Inverted-duty GST refunds remain available where higher-taxed component inputs, rather than only principal inputs, cause accumulated eligible credit.
Refund of accumulated unutilised ITC under an inverted-duty structure depends on a causal link between higher-taxed input goods and lower-taxed output supplies. The test is not restricted to the principal raw material; higher-rated component inputs may support a claim despite parity between the principal input and output. Refund remains confined to credit on input goods, excluding input services and capital goods. Rule 89(5) separately determines the maximum refundable amount through its turnover-based formula, subject to statutory exclusions and prescribed filing and verification requirements.

Mandatory goods-detention timelines bar delayed GST penalty orders despite administrative complications, while independently lawful proceedings may remain available.
Section 129(3) imposes two mandatory sequential deadlines: a penalty notice must be issued within seven days of detention or seizure, and the penalty order must follow within seven days of service of that notice. The service date, rather than reply, valuation or intervening events, controls the latter period. Administrative difficulty cannot extend either deadline. The framework also requires a hearing, while inspection reporting timelines and administrative forms remain distinct and cannot dilute the statutory time limits.

Input tax credit requires actual supplier tax payment, while reversal must rest on transaction-specific evidence and procedures.
Input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act is conditional upon actual payment of the tax charged on the supply to the Government. The condition is cumulative and is not replaced by the recipient's invoice, payment to the supplier, receipt of supply, return filing, or bona fides. Self-assessed credit is reversible with applicable interest where the supplier has not paid tax, but may be re-availed after subsequent supplier compliance. A bona fide-purchaser exception cannot be read into the actual-payment requirement, although any reversal or demand must rest on specific statutory facts, supporting material, and reasoned adjudication.

Vested appellate rights prevent later penalty-only pre-deposit conditions from burdening appeals arising from earlier commenced adjudication.
Substituted CGST pre-deposit requirement for penalty-only orders does not govern an appeal arising from a formal show-cause notice issued before 1 October 2025, absent express retrospective language or necessary implication. The right of appeal and its applicable conditions vest when the lis commences; a filing-stage deposit that bars institution is substantive, not merely procedural. Admitted amounts remain payable, while a mandatory applicable deposit cannot ordinarily be waived or reduced by the Appellate Authority.

Extended GST limitation requires show cause notices to plead fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression through specific factual allegations.
Section 74 requires the notice itself to state the material facts supporting the precise statutory limb invoked and the causal nexus between that conduct and the alleged tax consequence. The phrase "by reason of" requires a pleaded connection; a tax discrepancy coupled with a conclusory allegation of fraud or suppression is insufficient. The notice should identify the relevant act, omission, representation, non-disclosure or device, explain why it is deliberate or wilful, and enable an effective response.

Omission of export-refund restriction requires pending integrated-tax refund claims to be assessed under surviving statutory and procedural conditions.
Omission of Rule 96(10), effective from 08 October 2024 without a saving clause, applies to integrated-tax export-refund proceedings pending on that date. Such claims are assessed without the former restriction concerning specified notification benefits because Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not preserve an omitted subordinate rule. The omission does not remove independent requirements for zero-rated supplies, refund eligibility, export documentation, returns, limitation, verification, or the applicable Rule 96 and Rule 89 procedures.

Interim arrest protection cannot survive dismissal of anticipatory bail; GST arrest requires communicated authorisation, not merely a summons.
Interim protection from arrest is ancillary to a live anticipatory-bail proceeding and cannot subsist as a freestanding direction after an application is dismissed as not maintainable. Under the GST arrest framework, a summons does not by itself make the summoned person an accused or create a legally sustainable apprehension of arrest. Arrest depends upon the Commissioner's reasons to believe and an order authorising arrest. The Section 69 authorisation order must be communicated before arrest, enabling the affected person to pursue available remedies before personal liberty is curtailed.

Extended GST limitation requires pleaded foundational facts linking alleged fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to tax evasion.
Section 74 permits extended GST limitation only where tax short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful input tax credit arose by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. A mismatch or discrepancy alone is insufficient. The show cause notice must disclose foundational facts identifying the transaction, withheld or misstated material, deliberate conduct alleged, and its factual link to tax evasion. Audit objections or approaching limitation cannot replace the proper officer's independent satisfaction. Liability cannot be confirmed on grounds beyond those specified in the notice.

Extended GST limitation requires fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, while distinct scrutiny discrepancies may independently support demand proceedings.
Extended limitation under Section 74 applies only where unpaid or short-paid tax, erroneous refund, or wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Audit under Section 65 and return scrutiny under Section 61 are distinct processes, and either may lead to proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74. A prior audit-based proceeding does not automatically bar a later Section 74 demand founded on a materially distinct discrepancy in return or reconciliation data. The notice must specify its factual grounds, and duplication must be assessed by comparing the factual basis, periods, source material, and legal allegations.

Blocked construction input tax credit: taxable rental income does not override restrictions for property built on the taxpayer's own account.
Input tax credit for goods, services and works contract services used to construct immovable property is subject to the overriding restrictions in Section 17(5), notwithstanding a business nexus under Section 16. Renting is a taxable supply of services but does not by itself satisfy the exception for further supply of works contract services or remove the own-account construction bar. A plant, plant-and-machinery, or qualifying foundation-and-structural-support claim requires fact-specific proof of functional necessity; taxable rental income alone is insufficient. Timely availment, statutory disclosure and the conditions for fraud-based proceedings, interest and penalty require separate assessment.

Wrong-head GST payments require appropriation of timely discharged liability, while supply-characterisation errors follow the statutory refund framework.
Wrong-head GST payment must be distinguished from a substantive error in classifying a supply as inter-State or intra-State. Sections 19 and 77 address supplies subsequently held to have a different character and do not automatically govern a mere allocation error where the supply classification and aggregate tax liability are undisputed. Where the full aggregate liability was remitted within time under an incorrect tax head, correction may occur through appropriation against the correct heads rather than a second payment followed by a refund claim.

GST appeal limitation strictly confines statutory condonation; exceptional writ review may address defective communication and lost merits hearings.
Section 107 requires a GST appeal within three months from communication of the order and permits condonation only for a further one-month period on sufficient cause. This is a statutory outer limit on the Appellate Authority, which cannot be enlarged through Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Communication through the portal, post or other recognised modes may require factual scrutiny where effective access to the complete order is disputed. Article 226 may exceptionally examine manifest injustice arising from defective communication, prompt action after knowledge, absence of merits adjudication and other credible circumstances, without enlarging the Appellate Authority's statutory jurisdiction.

GST registration cancellation for return default remains reversible only through complete, time-bound filing and payment compliance.
GST registration may be cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns, but cancellation does not discharge pre-cancellation tax liabilities. Before cancellation, Rule 22(4) requires proceedings to be dropped where the taxpayer files all pending returns and pays tax, interest and late fee. Post-cancellation revocation under Rule 23 is a separate mechanism requiring complete filing and payment compliance within the applicable time limits. Conditional restoration may be appropriate where liabilities are fully regularised, while absence of fraud does not excuse default or replace statutory compliance.

Contractual GST reimbursement in works contracts depends on tax-risk clauses and cannot alter statutory compliance obligations.
GST liability for a works contractor is governed by statute, while reimbursement of incremental GST from an employer depends on the contract's allocation of tax risk. An inclusive-tax clause must be read with change-in-law, price-adjustment, tender and amendment terms. Contract-wise reconciliation of pre-transition and post-transition work may support a supplementary agreement and revised GST-inclusive value where contractual entitlement exists. It cannot alter statutory valuation, return, limitation, interest or penalty requirements, which remain governed by GST law.

Territorial GST jurisdiction limits detention and confiscation of inter-State consignments when the intercepting State lacks fiscal nexus.
Physical presence of goods in an intermediate State therefore does not alone create authority to detain, seize, penalise or confiscate. Cross-empowerment is functional and taxpayer-linked, preserving the single-interface administrative structure without creating geographically unlimited enforcement power. Where verification establishes that both origin and destination lie outside the intercepting State, the officer may verify documents, identify and record apparent discrepancies, and communicate them to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee, but lacks coercive jurisdiction over a pure transit supply.

Consolidated GST show cause notices may cover multiple financial years, while each demand component remains independently subject to limitation.
Sections 73 and 74 do not expressly bar a common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods or financial years. The expressions "for any period" and "such periods" support consolidation, while financial-year references in the limitation provisions govern the deadline for adjudication orders rather than the scope of notice issuance. Each component demand must independently satisfy applicable limitation requirements. Section 74 requires disclosed material supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax; its extended limitation is not automatic.

Supplier tax payment remains a substantive input tax credit condition, requiring reversal and allowing re-availment after compliance.
Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act makes actual payment of tax to the Government a substantive condition for input tax credit. The conditions under Section 16(2) operate cumulatively, and invoice reflection, receipt of supplies, or supplier return filing do not independently establish tax payment. Section 41 requires reversal of credit where the supplier has not paid tax, with re-availment allowed after payment. Rule 37A prescribes reversal and re-availment where the supplier fails to furnish the corresponding GSTR-3B within the prescribed period.

GST valuation of stake-based gaming treats committed stakes as consideration for taxable actionable claims, irrespective of skill.
GST on stake-based gaming applies to the supply of actionable claims where money or money's worth is committed to an uncertain outcome in an organised betting or gambling arrangement. Skill in the underlying game does not remove the stake-based character of the transaction. Participants acquire contingent beneficial interests in pooled movable property, and committed stakes become consideration for participation. The platform is the supplier where it controls pooling, participation, gameplay and payouts. Gross stake valuation applies unless a statutory deduction is authorised, with specialised valuation mechanisms governing online gaming and casinos.

Extended GST limitation requires disclosed prima facie material linking tax shortfall to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression.
Section 74 permits extended GST limitation only where available material supports a rational prima facie view that a tax shortfall, erroneous refund or wrongful credit arose by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Final proof is not required at initiation, but suspicion or bare statutory labels are insufficient. Prior scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice communications may provide the factual foundation if actually communicated and linked to the notice. The notice and final order must preserve fair opportunity, disclose the material basis, and remain within the grounds stated.

Complete assignment of industrial leasehold rights can fall outside GST when it transfers the entire proprietary estate.
A complete assignment of an industrial lessee's entire leasehold interest, together with the building on the plot, is distinguished from leasing, renting, or sub-leasing. Where the assignor retains no reversionary interest or continuing right to earn rent, the consideration is for transfer of proprietary rights constituting benefits arising out of land. Schedule II classification of an original lease as a service does not govern the subsequent absolute assignment. Section 7(2), read with Schedule III, excludes a qualifying transfer of immovable-property benefits from the scope of supply.