Additional post-GST input tax credit was assessed against post-GST construction-input cost escalation for supplies of flats. Construction-cost escalation exceeded the incremental credit benefit, producing negative net savings. On that calculation, no amount was available to be passed to buyers through commensurate price reductions. The revised assessment determined nil profiteering, so a contravention of the anti-profiteering requirement under Section 171 of the CGST Act was not established.

Section 171 of the CGST Act requires suppliers to pass GST rate reductions and input-tax-credit benefits to recipients through commensurate price reductions, including where retail MRP is government-regulated but the supplier controls the transfer price. Government ownership, subsidised or complimentary character, and sourcing through PPP plants do not exclude supplies from this obligation. A transfer-price-based, invoice-wise computation may be adopted through a fair and reasonable case-specific methodology; unsubstantiated cost increases cannot justify retaining tax benefits. Interest under Rule 133(3)(c) applies only from its effective date, while penalty under Section 171(3A) applies to continuing contraventions after that provision became effective. Amounts found profiteered are allocated to Consumer Welfare Funds.

SEZ units undertaking their own zero-rated exports without payment of integrated tax may seek refund of eligible unutilised input tax credit distributed through an input service distributor, subject to statutory conditions, credit-ledger availability and Rule 89(4) computation. The supplier-specific second proviso to Rule 89(1), applicable to direct supplies to SEZ units, does not remove this separate entitlement where credit has been validly distributed. Any proposed exclusion for duplicate supplier refunds requires documentary identification of the relevant supplier, invoices, credit and sanctioned refund, with disclosure and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Refund quantum remains subject to verification.

The retrospectively substituted proviso to Section 50(1) confines interest on delayed GST payment to tax discharged through the electronic cash ledger, subject to stated exceptions. Interest paid on liabilities discharged through the electronic credit ledger may therefore be refundable after verification and quantification. Refund limitation must be computed after excluding the statutory period prescribed for refund applications. A fresh limitation objection cannot determine the claim without prior notice and an effective opportunity to address the relevant date, filing date, computation and applicable exclusions. Refund eligibility must be assessed under the retrospective interest provision and the recalculated limitation period.

Interest under Section 50(1) on delayed GST payment accrues only until tax paid through Form GST PMT-06 is credited to the Government account; a later debit from the Electronic Cash Ledger is merely an accounting appropriation. Tax already deposited through DRC-03 before determination cannot be recovered again under Section 73(1). Interest paid for a separate tax shortfall cannot be adjusted against interest on delayed monthly tax payments without establishing earlier Government-account credit. Penalty immunity under Section 73(8) applies only where tax and applicable interest are paid within 30 days of the show-cause notice; otherwise, statutory penalty may apply without proof of fraud or deliberate default.

Ex parte assessment under Section 73 should be reopened where the taxpayer can substantiate an input tax credit claim through portal records and supporting documents, despite earlier non-utilisation of opportunities. The absence of any stated discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A supported allowing a fresh reply before the assessing officer. Reconsideration is subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount, after which the assessment must be undertaken afresh.

In pre-existing works contracts transitioning from VAT to GST, reimbursement of any incremental GST is governed by the contractual arrangement between the contractor and the employer. Statutory GST liability, assessment, recovery and enforcement must remain governed by the applicable GST enactments and cannot be altered through contractual terms. Tax authorities cannot be directed to permit revised returns or waive statutory interest, penalties or limitation requirements contrary to the GST regime. Any entitlement to incremental GST reimbursement must therefore be resolved between the contracting parties, without changing statutory tax administration.

Section 62(2) of the GST Act provides that an assessment for non-filing of returns is deemed withdrawn when the taxpayer files the required return and satisfies the statutory conditions, including payment of the applicable late fee. This benefit extends to delayed return filing covered by the relevant amendment. Once those conditions are met, tax and other dues raised under the assessment cannot be recovered under that assessment order.

Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was omitted from 8 October 2024 without a saving or sunset clause. Proceedings begun under an omitted rule may continue only where the omission expressly preserves them or a statutory legal fiction provides for their continuation. In the absence of either mechanism, the omission applies to proceedings that remained unresolved on the effective date and ends their legal basis. Accordingly, pending proceedings founded on Rule 96(10) cannot continue after 8 October 2024.

Sections 74(3) and 74(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 preclude a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order from covering multiple tax periods or more than one assessment year after the annual-return due date. An assessment combining two assessment years was invalid, and its appellate affirmation could not continue. The relevant periods may instead be addressed through separate notices and assessments in accordance with law after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

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.