Clause 7 of the notification dated 8 October 2024 requires compliance with natural justice where a rectification order adversely affects a person. Rejecting a rectification application without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing breaches that requirement. The rejection is consequently invalid and must be quashed, with the rectification application reconsidered under Clause 7 and section 16(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Service of GST show-cause notices and orders-in-original requires compliance with the prescribed modes under the CGST Act. Mere uploading under the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab on the common portal does not constitute valid service under Sections 169 and 146. The retrospective amendment relating to functions performable on the portal does not expand the portal functions specified in the CGST Rules to replace formal service. Portal uploading may suffice only where the taxpayer acknowledges receipt or responds to and contests the proceedings; otherwise, defective service affects the applicable relief framework.

Pre-arrest bail jurisdiction requires a reasonable apprehension of arrest. A summons under the CGST Act requiring appearance for a statement and production of documents, without indicating arrest action, does not by itself create that apprehension. Where the summons date has elapsed and no further statutory notice capable of giving rise to an arrest apprehension has been issued, a pre-arrest bail application is not maintainable. The application was therefore decided against the applicant.

Regular bail under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was considered for alleged offences involving GST evasion through unaccounted purchases, storage and sales without invoices, and discrepancies between physical and recorded stock. The alleged conduct involved substantial tax evasion, while multiple notices had been issued and the investigation remained pending. Given the serious gravity attributed to the alleged economic offence, regular bail was refused.

Regular bail pending investigation into alleged unregistered manufacture of filtered tobacco and central excise duty evasion was considered inappropriate because material connected the applicant with the premises and manufacturing operations. The seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the pending investigation and charge-sheet, and the risk of influencing evidence weighed against release. Questions concerning factory ownership and actual duty evasion remained for trial, with no final determination of guilt or duty liability.

Blocking input tax credit under Rule 86-A requires recorded reasons and an adequate opportunity of hearing where the action adversely affects taxpayer rights. Although the rule does not expressly prescribe a prior hearing, audi alteram partem applies because blocking credit entails adverse civil consequences. Unexplained blocking of substantial input tax credit is arbitrary and does not meet the requirements of reasoned decision-making and natural justice. Fresh action under Rule 86-A may be taken only after affording the taxpayer an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Where an order-in-appeal was not available through service or the common portal, the High Court required the appellate authority to provide a copy upon a formal manual application, enabling exercise of the statutory GSTAT appeal. The petitioner could file the appeal within the permitted period with the prescribed pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application. Recovery under the demand arising from reversal of refund would remain in abeyance if the appeal and statutory pre-deposit were filed within that period. The writ petition was disposed of while preserving the statutory appellate remedy.

Rectification of an ex parte GST adjudication under Section 161 cannot be used for a merits-based reconsideration that issues a further ex parte demand without notice. Complete failure to consider the assessee's replies and denial of a hearing constitute a fundamental procedural defect requiring recall of the original order and fresh adjudication. Where rectification adversely affects the assessee, prior notice and compliance with natural justice are mandatory; the exception permitting rectification without notice does not apply merely because the demand is reduced. The further ex parte order was invalid, and fresh determination required an opportunity of hearing.

Interest is payable on refunds of IGST collected on ocean freight from the date of original payment where the levy was invalidated without an express prospective limitation. The invalidation operates from inception, entitling the taxpayer to compensation for the period during which the authorities retained the amount. Refund interest must therefore be granted in the manner prescribed by the governing precedent.

Service of an order-in-original solely by uploading it on the common portal does not trigger the limitation period for appeal where the assessee had contested the show-cause notice. The assessee may invoke the statutory appellate remedy within the period prescribed by the applicable directions. The challenge to State notifications was not pressed, while the challenge to Central notifications remains subject to the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

GST adjudication under Section 73 requires reasons appropriate to the noticee's response and the nature of the dispute. Consideration of discrepancies among GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, the taxpayer's reply, and the hearing opportunity demonstrates application of mind. A taxpayer claiming input tax credit must substantiate the claim and explain discrepancies with documentary evidence; a reconciliation chart alone is insufficient. Recording that reconciliation was not established can justify rejection where no further explanation or evidence is produced. An order is not non-speaking or contrary to natural justice merely because the taxpayer's explanation is rejected; further factual material may be presented in appellate proceedings.

Profiteering in a real-estate project should not be determined by comparing pre-GST and post-GST input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios, because input tax credit and buyer collections may not accrue uniformly over the project lifecycle. A turnover-based comparison therefore lacks direct correlation with credit attributable to a particular period. The appropriate methodology computes total GST-related savings for each project and allocates the resulting benefit per square foot, ensuring purchasers of equivalent areas receive equivalent benefit. Profiteering must consequently be reconsidered project-wise using total savings and per-square-foot benefit allocation.

Anti-profiteering in real-estate projects must be computed through a project-specific methodology rather than by comparing pre-GST and post-GST input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios. That ratio-based approach is unsuitable because construction expenditure, input-tax-credit accrual and buyer collections vary across a project's lifecycle. The required method calculates total GST-related savings for each project and allocates them according to total project area, ensuring purchasers of equivalent areas receive equivalent benefits. Impugned anti-profiteering determinations require fresh evaluation using this methodology.

Denial of a meaningful pre-decisional hearing before an order-in-original raises the audi alteram partem requirement and potential breach of natural justice. The dispute also concerns the availability of writ jurisdiction where an alternative statutory remedy exists. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the special leave petitions, leaving the High Court's disposition undisturbed.

Bail was declined because the petitioner had multiple criminal antecedents, including a similar offence, and the allegations involved substantial loss to the State exchequer. Delay in framing charges resulted from the absence of a posted Special Judge rather than a merits-based basis for release. Early appointment of a Special Judge was directed to enable expeditious trial proceedings. The petitioner was required to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks.

Special Leave Petitions concerning the validity of a show-cause notice under the CGST Act for assignment of leasehold rights were dismissed following dismissal of a similar Special Leave Petition. The underlying issue was whether assignment of leasehold rights constitutes a supply of services under the statutory definition and falls within the relevant service classification. No independent judicial reasoning or substantive determination on those questions is provided.

Telecommunication towers were treated by the High Court as movable goods rather than immovable property for CGST input tax credit purposes, because they are essential telecommunications equipment capable of being dismantled and moved. On that basis, the High Court quashed the challenged tax orders, appellate affirmation and show-cause notices. The Supreme Court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration and rejected the review petitions, leaving that position undisturbed.

Bail was refused because the petitioner's criminal antecedents indicated habitual offending. The Supreme Court found no reason to allow the bail petition and directed the petitioner, who was on interim bail, to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks. Delay in framing charges resulted from the absence of a posted Special Judge; the Chief Justice of the High Court was requested to appoint a Special Judge promptly so that charges could be framed and the trial expedited.

Anti-profiteering computation for real estate projects based on pre-GST and post-GST input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios requires reconsideration in light of the Delhi High Court's determination on the applicable methodology. The High Court quashed the anti-profiteering order and remanded the computation issue to GSTAT for fresh consideration under that determination. It expressed no view on the merits, kept all parties' contentions open, and left the challenge to the validity of the statutory provision and rules unresolved.

GST adjudication orders uploaded only on the common portal do not trigger the limitation period for a statutory appeal where the order-in-original was passed after contest. An assessee that replied to the show-cause notice cannot claim ignorance of those proceedings, but may pursue the appellate remedy within the prescribed period under the applicable principle for portal-only service. The writ petition was disposed of on that basis, leaving the assessee to file the statutory appeal.