Eligibility under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 extends to a person whose writ petition challenging an interest determination and rejection of an interest-waiver application was pending on the specified date. Such a person falls within "appellant", while the challenged interest is treated as disputed interest and tax arrears. FAQ 15 applies only where the waiver application itself remained pending before the competent authority on that date; it does not exclude a pending High Court challenge to a decided waiver application. This interpretation permits settlement of a genuine pending interest dispute.

Section 179 liability imposed on a company director requires consideration of the director's reply and supporting documents submitted in response to the show-cause notice. Failure to consider those materials breaches principles of natural justice and renders the liability order unsustainable. The order was quashed, with the matter requiring fresh decision in accordance with law after proper consideration of the director's response and documents.

Approval for reassessment after expiry of the extended three-year period required sanction from the authority specified under Section 151(ii). The relaxation period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 permitted approval under Section 151(i) only until 30 June 2021. Consequently, approval by the Principal Commissioner under Section 151(i) for an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 issued on 29 July 2022 did not meet the statutory requirement. The reassessment revival was therefore without jurisdiction.

Validity of a penalty notice was examined in relation to a cyclostyled show-cause notice that retained irrelevant particulars, raising vagueness concerns and questioning whether such a notice could validly found a penalty. The Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned order undisturbed.

Reassessment notices for pre-2021 assessment years are considered in relation to the six-year limitation prescribed under the erstwhile reassessment regime. For AY 2017-18, a notice issued after expiry of that period was challenged. The Special Leave Petition involved an inordinate delay that was not satisfactorily explained, and the High Court's orders were not disturbed.

GST exemption for uncoated paper and paperboard under tariff heading 4802 applies only where a recipient established as a manufacturer uses the paper exclusively to produce exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks or notebooks. Rate treatment turns on established actual end use at the manufacturing stage, not paper grade, specification, tariff heading alone, or intended use. Paper put to the specified uses is exempt; paper used for other purposes is taxable at 18%. The revised rate scheme takes effect from 22.09.2025, leaving no stated uncertainty over supplies from that date.

Ruled or lined uncoated paper, whether supplied in rolls or cut sheets, remains classifiable under Heading 4802 because ruling, lining and cutting do not create finished stationery articles under Heading 4820. The end-use exemption for qualifying paper applies only to a direct supply to a manufacturer that actually uses it to produce specified books; intended eventual use through an intermediate supply chain is insufficient. Each supply is independently assessed for exemption. Paper mills supplying reels to intermediate processors must charge tax where no separate exemption applies, as recipient-side reverse charge is inapplicable; input tax credit remains subject to statutory conditions.

Section 98(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 bars admission of an advance-ruling application where the questions raised are already pending or decided in proceedings concerning the applicant. Classification and tax-rate questions previously determined in enforcement proceedings, following adequate hearing opportunities, cannot be reopened through the advance-ruling mechanism. The application is therefore inadmissible because the same questions had already been decided under the Act.

Actual electricity charges recovered from unit holders at the distribution company rate, without markup, for metered HVAC, non-HVAC and apportioned common-area consumption are deemed to be recovered as a pure agent under Circular No. 206/18/2023-GST. Although electricity supplied with maintenance services ordinarily forms part of a composite supply, the circular's deeming treatment applies where recovered charges equal those charged by the electricity board or distribution company and are separately identified from common-area maintenance charges. Such recovery is excluded from the value of supply under Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, and GST is not leviable on those electricity charges.

Refund under the inverted duty structure may cover accumulated input tax credit on higher-taxed packaging materials used for packaged tea. Packaging materials used in the course or furtherance of business qualify as inputs, and the refund calculation cannot be confined to bulk tea by disregarding ancillary eligible inputs. Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST is confined to credit accumulation caused by a GST rate reduction on the same goods at different points in time. Where bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same rate and no such reduction occurred, the circular does not bar the claim. An administrative circular cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Statutory appellate remedy before the GSTAT was treated as efficacious for challenging the impugned GST order. The petitioner was directed to file the appeal within the stipulated period, with exclusion of the writ-pendency period when calculating limitation. Pending disposal of the statutory appeal, coercive recovery was restrained. No final determination was made on the validity of the impugned order.

Section 75(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prohibits confirmation of a GST demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice. Where confirmed demands on two discrepancy counts substantially exceeded the amounts proposed in a single notice, the excess confirmation constituted a fundamental and incurable defect. The adjudication order was therefore unsustainable to the extent it confirmed demand beyond the show cause notice.

Pending representations seeking GST payment for taxable services require examination of the applicable GST rate, tender conditions, bills, invoices and payment records, including whether GST was already included in final bills. The competent authorities must assess the supporting material and communicate independent, reasoned and speaking decisions on each representation. No determination of the contractor's substantive entitlement to the claimed GST amounts was made. The representations were directed to be decided within six weeks.

Electronic-only service of a show-cause notice through the Common Portal after cancellation of GST registration does not provide an effective opportunity to participate in Section 74 adjudication. Where proceedings are initiated after deregistration, physical service is required under the applicable departmental circular because the deregistered person may not access, or be required to access, the portal. An ex parte adjudication based solely on portal upload in those circumstances cannot be sustained. Fresh adjudication requires effective notice, an opportunity to reply, seek relevant documents or cross-examination where necessary, and be heard.

Reasoned adjudication requires consideration of a detailed reply and a specific SEZ exemption claim. A conclusory statement that contentions are unacceptable, without addressing material submissions or giving reasons for rejection, is cryptic and non-speaking. The adjudication order was therefore invalid, requiring fresh determination after a hearing, with all contentions remaining open.

Pre-deposit requirements for statutory tax appeals are governed by the regime in force when adjudicatory proceedings commence, namely the date of the show-cause notice; a later substituted requirement does not apply to earlier notices. Challenges to an officer's authority require assessment under function-specific proper-officer provisions, delegated powers and rank-based notifications. Where those instruments do not reveal a patent jurisdictional defect, and challenges involve disputed evidence, natural justice, party roles, quantification or penalties, the statutory appellate remedy remains the appropriate forum.

GST proceedings commenced against an amalgamating company after its merger are void from inception because the entity no longer exists. Section 87 of the CGST Act does not authorise proceedings against a non-existent entity or cure the resulting jurisdictional defect. The GST order was set aside on that basis, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere by dismissing the special leave petition.

GST appeal pre-deposit requirements are governed by the law in force when adjudicatory proceedings commence; consequently, appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before 1 October 2025 remain subject to the earlier Section 107(6) regime despite later Orders-in-Original. A proper officer's authority for penalty proceedings is function-specific, but objections concerning officer competence, evidentiary material, hearing, cross-examination, penalty quantification and individual noticees' roles require record-based examination through the statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction is not invoked where that appellate remedy is complete and efficacious. Whether Section 122(1) applies to a person who is not a taxable person remains unresolved.

Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a person's actual role in and responsibility for the company's business when the cheque was dishonoured; a designation asserted in the complaint is insufficient. Uncontroverted Ministry of Corporate Affairs records showing that the impleaded individual was never a director, combined with no pleaded or disclosed role in company affairs, justified quashing the complaint and consequential proceedings against that individual as an abuse of process. For prospective cheque-dishonour complaints against companies, complainants must annex corporate identification details and certified Form DIR-12, unless unavailability despite due diligence is affirmed and the Magistrate records reasons before cognizance.

Pending representations seeking GST payment for road construction and improvement works require examination of tender conditions, individual bills and invoices, payments already made, and applicable GST liability. The asserted inclusion of GST in final bills requires a proper and intelligible breakup of amounts paid. High Court required the competent authorities to independently consider the supporting records and issue reasoned speaking orders within the stipulated period. The claimant's substantive entitlement to GST was left open for determination in accordance with law.