Eligible registered persons seeking the 3% central-tax composition option may file Form GST CMP-02, using the specified supplier category, up to 30 September 2019 rather than 31 July 2019. The revised timetable retains the obligation to furnish Form GST ITC-03 under applicable composition-rule requirements for persons opting for this composition treatment.

Interest earned by a co-operative credit society on fixed deposits maintained with nationalised or scheduled banks is treated as income attributable to providing credit facilities to members. Consistent with coordinate-bench precedent, such interest is characterised as business income rather than income from other sources under the Income-tax Act. It consequently qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Specified premises are classified from 1 April 2025 by the preceding financial year's hotel-accommodation transaction value or by a premises-specific opt-in declaration. Restaurant services at specified premises attract GST at 18% with input tax credit; those outside attract GST at 5% without input tax credit. Registered suppliers may opt in or opt out through prescribed declarations, while registration applicants may declare new premises within the stipulated period after registration acknowledgement. Classification remains fixed for the financial year, declarations generally continue until opt-out, and separate declarations are required for each premises.

Explanation to concessional-rate entry 3(vi) excludes activities or transactions undertaken by Government and local authorities from the meaning of "business" for that entry. Inserted within one year under section 11(3) of the Goa GST Act, the explanation is treated as forming part of the entry from its inception on 21 September 2017. A stated later commencement date does not alter that operation.

MDR on specified UPI transactions, if introduced, would ordinarily be a payment-processing charge collected from or deducted from the merchant's settlement, without necessarily creating a separate customer charge. GST, where applicable, would generally apply to the separate payment-processing or acquiring service and not to the amount transferred through UPI. The ultimate burden may be absorbed, renegotiated or reflected in prices. Eligible registered persons may claim input tax credit on GST charged on the service if statutory conditions are met, while composition taxpayers, unregistered persons and persons making exempt supplies may face unrecoverable costs.

MDR on specified P2M UPI payments is treated as consideration for a separate payment-processing service. GST at 18% applies to the MDR actually charged, rather than directly to the underlying supply or the GST in the customer invoice, although MDR may be calculated on the gross payment. A registered merchant making taxable supplies may claim input tax credit on GST paid on MDR where the service is used for business and normal eligibility, documentation and credit restrictions are satisfied; exempt, composition and unregistered merchants may bear that GST as cost.

Input tax credit mismatch adjudication requires verification of invoice-wise evidence before confirming GST demands. Where credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B is absent from Form GSTR-2A, the proper officer must examine tax documents, receipt of goods or services, supplier payment including tax, required reversals, and the time limit for availing credit. Taxpayers must furnish requested information, while adjudication must consider reconciliations, follow binding circular-based verification requirements, and provide personal hearing.

Cash disbursement of a sanctioned GST refund is required where permanent business closure and surrender or cancellation of registration make re-credit of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger unusable. Although the normal refund mechanism releases only the cash-paid component in cash and re-credits the ITC-debited component, that mechanism presumes a going concern with future tax liabilities. Where the ledger has become non-functional, no statutory prohibition prevents payment of the sanctioned amount in cash or to the taxpayer's bank account, with applicable interest in accordance with law.

Time-extension charges under development lease deeds were examined for classification as corporate insolvency resolution process costs where homebuyers continued a stalled housing project through a Committee of Creditors-approved Pool and Build mechanism. The charges were characterised as penal consequences of the developer's delay rather than costs incurred by the resolution professional for project continuation. Their inclusion would transfer the defaulting developer's liability to homebuyers and the resolution applicant. Charges, including those sought under an extended policy beyond the original three-year lease arrangement, were excluded from CIRP costs.

Detention and penalty under the GST framework for alleged reuse of invoices and e-way bills require a demonstrated contravention relating to the movement of goods. Where goods are accompanied by invoices and a valid e-way bill with no discrepancy in description, quantity, value, or ownership, toll-plaza photographs and vehicle-movement data alone do not prove that the same goods were previously delivered and re-transported. Independent, cogent evidence is required, including verification of explanations and documents concerning prior transport. Suspicion or presumed intent to evade tax cannot replace proof; unsupported detention and penalty proceedings are unsustainable.

Bail in CGST prosecutions engages Article 21's requirement that pre-conviction detention follow a just, fair and reasonable procedure and not operate punitively. Release may be justified where custody is prolonged, the accused has no criminal antecedents, similarly situated co-accused have received bail, investigation is complete, charges remain unframed, and no material indicates flight risk, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering. The absence of assessment proceedings under the CGST Act may bear on criminal prosecution. Documentary evidence, Magistrate-triable offences, limited maximum punishment, and an unlikely timely trial further support bail.

Voluntary payment of tax demanded for fraudulent transactions under Section 74 does not remove consequential liability for interest and penalty where the taxpayer neither disputes the original notice nor challenges the basis for invoking Section 74. Acceptance of the tax demand without objection amounts to acquiescence in the notice's allegations and findings, so no further determination of fraud is required. Subsequent proceedings limited to computing and recovering interest and penalty remain valid. Tax payment alone does not establish non-compliance with Section 74(5) or defeat interest and penalty leviable under Section 74(9).

Successive writ petitions challenging the same adjudication order are not maintainable where an earlier petition was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh. The public-policy principle underlying withdrawal of proceedings treats such withdrawal as abandonment of the Article 226 remedy for that cause of action; altered grounds cannot support identical relief. Availability of the statutory GST appellate remedy also weighs against exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where it was not pursued promptly and the delay in approaching the court is unexplained. These principles preclude a later writ petition against the same adjudication order.

Natural justice requires an effective opportunity to respond where a show-cause notice is uploaded on an additional notices portal and no personal hearing is notified. A notice that could genuinely be overlooked, together with a hearing marked not applicable and an order issued without considering a response or supporting documents, requires fresh adjudication on merits. Limitation should not be used to reject the affected parties' contentions in these circumstances; they should be permitted to file their response and supporting material.

Withdrawal of a writ petition without liberty to file afresh abandons the Article 226 remedy for the same cause of action, although it does not create res judicata. Applying the public-policy principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to writ proceedings, the High Court treated a later GST challenge seeking substantially identical relief against the same adjudication order as non-maintainable. Altering the grounds did not create a fresh basis for relief. The unavailed statutory appellate remedy and unexplained delay in invoking writ jurisdiction further supported dismissal; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

Voluntary payment of tax demanded under an unchallenged show-cause notice alleging fraudulent transactions amounts to acquiescence in the notice and admission of its allegations. Once tax is paid without objection to the invocation of section 74, no separate finding of fraud is required for consequential interest and penalty. Payment does not permit the taxpayer to later deny that liability, and the procedure does not breach section 74(5). The interest and penalty demand therefore remains enforceable.

Pre-trial detention in CGST prosecutions is non-punitive and serves to secure the accused's attendance at trial, subject to the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial. Bail may be appropriate where investigation is complete, a complaint has been filed, no criminal antecedents or risks of absconding, witness intimidation or evidence tampering are shown, and trial completion is unlikely within a reasonable time. Parity with co-accused already released on bail may also support release. Bail conditions should secure attendance and preserve trial integrity.

Alleged re-use of an e-way bill and intent to evade tax require cogent evidence; toll-plaza movement records, photographs, and suspicion cannot replace proof. Where accompanying invoices, e-invoices, and e-way bills show no discrepancy in the goods' description, quantity, value, or ownership, and no independent evidence proves an earlier completed journey or delivery, the contravention remains unproved. Failure to verify material showing that a prior trip carried different goods further undermines the allegation. Detention-based tax and penalty were set aside, with refund of deposited amounts in accordance with law.

Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code makes an approved clean-slate resolution plan binding on governmental authorities and extinguishes pre-approval statutory claims excluded from the plan. Accordingly, appellate confirmation of MVAT assessments and recovery proceedings for extinguished pre-resolution tax dues cannot continue. A statutory MVAT appeal pre-deposit forming part of the settled tax demand must be refunded with applicable interest where its retention exceeds the tax department's allocation under the plan.

For service-tax valuation, the gross amount charged by a service provider excludes steel, cement, and other materials supplied free of cost by the recipient unless legislation expressly requires their inclusion. Such free supplies are not consideration charged for the taxable service. Their value therefore cannot be added to the taxable service value or used as a basis to deny the applicable 67% abatement.