GST appellate remedies operate through first appeals and second appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, though writ jurisdiction may remain relevant for serious defects in adjudication or appellate orders. Fraud-based demand proceedings require the revenue authorities to establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression when issuing the show-cause notice. Refund claims cannot be denied for allegedly ineligible input tax credit without prior determination under the prescribed demand process. Portal uploading alone may not constitute effective service, and input tax credit may be available for property constructed for leasing rather than own use.

The exclusion of duty credit scrips from exempt supplies under Explanation 1 to Rule 43 operates prospectively and does not extend the benefit to prior periods. Accordingly, common ITC attributable to sales of MEIS or RoDTEP scrips up to June 2022 requires reversal, whereas ITC directly linked to manufacturing activities is not subject to such reversal. Fraud-based tax proceedings require material evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression of facts to evade tax.

Supplementary GST refund claims concern additional amounts omitted from an earlier claim, subsequently becoming eligible, or arising under a specific statutory mechanism. They are not an independently defined general category and depend on underlying eligibility, the relevant date, limitation, documentary evidence, and whether the amount was previously claimed, rejected, or refunded. An unclaimed eligible amount may support a further application within limitation, while an amount previously rejected generally requires the applicable appellate or statutory remedy. FORM GST RFD-01, prescribed refund calculations, reconciliation, unjust enrichment requirements, and duplication checks remain material.

Customs query responses should substantiate declarations in Bills of Entry and Shipping Bills through accurate facts, consistent records and applicable customs requirements. Classification should be supported by objective product characteristics and tariff interpretation principles; valuation by transaction-specific commercial evidence and distinctions from comparable imports. Related-party pricing requires transparent disclosure and evidence that the relationship has not influenced price. Exemption and export-benefit claims require condition-wise proof, while origin claims must distinguish origin from shipment and invoicing. Quantity or description discrepancies should be reconciled across commercial and transport documents, with genuine errors addressed through appropriate amendment.

Customer-specific software development provided through end-to-end outsourcing, maintenance, implementation and support arrangements does not constitute a sale of goods where customers retain control over their systems and no property in marketable software transfers for consideration. Software created exclusively for a customer, with intellectual property vesting in or licensed to that customer solely for service use, remains a service contract rather than VAT-taxable software sales. Digital Signature Certificate issuance by a licensed certifying authority is likewise a certification service, not a transfer of goods. Service turnover cannot be recharacterised as turnover from software or other goods for VAT assessment.

Substitution of Serial No. 60 in Schedule B retained the expression "IT Products" in both the unamended and substituted entries. Because the claim for concessional tax treatment depended solely on whether Digital Still Image Cameras qualified as IT products, rather than on any item specifically listed in either entry, the substitution did not alter the claim's basis. The challenge to the notification was therefore academic and was not adjudicated, while the eligibility of Digital Still Image Cameras as IT products remained undetermined.

Depot and warehouse C&F services, including receipt, unloading, storage, handling and loading of goods sold from those locations, qualify as input services because a depot or consignment agent's premises may be the place of removal. Post-depot transportation, delivery and unloading in FOR-destination transactions require verification of contractual terms governing transfer of title and risk, freight and insurance responsibilities, assessable value, and whether delivery is a condition of sale. Extended limitation does not apply where credit was disclosed in statutory records, audited, and involved an interpretative dispute without fraud or deliberate suppression. Equivalent penalty is consequently unsustainable; only eligible credit within the normal limitation period requires quantification.

Central Excise liability for dolochar, fly ash, iron ore fines and similar residues requires manufacture or production; marketability, sale value and tariff classification alone are insufficient. Unavoidable coal residues and handling or screening fines do not become distinct commodities unless an independent process creates goods with a separate name, character or use. Where dolochar is treated as Chapter 26 waste from sponge-iron manufacture, an unconditional waste exemption applies, leaving no effective duty. An interpretational dispute, including divergent administrative views, does not establish fraud, suppression or intent to evade; extended limitation, interest and penalties therefore cannot apply.

Extended limitation for central excise duty requires proof that non-levy or short-levy resulted from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. Departmental knowledge does not alter the statutory relevant date once the extended period applies, but contemporaneous possession of statutory records and knowledge of stock verification may negate deliberate suppression. Where notices identify no withheld fact, breached disclosure duty, deliberate concealment, or intent to evade, non-reporting of shortages or excesses does not itself establish suppression. The ordinary limitation period applies, and penalty depends on the same culpable conduct required for extended limitation.

Construction of residential staff quarters for factory employees does not constitute Commercial or Industrial Construction Service merely because the employer operates an industrial undertaking; such housing is a welfare activity. A sub-contractor remains independently liable to service tax even where the main contractor has paid it. However, the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) requires suppression or wilful misstatement intended to evade tax. Bona fide non-payment amid genuinely divergent judicial views on taxability does not establish that intent, rendering a demand based solely on the extended period time-barred, with related interest and penalties unsustainable.

Residential construction by builders before 1 July 2010 was not taxable merely because purchaser consideration was received before completion, as the relevant deeming provision did not apply retrospectively. Buildings or independently identifiable projects with twelve or fewer units fell outside the residential-complex definition, and the works-contract category could not expand that scope. Separate agreements for completion of flats intended for purchasers' personal residential use qualified for the personal-use exclusion. A separate levy on landowners' allotted flats was impermissible where development-rights value was already included in the developer's taxed value. Residual taxable receipts qualified for prescribed abatement and cum-tax valuation, while interpretational disputes without fraud or deliberate suppression did not justify extended limitation or penalties.

Extended limitation for alleged short reversal of CENVAT credit requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention intended to evade duty; reversals disclosed in returns and capable of verification do not establish such intent. Proportionate reversal under Rule 6 is confined to common credit attributable to inputs or input services used for both taxable and exempted activities, excluding credit exclusively used for taxable outputs; the revised formula is treated as clarificatory. Trading involves transfer of title in goods, is excluded from the definition of service, and cannot be treated as an exempted service merely because of the negative-list framework. Consequently, a demand based on total-credit reversal is legally unsustainable.

Transfer of development rights in land for a share of built-up area is a transaction in immovable property, not a taxable construction or other service, because such rights are benefits arising from land. Service tax paid on that transaction may be refundable, subject to unjust enrichment. Works-contract and administrative services received from the developer do not qualify as input services where the development-rights transfer is not an output service; related CENVAT credit is therefore recoverable. However, a bona fide treatment of the transfer as taxable construction service restricts recovery to the normal limitation period and precludes penalty.

Service of the notice and relied-upon documents was established by the appellant's acknowledged endorsement while in custody. A delayed denial of receipt, unsupported by any complaint against the serving official, did not establish a breach of natural justice. Permission to inspect the documents and adequate time to submit a reply satisfied the requirement of a fair hearing; a subsequent request for further copies and additional time was treated as dilatory. The provisional attachment's confirmation therefore remained unaffected.

Director liability for unrealised export proceeds can continue despite the company entering liquidation where the director controlled its affairs during the contravention and does not rebut the presumption that reasonable recovery steps were not taken. Knowledge of an investigation, combined with failure to respond after notices, service attempts and affixture, defeats a claim of denial of a fair hearing. Liquidation does not by itself remove liability or establish inability to obtain company records from the Official Liquidator. Although the contravention and personal liability remained, the penalty was confined to the amount already deposited, considering the elapsed period, adjudication delay and liquidation.

Liquidation under Section 33(1) requires the resolution professional to make an independent, objective assessment consistent with the insolvency framework; reliance on informal creditor communication without Committee of Creditors deliberation, where no creditor voted for liquidation, renders liquidation unsustainable. Withdrawal under Section 12A forms a settlement-based insolvency exit alongside resolution plans and liquidation. Where a viable one-time settlement is being implemented and financial debts have been substantially addressed, the CIRP timeline is directory and extensions may support consideration of withdrawal. The CIRP is restored to explore Section 12A withdrawal, preserving the corporate debtor as a going concern rather than proceeding to liquidation.

The IBBI (Liquidation Process) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2025 did not apply to a going-concern sale process where liquidation had commenced before the amendment took effect. A liquidation order recording the creditors' recommendation that the liquidator explore sale of the corporate debtor as a going concern established the governing legal framework on the liquidation commencement date. The subsequent auction constituted implementation of that existing liquidation process rather than commencement of a fresh process. Absent retrospective operation, later regulations could not alter rights and obligations already governed by the earlier liquidation framework. The challenged order was set aside and the matter remitted to consider reliefs and concessions according to law.

Forensic audit reports supported by sale deeds, bank records, registration records and title-verification material can carry evidentiary weight in determining fraudulent transactions, although they are not conclusive alone. Where a liquidator produces reliable documentary audit material, former management with special knowledge must provide cogent rebuttal evidence. Overvalued property purchases, unsupported cash payments and expenses, retained vendor possession or rents, incomplete title measures, subsisting encumbrances, and loan proceeds rapidly routed back to the corporate debtor or related entities indicate accommodation and round-tripping arrangements. Such conduct supports fraudulent-transaction findings and contribution liability to the corporate debtor under insolvency law.

Declared CIF transaction value remains the primary customs valuation basis unless cogent, objective evidence shows that the invoice price excludes additional consideration actually paid or payable by the importer. Freight and insurance cannot be added where they are already included in CIF pricing and no reimbursement liability is established. Upstream FOB invoices from a separate foreign transaction and Non-GMO compliance certificates do not, without comparable-import data or proof of omitted consideration, displace the importer's declared transaction value. Extended limitation requires collusion, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression; a disclosed valuation-methodology dispute does not suffice. Without sustainable value misdeclaration and extended-period duty liability, confiscation, redemption fine, and related penalties lack foundation.

Section 123's reverse burden applies only to specified or notified goods and does not extend to Indian currency; the Revenue must therefore prove that currency represents sale proceeds of smuggled goods. Confiscation under section 121 requires proof of identified smuggled goods, a sale by a person with the requisite knowledge, and a direct, identifiable evidentiary nexus between that sale and the seized currency. Suspicion or unexplained cash is insufficient. Penalties under section 112 require identified goods liable to confiscation and proven knowing conduct concerning those goods. Remand cannot cure a fundamentally deficient evidentiary foundation by allowing new facts or links absent from the show cause notice.