The substituted proviso to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, effective from 1 October 2025, does not require a ten per cent pre-deposit for appeals arising from penalty-only proceedings initiated by show-cause notice before that date. The right of appeal vests when the lis commences and includes the applicable appellate conditions. As the amendment imposes a new, burdensome filing condition without express or necessarily implied retrospective application, pre-commencement proceedings remain governed by the earlier appellate regime and require no such deposit.

Challenges to Orders-in-Original for the financial years 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and an order dated 25.06.2026 were taken up by the SC. Notice was issued, and operation of the challenged orders was stayed until the next hearing.

A vested right of appeal attaches when original adjudicatory proceedings commence, including the conditions for access to the appellate forum. The notes explain that a subsequently introduced, onerous pre-deposit requirement cannot apply to pending proceedings unless the amendment expressly or necessarily provides for retrospective operation. Where a show-cause notice imposing personal penalty liability preceded substitution of the proviso to section 107(6), the earlier appellate regime governs. The substituted requirement to deposit ten per cent of disputed penalties therefore does not apply to penalty-only appeals arising from that notice, although any admitted amount remains payable. The Appellate Authority has no inherent power to waive an otherwise applicable statutory pre-deposit.

Regular bail in alleged input tax credit fraud involving fake invoices was granted after investigation was completed and the final complaint filed. The prosecution case was based on documentary and electronic material already held by the Department, so further custodial detention was not considered necessary. The period already spent in custody and the likely duration of trial also supported release. Bail was granted subject to the stipulated bond and surety conditions, without any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

Proportionality requires that GST registration cancelled solely for non-filing of returns be restored where no tax-evasion allegation exists and cancellation would hinder revenue recovery. As final tax liability can be determined only after returns are filed, the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to regularise the default by filing all pending returns and paying consequential tax, interest, fine and penalty. The cancellation was conditionally set aside, with restoration directed upon timely compliance; otherwise, the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.

Effective personal hearing is mandatory before an adverse GST adjudication. Where a show-cause notice omits the hearing date, time and venue, the taxpayer must receive separate intimation, and selecting "No" for personal hearing does not remove the authority's statutory duty to provide it. The adjudicating authority must also consider available material and give reasons; non-appearance cannot validate an unreasoned order. Failure to provide hearing particulars, afford the required three hearing opportunities, and issue a reasoned decision breaches natural justice. The GST order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication, with the refund claim left for determination.

Ex parte tax assessments must be preceded by adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice. The note reports that the High Court applied an earlier coordinate-bench approach to set aside an ex parte assessment, the consequential demand and bank-account attachment, and remit the matter for fresh assessment after giving the taxpayer an adequate hearing.

Garnishee recovery action carrying serious civil consequences requires prior adjudication where the taxpayer has raised disputed tax particulars and submitted replies. The material states that recovery should not proceed without considering those replies, providing a personal hearing, and issuing a reasoned order consistent with principles of natural justice. The recovery notice was kept in abeyance pending adjudication, with the authority required to hear the taxpayer and decide the matter within the stipulated period. All substantive merits remained open for determination.

Service of GST show cause notices and adjudication orders solely by uploading them on the Common Portal was treated as invalid where the 2017 Rules did not prescribe the portal as a mode of service. The retrospective amendment concerning portal functions did not alter that position. Where the assessee lacked knowledge of the uploaded order and serious civil consequences followed, portal upload alone could not constitute valid service. Applying Luxmi Traders, the appellate remedy was to be considered on merits upon satisfaction of the statutory pre-deposit condition; recovery remained subject to final adjudication and the bank-account attachment was revoked.

A GST demand cannot rest on a basis outside the show cause notice without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond. The note states that an excess input tax credit determination based on a GSTR-2A comparison, differing from the notice and taxpayer's reply, required fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity. It also explains that section 77 does not apply where IGST was inadvertently paid under the wrong tax head rather than under the mistaken belief that the supply was interstate. The short-payment issue was remanded, with liberty to seek appropriation of IGST against CGST and SGST liability or pursue refund if procedurally required. The related bank-account attachment was to be lifted.

Transitional input tax credit carried forward through Form TRAN-1 may be examined by the competent GST authority under Rules 117 and 121 of the GST Rules, 2017, rather than through a VAT assessment. A service provider was not entitled to claim VAT input tax credit because it was not engaged in the sale or purchase of goods, so disallowance of the credit in the VAT assessment was sustained. However, the VAT assessing officer lacked jurisdiction to recover tax, interest or penalty relating to credit transitioned into the GST regime; that demand was set aside.

Section 73(2) must be read with the adjudication limitation in Section 73(10): it requires issuance of notice at least three months before expiry of the order-making limitation, but does not mandate a three-month interval between notice and adjudication. Reasonable opportunity to respond remains necessary under natural justice. The discussion also identifies that assessment orders for the same period cannot rest on contradictory assumptions that supplies are both exempt for input tax credit purposes and taxable otherwise. Subject to stipulated remittance after adjustment of recoveries, the inconsistent orders were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, including examination of whether the supplies are exempt.

Refund claims do not fall within the matters on which an advance ruling may be sought under section 97(2) of the CGST Act; a request for a ruling on refund of GST paid on an upfront industrial-land lease amount is therefore not maintainable before the AAR. Input tax credit on GST paid or payable on the upfront amount for a long-term lease of industrial land used to construct a factory building is blocked under section 17(5)(d). The construction is on the taxable person's own account, and land and buildings are excluded from the definition of plant and machinery. Consequently, the credit is unavailable.

For Section 44B, "carriage" of passengers by a foreign shipping enterprise extends beyond transportation between two ports. A round cruise voyage may remain passenger carriage where passengers can disembark at intermediate ports and the principal receipts arise from cabin and transport fares. On-board hospitality and entertainment are ancillary to the voyage and do not, by themselves, remove cruise operations from the presumptive taxation scheme. The text states that the non-resident cruise operator's income was therefore computable under Section 44B at the prescribed presumptive rate, and the concurrent finding treating the activity as passenger carriage was affirmed.

A Special Leave Petition concerning whether NIPL or a liaison office constituted a fixed place permanent establishment in India, and the resulting taxability and income attribution, was not considered on merits. The Supreme Court found the reasons for the 383-day delay in filing insufficient in law and dismissed the condonation application and the petition. It noted that, in a matter involving the same respondents and issues, an earlier petition had already been dismissed for gross delay, and stated that the later filing could have been avoided.

Section 276C(2) requires a deliberate, intentional and conscious attempt to evade payment of tax, penalty or interest; mere delay or non-payment without mens rea does not meet the requirement of a wilful attempt. The notes state that a prosecution complaint must identify specific acts demonstrating such intent and cannot rest on vague assertions. Requests for time after business closure, periodic payments with interest, and full discharge of the admitted liability before process were treated as indicating bona fides rather than evasion. They further state that criminal process must reflect the Magistrate's application of mind to the material facts and statutory ingredients; the complaint and process order were quashed for failure to disclose a prima facie offence.

Trade-promotion bodies may qualify as institutions advancing an object of general public utility where their dominant purpose is charitable. Activities such as organising events, sharing knowledge, educating members, encouraging the trade and representing industry interests can benefit both members and the public; incidental member benefit does not by itself negate charitable character. The material also explains that registration under section 12AA requires documents demonstrating the creation and existence of the institution, but does not necessarily require a registered trust deed or prior registration with a Charity Commissioner. Registration scrutiny focuses on the institution's objects and the genuineness of its activities.

Section 2(22)(e) deems certain loans or advances to be dividends but enlarges only the meaning of dividend, not shareholder status. Its Explanation 3 defines "concern" as a HUF, firm, association of persons, body of individuals or company, and does not include a public Trust. A loan or advance from a private company to a public Trust therefore ordinarily cannot be treated as deemed dividend merely because the managing trustee holds substantial shares in the lender. The position may differ if the Trust is itself a qualifying shareholder or acts as a conduit for the trustee's individual benefit. On the stated facts, the reopening order and notices were quashed.

For assessments under section 153C, the limitation period is stated to commence when the other person's records are transferred to the Assessing Officer handling the searched group under section 127. The subsequent recording of a satisfaction note does not postpone that commencement. Applying this principle, the reported Tribunal decision treated the assessments for the relevant assessment years as time-barred and quashed them, while leaving the remaining grounds open.

Scientific warranty provisions for automotive products may be deductible where liability arises on each sale and the provision is consistently estimated from historical experience, applying accrual and matching principles. Grossed-up withholding tax borne under an intellectual-property royalty agreement may form part of royalty consideration where the payer contractually assumes the foreign recipient's tax liability. For approved in-house research and development facilities, weighted deduction may cover eligible scientific-research expenditure actually incurred and cannot be restricted solely to the amount certified by DSIR. A challenge to the prescribed format of a notice under section 143(2) was rejected. The reported appeals were partly allowed, with the three expenditure disallowances deleted.