Limitation exclusion for pandemic renders delayed ITC refund claims timely under CGST limitation provision, court applies notification.
The court held that the pandemic period exclusion notification applies to computation of the limitation for refunds of unutilised Input Tax Credit arising from exports under a letter of undertaking. After assessing eligibility issues and time barred components of the ITC claim, the court found the appellate conclusion of limitation unsustainable and quashed the impugned order, applying the notification to the refund computation.

Seizure powers under GST limited to goods and material useful to proceedings, excluding currency and requiring necessity.
The power to inspect, search and seize under Section 67 is confined to items believed to be liable for confiscation or material useful to proceedings; the statutory definition excludes money from 'goods', seizure must be necessary for GST proceedings, and items not relied upon in subsequent notice are to be returned within a limited period, reflecting a narrower interpretation of 'things' consistent with legislative intent.

Input Tax Credit time-bar upheld: legislative limits on ITC claims are valid, treating ITC as a conditional concession.
The time-limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) was upheld as a permissible legislative condition: ITC is a concession contingent on statutory requirements, temporal restrictions fall within legislative competence, and business forms like proprietorships cannot invoke trade-right protections in the same manner as citizens; judicial interference in fiscal policy is limited where statutory mechanisms govern tax benefits.

Input Tax Credit entitlement: statutory conditions and return deadlines can legitimately limit vesting of the benefit.
The court held that Input Tax Credit is a conditional statutory benefit that vests only upon fulfilment of prescribed conditions; therefore temporal restrictions tied to return filing are legitimate legislative qualifications and do not constitute deprivation of property without authority of law or violation of equality and trade-freedom guarantees.

Procedural fairness in GST registration: defective show cause notices invalidate cancellation and require fresh lawful proceedings.
The court held the show cause notice and cancellation of GST registration were procedurally defective: the notice lacked material reasons depriving the taxpayer of an effective response, and the cancellation order demonstrated non-application of mind. Reasons contained in a reply affidavit could not retrospectively validate the defective notice. The authority may initiate fresh proceedings only by issuing a properly reasoned show cause notice, permitting the taxpayer to place all contentions and granting a personal hearing, with adjudication thereafter.

Input Tax Credit eligibility: absence from GSTR 2A alone cannot bar credit; reassessment with evidentiary opportunity required
The ruling emphasizes that Form GSTR 2A is a facilitative reconciliation tool and that denial of Input Tax Credit solely because an entry does not appear in GSTR 2A is not sufficient. The claimant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by producing evidence of tax payment, valid invoices and transactional genuineness. The assessing authority must afford the taxpayer an opportunity to produce evidence and independently reassess the ITC claim, consistent with the self assessment framework of GST.

GST impact on government contracts: administrative review required to address tax liabilities and update contract pricing.
Applicability of GST to government contracts where SOR and BOQ were not updated, creating additional tax liabilities; responsibility for incorporating the new tax regime into contract pricing and the administrative duty to address resultant tax increments. The court directed a formal representation process and a reasoned administrative decision after departmental consultation, with no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner pending resolution.

Intent to evade tax determines whether e way bill cancellations warrant seizure measures or minor breach penalties under GST.
Applicability of detention and seizure provisions under the GST regime turns on the presence of intent to evade tax; where such intent is absent, the statutory scheme contemplates treatment as a minor breach subject to lighter penal consequences. Authorities must assess whether e way bill irregularities reflect inadvertent or excusable circumstances warranting penalties for non compliance rather than initiation of measures reserved for deliberate tax evasion.

Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.

Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.

Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.

Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.

Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

Game of skill excludes gambling under GST; nomen juris applied to classify Rummy as skill based for tax purposes.
The classification of Rummy under GST depends on whether skill predominates over chance; applying the principle of nomen juris, judicially established meanings of "gambling," "game of chance," and "game of skill" must be used. Rummy requires memorisation and strategic holding and discarding of cards and has been regarded as a game of skill. Consequently, the terms betting and gambling in the GST context should not be read to include games of skill, and selective reliance on stray judicial language to levy tax on such games is impermissible.

Advance ruling immunity limitation: pending enforcement investigations bar AAR consideration and provide no protection.
The advance ruling mechanism provides tax certainty for proposed or completed transactions, but is inapplicable where the same question is the subject of enforcement proceedings. An applicant seeking a rate and classification ruling for works for a central housing body was found to have concurrent enforcement enquiries and prior inspection, search and seizure, bringing the case within the statutory proviso that excludes advance ruling consideration; clarification that "proceedings" covers enforcement chapters reinforces that AAR cannot provide immunity from ongoing investigations.

Writ petition as bypass of statutory remedies is impermissible; statutory remedy under tax law must be pursued first.
Writ petitions cannot be used to bypass available statutory remedies in tax matters; where a statutory remedy under the GST law exists, a taxpayer must pursue that remedy before invoking writ jurisdiction. In the present facts, detention of goods and demand of tax and penalty led to a writ challenge which the High Court entertained on factual grounds, but the superior forum set aside that order and directed pursuit of the statutory remedy, noting the narrow exceptions permitting writ relief were not shown.

Wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit: bail denied due to gravity of economic offence and nascent investigation.
Allegations assert coordinated issuance of fake invoices among about 56 firms to wrongfully claim Input Tax Credit, allegedly evading taxes amounting to Rs. 5.65 crore. Considering the scale, conspiratorial nature, and nascent stage of investigation, and recognising economic offences as particularly serious for public finances, the court refused bail to the applicant Saurabh Srivastava and dismissed the bail application.

Reverse charge on ocean freight invalidated as conflicting with composite supply and double taxation principles.
Notifications 08/2017 and 10/2017 that impose tax on ocean freight in CIF contracts by treating the importer as the recipient under a Reverse Charge Mechanism were challenged as ultra vires, producing double taxation because freight is included in customs value, lacking territorial nexus, and mischaracterising the exporter/importer relationship; the Supreme Court refused to treat GST Council recommendations as binding and held that separate taxation of the freight service contravenes the statutory composite supply framework.

Refund entitlement for unutilised input tax credit limited to credits from input goods under inverted duty structure.
The document contrasts two high court approaches to refund of unutilised input tax credit under an inverted duty structure: one holding that Net ITC for refund must include credits on inputs and input services and striking down a rule excluding input services as ultra vires; the other upholding the proviso that limits refund to credit accumulated because tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies, finding an amended rule that excludes input services to be intra vires and a valid legislative classification.

Search and seizure authorization: proper officer's reason to believe permits prohibition orders and provisional release via clause six.
Section 67 empowers an authorised proper officer, not below Joint Commissioner, to search and seize goods or documents when he has reason to believe they are secreted; if seizure is impracticable, a prohibition on dealing with goods may be issued under Rule 139(4). "Secreted" includes items not kept in their normal place or likely to be kept out of the way, and the officer must have a reasoned belief before exercising search powers. Procedural accuracy in authorisation and forms is required, and clause (6) permits provisional release on bond, security or payment.