Issues: (i) Whether protection from arrest can be granted while dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable; (ii) Whether an order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorising arrest must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.

Issue (i): Whether protection from arrest can be granted while dismissing a pre-arrest bail application as not maintainable.

Analysis: Interim protection is ancillary to the substantive relief sought and cannot survive where the application itself is rejected. The same principle applies to a pre-arrest bail application dismissed as not maintainable: protection against arrest, being interim in nature, cannot be separately granted after such dismissal. Since mere summons under Section 70 does not make a person an accused, the rejection of the pre-arrest bail application was justified.

Conclusion: Protection from arrest could not validly be granted after dismissal of the pre-arrest bail application; the protective direction was set aside. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an order under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorising arrest must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.

Analysis: An order under Section 69, founded on the Commissioner's reasons to believe and authorising arrest, is a necessary precondition for seeking anticipatory bail. Non-communication would impair the affected person's ability to seek anticipatory bail and challenge the authorisation and recorded reasons through judicial review. Communication does not obstruct investigation and may be effected electronically, in addition to legally permissible modes.

Conclusion: The Section 69 authorisation order must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested, and arrest cannot arise without such communication. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impermissible post-dismissal protection was invalidated, while the statutory arrest authorisation was required to be disclosed before any arrest, preserving access to available legal remedies.

Issues: Whether omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings concerning refund of integrated tax on exports.

Analysis: Rule 96(10), which restricted refund claims where supplies were received after availing specified benefits, was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The governing principle is that omission of a rule ordinarily obliterates it unless a saving provision or statutory device expressly preserves pending proceedings. The omission contained no saving or sunset clause. The advisory recommendation for prospective omission could not bind the rule-making authority. The stated purpose of removing unnecessary complications further supported application of the omission to pending refund claims.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) applies to pending proceedings; refund claims must be considered without applying the omitted restriction, in favour of the assessees.

Issues: Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requiring payment of tax by the supplier for availment of input tax credit, is unconstitutional or liable to be read down where the purchasing dealer is bona fide.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing input tax credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 materially differs from that under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004; therefore, a purchasing dealer under the GST regime cannot claim parity with a bona fide purchasing dealer under the Delhi VAT framework where the supplier fails to remit tax. The scheme also provides for reversal and subsequent re-availment of input tax credit upon discharge of the supplier's tax liability, including through the mechanisms under Sections 41, 73 and 74.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is constitutional and is not liable to be read down; the condition of supplier payment of tax for input tax credit applies against the purchasing dealer.

Issues: Challenge to the Orders-in-Original for the financial years 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and to the impugned order dated 25.06.2026.

Outcome: Notice issued and operation of the challenged orders stayed until the next hearing.

Issues: Whether the Special Leave Petitions should be entertained when the matter stood remanded to the Single Judge for determination of residual issues.

Analysis: The earlier dismissal of the departmental Special Leave Petition did not cause merger of the High Court decision with the Supreme Court order. Since residual grounds remained pending before the Single Judge, the exemption issue was not finally adjudicated. Any subsequent decision favourable to the assessee could be produced before the Single Judge and could govern the pending proceedings.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were closed, reserving liberty to challenge the reference order after disposal of the matter by the Single Judge.

Issues: Whether the challenges to the show-cause notices and the assessment order required adjudication in writ jurisdiction.

Outcome: The petitions were disposed of, leaving the petitioners to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against any final assessment order.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the matter before the GST Appellate Tribunal despite its registration and numbering processes not being fully operational.

Analysis: The GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and had commenced functioning for adjudication of GST disputes. In the peculiar circumstances, including that the matter had reached the final stage before the High Court, the petitioner was permitted to approach the President of the Tribunal for registration, numbering, listing and, where necessary, consideration of interim relief. Priority hearing was considered appropriate.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted in a challenge to the assessment proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the petitioner had an statutory appeal remedy and approached the writ court belatedly.

Analysis: The assessment order and show cause notice disclosed the factual basis for the proceedings, and the petitioner had an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order also noted that electronic communication had been issued, that the petitioner became aware of the proceedings much earlier, and that the writ petition was filed after delay. In these circumstances, the writ petition was treated as an impermissible substitute for the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Court in connected civil appeals, and the pending interlocutory application was also disposed of.

Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed, and time to file the appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was extended by two weeks.

Outcome: Delay was condoned, time to file the appeal was extended, and the interlocutory application was allowed.