Refund of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated export services cannot be denied by classifying a supplier as an intermediary for an isolated period where identical services were treated as exports and refunds were granted in preceding and succeeding periods. In the absence of material showing that services during the disputed period differed or warranted intermediary classification, the inconsistent treatment is arbitrary and discriminatory. The supplier is entitled to the refund with applicable interest.

A rejected GST refund claim should be reconsidered only after completion of the ongoing investigation into the genuineness of suppliers, movement of goods, and underlying transactions. Verification of these matters may determine whether the transactions are legitimate and whether the related input tax credit is available. The refund claim is therefore to be decided afresh after the investigation is completed, with the merits of the claim and all contentions remaining open.

Input tax credit for March 2019 requires reconsideration where the relevant return was furnished before the cut-off recognised under Section 16(5). Section 16(5) permits credit where the return is furnished by 30 November 2021; a return filed on 13 December 2019 falls within that period. Consequently, denial solely for breach of the time limit under Section 16(4) cannot stand, subject to fulfilment of other input tax credit eligibility conditions.

Principles of natural justice require an appellate authority to afford a hearing and provide reasons when rejecting a statutory appeal affecting rights. A one-line rejection stating only that the taxpayer incorrectly declared the order-issuing authority, without explaining the basis for that conclusion or hearing the taxpayer, was treated as inadequate. The appellate rejection was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for a de novo hearing and a reasoned decision on merits.

Expiry of the limitation period for a statutory GST appeal does not, by itself, permit recourse to extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against an assessment order. Where an effective statutory appellate remedy was available but was not pursued within time, the writ challenge is not maintainable merely because that remedy has become time-barred. A pending rectification application, appearing also to be time-barred, does not alter this position. The challenge to the assessment order therefore fails in extraordinary jurisdiction.

Statutory appellate remedy remains the ordinary route for challenging an original adjudication order where alleged non-service of show-cause and hearing notices is disputed. Service through dispatch to the registered address and portal upload may require factual appraisal, including the sufficiency of service, the effect of a rejected registration-cancellation application, and whether further service modes were necessary. An alleged breach of natural justice does not warrant extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless it is apparent or undisputed. Where these matters require evidentiary assessment, the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory appeal.

Failure to fix or provide a mandatory personal hearing before an adjudication order breaches the principles of natural justice. Where the show-cause notice specifies no hearing date and no hearing is afforded, the resulting order is vitiated and cannot be sustained. The text states that a delay objection does not defeat the challenge because the absence of the legally required hearing invalidates the order.

Challenges to GST registration cancellation alleging inadequate notice or hearing should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy when the record shows that a show-cause notice, reply opportunity, and personal hearing were available. Questions about whether those opportunities were adequate are factual matters for the Appellate Authority to examine. A writ challenge should not bypass that effective appellate framework on those facts. Statutory pre-deposit is mandatory unless the applicable law contains an enabling provision for exemption; where no such provision exists, the requirement cannot be waived. The statutory appeal remains available for examination of the factual natural justice challenge.

The concerned authority must verify the facts supporting the petitioner's claim for differential GST at the enhanced rate and issue a reasoned decision within one month. The direction requires consideration of whether the claimed rate applies, based on factual verification, without determining the substantive entitlement in the document text.

The petitioner elected to pursue the statutory GST appellate remedy rather than obtain adjudication of the challenge to unsigned GST forms or the adjudication order. No merits were decided. Liberty was granted to file an appeal within three weeks, with the prescribed pre-deposit and grounds of law and fact. The appellate authority may consider the delay-condonation application and, if satisfied, determine the appeal on merits.

Challenges were raised to GST adjudication proceedings on the ground that Form GST DRC-01, its attachment, and the order summary in Form GST DRC-07 lacked signatures. The High Court did not examine the merits of those objections. At the petitioner's request, it disposed of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal after making the required pre-deposit and filing an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority may consider the delay application and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined where the taxpayer's statutory appeal against a GST demand had become time-barred. The notes state that the taxpayer submitted a physical reply to the show-cause notice because the portal had earlier been handled by a chartered accountant, but the final order recorded no reply and confirmed the demand. A rectification application under the GST Act remained pending but also appeared time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that expiry of the statutory appellate limitation did not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

Rejection of a GST appeal without affording a hearing and through a cryptic, unreasoned order violated principles of natural justice. The appellate order merely stated a reason for rejection, without supporting reasons, and incorrectly recorded the order-issuing authority. The High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the appeal for a de novo hearing and a reasoned decision on merits, leaving the parties' substantive contentions open.

Consistent treatment of identical export services is central to refund eligibility for unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies. The note states that services granted refunds in periods before and after the disputed period should not be classified as intermediary services for the intervening period without material distinguishing their nature. Such differential classification is described as arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the principle of consistency. It records that rejection of the refund claim was set aside and release of the refund with applicable interest was directed.

Failure to consider a taxpayer's reply to a GST show-cause notice and to provide a hearing before an adverse determination breaches statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, even without a written request. The GST determination, related demand proceedings and consequential appellate rejection were therefore set aside as unsustainable. The assessing authority may issue an appropriate notice and proceed in accordance with law.

Section 62(2) of the GST law treats a best-judgment assessment as deemed withdrawn when the registered person files the required return within the stipulated period; delayed filing requires payment of the prescribed late fee. Where Form GSTR-3B for the relevant tax period was filed with the applicable late fee, the assessment was required to be treated as withdrawn. On that basis, the assessment for April 2023 was deemed withdrawn, and consequential bank attachments, if any, were set aside.

Additional input tax credit available to a real-estate developer after GST must be passed to eligible homebuyers through a commensurate reduction in price. Free structural upgrades, fittings or other collateral benefits cannot replace the prescribed price reduction, irrespective of their asserted value. Where higher consideration was collected inclusive of GST, the unpassed benefit includes the corresponding GST component and must be returned to homebuyers. The anti-profiteering framework also requires interest at 18 per cent per annum from collection of the higher amount until repayment. Penalty is not warranted where the relevant contravening conduct substantially concluded before the penalty provision came into force.

Statutory labelling of a manufacturer's corporate name and address on unit containers does not amount to use of a brand name where the declarations are required for food-safety and legal-metrology compliance. After removal of brand logos, the frozen chicken cuts remained eligible for exemption; the corporate name on packages or invoices did not create a commercial brand connection. Packages supplied exclusively to institutional consumers were not treated as pre-packaged commodities intended for retail sale under the packaged-commodities rules. They therefore fell outside the amended taxable category for pre-packaged and labelled goods. The reported conclusion upheld exemption and deletion of the tax demand, interest and penalty.

A scrutiny notice under section 143(2) merely informs the assessee that the case has been selected for scrutiny and need not disclose the selection reasons or scope of scrutiny. CBDT and departmental selection guidelines are described as inter-departmental instructions that do not create an assessee right to demand those reasons. Selection may be challenged only on proof of arbitrariness or vendetta. During assessment, the Assessing Officer must issue a specific notice seeking relevant information and documents; the notes state that such a subsequent notice satisfies the assessment-process requirement.

Compulsory-acquisition compensation attributable to development rights transferred under a pre-existing development agreement is discussed as not accruing to the land-holding company where the developer held exclusive commercial rights, funded the acquisition, and bore development risks. The notes distinguish an overriding contractual obligation from an application of income after accrual. They further state that taxing the same transferred compensation again in the land-holder's hands, after its taxation in the developer's hands, would create impermissible double taxation without statutory authority. Consistent treatment is also identified as relevant where materially identical development arrangements have received different tax treatment.