Passing on input tax credit benefits to eligible pre-GST homebuyers satisfies the anti-profiteering requirement where the supplier reduces prices commensurately with the determined benefit. The revised computation, including the pre-GST goods component, determined an additional input tax credit benefit of 4.23% for 31 eligible homebuyers. Documentary credit notes showed that the supplier passed on an amount exceeding the calculated entitlement. Accordingly, no contravention of the anti-profiteering requirement under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was established.

Condonation of delay was warranted where a statutory appeal against an adjudication order had been dismissed solely for filing beyond the condonable period. Applying binding and coordinate decisions in materially similar circumstances, the delay was condoned and the appeal restored so that the statutory appellate remedy could be determined on merits.

GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax may be restored through revocation, subject to filing pending returns and paying tax due. The petitioner was permitted to apply for revocation of registration, and the registering authority was directed to consider the application with consequential action after compliance with these conditions.

Input tax credit claims may be examined under the specified GST circulars where recipients establish that suppliers paid the tax to the Government, addressing bona fide claims from the period when GSTR-2A was unavailable. The extended deadline for furnishing the September return is treated retrospectively as 30 November for the relevant period; eligible claims cannot be rejected solely because the return was filed after 20 October but by 30 November. However, the statutory conditions requiring tax payment and imposing a time limit for input tax credit are constitutionally valid. Claims within the circular-based or extended-deadline relief require individual consideration on merits.

Statutory appellate remedy under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction against a GST demand order. An appeal lies to the Appellate Authority against the adjudication order, and the writ petition was not entertained because that remedy had not been pursued. If an appeal is filed within 30 days, the time spent prosecuting the writ petition must be excluded for limitation purposes. The disposal does not determine the merits of the underlying GST demand.

Separate show cause notices are required for distinct financial years; a composite notice covering multiple years is inconsistent with the governing procedural principles. The consolidated notice for financial years 2018-19 to 2021-22 and consequential orders were quashed. Fresh separate proceedings may be initiated for the relevant financial years, with exclusion of the specified period when computing limitation.

Consolidated or common show cause notices covering multiple GST tax periods are permissible under the GST enactments. Where proceedings remain at the response stage, objections to such notice require consideration by the Adjudicating Authority, followed by adjudication in accordance with law. The validity of a consolidated notice for the relevant tax periods is affirmed, with the issue resolved against the assessee.

Consideration of a temporary GST ID was required to facilitate access to the statutory appellate remedy. As the status of the application could not be confirmed, the respondents stated that the competent authority would decide it in accordance with law, which the petitioner accepted. The competent authority was expected to pass appropriate orders on the temporary-ID application within 30 days.

Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal may be condoned where circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control prevented timely filing and refusal to permit merits adjudication would cause grave prejudice. Although the appellate limitation framework under Section 107 binds the Appellate Authority, delayed appeals may be entertained on merits in such circumstances. The appeal was directed to be entertained and adjudicated on merits if filed within the stipulated period.

GST registration cancellation without a proper opportunity may be addressed through revocation where the registered person discontinued business, failed to file monthly returns, and seeks to resume operations. Revocation may be sought subject to payment of outstanding tax and filing of pending or proposed returns. The registering authority must consider the revocation application within the stipulated period after receiving the tax payment and required returns.

Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an opportunity for personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. Failure to afford the assessee a personal hearing before making an adverse GST adjudication order breaches this statutory requirement and the principles of natural justice. An order made without such hearing cannot be sustained and requires fresh adjudication after an effective personal hearing and supply of the documents relied upon.

GST adjudication under Section 73 requires effective communication of notices and a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing where an adverse determination of tax, interest or penalty is contemplated. Uploading notices and orders only in the Additional Notices and Orders tab was treated as insufficient communication. As the show-cause notice and reminder omitted the date, time and venue of the hearing, the ex-parte adjudication breached Section 75(4) and principles of natural justice. The order was set aside for fresh adjudication after allowing a reply and personal hearing.

Electricity charges recovered by a lessor may be treated as part of a composite supply of renting where electricity is incidental to use of leased premises, particularly where no separate electricity agreement exists or a markup is charged. Separate contracting, billing and dedicated metering may support an independent exempt supply of electrical energy, though this remains disputed where the lessor procures electricity onward. Recovery at actual cost does not automatically qualify for pure-agent treatment, which requires satisfaction of prescribed conditions and may be difficult where the lessor is the contractual recipient.

Direct containerised rail freight movement between Kolkata Port and Biratnagar Customs Yard has commenced under the revised India-Nepal Rail Transit Protocol. The service enables end-to-end commercial rail carriage without border transshipment through the Jogbani-Biratnagar broad-gauge connection. Implementation of the revised Letter of Exchange operationalises direct commercial rail access, intended to reduce transit time, logistics costs and cargo handling while improving supply-chain efficiency, reliability and cross-border trade.

The reforms provide concessional stamp duty and registration charges for eligible Economically Weaker Section housing beneficiaries, a statutory local-audit framework, and incentives for MSMEs and exports. They also establish rules for ownership records in Lal Dora areas and introduce a formula-based urban property-tax assessment framework with exemptions. Welfare measures cover compensation for specified unnatural custodial deaths, ex-Agniveer reservation, and compassionate appointments. Motor-vehicle tax measures provide a rebate for qualifying vehicles registered in women's names and exemptions for new electric vehicles.

Investigation into alleged dubious transactions and fund diversion involving Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited remained under scrutiny because investigating agencies did not provide an updated status or take a final decision on registration of regular cases. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing were required to file a comprehensive affidavit and status report. The allegations concern loans allegedly routed through corporate entities to promoter-linked companies, alongside inquiries involving financial, corporate-fraud and market-regulatory agencies.

GST appellate limitation under Section 107 is described as running from effective communication of the adjudication order, not its date, signing, or mere portal upload. Communication may be actual through statutory service or constructive through reliable proof of knowledge of the order's essential contents. Where no actual or constructive communication is established, limitation does not commence. The taxpayer should document the first date of knowledge, preserve evidence of non-receipt, plead non-communication specifically, and file the appeal promptly after acquiring knowledge. Condonation arises only after limitation has commenced and expired.

The proposed amendment strengthens delayed-payment dispute resolution for micro and small enterprise suppliers through prescribed adjudication timelines and possible interim payment of at least half the awarded amount where a setting-aside application remains pending beyond six months. Mediated settlements and arbitral awards may be recovered as arrears of land revenue and are proposed to be legally enforceable debts under the insolvency framework. Central public sector enterprises would be required to route MSME invoice settlements through the Trade Receivables Discounting System.

Statutory disqualification under Section 12(5) and the Seventh Schedule extends to a named arbitrator's power to nominate an arbitrator, rendering an incompatible contractual appointment mechanism inoperative. The underlying arbitration agreement nevertheless remains enforceable, permitting appointment of an impartial arbitrator under Section 11(6) and referral to institutional arbitration. Limitation for an arbitrator-appointment application runs from when the final bill becomes due, subject to mandatory exclusion of the COVID-19 period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022. Applying that exclusion, an application filed on 15 March 2022 was within time.

Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 confines correction of village maps and field books to genuine errors, omissions, or subsequent recorded changes; it cannot be used to reopen a final map dispute or relocate a plot for a more advantageous position. Where an identical map-correction claim has attained finality and no record error is established, fresh consideration is not warranted. Although remand orders are ordinarily interlocutory, a remand based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 30 may be challenged where it unnecessarily revives conclusively settled litigation.