Issues: Whether a single composite show cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods or financial years are sustainable under the statutory assessment scheme.

Analysis: Sections 73(3) and 74(3) contemplate proceedings referable to the relevant tax period. A combined notice and order for multiple years impairs the registered person's statutory rights, including the benefit available under Section 128 and the ability to pursue an effective appeal against an assessment for an individual tax period. The settled interpretation applicable to the matter does not permit a single notice or composite assessment order for more than one year where the due date for filing the annual return has been reached.

Conclusion: The composite notice and assessment order covering the tax periods 2021-22 to 2024-25 were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an order under Section 74 founded on a show-cause notice uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration violates principles of natural justice.

Analysis: After cancellation of registration, the taxpayer was not obliged to monitor the GST portal. Service of a show-cause notice solely through that portal was therefore insufficient, and the notice was required to be served through an alternative mode enabling an effective opportunity of response.

Conclusion: The order passed under Section 74 without valid service of notice and opportunity of hearing was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice; the Department may issue a proper notice and proceed in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement under Rule 164(6) for filing an application under the GST amnesty scheme is mandatory; (ii) Whether the ex parte original order should be set aside for fresh consideration where the entire tax demand had been discharged.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement under Rule 164(6) for filing an application under the GST amnesty scheme is mandatory.

Analysis: Section 128A permits waiver in specified circumstances subject to prescribed conditions. The comma preceding the qualifying phrase does not render those conditions directory. Rule 164 governs a time-bound scheme involving deemed approval, with time limits running from or closely linked to the waiver application. The prescribed time limit is an essential, and not merely procedural, requirement.

Conclusion: The condition under Rule 164(6) is mandatory and not directory, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte original order should be set aside for fresh consideration where the entire tax demand had been discharged.

Analysis: The full tax demand under the ex parte original order had been paid, thereby safeguarding revenue interests. In these circumstances, fairness required that the assessee receive a reasonable opportunity before a fresh determination.

Conclusion: The ex parte original order is set aside and the matter requires fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The mandatory character of the amnesty-application time limit remains unaffected, but the tax demand must be freshly determined after hearing the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In a time-bound amnesty scheme, a prescribed deadline for filing the waiver application is an essential mandatory condition and cannot be treated as directory.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication could stand where the assessee lacked effective notice of the show-cause and hearing proceedings because communications were sent only to the e-mail address of its erstwhile auditor.

Analysis: The reasons for non-response were found plausible and bona fide. Service on the registered e-mail credentials of an erstwhile auditor with whom the assessee was no longer in contact did not afford the assessee an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice or participate in the adjudication. The requirements of a fair hearing therefore warranted fresh consideration after permitting a response and supporting transaction documents.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication was unsustainable for want of an effective opportunity of hearing, and the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice and assessment orders for financial year 2020-21, issued and passed after the statutory cut-off date, were valid.

Analysis: Section 73(2) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governed the time limit for the proceedings. The notice dated 15.07.2025 and the orders dated 09.09.2025 were issued and passed after the applicable cut-off date of 28.02.2025. The proceedings therefore suffered from jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, assessment orders and consequential recovery notice were set aside as time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the assessee should be afforded an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and contest the GST demand proceedings despite non-filing of a reply and dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred.

Analysis: The demand was confirmed under the statutory adjudication framework after no reply was filed to the show-cause notice, and the appellate challenge was rejected on limitation. The asserted bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for the omission warranted a justice-oriented approach. A meaningful opportunity to submit a reply, documents and supporting material, followed by reasonable hearing, was necessary before fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to submit a reply and contest the demand proceedings afresh before the adjudicating authority, upon payment of costs.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate remedy. The medical circumstances affecting the petitioner's accountant, supported by medical records, together with the peculiar facts of the case, constituted sufficient cause to permit pursuit of the appellate remedy. The merits of the input tax credit dispute were left for adjudication by the Appellate Authority.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the limitation-based dismissal of the appeal was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration and dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation warranted interference and restoration of registration.

Analysis: The statutory appellate authority could not condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the limitation provisions were not to be applied so as to deprive a taxpayer of the constitutional right to carry on trade and commerce under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Cancellation of registration neither conferred a corresponding right on the State nor advanced the GST regime; restoration would enable legitimate business operations and revenue collection. The earlier view permitting such relief in writ jurisdiction was followed.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration and the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred were set aside, and the registration was held valid from 29.02.2024 upon compliance with filing of pending returns and payment of outstanding dues, interest, penalty and late fees under Rule 23(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Issues: Whether the impugned anti-profiteering determinations concerning real-estate projects required fresh consideration under the project-specific methodology prescribed for computing profiteering benefit.

Analysis: The real-estate methodology based on the difference between input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios in the pre-GST and post-GST periods was identified as unsuitable because construction expenditure, input-tax-credit accrual and buyer collections are not uniform throughout a project's lifecycle. The applicable approach requires computation of the total GST-related saving for each project and allocation of that saving on the basis of the total project area, so that purchasers of equivalent area receive equivalent benefit.

Conclusion: The profiteering determinations require fresh evaluation under the project-specific methodology applicable to real-estate projects.

Issues: Whether profiteering in a real-estate project could be determined by comparing the input-tax-credit-to-turnover ratios for the pre-GST and post-GST periods.

Analysis: The input tax credit and buyer collections in a real-estate project do not necessarily accrue uniformly during the project life cycle. A turnover-based comparison therefore lacks a direct correlation with the input tax credit attributable to a particular period. The applicable approach requires computation of the total GST-related savings for each project and allocation of that benefit on a per-square-foot basis, so that buyers of equivalent areas receive equivalent benefit.

Conclusion: The profiteering determination for the real-estate project must be reconsidered using a project-wise methodology based on total savings and per-square-foot allocation of benefit.

Issues: Whether delay beyond the two-year limitation for a GST refund claim should be condoned and the refund application restored for reconsideration.

Analysis: The two-year period under Section 54(1) is mandatory, but writ jurisdiction under Article 226 permits condonation where circumstances justify it. The asserted duplicate reversal of transitional credit, which was stated to have been discovered only upon review of the records, constituted sufficient cause. The statutory authority must determine the refund entitlement on the supporting documents.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the refund rejection was set aside for fresh consideration of the restored claim.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration should be set aside and the registration restored subject to compliance with prescribed conditions.

Analysis: The parties accepted that the matter was governed by the conditions laid down in the earlier decision concerning restoration of cancelled GST registrations. Those conditions require filing pending returns and payment of tax, interest, penalty, fine and fees; restrict use of unutilised Input Tax Credit until scrutiny and approval; and require payment and filing of returns for the post-cancellation period in cash.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside and GST registration was directed to be restored upon compliance with the applicable conditions.

Issues: Whether input tax credit denied as time-barred under Section 16(4) remained available under the retrospectively inserted extended period in Section 16(5).

Analysis: The retrospective amendment to Section 16 extends the period for claiming Input Tax Credit to eligible registered persons. Since the returns were filed within the period prescribed by Section 16(5), the limitation-based denial under Section 16(4) could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 16(5), and the limitation-based denial of Input Tax Credit was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication concerning input-tax-credit mismatch should be restored for fresh consideration to enable the assessee to produce documents supporting the genuineness of transactions.

Analysis: The proceedings concerned the 2019-20 tax period and an alleged mismatch between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A. Although prior knowledge of the proceedings could be disputed, the assessee asserted possession of invoices, e-way bills and other material relevant to establish genuine transactions. Granting an opportunity to place this material on record would facilitate complete adjudication, subject to deposit of part of the disputed tax demand.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to a fresh opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and establish the genuineness of the transactions before a reasoned determination is made.

Issues: Whether the appellate dismissal on limitation under Section 107 could be set aside and the assessee permitted to pursue an appeal on merits where notices and the adjudication order were allegedly not effectively served.

Analysis: Section 107 prescribes statutory limits binding on the Appellate Authority. However, the stated inability to respond to notices and file the appeal within time, arising from ineffective service and lack of an effective opportunity to contest the demand, was treated as a circumstance beyond the assessee's control. Mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order on the common portal, without acknowledged receipt or a response, does not by itself constitute sufficient service; denial of merits adjudication in such circumstances causes prejudice. Exercise of writ jurisdiction to cure the resulting injustice was therefore warranted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the limitation-based appellate order was set aside, and the assessee was entitled to file the appeal within the stipulated period for adjudication on merits without objection as to limitation.

Issues: Whether the assessment orders and consequential GST demands, passed after assignment of the proceedings without the petitioner contesting them, should be sustained.

Analysis: An adequate opportunity to file objections and to be heard is required before factual assertions bearing on GST assessment and demand are determined. Since the petitioner had not contested the proceedings before the assessing authority and sought to raise factual objections, an opportunity to submit objections and participate in fresh proceedings was warranted. The question whether a fresh notice was required following assignment of the proceedings was not adjudicated, and the merits were kept open.

Conclusion: The assessment orders and consequential demands were set aside, with liberty to the petitioner to file objections and obtain a fresh determination after an adequate hearing.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order under Section 73 was non-speaking and violative of the principles of natural justice for non-consideration of the reconciliation and reply.

Analysis: Reasons required of a quasi-judicial authority depend upon the facts, the noticee's response, and the nature of the controversy. The adjudication order reflected application of mind to the discrepancies between GSTR-2A, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, the reply, and the opportunity of hearing. The assessee bore the burden to substantiate the claimed input tax credit and explain the discrepancies through documentary evidence, rather than merely a reconciliation chart. Recording that reconciliation had not been made constituted a sufficient basis to reject the explanation where no further factual explanation or evidence had been furnished. The assessee also did not seek additional time before the adjudicating authority for filing further material.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was not completely non-speaking and did not warrant interference on the asserted ground of breach of natural justice; the factual objections may be urged with further evidence in appellate proceedings.

Issues: Whether the pending reply to the show-cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration required expeditious consideration by the tax authorities.

Analysis: The petition was confined to seeking an early decision on the reply already filed against the show-cause notice. No adjudication was made on the allegations underlying the proposed cancellation of registration.

Outcome: The respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.

Issues: Whether the statutory appellate remedy against cancellation of GST registration could be reopened despite delay beyond the limitation prescribed for appeal.

Analysis: The adopted ruling recognises that cancellation of GST registration has serious consequences for the conduct of business. Though the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory outer limit for condoning delay, constitutional writ jurisdiction may be exercised in an appropriate case where the delay is plausibly explained and refusal to entertain the appeal would cause disproportionate hardship. The merits of the cancellation proceedings, including service of notice and compliance with natural justice, remain for the Appellate Authority.

Conclusion: The appellate remedy must be reopened and the appeal must receive merits consideration without rejection on limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration from a date falling within the period of return-default was invalid for want of a separate notice or adequate opportunity; (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised to condone delay beyond the statutory maximum for filing an appeal and require merits adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration from a date falling within the period of return-default was invalid for want of a separate notice or adequate opportunity.

Analysis: Section 29(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits cancellation where returns have not been furnished continuously for six months, subject to an opportunity of hearing. The cancellation notice disclosed the return-default, but no reply was furnished. The effective date fell within, and not before, the period of default; it was therefore not retrospective cancellation in the strict sense requiring specific reasons for operation before the default. Section 29 requires notice of the proposed cancellation and does not require a further notice concerning the precise consequential date from which cancellation may operate.

Conclusion: The cancellation proceedings and cancellation order were valid; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised to condone delay beyond the statutory maximum for filing an appeal and require merits adjudication.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes a defined appeal period and a limited additional period for condonation. The appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that maximum period. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to defeat this statutory limitation; interference after expiry may arise only in exceptional circumstances, such as patent lack of jurisdiction or a complete denial of natural justice. No such circumstance was established. Earlier contrary coordinate-bench decisions, having not accounted for binding precedent and an earlier binding coordinate-bench decision, were treated as per incuriam.

Conclusion: No writ relief to condone the delay or remit the appeal for merits consideration was warranted; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The registration cancellation and the appellate order refusing to entertain the belated appeal remain legally effective.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked to circumvent a statutory appellate limitation that expressly restricts condonation, absent exceptional jurisdictional or natural-justice infirmity.