GST demands founded solely on discrepancies between Form GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A, GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C require verification of underlying records. Excess input tax credit must be assessed on the net position after giving effect to disclosed reversals; gross-credit comparisons alone do not establish revenue loss. Output-tax differences require reconciliation with sales ledgers, invoices and financial books. Under Rules 42 and 43, proportional reversal applies only after specific and actual common credit is identified and segregated. Unreconciled portal data and treating all credit as common cannot determine tax, interest or penalty liability; de novo verification is required.

Entry 52B classifies qualifying vehicles for the higher Compensation Cess rate through cumulative engine-capacity, length, SUV identity and ground-clearance conditions. A prospective amendment defining ground clearance as unladen ground clearance does not introduce a laden-condition requirement into the earlier unamended entry. Fiscal classification cannot read an absent loading qualification into the entry; commercial identity and manufacturer specifications remain relevant evidence, while ARAI certification is technical but not conclusive. Vehicles meeting the specified unladen clearance therefore fall within Entry 52B. Where a lower cess rate is applied despite that classification and short-payment is detected through investigation, suppression of facts with intent to evade tax supports recovery of differential cess, interest and penalties under Section 74.

Rule 92(3) requires notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and a pre-decisional hearing before any part of a GST refund claim may be rejected. This requirement gives effect to audi alteram partem and principles of natural justice by requiring disclosure of precise grounds so the claimant can provide a meaningful response and supporting evidence. An appellate-stage hearing cannot cure the absence of the prescribed pre-decisional opportunity. Partial refund rejections made without this process, and appellate confirmations, are invalid and require fresh processing; the merits of the alleged input tax credit mismatch remain open.

Input tax credit denial requires specific disclosed grounds, a meaningful opportunity to respond, transaction-specific examination, and reasoned findings. A supplier's retrospective registration cancellation alone cannot support disallowance without independent verification and consideration of evidence concerning receipt of supplies and statutory conditions. The claimant's burden to establish credit eligibility must be assessed through a fair adjudicatory process. Statutory appellate review requires inquiry into the material and grounds on record, followed by a written merits-based decision with reasons; non-attendance does not justify dismissal for non-prosecution alone. Foundational defects in notices and original orders require fresh de novo adjudication, while substantive credit eligibility remains open.

Comparison of pre-GST and post-GST input tax credit-to-purchase-value ratios for the relevant project showed a reduction from 6.55% to 5.77%. Recalculation using actual procurement savings established that GST implementation did not confer any additional input tax credit benefit. As no benefit accrued that required a commensurate reduction in prices, the anti-profiteering obligation under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was not contravened. The investigation findings and computations were accepted by both the Respondent and the Applicant.

An adjudication order under Section 73 must address the taxpayer's specific response to the show-cause notice and give reasons for rejecting it. An adjudicating authority exercises a quasi-judicial function and cannot validly dismiss a written explanation through a bare assertion that it is unsatisfactory without demonstrating consideration of the issues raised. Failure to provide reasons or engage with the taxpayer's response renders the order unsustainable and requires fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Delay in filing a statutory appeal against GST registration cancellation was condoned where the appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely as time-barred without examining tax computation. The remedial approach applied in analogous registration-cancellation matters supported an effective opportunity for merits adjudication. The revived appeal must allow the petitioner to challenge every component of tax computation before the appellate authority, with a hearing afforded to both sides.

Clause 42.1 of the contracts requires reimbursement of Central and State taxes paid by the contractor upon proof of payment. GSTR-3B records established payment of CGST and SGST. The absence of Part II of Schedule A does not defeat reimbursement where the omission is attributable to the department that drafted the agreement. Denial despite payment proof is arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 requirements of fairness in governmental contractual dealings. Reimbursement of CGST and SGST is payable with interest at 12% per annum from the respective tax-payment dates.

Retrospective GST registration cancellation under Rule 21(a) requires prior notice that retrospective effect is proposed. A notice alleging non-conduct of business at the declared premises, without proposing retrospective cancellation, cannot support cancellation from 2 July 2017. The earlier cancellation for the same period had been revoked, and penalty adjudication accepted the genuineness of input tax credit under Section 16. The cancellation was set aside, registration revived, and fresh adjudication directed after the petitioner's response.

Private contractual allocation of GST liability does not bar statutory recovery from a person liable under the CGST Act. Suppliers receiving assignment consideration inclusive of GST and undertaking to remit it remain contractually liable to reimburse the payer for unpaid GST and consequential interest. Statutory authorities may nevertheless pursue the payer under section 16(2), subject to the pending statutory appeal. A civil money claim cannot extend to statutory authorities where they were added late and no amended prayer or contractual basis supports relief against them.

Ex parte GST assessments based on show-cause notices uploaded only to the GST portal may not provide effective service where repeated portal notices receive no response. Although portal upload is a recognised mode of service, the proper officer must explore other available modes, preferably registered post, to ensure an effective opportunity to respond. Confirming show-cause proposals without effective service and a meaningful personal hearing reduces the process to an ineffective formality; ex parte assessments made in those circumstances cannot be sustained.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit was sought in relation to zero-rated supplies, including a claim involving cumulative cess credit and supplies made without payment of integrated tax. The special leave petition challenging rejection of the refund claim was dismissed because it was filed after substantial delay without a cogent explanation. Dismissal was also based on merits, with a special leave petition against the common impugned order having already been dismissed.

Contractual GST-refund claims founded on a specific tax-reimbursement clause fall outside an arbitration agreement where the arbitration clause does not extend to that dispute. The existence of an arbitration agreement cannot, on that basis, justify refusing writ jurisdiction on the ground of an alternative arbitral remedy. Competing interpretations of the tax-reimbursement clause and entitlement to the GST refund remain for determination by the High Court within judicial review.

Criminal conspiracy and cheating allegations may warrant continuation of prosecution where exclusion of family members from a family tree, use of partition documents to obtain compensation, and distribution of that compensation disclose a prima facie offence. An untested statement concerning the genuineness of a partition deed cannot conclusively resolve that issue at the quashing stage; genuineness must be determined at trial. Pendency of civil partition proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution or justify quashing where the same facts also disclose criminal offences.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be refused where quashing administrative action would cause greater societal harm. In an intra-court writ appeal, a plausible discretionary decision should not be displaced merely because another view is possible; interference requires perversity or material legal error. Cancellation of the industrial plot allotment was treated as bona fide because it served an educational institution's establishment and expansion, no malice was shown, alternate land was offered, and compensation was sought alternatively. The cancellation remained effective, subject to refund with interest and exclusive educational use of the plot.

Steel plates, coils, angles, channels, joists and beams used to fabricate machinery, furnaces and other capital goods qualify for CENVAT credit where their use is established by a detailed chartered engineer's certificate. Excavators do not qualify for CENVAT credit. Recovery of excavator credit is nevertheless barred by limitation where the credit was disclosed in RG23C and ER-1 records and no suppression supports invocation of the extended period. Accordingly, the structural-item credit demand fails on merits, while recovery of the excavator credit cannot proceed under the extended limitation period.

Fixed facility charges for specialised storage tanks, when included in the assessable value of supplied gases and subjected to central excise duty under the applicable Board circular, cannot additionally be treated as consideration for Supply of Tangible Goods Service. Although the tanks were supplied without transfer of effective possession and control, the charges had already borne excise duty as part of the gas value. Applying the departmental circular and the earlier determination concerning the same transactions, service tax, interest and penalties on those charges were unsustainable.

Banking investments classified as held to maturity require premium paid, including premium previously disallowed, to be amortised and deducted over their residual maturity period. Available-for-sale securities require mark-to-market valuation at the reporting date; the resulting loss is deductible. Where profit on sale of those securities has been taxed, the associated premium included in cost should not be disallowed. Deductibility of a leave-encashment provision under Section 43B(f) remains subject to the pending Supreme Court determination and requires fresh adjudication consistently with that determination.

Consideration from standard software sales and pure cross-charges for third-party software does not constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of the India-USA tax treaty where no taxable income element arises. Third-party hardware supplied to an Indian subsidiary on a cost-to-cost basis without mark-up is a reimbursement, not consideration giving rise to capital gains under the Act or Article 13 of the treaty. Software receipts and hardware reimbursements of this nature are therefore excluded from taxable income in India.

Reassessment initiated under section 148 for AY 2013-14 was time-barred because the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for extended action under the substituted reassessment regime. The initiating notice and consequential reassessment were therefore void ab initio. Separately, undisputed repayment of an unsecured loan, supported by bank records before reassessment proceedings, prevented the credit from being treated as unexplained cash credit and removed the basis for disallowing related interest. The reassessment and the loan-related adjustments were unsustainable.