Rule 96(10)'s omission without a saving clause raises issues concerning the continuing legal effect of the omitted provision, its constitutional validity, and recovery of tax refunds under tax law. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the High Court's common orders on those issues, leaving those orders undisturbed in their operative effect.

Discrepancies between the operative part of a GST order-in-original and FORM GST DRC-07 may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Rectification provisions cover clerical or arithmetical errors caused by accidental slips or omissions, notwithstanding the ordinary limitation applicable to rectification. Where the adjudicating authority records such a discrepancy, it must consider correction under section 161 rather than reject rectification on the basis that no apparent error exists.

Retrospective operation of section 16(5) permits input tax credit for specified years where the registered person filed the relevant returns on or before 30 November 2021. The provision applies even if it was not in force when the original adjudication occurred, provided the delayed returns satisfy the statutory cut-off. Eligibility within that period requires the tax position to be reconsidered and formal effect given to the available input tax credit entitlement.

Separate statutory appeals by a company and its director require an independent opportunity of hearing on their respective liabilities, even where they arise from a composite adjudication order. Confirmation of a director's personal penalty while deciding only the company's appeal, without making the director a party or hearing him and while his own appeal remains pending, violates natural justice. Such confirmation effectively disposes of the director's independent appeal and deprives him of the consequential appellate remedy. The penalty confirmation against the director was quashed, leaving his pending appeal to be decided independently and without influence from the prior appellate observations.

Refund claims for service tax paid under reverse charge on foreign-currency royalty fall to be processed under the existing service-tax law through the transitional mechanism in section 142(3) of the CGST Act, even where the tax was deposited after GST implementation. This treatment preserves the applicability of the pre-GST refund framework to service tax paid under the Finance Act. Cash refund of the reverse-charge service tax is therefore admissible, rather than being denied solely because payment occurred after the GST transition.

GST treatment of tax on credit notes for returned goods requires distinguishing a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch from wrongful input tax credit. Credit-note tax relating to the supplier's own outward supply is not input tax and should reduce output tax liability; where credit notes are timely declared, original output tax was paid, and no duplicate reduction or revenue loss arises, incorrect return-table reporting is procedural. A demand must remain within the grounds stated in the show cause notice. For 2017-18, recipient reversal of credit was not a condition for the supplier's output-tax reduction; recipient non-reversal is separately assessable. Interest and penalty depend on tax being due.

Section 112(1) confines Tribunal appeals to orders made in first appeal or revision; an original adjudication order remains outside that jurisdiction even where a statutory first appeal is pending. Presentation defects involving the respondent, supporting documents or deposit do not remedy the absence of an appealable order or allow a filing to be retained pending a future first-appellate order. A direct Tribunal challenge to the original order is therefore not maintainable, while the merits of the demand, the pending first appeal and recovery remain unresolved.

Cancelled E-Way Bills require transaction-wise verification against GST/E-Way Bill portal records before any conclusion on tax liability. A chart matching cancelled bills with newly generated bills does not by itself establish that the cancelled bills were unused or that the new bills cover the same transactions. Verification must examine cancellation reasons and timing, matching material particulars, actual goods movement, and possible use of cancelled bills for transportation. The original and appellate orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication after giving the dealer an opportunity to respond, without determining tax liability on merits.

Failure to account for goods requires tax determination by treating them as supplied under statutory assessment provisions. Excess or unaccounted stock identified during a business-premises survey should therefore be assessed under those provisions rather than subjected directly to confiscation or a fine in lieu of confiscation. On that basis, confiscation proceedings and the consequential tax, penalty and fine were unsustainable, and the original order remained set aside while the revenue challenge failed.

Packing materials used to market packaged tea qualify as inputs used in the course or furtherance of business, without a statutory distinction between principal and ancillary inputs. Their higher tax rate, despite bulk and packaged tea attracting the same rate, supports refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. Circulars addressing rate reductions on the same goods at different times and supplies under concessional notifications do not apply to this situation. Executive circulars cannot expand or restrict statutory refund entitlement. Revenue appeals challenging refunds of accumulated input tax credit on eligible packing materials were dismissed.

Input tax credit claimed through self-assessment remains provisional and conditional on the supplier's actual tax payment. For FY 2020-21, invoices not disclosed by suppliers were treated as tax unpaid, while later disclosure permitted reclaim of the credit. A taxpayer claiming credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A must establish supplier-wise tax payment. Rule 36(4) limits the quantum of provisional credit but does not validate credit unsupported by supplier tax payment. Interest on ineligible credit is incidental and must be calculated from availment to repayment or output-tax adjustment using invoice-level details; a separate interest basis not stated in the show-cause notice falls outside adjudication.

Section 74 penalty for input tax credit retained despite non-payment to suppliers requires a show-cause notice that specifically identifies the material facts allegedly wilfully suppressed and the statutory basis for penalty. Mere breach of the payment condition for input tax credit, or detection during audit, does not by itself establish wilful suppression; Revenue bears the burden of proof. Suppression also requires identification of the undisclosed information and the return, statement, report or document requiring its disclosure. Fresh audit-based grounds cannot be introduced at the appellate stage or through Tribunal submissions. The penalty proceedings were void ab initio and the penalty was set aside, while liability for balance interest remained.

Finding that fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression was absent makes a demand sustained under section 74 internally inconsistent where that finding remains unchallenged. A demand cannot be defended on the hypothetical basis that proceedings under section 73 would have been within limitation when the show cause notice invoked section 74. Penalty under section 73(9) cannot be imposed where the notice proposed penalty only under section 74, because it exceeds the charges put to the taxpayer; a lower penalty amount does not cure the lack of notice. These jurisdictional defects require the demand and penalty to be set aside without considering remaining grounds.

Adjudication cannot sustain an alleged IGST short-payment demand on input-tax-credit eligibility grounds absent from the show-cause notice, particularly where the explanation for payment under different GST heads remains unaddressed. Payment of CGST and SGST instead of IGST because of a clerical error constitutes wrong-head payment rather than non-payment or short payment. Excess CGST and SGST credit should be set off against the IGST liability through the electronic credit ledger, with only any balance remaining after set-off recoverable in cash together with applicable interest.

Assignment of GIDC leasehold rights is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and therefore falls outside the GST levy under the binding High Court ruling. On that basis, restoration or enhancement of penalties for alleged non-payment of GST did not arise, while the unchallenged confirmation of tax, interest and penalty under Section 73 remained undisturbed. Delayed invoicing and tax payment did not, by themselves, establish suppression with intent to evade tax. A bona fide and reasonable belief that the assignment was non-taxable, later supported by High Court rulings, independently precluded invocation of Section 74 and consequential penalties. The Department's appeal for restoration of penalties was dismissed.

Section 35(6) requires unaccounted tobacco stock found during a business-premises survey to be treated as supplied and subjected to tax determination under the prescribed statutory procedure. Direct confiscation proceedings cannot be used to impose tax, penalty and fine solely because excess or unaccounted stock is found; proceedings must instead be initiated under section 73 or 74. On that basis, the first appellate orders setting aside confiscation-based tax, penalty and fine were upheld, and the revenue appeals were dismissed.

Parallel proceedings under the CGST/UPGST Acts for the same goods and cause of action are impermissible where transit-release proceedings have already resulted in recovery of tax and penalty; the first appellate reduction of duplicated liability was therefore sustained. Goods in transit must carry a tax invoice and a valid e-way bill generated before movement begins. Manual invoices furnished more than three months after interception, without upload on the GST portal, lacked evidentiary credibility and could not retrospectively validate the movement or cure missing mandatory documentation. The taxpayer's appeal failed, while the partial liability reduction for duplicated proceedings remained intact.

Road-restoration charges paid by a business to the PWD after permitted commercial road cutting constitute consideration for an identifiable restoration service, rather than compensation for damage, and attract GST under reverse charge where Government services are supplied to a business entity. Request-driven restoration facilitating a commercial pipeline layout is not treated as routine governmental road maintenance and does not qualify as non-supply or for the claimed exemption. Prior tax payment under forward charge requires support and does not displace reverse-charge liability. Electronically issued refund proceedings authenticated through the GST portal remain valid without a physical DIN where the notice discloses the basis of action and the recipient suffers no prejudice or denial of natural justice.

Statutory appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the GST Act's prescribed outer limit; High Court equitable jurisdiction cannot enlarge that statutory jurisdiction. Consequently, orders entertaining delayed appeals against GST registration cancellation were legally unsustainable. However, where the Department had already restored registrations pursuant to those orders, annulment without addressing the consequences of restoration offered no effective or workable relief, rendering departmental challenges academic and infructuous. Expiry of the period for applying to revoke cancellation did not extinguish the independent appellate remedy where the portal no longer accepted revocation applications. The objection based on non-use of the revocation procedure was therefore rejected.

Voluntary payments by a partnership firm towards an outstanding tax demand of one partner were not treated as forced recovery merely because the firm's bank account had been attached. The firm did not establish that the Department had been notified of its change from proprietorship to partnership before payment. Claims arising from payment of a partner's liability constituted inter se disputes among partners and did not demonstrate illegality, error, or arbitrariness in the Department's action. The refund claim was denied and the writ petition dismissed.