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.

Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act prohibits confirmation of a tax demand exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice. An adjudication order confirming higher demands on both disputed counts therefore contains a fundamental and incurable defect. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, without allowing issuance of a fresh notice.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure extends to higher-taxed packing materials used for marketing packaged tea. Section 54(3)(ii) applies where input tax rates exceed the output supply rate, and the plural term "inputs" does not distinguish between principal and ancillary inputs. Packing materials used in the course or furtherance of business therefore qualify as eligible inputs, notwithstanding that bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same GST rate. Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST addresses credit accumulation caused by GST-rate reductions on the same goods over time; it does not cover accumulation arising from higher-taxed packing materials and cannot curtail a refund otherwise available under the Act.

Actual electricity charges separately recovered at the same amount charged by the electricity distribution company, without markup, are treated as pure-agent recoveries under clause 3.3 of Circular No. 206/18/2023-GST. Electricity supplied with premises maintenance is ordinarily ancillary to the maintenance service and forms part of a composite supply despite separate billing. The circular's deeming rule nevertheless applies to separately metered HVAC and non-HVAC consumption and proportionately allocated common-area consumption recovered at actual cost. Those recoveries are excluded from the value of the maintenance service and do not attract GST, even where the independent pure-agent test is not otherwise met.

The first proviso to section 98(2) bars admission of an advance-ruling application where the question raised is already pending or has been decided in proceedings under the GST Act concerning the applicant. Classification and applicable-rate questions for dried and cured tobacco leaves had already been decided in enforcement proceedings involving the applicant. The application for advance ruling was therefore rejected as inadmissible.

Ruled or lined loose paper sheets produced by cutting uncoated paper remain within Heading 4802, rather than Heading 4820, because loose sheets cut to size are excluded from the finished-stationery heading. Paper is classified under tariff item 48026190 in rolls and 48026290 in sheets. The end-use exemption for paper used in specified notebooks depends on actual use by the manufacturer; supplies through intermediaries remain independently taxable. Recipients of uncoated paper reels have no reverse-charge liability because the goods are not notified for reverse charge, while input tax credit remains subject to statutory conditions. Documentary requirements cannot be imposed where the exemption notification does not prescribe them.

End-use-based GST exemption for uncoated paper and paperboard under tariff heading 4802 depends on established actual use in manufacturing exercise books, graph books, laboratory notebooks or notebooks. Classification turns on actual use rather than intended use, paper grade or specifications; supplies used for other purposes remain taxable. Questions on supplier verification, documentary requirements and liability for a purchaser's misuse fall outside an advance ruling on notification applicability where the notification contains no such mechanisms. Revised Central and corresponding State GST rate entries take effect from 22.09.2025, leaving no stated ambiguity on the rate transition date.

Reassessment sanction under the extended limitation regime depended on the date by which the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year expired. Where that period expired during the TOLA-covered period, the authority under section 151(i) could grant sanction only until 30 June 2021. Orders under section 148A(d) and consequential reassessment notices issued later required sanction from the competent specified authority under section 151(ii). Approval by the Principal Commissioner under section 151(i) after that date invalidated jurisdiction to revive reassessment proceedings, resulting in the order being quashed.