Issues: Whether service of notice and order solely through the common portal was valid, where the relevant communications could appear under different portal tabs.

Analysis: The asserted non-service and reliance on decisions concerning portal-based communication were treated as requiring consideration.

Outcome: Notice issued, returnable in four weeks.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of his criminal antecedents.

Analysis: The petitioner had multiple criminal cases, including one of a similar nature, and the allegations involved substantial loss to the State exchequer. The absence of a posted Special Judge had delayed framing of charges; a direction was issued for early posting of a Special Judge so that the trial could proceed expeditiously.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage and was granted two weeks to surrender before the concerned court.

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 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.

Issues: Whether the condition of 5% pre-deposit could be waived and the applicants could be permitted to file statutory appeals.

Analysis: The request to dispense with the statutory pre-deposit was rejected. The order records that any statutory appeal would remain governed by the time limit prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and that it was for the applicant to decide whether to pursue the appeal or any other remedy available in law.

Conclusion: The prayer for waiver of 5% pre-deposit was declined, while the applicants were left free to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time.

Issues: Whether interference with the impugned judgment was warranted, whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue an appeal on making the necessary pre-deposits, and whether the challenge relating to the validity of Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 remained open.

Outcome: The Court declined to interfere, left the petitioner at liberty to avail available remedies, permitted filing of the appeal with necessary pre-deposits within eight weeks, and kept the validity issue open for consideration before the appropriate forum.