GST imposed after execution of a fixed-price tender and agreement could not have been included in quoted rates, which covered only duties and taxes applicable at the bidding stage. GST is treated as an indirect tax under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, supporting reimbursement where the project authorities accept that liability. Reimbursement must nevertheless account for VAT remaining payable under the contract. The contractor's GST recovery is therefore limited to the recalculated differential between applicable GST and VAT on goods supplied after 14 December 2017.

Mandatory pre-deposit for a GST appeal by a corporate debtor in liquidation raises a substantial issue where payment from the liquidation estate may conflict with the statutory mechanism for distributing liquidation proceeds. Further consideration is required on reconciling the GST pre-deposit obligation with liquidation-distribution duties, and assistance was sought on that interaction. The matter remains listed for further hearing.

The Department's considered position on whether it accepts or proposes to challenge earlier decisions that prima facie cover the writ controversy requires clarification before further consideration of the petition. The matter stands listed for the Department to inform the High Court of its position, so that the applicability and effect of those earlier decisions can be addressed in the writ proceedings.

Writ jurisdiction over a Section 74 show-cause notice is confined to a challenge that the issuing authority lacks competence. Objections that the notice is time-barred or includes another entity's turnover require determination by the competent authority, particularly where the notice permits a written reply and personal hearing. In the absence of any alleged lack of jurisdiction, writ interference with the notice is not warranted, and the affected person may raise those objections during adjudication.

Services supplied by a head office to separately registered branch offices constitute supplies between distinct persons and are valued under Rule 28. Where branches qualify for full input tax credit and no invoice is issued, CBIC clarification treats the value as nil, being the open market value; turnover-based proportionate cross-charging cannot replace this prescribed valuation. The arrangement is revenue-neutral. Extended limitation for GST recovery requires facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Recorded expenditure and failure to cross-charge, without more, do not establish that intent, rendering an extended-period demand unsustainable.

Section 16(5), retrospectively effective from 1 July 2017, overrides the time restriction in section 16(4) for input tax credit on invoices or debit notes relating to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21. It applies where the relevant return under section 39 was filed by 30 November 2021. The curative amendment regularises credit for returns filed within that extended cut-off, including returns for July 2018 to March 2020, and prevents denial solely because filing occurred after the original due date.

Section 129(3) requires a detention notice to be served within seven days of detention and the consequential penalty order to be passed within seven days after service of that notice. Penalty orders issued beyond that period are barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. Proceedings concerning the supplier's registration do not suspend this statutory period where no stay covers the detention proceedings and the detained person is not a party to the registration dispute. Writ jurisdiction may be invoked against jurisdictionally invalid orders despite an available appellate remedy, requiring release of detained vehicles without payment of the alleged duty.

GST assessment under Section 63 requires ascertainable turnover and a meaningful opportunity for the taxpayer to provide supporting material. An assessment made shortly after a final reminder while an adjournment request remained pending, despite acknowledgement that exact turnover was unascertainable, cannot support a demand exceeding documented work value without an allegation of additional works. Where portal access is unavailable under a temporary assessment identification and an electronic rectification attempt fails, a manual rectification application must be considered after hearing the taxpayer. Coercive recovery remains barred until that application is decided.

Section 7 admission turns on financial debt and default, determined summarily on a prima facie, preponderance-of-probabilities basis; exact claim quantification is reserved for CIRP verification. An authenticated Information Utility record has high evidentiary value, and unanswered authentication cannot later be met by bare denial; other contemporaneous documents may collectively prove default. Profitability or positive EBITDA does not displace default as the Code's trigger once statutory conditions are satisfied. A concluded determination validating an assignment may bar renewed challenge through issue estoppel, leaving the assignee able to apply as financial creditor. Section 62 appeals are confined to questions of law and cannot reweigh concurrent factual findings absent perversity, lack of evidence, ignored material evidence, or an erroneous legal standard.

Section 62(2) of the GST law provides for deemed withdrawal of a best-judgment assessment when the requisite GSTR-3B return is filed. Delayed filing does not prevent that statutory benefit where the applicable late fee is also paid, following the amendment permitting condonation of delay in return filing. Once the assessment is deemed withdrawn, the tax demand and related dues under that assessment cannot be recovered, and recovery proceedings cannot be initiated or continued on its basis.

GST liability on works contracts remains governed exclusively by the applicable GST enactments, notwithstanding contractual arrangements between contractors and employers. Claims for reimbursement of the incremental tax burden arising from the VAT-to-GST transition are contractual claims against the concerned employer, rather than grounds to modify statutory assessment, recovery, return-filing, interest, or penalty processes. Challenges to assessment orders and statutory representations concerning recovery must proceed through available statutory remedies.

Tax paid before adjudication cannot be recovered again through a demand where the Government had already received the short-paid amount; the tax demand was therefore set aside. For delayed GST payment, interest accrues only until cash is credited to the Government account and Electronic Cash Ledger through Form GST PMT-06, not until the later ledger debit on return filing. Interest paid on a residual tax shortfall cannot be set off against separate interest liabilities for delayed monthly payments. Penalty immunity applies only where tax and interest are paid within thirty days of the show-cause notice; payment after that period attracts the prescribed minimum penalty.

Retrospective operation of the substituted proviso to section 50(1) confines GST interest on delayed tax payment to the tax discharged through the electronic cash ledger, excluding the component paid by utilising input tax credit. Refund claims for interest paid on the credit-ledger component require verification of statutory conditions, payment and eligible quantum. Refund limitation cannot be introduced as a decisive appellate ground without notice and an effective opportunity to address the relevant date, computation and applicable exclusions. Limitation must be recomputed under section 54 after applying the notified exclusion of the specified COVID-19 period, followed by a hearing and consequential determination.

SEZ units may seek refund of eligible unutilised input tax credit distributed through an Input Service Distributor where the credit is attributable to their own zero-rated exports without payment of integrated tax. The supplier-specific procedure for direct SEZ supplies does not automatically bar such claims. Refund eligibility remains subject to verification, statutory conditions and quantification. A proposed exclusion for alleged prior supplier refund requires cogent documentary evidence, disclosure to the claimant and a reasonable opportunity to respond; supplier applications or unexplained back-office records alone do not establish double refund.

Section 171 requires suppliers of Rail Neer to pass GST rate-reduction benefits through commensurate reductions in transfer prices, even where maximum retail prices are railway-regulated and supplies are subsidised or complimentary. No exclusion applies to public-sector or governmental suppliers. Profiteering may be computed through a fair, case-specific comparison between pre-GST average base prices and post-GST transaction prices; no uniform formula or advance disclosure of the exact methodology is required where the supplier participated in the investigation. Investigation duration depends on circumstances rather than a one-year limit. Interest applies only prospectively from the interest provision's effective date, while penalty for continuing contraventions remains subject to statutory waiver upon timely deposit.

Bill-to/Ship-to transactions permit an intermediate purchaser to instruct the original supplier to dispatch goods directly to the ultimate recipient, provided the supplies are genuine, documented and properly accounted for. Rule 138(2) allows the consignor or consignee causing movement to generate the e-way bill. Where e-invoices and e-way bills are generated before interception by the party arranging transport, the supplier's separate non-generation does not justify detention of goods. Compliance with these requirements makes detention and penalty for e-way bill non-compliance unsustainable.

Road restoration charges paid by a business entity for permission to cut public roads for a pipeline constitute consideration for a taxable restoration service, not compensatory or liquidated damages. Targeted, request-driven restoration for commercial operations does not qualify for non-supply treatment or exemption available for governmental road functions, which concern community-wide maintenance. Where Government supplies that taxable service to a registered business entity, reverse charge applies to the recipient absent proof of tax paid under forward charge; revenue-neutrality claims do not override that liability. Electronically conducted GST adjudication remains valid where portal records authenticate the proceedings and the notice gives sufficient grounds without prejudice, despite no physical DIN.

GST appellate pre-deposit is cumulative, calculated against the tax still disputed in the Tribunal appeal, rather than requiring a separate fresh payment after the first appeal. A deposit already held against the same demand may be apportioned between both appellate stages, including amounts paid through FORM GST DRC-03, because pre-deposit forms part of disputed tax rather than an independent levy. Requiring refund and redeposit of the same sum would be anomalous. Deposits connected with separate proceedings cannot be double counted. Where the existing deposit meets the aggregate requirement, it may be appropriated and electronically mapped to the disputed demand, with no further deposit required.

Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue and cannot merely replace one plausible view with another. Deduction for contributions to a Core Settlement Guarantee Fund required enquiry into whether payment created an accrued business liability or constituted a corpus for potential future defaults. Examination of genuineness and reasonableness alone was insufficient, given the fund's segregation, accumulated corpus and interest income. The ITAT sustained limited revision because the Assessing Officer had not undertaken requisite verification, directing fresh examination after hearing the assessee while leaving deductibility open.

Section 292BA cures defects only in an assessment or assessment order and does not extend to a TDS-default order under section 201(1)/(1A). Although such an order may be treated as assessment-like in another statutory context, its legislative character as an order cannot be converted into an assessment order for this curative provision. Mandatory Document Identification Number requirements under the CBDT Circular therefore governed validity. Issuance without a DIN was a substantive legal breach rather than a technical defect, rendering the TDS-default order invalid and requiring its quashing along with the appellate order.