Input tax credit eligibility requires prescribed statutory conditions to be proved by the claimant through invoices, supplier-payment evidence, transport or goods-receipt records, and supplier ledgers; absent proof, credit may be denied with consequential interest. Where a supplier remains unpaid beyond 180 days, the recipient must add the corresponding credit to output tax liability with interest, while retaining the right to re-avail it after payment. Non-operation of FORM GSTR-2 does not remove this liability because reversal through FORM GSTR-3B and voluntary payment mechanisms remain available. Private payment arrangements cannot extend the statutory period. Integrated-tax penalties aggregate corresponding central and state GST penalties, subject to the statutory minimum.

Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to every person who collects an amount as tax but does not pay it to the Government, including registered suppliers collecting GST under valid invoices. The provision does not distinguish between registered and unregistered persons or confine its scope to unauthorised tax collections. GST collected from recipients is held for the public exchequer, and its retention after filing nil or no returns attracts a penalty equivalent to the amount collected.

Section 76 applies where any person, including a registered supplier, collects an amount as GST from recipients and fails to remit it to the Government, whether or not the underlying supplies are taxable. The terms "every person" and "any amount" extend the provision to registered and unregistered collectors alike. Collected GST is held for the State, so its retention triggers remittance and equivalent-penalty consequences. Recovery mechanisms for unpaid tax do not displace Section 76 where collected GST remains unremitted.

Composition-levy eligibility under the CGST framework requires an opting registered person to furnish Form GST ITC-03 containing stock details and input tax credit reversal. Where the form is filed belatedly, the delayed compliance and the taxpayer's reply require consideration before eligibility is determined. Refusal of composition treatment without accounting for subsequently furnished Form GST ITC-03 requires fresh determination after considering the reply and compliance.

Rule 86A blocking of electronic input tax credit carries serious civil consequences and requires an effective pre-decisional hearing consistent with natural justice. A three-day notice was insufficient to permit production and substantiation of transaction records and supporting documents. The blocking order and consequential actions were quashed, credit was directed to be unblocked, and any fresh action under Rule 86A must follow an appropriate prior opportunity.

GST liabilities, including liabilities arising before, during, and after the insolvency moratorium and corporate insolvency resolution process, remain attached where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation. Such a sale transfers the corporate debtor as a composite undertaking with identified assets and liabilities, unlike an asset sale that realises and distributes proceeds. Clean-slate relief in a liquidation-sale order does not independently extinguish those tax liabilities, and purchasers assume the associated commercial risk.

GST portal uploads are a statutorily valid mode of service, but repeated non-response requires the proper officer to consider other available modes under the CGST Act, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due. Exclusive reliance on portal uploads in such circumstances may reduce service to an empty formality, particularly where the taxpayer receives no meaningful opportunity of hearing. Failure to take reasonable steps to ensure effective service breaches principles of natural justice and vitiates an ex parte assessment and consequent appellate rejection.

Section 75(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 restricts an adjudicating authority to confirming only the tax demand proposed in the show-cause notice. Where an adjudication order confirms tax, interest, or penalty exceeding the amounts proposed, the excess confirmation breaches this mandatory limitation and is jurisdictionally invalid. The permissible scope of adjudication is confined to the demand specified in the notice, and no enhanced liability may be confirmed beyond it.

Effect of omission of Rule 96(10) on pending export refund proceedings - Omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause - Pending export refund proceedings Continuance of export refund proceedings under omitted Rule 96(10) in the absence of a saving clause - HELD THAT: - Rule 96(10), having been omitted without a saving or sunset clause, could not sustain proceedings pending on the date of its omission. Proceedings initiated under an omitted rule may continue only where a provision saves the... ... ...

Regular bail for alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims through fictitious firms - Bail in economic offences carrying limited sentence - Further investigation and continued custody HELD THAT: - The expiry of the statutory period and the continuance of further investigation, including proposed examination of witnesses, could not by themselves justify refusal of bail, since investigation cannot continue endlessly. Nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from the applicants; the alleg... ... ...

Input tax credit - supplier's tax default - independent application of mind Input tax credit - supplier's tax default - independent application of mind - Input tax credit claimed by a purchasing dealer for supplies from registered suppliers alleged to have defaulted in depositing tax - requirement of independent and reasoned determination by the proper officer - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority had found that the purchaser produced documentary material supporting the supplies and that fra... ... ...

Condonation of delay in filing GST appeal Condonation of delay in filing GST appeal - Illness of sole proprietor - Condonation of delay in filing the GST appeal against assessment concerning input-tax-credit mismatch, where the sole proprietor asserted illness. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that medical certificates concerning the sole proprietor's illness were on record and held that the matter should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than being thwarted on limitation. It accepted the ... ... ...

Cancellation of composition permission for alleged out-of-State purchase of sugar sachets - Proof of breach of composition conditions Cancellation of the restaurant dealer's lump-sum composition permission on the allegation that it had purchased sugar sachets from outside the State - HELD THAT: - The ledger showed that, before payments were made to the supplier through the appellant's bank account, the corresponding amounts had been received from the other business on whose behalf the... ... ...

Manufacture - LPG/CNG conversion kits assembled from bought-out components - Penalty on employee - absence of excise-duty liability Manufacture - LPG/CNG conversion kits assembled from bought-out components - Excise-duty liability on LPG/CNG conversion kits comprising bought-out components merely packed, branded and identified for specified car models - HELD THAT: - For manufacture, the transformation test and marketability test must be satisfied cumulatively. The bought-out components underw... ... ...

Exemption of railway-factory waste and scrap arising from partially exempt goods - Extended limitation for alleged suppression in scrap clearances - Penalty for alleged suppression in clearance of exempt scrap Exemption of railway-factory waste and scrap - Partial exemption as exempted goods - Eligibility of waste and scrap arising from railway coaches cleared at 1% duty for exemption under Sl. No. 17 of Notification No. 62/95-CE - HELD THAT: - Section 5A permits exemption from the whole or a... ... ...

Exercise of CENVAT credit option for common inputs used in exempted goods - Deemed exercise of value-based payment option- Irrevocability of option during financial year Validity of the manufacturer's exercise during financial year 2008-09 of the proportionate CENVAT-credit reversal option for common inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, after continuing value-based payments following the amendment to Rule 6(3) - HELD THAT: - On a conjoint and harmonious reading of Rule 6(3), Rule 6... ... ...

Reverse charge on OIDAR [Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval] services received by overseas head office -Taxability of CRS/GDS services as OIDAR services Taxability, under reverse charge, of CRS/GDS services supplied by foreign companies for airline ticket booking and distribution as OIDAR services - HELD THAT: - Following the Larger Bench determination [2025 (6) TMI 1812 - CESTAT NEW DELHI-LB] and the final decision in the assessee's own case [2025 (8) TMI 1891 - CESTAT N... ... ...

Service tax on transfer of land development rights - Joint development agreement - consideration for sale of flats - Transfer of land development rights as immovable property Service-tax liability of a landowner under a joint development arrangement on the allegation of transfer of land development rights, as against receipt of sale proceeds from residential flats - HELD THAT: - Applying its earlier ruling in Omaxe Ltd [2026 (1) TMI 1709 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] that transfer of land development r... ... ...

Service Tax on transportation of goods by road where the appellant has not issued any consignment note - HELD THAT:- The said issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of Anil Moharana [2026 (10) TMI 715 - CESTAT KOLKATA] wherein held issuance of a consignment note is indispensable for characterising a service provider as a Goods Transport Agency. As the appellant transported materials by road without issuing any consignment note, it was not a Goods Transport Agency; the transp... ... ...

Reverse charge service tax on management consultancy service received from abroad before 18.04.2006 HELD THAT: - Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners' Association [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that Service tax on RCM basis is not payable prior to the amendment of Section 66A w.e.f. 18.04.2006. This decision was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported at [2009 (12) TMI 850 - SC ORDER] Thus, service tax under reverse charge in respect of s... ... ...