Non-adjudication of appellate grounds does not justify recall where the Tribunal has already considered and rejected those grounds. The High Court found that the allegedly undecided grounds had been addressed, leaving no basis to interfere with the appellate order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on that basis.

For penalty-only GST appeals arising from proceedings initiated before 1 October 2025, the subsequently introduced proviso requiring a ten per cent pre-deposit under Section 112(8) does not apply retrospectively. The pre-amendment provision required payment of admitted amounts and a prescribed percentage of disputed tax, while the new penalty-specific condition contains no express or necessarily implied retrospective effect. Applying it to earlier proceedings would restrict the vested substantive right of appeal. Accordingly, no pre-deposit is required for admission of the penalty-only appeal.

In transitional real-estate projects, input tax credit (ITC) benefit is project-specific and must be passed on to each eligible purchaser, including purchasers who booked units after GST implementation where post-GST construction inputs were used. Buyer-wise identified recipients must receive the unpassed benefit; deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund is limited to genuinely unidentifiable recipients. Excess benefit given to some purchasers cannot be set off against amounts due to others. Profiteering includes GST charged on the inflated base price. Interest at 18% per annum is computed from each eligible buyer's last instalment payment until refund. Penalty cannot apply retrospectively to a contravention completed before the penal provision took effect.

Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal may be condoned through writ jurisdiction where an assessment order is uploaded under an incorrect portal category and the assessee therefore does not receive effective notice within the limitation period. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by the limitation framework under Section 107, denial of a merits hearing in circumstances beyond the assessee's control would cause grave prejudice. The appeal was permitted to be filed within 30 days of uploading of the order, with a direction for merits-based adjudication.

Late fee for failure to file GST returns may be assessed and demanded under Section 73 read with Section 47 of the Central and State GST Acts. The text states that, for the relevant tax period, returns were not filed and a show-cause notice preceded assessment of tax and late-fee liability. Section 47 specifically authorises late fee for non-filing of returns, and no jurisdictional defect in the demand notice was identified. The demand was therefore described as validly made against the assessee.

Consolidated show cause notices and consequential orders cannot validly cover distinct financial years where binding High Court decisions require separate proceedings for each assessment year. A composite notice and order spanning financial years 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 were inconsistent with that principle and were quashed. Separate notices may be issued for the relevant assessment years, with the specified period excluded in computing limitation.

The statutory amnesty mechanism applies where tax liability is accepted but payment has been delayed; it is not available to a taxpayer disputing the basis of the assessment or asserting that no tax is payable. Such a challenge must be pursued through the prescribed statutory appellate remedy. Where the disputed tax had already been recovered, the appeal was to be entertained on merits despite limitation, and further recovery was to remain in abeyance if the appeal was filed within the stipulated period.

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.