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.

Common Portal service requires effective access to complete GST notices and orders, preserving hearing rights and appellate limitation.
GST service through the Common Portal is an express statutory mode, but portal availability must be distinguished from effective service of an adjudicatory communication. Rule 142 preserves the distinction between a substantive show cause notice or order and its electronic summary in FORM GST DRC-01 or DRC-07. Electronic summaries do not, without more, demonstrate communication of complete allegations, grounds, facts and reasons. Portal-based service must be assessed by statutory compliance, accessibility of the complete communication, and the taxpayer's real opportunity to respond, particularly where appellate limitation is involved.

E-way bill compliance strengthens traceability through Ship-To GSTIN capture, voluntary closure, and disciplined transit controls.
Rule 138 and Rule 138A require pre-movement e-way bill generation, carriage of the prescribed invoice or challan documents, and distance-based validity, with cancellation confined to cases where goods are not transported as declared. The portal advisory adds mandatory Ship-To GSTIN capture in Bill-To/Ship-To transactions and a voluntary post-delivery closure facility, while circular guidance treats transporter godowns as an additional place of business when declared by the recipient. Enforcement under Section 129 and Section 130 distinguishes detention for transit contravention from confiscation linked to intent to evade tax, and minor e-way bill defects are described as technical lapses rather than automatic proof of evasion.

E-way bill compliance under GST rules governs prior movement information, transit documents, validity, cancellation, and special goods regimes.
Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 governs the e-way bill system for movement of goods and requires prior electronic information before movement begins in specified cases, generally where consignment value exceeds fifty thousand rupees. The rule allocates responsibility for Part A and Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 among registered persons, authorised transporters, e-commerce operators, courier agencies and fallback transporters, while also covering special cases such as job work, handicraft goods, consolidated movement and transport by road, rail, air or vessel. Rule 138A specifies the documents that must accompany the conveyance, Rule 138 provides validity, cancellation and exemption rules, and Rule 138F creates a special intra-State regime for notified precious goods.

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.