Where an order-in-appeal was not available through service or the common portal, the High Court required the appellate authority to provide a copy upon a formal manual application, enabling exercise of the statutory GSTAT appeal. The petitioner could file the appeal within the permitted period with the prescribed pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application. Recovery under the demand arising from reversal of refund would remain in abeyance if the appeal and statutory pre-deposit were filed within that period. The writ petition was disposed of while preserving the statutory appellate remedy.

Rectification of an ex parte GST adjudication under Section 161 cannot be used for a merits-based reconsideration that issues a further ex parte demand without notice. Complete failure to consider the assessee's replies and denial of a hearing constitute a fundamental procedural defect requiring recall of the original order and fresh adjudication. Where rectification adversely affects the assessee, prior notice and compliance with natural justice are mandatory; the exception permitting rectification without notice does not apply merely because the demand is reduced. The further ex parte order was invalid, and fresh determination required an opportunity of hearing.

Interest is payable on refunds of IGST collected on ocean freight from the date of original payment where the levy was invalidated without an express prospective limitation. The invalidation operates from inception, entitling the taxpayer to compensation for the period during which the authorities retained the amount. Refund interest must therefore be granted in the manner prescribed by the governing precedent.

Service of an order-in-original solely by uploading it on the common portal does not trigger the limitation period for appeal where the assessee had contested the show-cause notice. The assessee may invoke the statutory appellate remedy within the period prescribed by the applicable directions. The challenge to State notifications was not pressed, while the challenge to Central notifications remains subject to the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

GST adjudication under Section 73 requires reasons appropriate to the noticee's response and the nature of the dispute. Consideration of discrepancies among GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, the taxpayer's reply, and the hearing opportunity demonstrates application of mind. A taxpayer claiming input tax credit must substantiate the claim and explain discrepancies with documentary evidence; a reconciliation chart alone is insufficient. Recording that reconciliation was not established can justify rejection where no further explanation or evidence is produced. An order is not non-speaking or contrary to natural justice merely because the taxpayer's explanation is rejected; further factual material may be presented in appellate proceedings.

Profiteering in a real-estate project should not be determined by comparing pre-GST and post-GST input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios, because input tax credit and buyer collections may not accrue uniformly over the project lifecycle. A turnover-based comparison therefore lacks direct correlation with credit attributable to a particular period. The appropriate methodology computes total GST-related savings for each project and allocates the resulting benefit per square foot, ensuring purchasers of equivalent areas receive equivalent benefit. Profiteering must consequently be reconsidered project-wise using total savings and per-square-foot benefit allocation.

Anti-profiteering in real-estate projects must be computed through a project-specific methodology rather than by comparing pre-GST and post-GST input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios. That ratio-based approach is unsuitable because construction expenditure, input-tax-credit accrual and buyer collections vary across a project's lifecycle. The required method calculates total GST-related savings for each project and allocates them according to total project area, ensuring purchasers of equivalent areas receive equivalent benefits. Impugned anti-profiteering determinations require fresh evaluation using this methodology.

Denial of a meaningful pre-decisional hearing before an order-in-original raises the audi alteram partem requirement and potential breach of natural justice. The dispute also concerns the availability of writ jurisdiction where an alternative statutory remedy exists. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the special leave petitions, leaving the High Court's disposition undisturbed.

Bail was declined because the petitioner had multiple criminal antecedents, including a similar offence, and the allegations involved substantial loss to the State exchequer. Delay in framing charges resulted from the absence of a posted Special Judge rather than a merits-based basis for release. Early appointment of a Special Judge was directed to enable expeditious trial proceedings. The petitioner was required to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks.

Special Leave Petitions concerning the validity of a show-cause notice under the CGST Act for assignment of leasehold rights were dismissed following dismissal of a similar Special Leave Petition. The underlying issue was whether assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a supply of services under the statutory definition and falls within the relevant service classification. No independent judicial reasoning or substantive determination on those questions is provided.

Telecommunication towers were treated by the High Court as movable goods rather than immovable property for CGST input tax credit purposes, because they are essential telecommunications equipment capable of being dismantled and moved. On that basis, the High Court quashed the challenged tax orders, appellate affirmation and show-cause notices. The Supreme Court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration and rejected the review petitions, leaving that position undisturbed.

Bail was refused because the petitioner's criminal antecedents indicated habitual offending. The Supreme Court found no reason to allow the bail petition and directed the petitioner, who was on interim bail, to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks. Delay in framing charges resulted from the absence of a posted Special Judge; the Chief Justice of the High Court was requested to appoint a Special Judge promptly so that charges could be framed and the trial expedited.

Anti-profiteering computation for real estate projects based on pre-GST and post-GST input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios requires reconsideration in light of the Delhi High Court's determination on the applicable methodology. The High Court quashed the anti-profiteering order and remanded the computation issue to GSTAT for fresh consideration under that determination. It expressed no view on the merits, kept all parties' contentions open, and left the challenge to the validity of the statutory provision and rules unresolved.

GST adjudication orders uploaded only on the common portal do not trigger the limitation period for a statutory appeal where the order-in-original was passed after contest. An assessee that replied to the show-cause notice cannot claim ignorance of those proceedings, but may pursue the appellate remedy within the prescribed period under the applicable principle for portal-only service. The writ petition was disposed of on that basis, leaving the assessee to file the statutory appeal.

Interest on refunded IGST collected on ocean freight for July 2017 to March 2021 is to be granted in accordance with the principles specified in Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. The claim was treated as identical to that precedent, and the authorities were directed to pay the applicable interest within six weeks. The operative relief concerns interest on the refund of illegally collected IGST, rather than the refund entitlement itself.

Rectification of an ex parte GST adjudication order cannot become a merits review through another ex parte order. Where the authority omitted to consider the assessee's replies, the defect went to the root of adjudication and required recall of the original order followed by a fresh personal hearing. Although the authority could correct an apparent error on its own motion and exercise inherent procedural-review power to cure denial of hearing, it could not sustain a revised demand without considering the replies and hearing the assessee. The subsequent ex parte rectification order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Regular bail was refused in allegations of operating an unregistered filtered tobacco manufacturing unit and evading central excise duty. Ownership of the unit and the occurrence of duty evasion were treated as matters to be proved at trial. Given the gravity of the allegations, the pending investigation and charge-sheet, and the risk that release could enable influence over evidence, bail was considered inappropriate at that stage. No opinion was expressed on the merits, and expeditious prosecution and trial were requested.

Regular bail in a pending GST evasion prosecution was declined at the investigation stage, given alleged excess stock, mismatches between documented sales and inventory, and unrecorded purchases and storage without invoices. The alleged conduct involved taxable goods not entered in the books of account and was treated as an economic offence. With investigation continuing and no charge sheet presented, the gravity of the allegations was considered insufficiently compatible with granting bail at that stage, without addressing the merits of the prosecution.

Pre-arrest bail under the BNSS requires a reasonable apprehension of arrest. A summons under section 70 of the CGST Act requiring a person to provide a statement and documents does not, by itself, establish that apprehension where no notice under section 35(3) of the BNSS has been issued. An application for anticipatory bail in those circumstances is not maintainable. The applicant may seek appropriate protection if a notice under section 35(3) is subsequently issued.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice or order-in-original in the GST Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab does not by itself constitute valid service. Service is sufficient only where receipt is acknowledged or the taxpayer files a reply. The retrospective amendment permitting GST Rules functions through the Common Portal does not designate it as a formal mode of service for notices or adjudication orders. Consequently, portal-only upload does not commence the appeal limitation period for contested adjudication orders; where ex parte adjudication followed without a reply, proceedings are restored to the show-cause notice stage.