Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order and the appellate order dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication where the assessee could not respond to the show-cause notice due to health grounds and hospitalization of its accountant.

Analysis: The adjudication was made ex parte because no reply was filed to the show-cause notice. The statutory appeal was dismissed solely on limitation and was not examined on merits. Health issues, including the hospitalization of the assessee's accountant, were accepted as sufficient circumstances for the failure to participate. A justice-oriented approach required a fresh opportunity to file a reply, produce supporting material and be heard, consistent with Natural Justice and Opportunity of Hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication and the limitation-based appellate dismissal were set aside, and the matter was restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration from the stage of filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether GST could be deducted from compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of land and structures.

Analysis: GST is chargeable on the supply of goods or services. Land and buildings attached to land are immovable property, not goods. Compulsory acquisition is an expropriation under statutory power of eminent domain and does not involve a voluntary supply of goods or rendering of services by the landowner. No statutory basis was established for treating compensation for the acquired land or structure as taxable supply.

Conclusion: Deduction of GST from the acquisition compensation was without authority of law; the GST deduction was quashed and refund with interest and costs was directed.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST show-cause notice and demand order should be entertained despite available statutory appellate remedies.

Analysis: The notice was issued only on the question of mandatory personal hearing. The record, including the portal screenshot produced by the petitioner, showed that the notice was visible. The statutory remedies of appeal before the appellate authority and further recourse before the GST Tribunal were available. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, leaving all grounds, including the alleged denial of hearing, open for consideration in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in view of the efficacious alternate remedies available under the GST law.

Issues: Whether limitation for an appeal against a refund rejection, where a timely rectification application was filed and decided, must be computed from the rectification order rather than the original adjudication order.

Analysis: A rectification application under Section 161 was filed within the statutory period and was decided by a reasoned order. That rectification proceeding was material to computation of the appellate limitation under Section 107. The Appellate Authority incorrectly computed limitation solely from the original refund-rejection order without accounting for the date of the rectification order.

Conclusion: Limitation had to be computed from the date of the order deciding the timely rectification application; rejection of the appeal as time-barred by computing limitation from the original adjudication order was impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rectification application is timely filed and decided, the resulting order governs computation of limitation for an appeal challenging the original order and the rectification decision.

Issues: Whether GST demand proceedings, including show cause notices and the consequential demand order, initiated against a deceased sole proprietor were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had died before initiation of the proceedings, the proprietorship registration had subsequently been cancelled, and the legal heir was not connected with the business or aware of the GST portal communications. Notices and the consequential order were issued in the deceased proprietor's name, and no response could be furnished in those proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings initiated against the deceased proprietor, including the show cause notices and consequential demand order, were invalid and were quashed, without precluding lawful proceedings against the legal heir for any outstanding demand.

Issues: Whether the impugned tax order was founded exclusively on AI-generated authorities that may be nonexistent or inapplicable.

Analysis: The apparent reliance on the cited authorities was noted, and the revenue authorities were directed to obtain instructions regarding their existence and applicability. The matter was retained for further consideration, with a possible direction for the issuing officer's presence and action depending upon the verification.

Outcome: Matter listed for further hearing.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the fresh GST adjudication order and show-cause notice should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A fresh adjudication order was passed after an earlier order had been quashed with directions to afford a personal hearing. An appeal against the fresh order is available under the statutory appellate mechanism, where objections concerning the maintainability of the subsequent show-cause notice and the alleged earlier dropping of proceedings may be raised. The appellate authority may pragmatically consider an application for exclusion of the period spent pursuing the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available against a fresh adjudication order, objections to the proceedings should ordinarily be pursued before the appellate authority rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order passed ex parte under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can stand where the show cause notice was uploaded only on the common portal and was neither acknowledged nor answered by the assessee.

Analysis: Mere uploading of a show cause notice on the common portal, without acknowledgement of its receipt or a reply from the assessee, does not constitute sufficient service. An ex parte adjudication founded on such service deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond and be heard.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was set aside and the adjudication proceedings were restored to the stage of the show cause notice, with liberty to the assessee to submit its reply; the competent authority must pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether refund could be withheld during pendency of the Revenue's appeal without a specific order by the Commissioner under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permits communication of deficiencies in a refund application through Form GST RFD-03. However, the record did not disclose any proceeding or exercise by the Commissioner under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for withholding the claimed refund during the pendency of the appeal. Exercise of that power required issuance of notice, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned determination.

Conclusion: Refund cannot be withheld during pendency of the appeal without the Commissioner passing a specific order under Section 54(11) after notice and opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory power to withhold a GST refund pending appeal must be exercised through a specific reasoned order after complying with notice and hearing requirements.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal solely on limitation was sustainable where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing an effective response.

Analysis: The notice-placement resulted in the petitioners being unable to respond within time. This constituted a prima facie breach of principles of natural justice. As the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on limitation without examining merits, the circumstances warranted intervention and fresh appellate consideration.

Conclusion: The appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted and decided afresh on merits after hearing the petitioners.

Issues: Whether rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration without intimating the date and time of personal hearing was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 30(2) requires that an application for revocation of cancellation of registration must not be rejected without an opportunity of hearing. A proper and effective hearing requires prior intimation of the appointed date and time. The show-cause notice referred to a possible personal hearing but did not specify its date or time. The rejection order, founded only on failure to reply, was also cryptic and non-speaking.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable for denial of a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and for being non-speaking; the Proper Officer must reconsider the revocation application after duly notifying and affording personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could, under Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rectify an ex parte adjudication that failed to consider the assessee's replies by issuing a further ex parte demand order without notice, rather than recalling the original order and granting a hearing.

Analysis: Section 161 permits rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record, including suo motu rectification within the prescribed period. A procedural review may also be exercised to cure a fundamental procedural defect. However, complete non-consideration of the assessee's replies and denial of hearing vitiated the original adjudication. The error could not be cured through a merits-based reconsideration resulting in another ex parte demand. As the rectified action adversely affected the assessee, notice and compliance with principles of natural justice were required; the proviso permitting rectification without notice did not apply merely because the demand was reduced.

Conclusion: The further ex parte order was impermissible and invalid. The original adjudication required recall and fresh determination only after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with directions to provide the order-in-appeal and permit recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether recovery of the balance tax demand and attachment of the assessee's bank account should continue pending disposal of the statutory appeal.

Analysis: A prima facie case for interim protection was found because amounts exceeding the required pre-deposit had already been recovered or deposited. The merits of the demand, including the question of non-availment of input tax credit, were left for determination by the Appellate Authority.

Outcome: Further coercive recovery was restrained pending the appellate decision, the bank-account attachment was lifted subject to monitoring of adequate balance, and the statutory appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously.

Issues: Whether the substituted proviso to Section 107(6) governing pre-deposit applies to appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The show-cause notices initiating the adjudicatory proceedings were issued in 2020. The applicable appellate pre-deposit regime is determined by the provision in force when those proceedings commenced; consequently, the later substituted proviso does not govern the proposed appeals.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit requirement for the appeals shall be governed by Section 107(6) as it stood when the respective show-cause notices were issued, and not by the proviso substituted with effect from 01.10.2025.

Issues: Whether input tax credit claimed in a return for financial year 2018-19, filed after the earlier deadline but before 30.11.2021, was barred by limitation under Section 16(4).

Analysis: Section 16(5), inserted retrospectively from 01.07.2017, overrides the time limit under Section 16(4) for invoices or debit notes pertaining to financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the return under Section 39 was filed by 30.11.2021. The relevant return was filed on 30.10.2019, within that extended statutory period. Eligibility remained subject to fulfilment of other statutory requirements for input tax credit.

Conclusion: The input tax credit claim was not time-barred, and denial solely on the limitation under Section 16(4) was unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a single show-cause notice under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 may cover multiple financial years; (ii) Whether the availability of a statutory appeal bars writ jurisdiction against the notice and consequential order suffering from an apparent jurisdictional error.

Issue (i): Whether a single show-cause notice under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 may cover multiple financial years.

Analysis: The limitation prescribed for each financial year operates independently. A consolidated notice for multiple financial years cannot be used to extend or bypass the statutory limitation applicable to earlier years. Separate demands raised through DRC-01 for individual years do not cure the foundational invalidity of a common notice issued without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: A single show-cause notice covering multiple financial years was without jurisdiction and invalid in law, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of a statutory appeal bars writ jurisdiction against the notice and consequential order suffering from an apparent jurisdictional error.

Analysis: Where the jurisdictional defect is apparent from the record and requires no factual enquiry, the existence of an appellate remedy does not preclude recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The invalid notice rendered the consequential adjudication order equally without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative appellate remedy, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common notice and all consequential proceedings, including the adjudication order, lack legal efficacy; the revenue authorities may initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory limitation applicable independently to each financial year cannot be circumvented by issuing one consolidated show-cause notice for multiple years, and an apparent jurisdictional defect may be corrected in writ jurisdiction despite an alternative remedy.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal could be condoned to enable adjudication on merits.

Analysis: Although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation framework under Section 107, the stated circumstances preventing timely filing were beyond the assessee's control. Refusal to permit adjudication on merits would cause grave prejudice. The delay of 95 days, reckoned after the available statutory relaxation, was therefore fit to be condoned.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the assessee was permitted to file a fresh appeal for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether GST could be imposed under the assessment order on invoices relating to Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel asserted to be non-GST goods.

Analysis: Registration records and invoices placed on record indicated that the petitioner dealt in petroleum products. Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel were treated as non-GST items, while the assessment appeared to have imposed GST on such items. The resulting jurisdictional defect went to the root of the assessment and justified interference, while leaving fresh determination on the supporting documents and reply to the show-cause notice.

Outcome: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was sent for fresh determination after affording a personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether a common or consolidated show-cause notice may cover multiple financial years; (ii) Whether the appellate order was invalid for denial of an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a common or consolidated show-cause notice may cover multiple financial years.

Analysis: Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 do not prohibit a show-cause notice from covering multiple financial years. The contrary basis on which the writ petition had been allowed could not be sustained.

Conclusion: A common or consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years is maintainable, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order was invalid for denial of an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the appeal.

Analysis: The record of personal hearing showed that the hearing was confined to condonation of delay and included a request for admission of the appeal and a merits hearing. The appeal was decided without affording a hearing on merits, contrary to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The appellate order is invalid for breach of principles of natural justice and the assessee must be afforded a merits hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The legal validity of consolidated notices for multiple financial years is affirmed, while the appellate adjudication requires reconsideration after a proper merits hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory prohibition, a GST show-cause notice may validly consolidate multiple financial years; however, an appellate decision rendered without a hearing on merits violates principles of natural justice.