), 2(87) and 164 permit specialised valuation rules recommended by the GST Council for supplies whose value is difficult to ascertain. Rule 28(2) is consequently traceable to the parent statute and the 1% benchmark may operate where actual consideration is unavailable. However, compelling valuation at 1% when the actual commission is lower disregards the actual value, conflicts with the statutory valuation scheme, and is arbitrary.

Conclusion: The issue is decided partly in favour of the assessees: Section 15(4) and Rule 28(2) remain valid, but the words "whichever is higher" in Rule 28(2) are read down, permitting valuation on the actual commission or charge where it is available.

Issue (iv): Whether Rule 28(2) can apply to guarantees furnished before 26 October 2023 and to guarantees for foreign recipients.

Analysis: Imposition of the newly prescribed valuation mechanism on guarantees executed before Rule 28(2) came into force creates an impermissibly harsh retroactive fiscal burden and lacks a legal basis for the earlier period. A continuing guarantee may be taxed only from 26 October 2023. Rule 28(2), as amended, is confined to recipients located in India; guarantees furnished for foreign subsidiaries fall outside that rule.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessees: GST under Rule 28(2) cannot be levied for the period before 26 October 2023, and the demand concerning guarantees for foreign recipients is unsustainable.

Issue (v): Whether the impugned circulars and the differential treatment of governmental and directors' guarantees are valid.

Analysis: The circulars are administrative clarifications of the statutory framework and do not independently create the levy. Their operation must conform to the reading down of Rule 28(2) and the restriction on pre-rule levy. Exemption for governmental guarantees and nil valuation of a director's personal guarantee are founded on distinct public-finance and regulatory considerations and do not establish unconstitutional discrimination.

Conclusion: The issue is decided partly in favour of the assessees: the circulars are set aside only insofar as they conflict with the directions governing valuation and temporal operation of Rule 28(2); the discrimination challenge fails.

Issue (vi): Whether proceedings under Section 74 could be invoked for non-payment of GST on corporate guarantees.

Analysis: Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. The dispute arose from a bona fide and contested interpretation of the GST provisions governing an unsettled corporate-guarantee levy. Mere non-disclosure or non-payment, without a positive and deliberate act to evade tax, does not constitute wilful suppression.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessees: the impugned Section 74 order and show-cause notices are unsustainable and stand quashed.

Final Conclusion: The GST charge on intra-group corporate guarantees operates prospectively under the preserved valuation framework, subject to valuation on actual consideration where available; pre-rule levy, inconsistent circular guidance, and fraud-based enforcement founded only on the interpretative dispute do not survive.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST adjudication and rectification-rejection orders should be entertained without exhausting the statutory appellate remedy, despite delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: Section 107 provides a statutory appeal against the impugned adjudication order. The writ petition was instituted 124 days beyond the prescribed appeal period. The recorded circumstances established sufficient cause for the delay, and the applicable Division Bench approach permits consideration of a delayed statutory appeal on merits where such cause is shown.

Conclusion: Direct writ adjudication was declined; the appellate authority was required to entertain and decide the statutory appeal on merits if filed within 30 days of upload of the order.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution? (ii) If not, whether the provision is liable to be read down so as to protect a bona fide purchaser? (iii) Whether the show cause notice dated 26.09.2025 lacks the jurisdictional foundation for invoking Section 74? (iv) Whether the proceedings are vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias and the non issuance of Form GST DRC-01A? (v) Whether, in the absence of any of the above, the petitioner ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy?

Issue (i): Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution?

Analysis: Input tax credit under Section 16 is conditional and Section 16(2) imposes cumulative, mandatory conditions. The supplier-tax-payment condition in Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 41(2), requires reversal where the supplier has not paid tax but permits re-availment once payment is made. Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility on the claimant. The supplier-default risk assigned to the recipient is a legislative-policy choice, while the reversal-and-restoration mechanism prevents the condition from being final or confiscatory. A speaking Supreme Court ruling affirming the validity of the provision and declining its read-down is binding.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is constitutionally valid. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): If not, whether the provision is liable to be read down so as to protect a bona fide purchaser?

Analysis: The request to read down Section 16(2)(c) stands expressly rejected by the binding ruling on the provision. Independently, a bona fide-purchaser exception would not resolve allegations that credit was claimed through fake invoices, bogus supplies and transactions without movement of goods. The genuineness and bona fides of such transactions require factual determination on evidence within the statutory appellate process.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c) is not liable to be read down for the assessee. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the show cause notice dated 26.09.2025 lacks the jurisdictional foundation for invoking Section 74?

Analysis: Section 74(1) requires prima facie satisfaction that wrongful availment of credit resulted from fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. A mere reproduction of statutory language would be insufficient; however, detailed allegations of layered dealings, fake invoices, bogus supplies and absence of goods movement furnish the requisite jurisdictional foundation. The challenge concerns the adequacy and correctness of the material, which is an issue on merits rather than an absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The show cause notice does not lack jurisdictional foundation under Section 74. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the proceedings are vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias and the non issuance of Form GST DRC-01A?

Analysis: Following the substitution of "shall" by "may" in Rule 142(1A), pre-notice intimation in Form GST DRC-01A is an enabling facility rather than a condition precedent to action under Section 74. Absence of demonstrable prejudice also defeats this objection. The statutory scheme permits the proper officer to undertake investigation and determination; performance of both functions by that officer, without personal interest, animus, closed mind, or other cogent material creating a real likelihood of bias, does not establish disqualifying bias. Alleged inadequate consideration of the reply is, at most, an error within jurisdiction capable of appellate scrutiny.

Conclusion: The proceedings are not vitiated by breach of natural justice, bias, or non-issuance of Form GST DRC-01A. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether, in the absence of any of the above, the petitioner ought to be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy?

Analysis: Once the constitutional and jurisdictional challenges fail, disputed questions concerning the alleged bogus transactions, the sufficiency of evidence, and the assessment of the reply fall within the appellate framework under Section 107. Permitting writ review of those merits would bypass the statutory hierarchy.

Conclusion: The assessee must pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The supplier-tax-payment condition for input tax credit remains enforceable, and the alleged factual merits of the transactions, including their bona fides, remain open for determination under the statutory appellate framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit is a conditional statutory entitlement, and the mandatory supplier-tax-payment condition under Section 16(2)(c), supported by reversal and re-availment under Section 41, cannot be invalidated or read down; disputes as to transaction genuineness ordinarily require recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.