Education consultancy commissions treated as exportable services, not intermediary services, where foreign institution is the contracting recipient.
The Court held that the intermediary test focuses on whether a person merely "arranges or facilitates" a supply, excluding those who supply on their own account; where agreements and consideration establish a principal-to-principal supply to foreign educational institutions, the services qualify as export of services and not intermediary services, making place of supply the recipient's location and supporting refund entitlement.

GST arrests: Court set aside bail premised on format defects where substantive compliance and no demonstrable prejudice existed.
The High Court held that a challenge to the legal sustainability of a bail order is distinct from cancellation for supervening conduct and, on the facts, found substantive compliance with CGST arrest safeguards (including authorisation recording reasons to believe and supply of arrest memo and grounds) and BNSS Sections 47-48 when assessed through a prejudice oriented test; absence of statutory headings or non enclosure of detailed grounds with the relative did not, without demonstrable prejudice, justify the magistrate's bail order, which was set aside and the bail bonds cancelled with liberty to apply afresh.

GST refund and recovery proceedings founded solely on omitted rules lapse absent express saving clause.
Omission of Rule 89(4B) and Rule 96(10) without an express saving clause causes pending proceedings and non-final orders founded solely on those rules to lapse, except for transactions past and closed. The General Clauses Act's preservation principle does not apply to omissions effected by subordinate rules/notification, and transitional or laying provisions of the parent statute do not operate as omnibus saving clauses. Consequently, undisposed show cause notices and orders dependent only on the omitted rules were quashed and affected refund applications were remitted for reconsideration after hearing within a stipulated period.

GST electronic service by portal or email may not trigger appeal limitation absent verifiable communication or retrieval evidence.
Whether portal upload or e-mail intimation automatically triggers the limitation period under Section 107 depends on whether such electronic modes fall within the statutory deeming fictions of Section 169(2) or Section 169(3). Although Section 169(1)(c)-(d) and Rule 142 permit electronic service, the express deeming consequences are confined to specified modes; absent acknowledgement or verifiable retrieval logs, IT Act presumptions of dispatch/receipt do not alone establish communication for appeal limitation.

Composite GST show cause notices spanning multiple financial years misalign tax-period limitation and may be quashed.
Issuance of a single consolidated show cause notice covering distinct financial years was held impermissible because GST liability is tethered to tax-period returns and limitation timelines; consolidation misaligns period-specific adjudication clocks, constitutes a jurisdictional defect, and warrants quashing with liberty to re-issue notices in strict conformity with the period-wise statutory scheme.

Composite GST show cause notices aggregating multiple financial years lack scope; demands must be period-specific and limitation-linked.
The GST demand-and-recovery framework is period-based: tax liability and limitation are tied to returns for each tax period or financial year, and limitation is computed from the annual return due date or an erroneous return for that year. Consolidating multiple financial years into one consolidated show cause notice is outside the statutory design and constitutes a jurisdictional defect; administrative advisories cannot override the period-specific statutory scheme. Authorities may, if no other impediment exists, initiate proceedings framed strictly period-wise under the applicable demand provisions.

Electronic service of GST show cause notices must be in the prescribed portal location to ensure a real opportunity to be heard.
Uploading an SCN only under a secondary portal compartment, rather than the primary prescribed location, does not constitute due communication; where an adverse decision is contemplated the Proper Officer must afford an opportunity of hearing, and defective electronic service that prevents participation vitiates the ensuing adjudication, permitting writ intervention to set aside and remit for proper notice and hearing.

Electronic Credit Ledger blocking permitted only up to ITC actually available; negative balances and extra statutory recovery are impermissible.
Rule 86A may be invoked only where input tax credit is actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of the blocking order; the power permits disallowing debit equivalent to such available credit as a temporary preventive measure and does not authorize creation of negative ledger balances or serve as a recovery provision. Excess blocking beyond the ECL balance is ultra vires and recovery must proceed under the Act's substantive provisions.

Share buybacks and GST: expenses tied to buybacks are not eligible for ITC, and common ITC must be reversed.
The authority held that shares are "securities" excluded from "goods" and "services," but section 17(3) and the Chapter V rules treat "transactions in securities" as part of the "value of exempt supply" for ITC apportionment; therefore GST paid on expenses directly related to a share buyback is not eligible as ITC under section 16(1), and common ITC attributable to both taxable operations and the buyback must be reversed using the prescribed deeming values.

Mutual fund redemptions require proportionate ITC reversal under GST deeming provision; valuation set at 1% of sale value.
A statutory deeming provision includes transactions in securities within the value of exempt supply for ITC apportionment; the Explanation to the input tax credit rules fixes the value of a security at 1% of its sale value, and redemption of mutual fund units is treated as a sale for this limited valuation purpose, requiring proportionate ITC reversal where common inputs serve both taxable operations and such investment transactions.

GST extended-period proceedings require show cause notices to allege and disclose fraud or wilful misstatement.
Extended limitation under GST is available only where the tax shortfall is "by reason of" fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax; these are jurisdictional facts. Show cause notices must allege such conduct and disclose the material basis for that inference, and must specify proposed amounts without language of final determination. Invocation of extended limitation without these ingredients vitiates proceedings and precludes remand; authorities may pursue recovery under the normal limitation where applicable.

E-way bill expiry alone cannot prove intent to evade tax; penalties require material indicating actual evasion.
Expiry or non-generation of an e-way bill, by itself, does not establish intent to evade tax; penal action for movement in contravention requires material indicating diversion, mis-declaration or other indicia of tax risk. Where genuine invoices, correct particulars and evidence explaining delay exist and any fresh e-way bill is produced prior to final orders, authorities must record reasoned findings on intent; absent such material, detention, seizure and confiscation regime cannot be sustained and such misapplication is reviewable on certiorari.

Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.

Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.

Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.

Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.

Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.

GST enforcement: summons/searches are investigative; show cause notices mark formal proceedings and define subject matter.
Issuance of summons, searches and seizures are investigative steps and do not constitute initiation of proceedings; formal adjudicatory commencement is principally the issuance of a show cause notice which defines the subject matter. The subject matter is determined from the show cause notice, and a twofold test-identity of liability on the same facts and identity or overlap of relief sought-governs whether two proceedings are the same. Cross-empowerment permits intelligence-based action by either authority, but parallel adjudications on identical subject matter are barred; authorities must coordinate and share information.

GST: consolidated SCNs valid for connected-period fraud, cross-examination limited unless prejudice shown.
The adjudicating authority must consider representations and hearings under section 74(9), but the right to cross-examination in SCN proceedings is not absolute and requires demonstrable prejudice to vitiate adjudication. Sections 73 and 74 allow consolidated SCNs across periods when connected fraudulent invoice chains exist. Orders must remain within the grounds and amounts specified in the SCN, and writ jurisdiction should be declined where an efficacious statutory appeal under section 107 is available absent exceptional circumstances.

Mutuality doctrine shields club-member transactions from GST; statutory deeming fiction held unconstitutional, retrospective levy invalid.
The Kerala High Court held that the doctrine of mutuality insulates transactions between an association and its members from GST because the concepts of "supply" and "service" require distinct persons; statutory deeming provisions treating associations and members as separate persons are ultra vires Article 246A and related constitutional provisions, and retrospective application of those amendments is invalid as unfair and contrary to the rule of law.