Advance-ruling applications require full payment of the prescribed fee under section 97(1) of the CGST and KGST Acts read with rule 104. They must also identify the applicable statutory category of questions under section 97(2). Non-payment of the balance fee despite opportunities, failure to comply with hearing notices, and omission of the required question category constitute fundamental filing defects. These mandatory requirements determine maintainability, and non-compliance renders an advance-ruling application not maintainable.

Leasing a projector, server, UPS and VSAT for a single rental is treated as a mixed supply where the equipment is not naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business. Independent usability of each item, absence of customary industry bundling, lack of consumer expectation, and no ancillary or integral relationship prevent composite-supply treatment. A mixed supply is taxable at the rate applicable to its highest-rated constituent supply. As the projector attracts the highest rate, the lease is subject to 28% GST until 21 September 2025 and 18% GST thereafter.

Reasoned and speaking appellate orders must address material grounds, evidence and authorities relied on by the parties; cryptic affirmances that merely state inadequate evidence do not reflect proper exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Where original adjudication was ex parte and objections concerning show-cause notice adequacy, relied-upon documents, reconciliation and effective hearing remain unresolved, merits should not be determined at the second appellate stage because that would deny an effective appellate tier. Fresh adjudication should follow identification and disclosure of relied-upon material, opportunity to reply and reconcile, personal hearing, and reasoned findings.

Service tax paid under the pre-GST regime on advances for flat bookings that are later cancelled is not input tax or input tax credit under the CGST Act, because those concepts cover specified GST levies charged on supplies to a registered person. Where services are not ultimately provided after the appointed day, section 142(5) requires the service-tax refund claim to be dealt with under the existing law and paid in cash. Such a refund cannot be adjusted unilaterally through the electronic credit ledger without statutory authority.

Rule 89(5) requires turnover of inverted rated supplies and adjusted total turnover to be correctly determined when computing a refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. The effect of alleged outward supplies taxable at 18% could not be determined because the underlying invoices and supporting material were unavailable, and the appellate determination had not addressed those supplies. Refund eligibility therefore required fresh verification and a reasoned determination after both parties were afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Transport of goods with an expired e-way bill that records a wholly different vehicle fails the requirement for prescribed transit documents. Part B must contain correct vehicle particulars, and the limited relaxation for minor one- or two-character errors does not cover substitution of an entirely different vehicle. An incomplete or incorrect e-way bill creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, assessed from surrounding circumstances. Where alleged diversion and delay lack a timely explanation or credible supporting material, that presumption remains unrebutted and penalty is sustainable.

Rule 138's compulsory e-way bill requirement for inter-State movement became operational nationwide from 1 April 2018, rather than on 24 November 2017. Non-production of an e-way bill before that mandatory commencement could not, by itself, constitute a breach supporting detention, seizure, or penal action. Where goods matched the tax invoice and transport documents, and no discrepancy, tax evasion, or intent to evade tax was established, proceedings for goods movement could not rest solely on the absence of an e-way bill.

Parallel State GST assessment and rectification proceedings concerning the same issues and assessment period as an earlier Central GST adjudication cannot be sustained where the Central GST order remains pending in appeal. Duplicate adjudication arises when State GST authorities proceed after Central GST authorities have investigated and issued an order on identical matters for the identical period. The overlap makes the State GST assessment and rectification orders unsustainable.

Section 77 addresses tax paid as CGST and SGST for a supply later treated as inter-State, permitting refund of wrongly paid tax without interest. Its underlying principle supports correcting a clerical selection of tax heads where the full liability was timely discharged. Amounts inadvertently paid under CGST and SGST may be appropriated against the corresponding IGST liability on application, rather than requiring duplicate payment under IGST followed by a refund claim. The earlier deposit may then be refunded in accordance with applicable directions.

Provisional attachment of bank accounts under the CGST Act ceases automatically one year after the attachment order. Rule 159 requires an attachment order in Form GST DRC-22, and no later provisional attachment can extend an original order where no fresh order has been issued. As a temporary revenue-protection measure, provisional attachment cannot continue after statutory expiry or operate as a recovery mechanism. Bank accounts subject only to expired attachment orders must therefore be de-frozen and restored to operation. No demand-cum-show-cause notice had been issued to the affected persons.

Refund claims cannot be treated as time-barred through a deficiency memo under Rule 90(3). That provision applies only to rectifiable deficiencies and requires a fresh application after rectification; its limitation-related proviso does not authorise rejection on limitation grounds. Where a proper officer proposes to reject a refund claim wholly or partly, including for limitation, Rule 92(3) requires a show cause notice, consideration of the claimant's reply, and an opportunity of hearing. The prescribed refund-rejection procedure must therefore be followed.

GST penalty for delayed tax remittance may be avoided only where tax and interest are paid within 30 days of receiving the show-cause notice. A pandemic-period delay does not create a separate statutory ground for waiver. Consequently, a penalty capped at 10% of the tax demand remains legally sustainable where that payment condition is not met.

A deemed stay of recovery arising from appellate pre-deposit stays recovery of the balance demand but does not automatically require unblocking of an electronic credit ledger restricted for input tax credit. Blocking under Rule 86A is an independent provisional measure that requires recorded reasons and cannot continue beyond one year. The deemed stay prevents appropriation from the electronic cash ledger or blocked credit ledger, while the blocking order remains separately operative unless reconsidered. The affected person may seek unblocking, and refusal must be supported by a speaking order.

Service of Form GST DRC-01A intimation and Form GST DRC-01 show-cause notice under the section 73 process established procedural regularity in an ex parte GST assessment. Fresh adjudication was nevertheless made available conditionally: the taxpayer must deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash and submit a reply with supporting documents within the prescribed period. On compliance, the assessment would be reconsidered de novo and the bank attachment lifted.

Ex parte GST assessment was quashed and remitted for de novo adjudication, conditional on the taxpayer depositing 25% of the disputed tax after verified adjustment of any cash recovery and filing a substantiated reply. The assessment was treated as an addendum to the show-cause notice, enabling fresh determination on merits. Failure to meet the deposit or reply conditions permits recovery proceedings in accordance with law.

Provisional attachments under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act cease to have effect upon expiry of the statutory one-year period. The statutory framework provides no authority to renew, reissue, or revive an attachment after that expiry. Where the attachments have lapsed and no interim protection preserves their operation, they no longer create enforceable restraint. A Revenue challenge relating solely to such expired attachments becomes infructuous because the attachments no longer survive.

Recovery under Form GST DRC-13 was initiated before a second appeal and the related statutory application. The petitioner was permitted to pursue that application before the competent authority, which was required to decide it and the pending request to withdraw recovery proceedings in accordance with law. Recovery was restrained until disposal of both applications, which were directed to be decided within fifteen days.

Pre-cut-off notice issued under section 87(b) to create a bank-account lien, which stated the outstanding service tax duty, constituted written quantification of duty payable under section 121(r) of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. Quantification remained sufficient although the notice did not quantify interest and was addressed to the bank rather than the taxpayer. The service tax dues therefore stood quantified, making the taxpayer eligible for Scheme benefits; rejection of the declaration for lack of quantification was unsustainable, and writ relief followed.

Rule 86A blocking of an electronic credit ledger is a provisional measure that requires recorded reasons and cannot continue beyond one year. Filing an appeal with the prescribed pre-deposit creates a deemed stay of recovery for the remaining demand, preventing appropriation from the electronic cash ledger and the blocked credit ledger. That recovery stay does not automatically lift the separate Rule 86A blocking order. Unblocking must be sought independently, and any refusal should be issued through a speaking order after consideration of the request.

Provisional attachment of bank accounts under GST is a pre-emptive revenue-protection measure that ceases by operation of law one year after the attachment order. Continued freezing cannot rest on an expired attachment where no fresh provisional attachment order has been issued. Where account holders were not recipients of a later demand-cum-show cause notice, that notice did not provide a basis to maintain restrictions on their accounts. The lapsed attachments required the bank accounts to be defreezed and made operable upon production of a certified copy of the order.