Net ITC for refunds of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies is confined to credit availed during the relevant refund period. A reversal of compensation-cess credit attributable to earlier tax periods, including residual credit remaining after an earlier refund, does not form part of relevant-period Net ITC and should not reduce it. Administrative guidance on reporting reversals cannot require deduction of every reversal recorded during the refund period irrespective of the period to which the underlying credit relates, as it cannot expand or override the statutory refund formula. The accumulated compensation-cess credit refund is consequently computed without deducting such earlier-period reversals.

Net ITC under Rule 89(4) comprises input tax credit actually availed and attributable to the relevant refund period. A reversal recorded during that period, where it relates to credit availed in an earlier period and is absent from relevant-period availment, does not reduce Net ITC in the formula for refund of unutilised cess credit attributable to zero-rated supplies. Paragraph 43(c) must be read consistently with Rule 89(4) and cannot extend the statutory formula to deduct every reversal recorded during the refund period. Administrative circulars bind departmental authorities but cannot override statutory provisions or restrict statutory refund entitlement; the accumulated cess credit refund remains admissible.

Net ITC for refunds of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated supplies comprises credit availed during the relevant refund period under the statutory refund formula. A reversal of residual Compensation Cess credit relating to earlier tax periods, made after a prior refund was sanctioned, does not reduce Net ITC where it has no nexus with credit availed in the relevant period. Returns and the electronic credit ledger determine the credit actually availed during that period. Circular guidance cannot require deduction of all reversals reflected in a refund period if that approach enlarges or overrides the statutory formula.

Section 111 requires the appellate forum to regulate procedure consistently with natural justice. Its powers to dismiss a representation for default or decide it ex parte extend to appeals, and are matched by authority to set aside a default dismissal or ex parte order. Where a first appeal was validly instituted through the prescribed pre-deposit, disputed effective service of hearing notices and the absence of any apparent abandonment supported restoration. The statutory default-dismissal power therefore does not prevent a fresh first-appellate determination on merits after due hearing.

GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns requires an adequate opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice and be heard. Where illness prevented the registered person from responding or attending the scheduled hearing, and no further date was fixed, cancellation after a single notice was set aside. Fresh proceedings must allow a response and hearing before a new order is passed, and must verify any return claimed to have been filed after cancellation.

GST appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before 1 October 2025 remain subject to the pre-substitution pre-deposit regime under Section 107(6), even where the appellate requirement was later replaced. The substituted pre-deposit requirement for disputed penalty does not govern proceedings initiated earlier. Challenges alleging inadequate consideration of contentions in an adjudication order require examination of facts and merits and should be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy rather than writ jurisdiction.

Challenges to curtailment of benefits under the budgetary-support scheme were governed by an earlier precedent applying a Supreme Court ruling. Rather than independently examining the validity of the notification, affected claimants were permitted to submit representations to the State Government and the GST Council. Their claims are to be considered in accordance with law, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue that route.

Show-cause notice defines the permissible scope of GST refund proceedings. An appellate authority cannot sustain rejection by introducing grounds under the GST Rules that were not alleged in the notice without giving the claimant an opportunity to respond. Reliance on new grounds breaches principles of natural justice, requiring consideration of a comprehensive reply, a hearing, and a reasoned speaking order. The refund rejection and appellate order were set aside, with entitlement to refund left for fresh adjudication.

Budgetary Support Scheme payments depend on Central Tax and Integrated Tax paid through the cash ledger after utilisation of eligible input tax credit. Recovery of alleged excess support based solely on input tax credit reflected in GSTR-2A requires proper consideration of the taxpayer's reconciliation, invoices and explanation that the reflected credit was ineligible or unavailable for utilisation. The reviewing authority must evaluate each supporting document, record reasons for accepting or rejecting the explanation, and provide an effective hearing before making a reasoned recovery or adjustment determination.

Expansion of a show cause notice at the appellate stage cannot support rejection of accumulated input tax credit refunds without allowing the taxpayer to answer the added grounds. The High Court treated the notice as the foundation of proceedings and found that reliance on grounds introduced only in appeal deprived petitioners of an effective opportunity to reply. Without examining the merits of those grounds or the refund claim, the High Court set aside the adjudication and appellate orders and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, requiring a comprehensive reply opportunity and personal hearing.

Dismissal of a duly constituted GST first appeal for non-prosecution, despite pre-deposit and alleged inadequate notice of hearing, should not leave the appellant remediless or compel a second appeal. Statutory procedure permits the Appellate Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default and set aside that dismissal. High Court set aside the dismissal where there was no apparent reason for the appellant to abandon its appeal after making the pre-deposit, and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of hearing.

Net ITC for refunds of unutilised compensation cess on zero-rated supplies comprises credit actually availed and attributable to the relevant refund period. A reversal recorded in that period reduces Net ITC only where the reversed credit was availed during the same period. Residual credit from earlier periods, not included in the claimed Net ITC for the refund period, cannot reduce the eligible refund. Departmental clarification must operate consistently with the statutory refund formula and cannot require deduction of every reversal irrespective of when the underlying credit arose. The refund sanction was therefore upheld and the Revenue challenge rejected.

Rule 89(4) confines Net ITC for refund of unutilised cess credit on zero-rated supplies to credit actually availed during the relevant refund period. An ITC reversal recorded in GSTR-3B reduces Net ITC only where the reversed credit was availed in that same period; reversals relating to earlier tax periods do not affect the refund computation. Paragraph 43(c) of the departmental circular cannot require deduction of all reversals made during the refund period irrespective of the underlying credit period, as a circular cannot override or expand the statutory refund formula. The accumulated cess-credit refund was consequently sustained.

Net ITC for refund of unutilised Compensation Cess credit on zero-rated supplies is confined to input tax credit actually availed and attributable to the relevant refund period. A reversal recorded in that period need not reduce Net ITC where records establish that it relates to residual unutilised credit from earlier tax periods and was not included in the credit supporting the refund claim. Paragraph 43(c) of the departmental circular must operate consistently with the statutory refund formula and cannot require deduction of every reversal reported during the period, thereby curtailing a statutory refund entitlement.

Statutory discretion governing appellate admission applies where a penalty does not exceed the prescribed monetary threshold. In an appeal by a managing director against a penalty order issued under section 107, the penalty fell within the threshold for discretion under section 112(2). The Tribunal exercised that discretion to refuse admission, so the appeal was not admitted.

Rule 24(4) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 permits rejection of an appeal where filing defects remain unrectified despite adequate opportunities. The appellant received six hearing opportunities, including three before the Bench and three before the Registrar, but neither appeared nor sought adjournment. No additional material was uploaded to cure the notified defects. Persistent non-attendance and failure to rectify defects support treating the appeal as not being actively pursued and considering rejection under the procedural rule.

Storage and warehousing of agricultural produce is exempt, but that exemption does not extend to separately hired godowns used exclusively for the exempt outward service. Renting such godowns constitutes an independent supply of rental or leasing of non-residential property and attracts GST at 18%. Where the lessor is registered, tax is payable under forward charge. Where an unregistered person rents a godown to a registered recipient, the amended reverse-charge entry applies, making the recipient liable to pay GST at 18% from 10.10.2024.

Domestic ex-works supply of aircraft manufactured in Gujarat to the Ministry of Defence constitutes a taxable supply of goods where title passes for consideration in the course or furtherance of business. The aircraft are not covered by the GST exemption examined, and GST is payable at the applicable rate. Where the outward supply is made from Gujarat and the registration threshold is exceeded, the supplier must obtain GST registration in Gujarat under the applicable registration provisions.

The statutory bar on admission of an advance-ruling application applies where the same question concerning the applicant is already pending or has been decided in proceedings. A transporter's supply-characterisation question-whether making vehicles available to another goods transport agency is exempt or taxable-formed the basis of a pending input-tax-credit reversal proceeding and had been decided for an earlier tax period. Both grounds precluded examination of classification, exemption, or taxability on the merits, and the application was rejected as not maintainable.

Royalty payable for a State Government grant of mineral extraction rights under a Short-Term Permit is contractual consideration for licensing services involving the right to use minerals, rather than a tax. The permit holder, as recipient of a Government-to-business supply, must discharge GST under reverse charge at 18%. The shorter duration and restricted area of a Short-Term Permit do not change the nature of the supply where the grantor, extraction rights and royalty basis correspond to those for quarry and mining leases. Short-Term Permit holders therefore receive the same reverse-charge GST treatment as quarry and mining lease holders.