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.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit on exported goods remains available where bill-to ship-to supplies are supported by undisputed e-way bills, transportation, export and banking records establishing delivery and export. GST law does not require movement to commence from the supplier's registered premises, and toll plaza receipts are not a mandatory condition for credit; toll data cannot override documentary proof of physical movement. Cancellation of upstream suppliers' registrations does not by itself invalidate credit where the direct supplier is validly registered and the claimant lacks involvement in upstream irregularities. Fresh allegations and unsupported evidence beyond the show cause notice cannot be raised at the Tribunal stage, absent exceptional circumstances under the applicable evidence rules.

Excess input tax credit relating to invoices for FY 2018-19 to 2020-21 was treated as validly reversed through debit entries in the electronic cash and credit ledgers reported in Form GST DRC-03. Absence of reasons in column 8 did not invalidate the reversal, as that field was not mandatory; Form GST DRC-04 acknowledged payment and the reconciliation statement supported full reversal. Section 16(5) extended the relevant ITC entitlement. For a Section 73 demand within Section 128A, interest and penalty require fresh computation after hearing, with waiver available subject to the prescribed procedure.

Belated furnishing of Form 10B for charitable exemption under Section 12A should not defeat the exemption where the audit report is produced before the Assessing Officer or appellate authority on sufficient cause. Covid-19-related inability to file the report within time constituted genuine hardship, particularly where the Income Tax Department raised no objection. Substantial justice prevails over technical considerations, and refusal to condone delay without properly assessing genuine hardship is arbitrary. The delay for Assessment Year 2021-22 was directed to be treated as condoned, requiring consideration of the exemption claim and consequential relief.

Share premium received on a fresh issue of equity shares to a non-resident shareholder is treated as a capital-account receipt rather than taxable income, unless another charging provision applies. The limited statutory rule taxing excess premium over fair market value is identified as applying to premiums received from residents. Reassessment based on an alleged sale of shares is unsustainable where the record instead shows a fresh allotment. Introducing an uncommunicated objection to the genuineness of the issue without allowing a response breaches natural justice, particularly where no fresh tangible material supports the shift. CBDT instructions governing capital-account share premium bind field officers.

Section 54 capital-gains exemption remains available where capital gains are invested in a new residential house within the prescribed period, even if the unutilised amount was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the return-filing due date. Treating section 54 as a beneficial provision, the Tribunal regarded the deposit requirement as procedural where the substantive investment condition was met. The taxpayer's share in the jointly acquired property exceeded the capital gain and the purchase occurred before the extended return-filing due date. Accordingly, the section 54 deduction was allowed and the disallowance was deleted.

Consequential assessment orders allowing verified purchase expenditure in full bind the Department, leaving it without an aggrieved claim against the allowance. Where an earlier remand required fresh inquiry into allegedly unsubstantiated or inflated purchases, the Assessing Officer's subsequent verification and full acceptance of the claims rendered the surviving purchase-disallowance controversy infructuous. A favourable remand report, and more strongly a consequential assessment order, prevents the Department from contesting the allowance. The purchase disallowances partly sustained at first appeal were therefore deleted fully, the assessee's appeals succeeded on this issue, and the corresponding Revenue grounds failed.

Debatable employees' PF/ESI contribution claims could not be disallowed through summary adjustment where, on the intimation date, jurisdictional High Court authority supported allowability of payments made before the return-filing due date. Retention of that adjustment in scrutiny without independent examination remained challengeable in appeal, and the AY 2018-19 disallowance was deleted. For exempt-income expenditure, only investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year could be considered under section 14A and Rule 8D; no additional disallowance survived beyond the voluntary amount, and the related book-profit adjustment was also deleted for AY 2018-19. Charitable-contribution deductions were remitted solely to verify payment receipts and genuineness.