Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through the portal is ineffective where registration was cancelled before the notice was issued. Although portal communication is a permissible service mode, valid service must be effected through legally prescribed modes, and a former registrant cannot be required to monitor the portal after cancellation. Consequently, an adjudication founded on exclusive portal service cannot be sustained. The taxpayer must also be given a personal hearing where requested.

Section 75(4) of the GST law requires a personal hearing before an adverse adjudication decision. Recording the hearing date, time and venue as "NA" in notices establishes that no oral hearing was offered. A written reply and a personal hearing operate as independent procedural safeguards, so failure to file a written reply does not remove the registered person's right to be heard orally. Denial of this mandatory hearing is a material procedural defect, rendering the adverse adjudication order invalid and making recourse to an alternative remedy inappropriate.

Mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order-in-original in the GST Common Portal's 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab does not constitute valid service under the CGST Act. Section 169, read with Section 146, does not treat portal uploading alone as a substitute for formal service. The retrospective amendment enabling GST Rules functions to be performed through the Common Portal does not create an express mechanism for service of notices or orders. Electronic communication must validly convey the notice or order itself, particularly where adverse civil consequences may follow. In the absence of acknowledgment or evidence that the assessee had knowledge, service is defective and consequential relief principles apply.

A writ challenge to a second demand-cum-show cause notice and the resulting assessment order was not entertained because determining whether the later proceedings relied on material available during an earlier audit required factual and legal examination. That examination falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and the assessment order is subject to an available appellate remedy. The petitioner may pursue the statutory appeal.

Consequential GST return corrections arising from amended export shipping bills were permitted for Financial Year 2017-18. Following delayed Customs amendment certificates and prior correction of shipping bills, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the parties agreed that the taxpayer could rectify short reflection in GSTR-3B, reconcile the resulting GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch, and amend GSTR-9. The permission does not limit independent assessment, verification or scrutiny of the amendments. Consequential proceedings must be decided on their merits and cannot be rejected solely on limitation.

Provisional attachment of the petitioners' bank accounts was challenged, alongside their request for de-freezing. The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioners' authorised representatives to appear before the investigating authority on the specified date. The text does not state any determination on the validity of the attachment or entitlement to de-freezing.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an effective statutory appellate remedy where GST proceedings are challenged as wholly without jurisdiction on a pure question of law requiring no resolution of disputed facts. The competence of a State GST investigation officer, including an officer of the Bureau of Investigation, to issue a show-cause notice and exercise adjudicatory powers requires prior determination. Conflicting High Court views on cross-empowerment support consideration of that jurisdictional objection. The adjudicating authority may decide its own jurisdiction and must first determine the objection before undertaking fresh adjudication of the remaining issues.

Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the limitation period for statutory appeals and permits condonation only within its fixed outer limit. Where the appellate order was pronounced, subsequently communicated by letter, and later uploaded on the departmental website, the appeal required fresh adjudication on merits rather than dismissal as time-barred. The limitation dismissal was set aside and the appeal was remitted for a fresh decision on merits.

GST Appellate Tribunal access was addressed where its registration and numbering processes were not fully operational. As the Tribunal had been constituted and commenced adjudicating GST disputes, the petitioner was permitted to approach its President for registration, numbering, listing and, where necessary, interim relief. Given that the matter had reached a final stage before the High Court, priority hearing was considered appropriate. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the matter before the Tribunal President.

Special Leave Petitions challenging a reference order were closed because residual grounds remained pending before a Single Judge. Dismissal of an earlier departmental Special Leave Petition did not merge the High Court decision into the Supreme Court order, and the exemption issue had not reached final adjudication. Any later decision favourable to the assessee could be placed before the Single Judge and could govern the unresolved proceedings. Liberty was reserved to challenge the reference order after the Single Judge disposes of the matter.

Dismissal of a special leave petition does not, by itself, merge the High Court decision into the Supreme Court order or create a binding Supreme Court adjudication on exemption of affiliation fees. Applying the doctrine stated in Kunhayammed, the note records that the earlier dismissal did not establish the claimed exemption. It further explains that a challenge to a Division Bench reference order is premature where residual issues have been remanded to a Single Judge. The petitioner may challenge any prejudicial subsequent order together with the reference decision, while a favourable intervening Supreme Court ruling may be placed before the Single Judge and would prevail over the reference finding.

A writ petition raising a pure jurisdictional challenge, without disputed factual issues, may be entertained despite an available statutory appeal. Where the competence of the GST investigation officer to issue a show-cause notice and adjudicate input tax credit proceedings is questioned, the adjudicating authority must first determine its own jurisdiction. Because the jurisdictional grounds had not been raised before that authority, the High Court did not decide them on merits. It quashed the adjudication and appellate orders, including consequential steps, and remanded the matter for fresh reasoned adjudication after allowing all grounds to be raised, with jurisdiction to be decided first.

Inadvertent errors in taxable value and IGST declarations in export shipping bills may be corrected through consequential rectification of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for FY 2017-18 after amendment of the shipping bills. In the stated peculiar facts and by consent of the parties, rectification of the specified GST returns was permitted, subject to assessment, verification or scrutiny in accordance with law.

Uploading a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely in the Common Portal's 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not valid service where the assessee neither acknowledges it nor responds. The notes state that the retrospective amendment permitting CGST Rules functions through the portal does not prescribe the portal as a service mode and cannot replace formal service where civil consequences follow. An ex parte order based on portal-only upload should result in restoration of proceedings to the show-cause-notice stage. For an order passed after contest but uploaded only on the portal, the limitation period for appeal does not begin.

Input tax credit benefits in ongoing real estate projects must be passed to all eligible purchasers, including those booking flats after GST where construction continued beyond its introduction. The benefit is project-specific, and renegotiated prices do not establish a commensurate reduction without transparent evidence. Unpassed amounts must be refunded to identified homebuyers rather than deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund; excess benefit given to some purchasers cannot be set off against amounts due to others. Profiteering includes GST charged on an inflated base price. Interest accrues from each purchaser's last instalment payment until refund. Anti-profiteering penalties do not apply where the completed contravention predated the penalty provision's commencement.

The penalty-only pre-deposit proviso to section 112(8) of the CGST Act applies prospectively from 1 October 2025. The text states that, because the impugned appellate order predated that effective date and the amendment did not expressly or necessarily imply retrospective operation, the pre-deposit condition could not attach to a substantive right of appeal arising from proceedings instituted earlier. Accordingly, no pre-deposit was required for admission of the penalty-only GST appeal, without affecting the merits or any direction at final hearing.

Interest and dividend income from investments with co-operative societies and co-operative banks qualified for the claimed deduction because the statutory condition was met where income arose from such investments. The remaining additional depreciation for machinery used for less than 180 days in the preceding year was allowable for the relevant assessment year under the amended third proviso, which permits the balance claim in the immediately succeeding year from 1 April 2016. Milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory equipment could qualify as plant and machinery for additional depreciation where normal depreciation was allowed and other conditions were satisfied. All proposed questions were decided for the co-operative society, and the tax appeals were dismissed.

Where alleged bogus purchases are not supported by proof of actual goods movement, but the books, sales and disclosed profits remain accepted, only the profit element embedded in those purchases may be disallowed rather than their full value. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's factual estimate of a 10 per cent disallowance, finding no legal infirmity. On reassessment, a notice under section 148A(b) need not supply every item of material held by the Assessing Officer; the prescribed reopening procedure was found to have been followed. The challenges to both the disallowance restriction and reassessment were rejected, and both cross-appeals were dismissed.

Business promotion expenditure claimed as commission or incentive payments is deductible under section 37(1) only when the taxpayer proves its nature, actual incurrence and business allowability with adequate particulars and supporting evidence. The article notes that failure to provide recipient details, payment amounts, dates, modes of payment or documentary support defeats the claim. Increased turnover alone does not establish compliance with the statutory requirements. The disallowance rested on the unproven genuineness and allowability of the expenditure, rather than solely on recipients being private persons instead of public servants; the claimed deduction was therefore disallowed.

A sole testamentary family trust created under a deceased's will is discussed as falling within proviso (ii) to section 164(1). The note states that its assessment as an association of persons does not by itself attract taxation at the maximum marginal rate under section 167B, because the statutory proviso applies to a trust that is the only trust declared by will. It also refers to a CBDT clarification and a prior Tribunal decision as supporting taxation otherwise than at the maximum marginal rate. The stated conclusion is that income of the sole testamentary trust is not taxable at that rate for the relevant assessment years.