Issues: Whether Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 barred the Central authority from determining a consolidated demand insofar as it included financial years already covered by State GST proceedings.

Analysis: Section 6(2)(b) applies where two departmental proceedings overlap in respect of the same tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from a particular contravention; it does not apply merely because separate proceedings involve a similar liability arising from distinct infractions. The State proceedings covered FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19, whereas the Central order confirmed a consolidated demand from July 2017 to November 2022, including those overlapping years. The overlap was admitted in the affidavit-in-reply.

Conclusion: The consolidated demand could not include FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh determination excluding those financial years.

Issues: Whether provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 survive beyond one year and whether the Revenue's challenge concerning such attachments remained adjudicable.

Analysis: Section 83(2) provides that a provisional attachment ceases to have effect after one year. The statutory scheme contains no enabling authority for renewal, re-issuance, or revival of an attachment after its statutory expiry. The attachments in question had therefore lapsed, and no interim protection had been granted against the directions issued in respect of them.

Conclusion: The provisional attachments had ceased to operate by statutory lapse, and the Revenue's challenge concerning them had become infructuous.

Issues: Whether leasing digital cinema equipment comprising a projector, server, UPS and VSAT for a single rental constitutes a composite supply or a mixed supply, and the applicable GST rate.

Analysis: The equipment was supplied together for a single lease rental but was not naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. The indicators of natural bundling, including customary industry practice, consumer expectation, ancillary character and integral dependence of the components, were not satisfied. Since the individual equipment could constitute independent supplies and the bundle was supplied for a single price without being a composite supply, it was classified as a mixed supply. Under Section 8(b), a mixed supply is taxable at the rate applicable to the constituent supply attracting the highest rate. The projector attracted the highest applicable rate among the equipment.

Conclusion: The leasing of the digital cinema equipment is a mixed supply and is taxable at the rate applicable to the projector: 28% GST up to 21.09.2025 and 18% GST thereafter. The GST rate applied by the applicant was correct.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns could be sustained where the registered person did not respond to the show-cause notice or attend the hearing due to illness and no further hearing date was fixed.

Analysis: The registration was cancelled after only one notice. The explanation for the non-response and absence was supported by the asserted medical condition. In these circumstances, an adequate opportunity required fixation of another hearing date before passing an adverse order. The claimed filing of return after cancellation was also required to be verified in the fresh proceedings.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside in favour of the assessee, with a direction to afford an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and pass a fresh order after hearing.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to avail the statutory appellate remedy despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Outcome: The petitioner was permitted to file the statutory appeal within two weeks, to be entertained on merits without objection as to limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned circulars validly assigned proper-officer functions to Central Tax officers for action under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the writ challenge to the demand order should be entertained despite an effective statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned circulars validly assigned proper-officer functions to Central Tax officers for action under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The officers concerned had already been appointed as Central Tax officers under the statutory framework. The distinction from cases concerning assignment of customs functions to persons who were not customs officers was material. Section 2(91) permits assignment of proper-officer functions to Central Tax officers, and the circulars specified the officers' functions and monetary limits under Section 74.

Conclusion: The impugned circulars validly assigned proper-officer functions to the already appointed Central Tax officers; the challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ challenge to the demand order should be entertained despite an effective statutory appeal.

Analysis: The demand order recorded consideration of the defence material and an opportunity of personal hearing. The remaining objections required reappreciation of factual disputes and documents, which falls within the appellate authority's jurisdiction. The alternative statutory remedy was effective, and no recognised exception warranted writ intervention.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to the demand order is not entertained; statutory appeal is the appropriate recourse.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge to the circular-based assignment of proper-officer functions is rejected, while the liability-related controversies are to be resolved through the statutory appellate process.

Issues: Whether an SEZ unit is entitled to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit under the GST refund framework.

Analysis: Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 89(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, permits a refund application by any eligible entity and does not confine such claims to suppliers making supplies to SEZ units. The supplier-specific reference in the second proviso to Rule 89 and Rule 89(2)(f) identifies one category of claimant but does not exclude an SEZ unit. A restriction absent from the statutory text cannot be introduced through interpretation.

Conclusion: An SEZ unit is eligible to claim refund of unutilized input tax credit.

Issues: Whether GST could be recovered for a period preceding its commencement on 08.07.2017.

Analysis: GST became operative on 08.07.2017. The respondents accepted that it was chargeable only from that date; consequently, a demand for the prior period lacked basis.

Conclusion: GST cannot be charged from the petitioner for any period before 08.07.2017.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the GST demand order should be entertained despite an available statutory appeal, on the grounds of alleged breach of natural justice and delayed recourse to the appellate remedy.

Analysis: The record disclosed service of the show-cause notice, filing of replies by the petitioner, and grant of an opportunity of personal hearing before the demand order. The writ petition was instituted nearly one year and six months after the impugned order. The contention that the hearing was scheduled before expiry of the reply period was considered appropriate for examination in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not warranted where an effective statutory appellate remedy was available; any application for condonation of delay may be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the substituted refund formula in Rule 89(5) applies to refund applications filed after 05.07.2022 where the accumulated ITC relates to earlier periods; and (ii) whether a supplementary refund claim for a period for which an earlier NIL claim was filed may be rejected merely because no separate mechanism exists or the GST portal restricts refiling.

Issue (i): Whether the substituted refund formula in Rule 89(5) applies to refund applications filed after 05.07.2022 where the accumulated ITC relates to earlier periods.

Analysis: Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax substituted the refund formula to permit consideration of input-service ITC. The applicable date for the substituted formula is the date of filing of the refund application, rather than the period in which the ITC accumulated. The substituted provision was treated as curative and clarificatory, and the contrary understanding in Circular No. 181/13/2022-GST could not restrict the statutory refund entitlement.

Conclusion: The amended Rule 89(5) formula applies to the refund applications filed after 05.07.2022 notwithstanding that the ITC accumulated during earlier periods; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a supplementary refund claim for a period for which an earlier NIL claim was filed may be rejected merely because no separate mechanism exists or the GST portal restricts refiling.

Analysis: Section 54 confers a substantive refund benefit, while the method of filing is procedural. Neither the show-cause notices nor the adjudication orders identified a statutory prohibition against a supplementary claim. A portal limitation or absence of a distinct supplementary-claim category cannot defeat a claim satisfying the substantive refund conditions, which must be assessed on merits.

Conclusion: A supplementary refund claim cannot be rejected solely because an earlier claim for the same period was filed or because of procedural or technological restrictions; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substituted formula and the availability of a supplementary claim preserve the entitlement to differential inverted-duty refunds where the statutory conditions and limitation requirements are met.

Ratio Decidendi: A substituted curative refund formula applies to a claim filed after its notification even where the ITC arose earlier, and absence of a filing mechanism or portal functionality cannot defeat a substantively valid refund claim.

Issues: Whether a merits adjudication must be afforded despite delay where the show-cause notice was uploaded on an additional notices portal and no personal hearing was notified.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was made available on the additional notices portal, creating a genuine possibility that it was overlooked. The personal-hearing column was marked as not applicable, and the original order was passed without considering a response or supporting documents. In these circumstances, rejection solely on limitation would deny an effective opportunity of hearing and offend the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The petitioners must be permitted to file their response and supporting documents, and the matter must be adjudicated afresh on merits without limitation being used to reject their contentions.

Issues: Whether a successive writ petition challenging the same adjudication order is maintainable after an earlier writ petition was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh, particularly where the statutory appellate remedy was not timely pursued.

Analysis: The earlier writ petitions and the present petition substantially sought to challenge the same adjudication order. The first petition had been withdrawn without permission to institute a fresh petition. Applying the public-policy principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, withdrawal without such liberty constitutes abandonment of the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of that cause of action. A subsequent petition cannot be sustained merely by urging altered grounds for identical relief. The statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was also available, and the unexplained delay of approximately one year in initially invoking writ jurisdiction weighed against its exercise.

Conclusion: The successive writ petition challenging the same adjudication order was not maintainable.

Issues: Whether coercive steps for recovery of alleged GST liability could be taken during the continuing inspection/search while the writ petition remains pending.

Analysis: The ongoing inspection/search and the dispute concerning pressure to discharge liability warranted interim protection with reference to the applicable investigation guidelines. Normal business activities were directed to remain permissible pending further consideration.

Outcome: Notice issued; no coercive steps for discharge of liability may be taken during the inspection/search until the returnable date.

Issues: (i) Whether the revised anti-profiteering computation, after adjustment of reversed unutilised input tax credit, established an amount required to be passed on to recipients? (ii) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applied to the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019?

Issue (i): Whether the revised anti-profiteering computation, after adjustment of reversed unutilised input tax credit, established an amount required to be passed on to recipients?

Analysis: Section 171(1) requires the benefit of input tax credit to be passed to recipients through commensurate reduction in prices. The unutilised input tax credit of Rs. 5,26,200 reversed by the assessee was excluded from the calculation, leaving net post-GST credit of Rs. 57,68,679 and an additional credit benefit of 2.20%. The revised computation based on that net benefit was supported by the record. Rule 133(3)(b) requires return of the amount not passed on, with interest at 18% from collection until return.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: profiteering of Rs. 2,34,671, with GST of Rs. 28,161, totalling Rs. 2,62,832, was determined and must be passed on to eligible recipients with interest at 18%.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applied to the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019?

Analysis: The penal provision came into force on 01.01.2020, after the entire period under investigation had ended.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: no penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is imposable.

Final Conclusion: The liability is confined to restitution of the net input-tax-credit benefit, together with statutory interest, while no penal consequence arises for the pre-commencement period.

Ratio Decidendi: An anti-profiteering determination must be based on net available input tax credit after accounting for reversals, and a penalty provision cannot be imposed for conduct occurring before its commencement.

Issues: (i) Whether fresh adjudication was warranted for want of an effective opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether ITC could be rejected solely on a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch and whether relevant supplier certificates could be considered; (iii) Whether CGST and SGST input tax credit was lawful for an intra-State renting supply where the supplier reported and paid IGST.

Issue (i): Whether fresh adjudication was warranted for want of an effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Although notices had been issued at the appellate stage, the record showed that the assessee's ability to participate in the proceedings had been disrupted by grave personal circumstances, and the adjudication had proceeded without an effective hearing. An opportunity to present the case was required in furtherance of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Fresh adjudication after affording an effective opportunity of hearing was warranted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether ITC could be rejected solely on a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch and whether relevant supplier certificates could be considered.

Analysis: Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs input tax credit eligibility, while the burden of proof under Section 155 remains on the claimant. A GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch alone does not establish inadmissibility of ITC. The reconciliation, supplier reporting errors, B2B/B2C reporting discrepancies, reverse charge mechanism credit, unclaimed credit, and subsequent reversals require category-wise and invoice-wise verification. CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 applies to pending proceedings for the relevant period; supplier certificates relating to the disputed financial year are admissible for verification notwithstanding their later issuance.

Conclusion: ITC cannot be rejected solely on the basis of a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch; the supplier certificates must be considered, and the remaining ITC eligibility must be determined through category-wise and invoice-wise verification. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether CGST and SGST input tax credit was lawful for an intra-State renting supply where the supplier reported and paid IGST.

Analysis: Under Section 12(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the place of supply of renting of immovable property is the location of that property. As the supplier and property were in the same State, the supply was intra-State under Section 8(2) of that Act and attracted CGST and SGST. The supplier's reporting and payment under the IGST head was a tax-head error and did not cause revenue loss.

Conclusion: The CGST and SGST input tax credit for the identified intra-State renting supply was lawful, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed ITC claim requires fresh verification on the applicable statutory conditions and supporting records, while the identified tax-head discrepancy does not invalidate the corresponding credit.

Ratio Decidendi: For the initial GST period, a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch alone cannot establish ineligible ITC; the claimant must discharge the burden of proof, and eligibility must be determined through verification of the underlying invoices and evidence under the applicable statutory conditions.

Issues: Whether the proviso to Section 112(8), requiring a 10% pre-deposit of penalty in a penalty-only appeal, applies to proceedings initiated before its effective date.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a substantive right that vests when the lis commences. A later amendment imposing a fresh pre-deposit burden cannot apply to proceedings already instituted unless the legislature has expressly or necessarily provided for retrospective operation. The show-cause notice was issued before the proviso became effective, and the provision governing such proceedings at their commencement did not require a pre-deposit for a penalty-only appeal. The corresponding treatment of pre-deposit requirements under Section 107(6) supported the same construction.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 112(8) does not apply to the appeal arising from the pre-amendment proceedings; no 10% penalty pre-deposit was payable.

Issues: (i) Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone delay beyond the outer statutory limit under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the Department could maintain its appeals after implementing the impugned orders and restoring the taxpayers' registrations; and (iii) Whether failure to seek revocation under Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 barred the taxpayers from pursuing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone delay beyond the outer statutory limit under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107 prescribes a three-month period for appeal and permits condonation only within the further period expressly fixed by Section 107(4). The equitable and extraordinary jurisdiction exercisable by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enlarge the statutory jurisdiction of the First Appellate Authority. Equity follows the law, and the Authority could not assume a power of condonation withheld by the statute.

Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit; the condonation orders were ultra vires and coram non judice. This issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department could maintain its appeals after implementing the impugned orders and restoring the taxpayers' registrations.

Analysis: The Department restored the registrations pursuant to the impugned orders, after which the taxpayers resumed business and the registrations remained active. Annulment at that stage would unsettle intervening genuine transactions and related input-tax-credit consequences. Since the Department had acted upon the orders, no effective or workable appellate relief could be granted.

Conclusion: The Department could not maintain the appeals after implementing the impugned orders and restoring the registrations. This issue is decided in favour of the taxpayers.

Issue (iii): Whether failure to seek revocation under Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 barred the taxpayers from pursuing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The common portal did not permit applications for revocation after expiry of the prescribed period. The statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 is independent, and inability or failure to pursue revocation under Rule 23 does not extinguish the right to challenge cancellation through appeal.

Conclusion: Failure to pursue revocation under Rule 23 did not bar the taxpayers from availing the statutory appellate remedy, subject to its prescribed limitation. This issue is decided in favour of the taxpayers.

Final Conclusion: Although the First Appellate Authority could not lawfully extend the statutory limitation, the Department's completed implementation of the restoration orders precluded it from obtaining appellate relief in these matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority cannot invoke equitable considerations or High Court orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone delay beyond an express statutory outer limit.

Issues: (i) Whether contracted supply of food by an outsourced caterer to a hospital for in-patients is a composite supply of healthcare services exempt from separate GST; (ii) Whether the notice under Section 74(1) may be sustained where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax is not established; (iii) Whether invoice values that did not separately charge tax must be treated as cum-tax values under Rule 35 in computing tax.

Issue (i): Whether contracted supply of food by an outsourced caterer to a hospital for in-patients is a composite supply of healthcare services exempt from separate GST.

Analysis: A composite supply under Section 2(30) requires two or more taxable supplies that are naturally bundled and supplied together, with one being the principal supply. The caterer made only one supply under its agreement, namely food to the hospital. Healthcare treatment and the dietary food supplied to admitted patients may form a composite supply in the hands of the hospital as healthcare provider, but the circular does not extend that treatment to an independent outsourced food supplier.

Conclusion: The outsourced caterer's supply of food to the hospital for consumption by in-patients is not a composite supply of healthcare services and is separately taxable, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice under Section 74(1) may be sustained where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax is not established.

Analysis: Invocation of Section 74(1) requires the requisite elements of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax to be established. A mistaken reliance on the circular, coupled with the absence of separately charged tax and the dropping of the proposed penalty under Section 122, did not establish mala fides. Section 75(2) permits the notice to be treated as one issued under Section 73(1) where the ingredients of Section 74 are not made out.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 74(1) is unsustainable and shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 73(1), in favour of Assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether invoice values that did not separately charge tax must be treated as cum-tax values under Rule 35 in computing tax.

Analysis: The invoices did not contain a separately identifiable tax component, and there was no allegation that tax had been collected over and above the invoice value. Rule 35 requires tax to be computed from the value inclusive of tax. The statutory benefit is available on the admitted record even though it was not specifically claimed earlier.

Conclusion: The declared invoice values must be treated as cum-tax values and the tax liability must be recomputed under Rule 35 after verification, in favour of Assessee.

Final Conclusion: Tax on the independent food supply is to be quantified on the ordinary-demand basis, with statutory cum-tax valuation applied and without treating the matter as involving fraud or suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: A supplier that independently provides only food to a hospital does not render a naturally bundled healthcare supply merely because the food is ultimately consumed by in-patients.

Issues: (i) Whether credit-note value must be excluded from turnover for calculating an inverted-duty refund; (ii) Whether Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 bars an inverted-duty refund where higher-taxed processing inputs are used for fabric supplies; (iii) Whether a direction for consequential re-computation after deciding refund eligibility constitutes a prohibited remand.

Issue (i): Whether credit-note value must be excluded from turnover for calculating an inverted-duty refund.

Analysis: Section 34(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises issuance of credit notes where supplies are returned, rejected, deficient, or their taxable value or tax is reduced. For applying the refund formula under Section 54(3)(ii) of that Act read with Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, a credit note reflecting reversal of a supply is required to be deducted from outward taxable turnover.

Conclusion: Credit-note value must be deducted from outward taxable turnover for refund computation; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 bars an inverted-duty refund where higher-taxed processing inputs are used for fabric supplies.

Analysis: Paragraph 3 of the Circular concerns accumulated credit arising from a reduction in the GST rate on the same goods at different points in time. Its exclusion for identical input and output supplies does not apply where the output fabric rate has not been reduced and higher-taxed chemicals, dyes and consumables are used in processing. Such accumulation is governed by the statutory refund formula in Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Conclusion: The Circular does not bar the refund claim; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a direction for consequential re-computation after deciding refund eligibility constitutes a prohibited remand.

Analysis: Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 precludes remand for fresh adjudication. Where refund eligibility and governing parameters have already been conclusively determined in appeal, re-quantification by the original authority is a ministerial exercise implementing those findings, without reopening the merits or permitting fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: Consequential re-computation is not a prohibited remand under Section 107(11); the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate determination of eligibility for inverted-duty refund remains operative, with the refund amount to be computed in conformity with the statutory formula and the appellate findings.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure for fabric processing was barred by the clarification concerning identical input and output supplies; (ii) Whether a direction to re-compute the refund amount after deciding refund eligibility constituted a prohibited remand under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure for fabric processing was barred by the clarification concerning identical input and output supplies.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, permits refund where credit accumulates because the tax rate on inputs exceeds that on outward supplies. The clarification in paragraph 3.2 of CBIC Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST concerns the same goods being subjected to different rates at different points in time because of a rate reduction. The processed-fabric activity involved higher-taxed chemicals, dyes and consumables as inputs, without any reduction in the GST rate on the output supply.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by the clarification concerning identical input and output supplies and was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a direction to re-compute the refund amount after deciding refund eligibility constituted a prohibited remand under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(11) prohibits referring a matter back for fresh adjudication. Refund eligibility had already been conclusively determined, and the direction was confined to arithmetical re-computation in accordance with those findings. No issue was left open for reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority; the remaining exercise was ministerial implementation of the appellate determination.

Conclusion: A consequential re-computation of the refund amount did not constitute a prohibited remand under Section 107(11) and was valid in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate orders determining refund eligibility and requiring computation in conformity with those determinations remain legally valid.