Composite works-contract services supplied to the Government or a local authority for specified water supply, water treatment, sewerage treatment or disposal infrastructure attracted GST at 12%, comprising 6% CGST and 6% SGST, on 1 June 2022. The concessional rate entry remained operative until its omission took effect on 18 July 2022. Contractual recovery or reimbursement of an increased tax burden from the other contracting party falls outside the matters eligible for an advance ruling under the CGST Act. Consequently, the advance-ruling mechanism cannot determine entitlement to recover additional tax arising from a later rate change.

State Government grants of mineral-extraction rights under Short-Term Permits constitute taxable licensing services for the right to use minerals, classified under SAC 997337. Royalty is contractual consideration for that grant rather than a tax; consequently, GST is payable by the business recipient under the reverse charge mechanism at the applicable rate. Short-Term Permits receive the same GST treatment as quarry and mining leases because the grantor, mineral right and royalty basis are identical. Differences in the permit's area or duration affect tenure only and do not alter the nature of the supply or reverse-charge liability.

The first proviso to Section 98(2) barred consideration of an advance-ruling application because the applicant's supply characterisation-providing transportation vehicles to goods transport agencies-was already pending in enforcement proceedings and had been decided in an earlier comparable-supply order. As the same question of exemption or taxability under the GST enactments underpinned proposed input-tax-credit reversal, classification, exemption and taxability could not be examined on the merits.

Ex-works transfer of title in aircraft supplied for consideration in the course of business constitutes a taxable supply of movable goods under GST. Aircraft manufactured and procured in Gujarat, then supplied ex-works to a government purchaser from Gujarat, remain taxable in India because no applicable exemption covers the supply. Registration is required in Gujarat where taxable outward supplies originate from that State and the supplier's aggregate turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold. The domestic procurement and onward supply therefore form a taxable supply chain with a registration nexus in Gujarat.

Exemption for storage and warehousing of agricultural produce applies only to the outward warehousing service, not to the distinct inward supply of renting non-residential godowns. Godown rent therefore remains taxable as a real estate service even where the premises are used exclusively for exempt agricultural-produce warehousing. Rent charged by registered suppliers is subject to forward charge. From 10 October 2024, renting of non-residential property supplied by an unregistered person is subject to reverse charge for a registered recipient. The applicable rate for such renting is 18%, comprising CGST and SGST in equal shares.

Rule 24(4) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 permits discretionary rejection of an appeal where notified procedural defects remain uncured despite sufficient opportunity. Six hearing opportunities, including before the bench and Registrar, were provided to rectify the defects. The appellant neither appeared nor sought adjournment and uploaded no additional documents to address the defect notice. Continued non-compliance after repeated opportunities may establish lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal and support exercise of the discretionary power.

Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits a person aggrieved by an order under section 107 to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 112(2) separately authorises the Tribunal to decline admission where the tax, input tax credit, fine, fee or penalty determined by the impugned order does not exceed fifty thousand rupees. Applying that discretion, the appeal concerning a penalty at the threshold was refused admission.

Net ITC for refunds of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies is confined to credit availed during the relevant refund period. A reversal of compensation-cess credit attributable to earlier tax periods, including residual credit remaining after an earlier refund, does not form part of relevant-period Net ITC and should not reduce it. Administrative guidance on reporting reversals cannot require deduction of every reversal recorded during the refund period irrespective of the period to which the underlying credit relates, as it cannot expand or override the statutory refund formula. The accumulated compensation-cess credit refund is consequently computed without deducting such earlier-period reversals.

Net ITC under Rule 89(4) comprises input tax credit actually availed and attributable to the relevant refund period. A reversal recorded during that period, where it relates to credit availed in an earlier period and is absent from relevant-period availment, does not reduce Net ITC in the formula for refund of unutilised cess credit attributable to zero-rated supplies. Paragraph 43(c) must be read consistently with Rule 89(4) and cannot extend the statutory formula to deduct every reversal recorded during the refund period. Administrative circulars bind departmental authorities but cannot override statutory provisions or restrict statutory refund entitlement; the accumulated cess credit refund remains admissible.

Net ITC for refunds of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated supplies comprises credit availed during the relevant refund period under the statutory refund formula. A reversal of residual Compensation Cess credit relating to earlier tax periods, made after a prior refund was sanctioned, does not reduce Net ITC where it has no nexus with credit availed in the relevant period. Returns and the electronic credit ledger determine the credit actually availed during that period. Circular guidance cannot require deduction of all reversals reflected in a refund period if that approach enlarges or overrides the statutory formula.

Section 111 requires the appellate forum to regulate procedure consistently with natural justice. Its powers to dismiss a representation for default or decide it ex parte extend to appeals, and are matched by authority to set aside a default dismissal or ex parte order. Where a first appeal was validly instituted through the prescribed pre-deposit, disputed effective service of hearing notices and the absence of any apparent abandonment supported restoration. The statutory default-dismissal power therefore does not prevent a fresh first-appellate determination on merits after due hearing.

GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns requires an adequate opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice and be heard. Where illness prevented the registered person from responding or attending the scheduled hearing, and no further date was fixed, cancellation after a single notice was set aside. Fresh proceedings must allow a response and hearing before a new order is passed, and must verify any return claimed to have been filed after cancellation.

GST appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before 1 October 2025 remain subject to the pre-substitution pre-deposit regime under Section 107(6), even where the appellate requirement was later replaced. The substituted pre-deposit requirement for disputed penalty does not govern proceedings initiated earlier. Challenges alleging inadequate consideration of contentions in an adjudication order require examination of facts and merits and should be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy rather than writ jurisdiction.

Challenges to curtailment of benefits under the budgetary-support scheme were governed by an earlier precedent applying a Supreme Court ruling. Rather than independently examining the validity of the notification, affected claimants were permitted to submit representations to the State Government and the GST Council. Their claims are to be considered in accordance with law, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue that route.

Show-cause notice defines the permissible scope of GST refund proceedings. An appellate authority cannot sustain rejection by introducing grounds under the GST Rules that were not alleged in the notice without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond. Reliance on new grounds breaches principles of natural justice, requiring consideration of a comprehensive reply, a hearing, and a reasoned speaking order. The refund rejection and appellate order were set aside, with entitlement to refund left for fresh adjudication.

Budgetary Support Scheme payments depend on Central Tax and Integrated Tax paid through the cash ledger after utilisation of eligible input tax credit. Recovery of alleged excess support based solely on input tax credit reflected in GSTR-2A requires proper consideration of the taxpayer's reconciliation, invoices and explanation that the reflected credit was ineligible or unavailable for utilisation. The reviewing authority must evaluate each supporting document, record reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanation, and provide an effective hearing before making a reasoned recovery or adjustment determination.

Expansion of a show cause notice at the appellate stage cannot support rejection of accumulated input tax credit refunds without allowing the taxpayer to answer the added grounds. The High Court treated the notice as the foundation of proceedings and found that reliance on grounds introduced only in appeal deprived petitioners of an effective opportunity to reply. Without examining the merits of those grounds or the refund claim, the High Court set aside the adjudication and appellate orders and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, requiring a comprehensive reply opportunity and personal hearing.

Dismissal of a duly constituted GST first appeal for non-prosecution, despite pre-deposit and alleged inadequate notice of hearing, should not leave the appellant remediless or compel a second appeal. Statutory procedure permits the Appellate Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default and set aside that dismissal. High Court set aside the dismissal where there was no apparent reason for the appellant to abandon its appeal after making the pre-deposit, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of hearing.

Net ITC for refunds of unutilised compensation cess on zero-rated supplies comprises credit actually availed and attributable to the relevant refund period. A reversal recorded in that period reduces Net ITC only where the reversed credit was availed during the same period. Residual credit from earlier periods, not included in the claimed Net ITC for the refund period, cannot reduce the eligible refund. Departmental clarification must operate consistently with the statutory refund formula and cannot require deduction of every reversal irrespective of when the underlying credit arose. The refund sanction was therefore upheld and the Revenue challenge rejected.

Rule 89(4) confines Net ITC for refund of unutilised cess credit on zero-rated supplies to credit actually availed during the relevant refund period. An ITC reversal recorded in GSTR-3B reduces Net ITC only where the reversed credit was availed in that same period; reversals relating to earlier tax periods do not affect the refund computation. Paragraph 43(c) of the departmental circular cannot require deduction of all reversals made during the refund period irrespective of the underlying credit period, as a circular cannot override or expand the statutory refund formula. The accumulated cess-credit refund was consequently sustained.