Share premium received on a fresh allotment of equity shares to a non-resident is a capital receipt and is not taxable as income unless an express charging provision applies. The deeming provision for excess share premium was limited to amounts received from residents and did not cover a non-resident shareholder; the relevant departmental instruction on capital-account transactions bound income-tax authorities. Reassessment based on an alleged sale or transfer is invalid where the material establishes a fresh allotment. Reliance on lack of genuineness without raising that ground in the show-cause notice or allowing a response also breaches natural justice.

Condonation of delay in furnishing Form 10B for an exemption claim should be decided pragmatically where pandemic-related circumstances establish genuine hardship. Furnishing the audit report is procedural, and the report may be produced before the assessment or appellate authority upon sufficient cause. Delegated discretion under Section 119(2)(b) must advance substantial justice rather than deny relief on technical grounds. An 18-day Covid-19-related delay was accepted as genuine; rejection of condonation was therefore invalid, requiring the delayed Form 10B to be treated as filed within the prescribed period and considered for the exemption claim.

Assessment jurisdiction could not be challenged on the alleged absence of a transfer order under Section 127(2), where the assessee had given no objection to centralisation. The Principal Commissioner passed a centralisation order, communicated it by letter and uploaded it on the portal. As the assessee did not rebut these facts through a rejoinder, the uncontroverted material defeated the jurisdictional objection. The challenge to the assessment jurisdiction was therefore not sustainable.

Computation of non-life insurance business profits under Section 44 and Rule 5, the application of Section 14A, withholding obligations on payments to non-resident surveyors and reinsurers, disallowance for non-deduction of tax, UPS depreciation, minimum alternate tax for insurers, and consistency in assessments were identified as the substantive tax issues. The High Court had answered the admitted questions largely for the assessee. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition because of inordinate delay and the absence of a plausible, bona fide explanation for condonation; it did not adjudicate those substantive issues.

Documented DRC-03 reversals, supported by electronic cash and credit ledger debits, reconciliation statements and DRC-04 acknowledgement, establish reversal of disputed excess input tax credit. A blank optional reasons field in DRC-03 does not invalidate the reversal. Section 16(5) removes the time-limit objection under Section 16(4) for the specified financial years. Interest and penalty on any residual demand require separate computation after hearing, and liability arising from relevant Section 73 demands may qualify for waiver under Section 128A subject to prescribed compliance.

Accumulated input tax credit refund is admissible where statutory credit conditions are met and export transactions are supported by e-way bills, transport records, shipping documents, exporter confirmations and banking records. Goods need not commence movement from the direct supplier's registered premises, and toll-plaza data is not a mandatory condition for credit. Cancellation or alleged irregularities involving suppliers beyond the direct supplier do not, without evidence attributable to the exporter, justify denial. Fresh allegations concerning licensing or investigations, and unsupported additional material not raised in the show cause notice or earlier proceedings, cannot be introduced before the Tribunal unless the prescribed exceptional grounds for additional evidence are established.

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, retrospectively introduced from 23 October 2017, was treated as ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary. Its omission from 8 October 2024 without a saving clause applies to pending, non-final proceedings founded on that rule. Consequently, a pending show-cause notice based on Rule 96(10) cannot continue, and the affected exporter is entitled to refund of IGST with applicable interest.

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.