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.

Issues: Whether the delayed statutory appeal against the GST assessment order should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was presented beyond the ordinary appeal period and the further condonable period under Section 107. Since factual questions required appellate adjudication, and in view of the peculiar circumstances, a further opportunity to prosecute the appeal was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the dismissal and rectification orders relating to the appeal were quashed; the appeal was restored for adjudication after adequate hearing.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration and rejection of its revocation application should be entertained when the GST Tribunal has been constituted and provides an efficacious statutory remedy.

Analysis: Constitution of the GST Tribunal under the statutory appellate framework provided an equally efficacious forum for adjudication on merits. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was therefore declined, while preserving all issues and contentions for determination by the Tribunal. The period spent bona fide pursuing the writ remedy was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes if the Tribunal is approached within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained; the challenge was remitted to the GST Tribunal for adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand as time-barred under Section 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be entertained despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The applicability of the respective limitation starting points under Section 74(10) depended upon the nature of the demand, the underlying proceedings, and the factual basis of adjudication. This involved a debatable factual and legal determination that was appropriately examinable in the statutory appellate remedy rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy; any application for exclusion of the writ-pendency period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is to be considered pragmatically by the Appellate Authority.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's request for time to pay late fee and restoration of GST registration should be considered by the jurisdictional Superintendent.

Analysis: The request rested on asserted financial hardship and the petitioner's proposal to pay the late fee after restoration of portal access. The discretion to consider such request lay with the Superintendent; therefore, no mandamus directing the requested relief was warranted. The petitioner was permitted to place exceptional circumstances before that authority through a representation.

Conclusion: The petitioner may submit a request within four weeks, which shall be considered and decided by the Superintendent within one month of its submission.

Issues: Whether transfer of the taxpayer's GST audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Transfer of a file between wings functioning under the same Commissionerate is an administrative exercise. In the absence of a statutory prohibition under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against such transfer, the transfer alone does not justify writ interference. The record also reflected non-production of requested financial documents during audit. Objections regarding the statutory period for completing the audit may be raised before the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion: The transfer was not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an appeal filed under Section 107(1) beyond the prescribed three-month period and the further condonable period of one month could be entertained.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits an aggrieved person to appeal within three months from communication of the adjudication order. Upon sufficient cause, the Appellate Authority may permit filing only within a further period of one month. The appeal was filed approximately two years after the original order. The statutory scheme does not confer power upon the Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond that additional one-month period, and the alleged delay was not properly explained.

Conclusion: An appeal filed after expiry of the statutory period and the maximum further condonable period cannot be entertained; the dismissal of the time-barred appeal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute prescribes a specific appeal period and a limited further period for condonation upon sufficient cause, the appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that expressly prescribed limit.

Issues: Whether blocking input tax credit under Rule 86-A without recording reasons and without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing is valid.

Analysis: Blocking of input tax credit adversely affects the taxpayer's rights and interests. Although Rule 86-A does not expressly require a prior hearing, the requirement of audi alteram partem must be read into the provision because of the adverse civil consequences of such action. An unexplained blocking of substantial input tax credit is arbitrary and fails the requirements of a reasoned decision and natural justice.

Conclusion: The blocking of input tax credit without reasons and without an adequate opportunity of hearing is invalid; the competent authority may take fresh action under Rule 86-A only after providing such opportunity.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail pending investigation into alleged unregistered manufacture of filtered tobacco and evasion of central excise duty.

Analysis: The allegations concerned operation of an unregistered manufacturing unit using multiple FFS machines, with substantial alleged duty evasion. Material on record indicated the applicant's connection with the premises and manufacturing operations. Ownership and actual duty evasion were matters for trial; however, the investigation and filing of charge-sheet remained pending. Given the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the possibility of the applicant influencing evidence, bail was not considered appropriate at that stage.

Outcome: Regular bail was refused; no final adjudication on guilt, factory ownership, or duty liability was made.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a pending prosecution for alleged large-scale GST evasion.

Analysis: Regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was considered in the context of alleged offences under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record indicated alleged unaccounted purchases, storage and sales without invoices, discrepancies between physical stock and documented stock, and tax evasion of a substantial amount. Multiple notices had been issued, investigation remained pending, and the alleged conduct constituted an economic offence of serious gravity.

Conclusion: Regular bail was refused, against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation into alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit on invoices issued by purportedly fictitious suppliers.

Analysis: The subsequent cancellation of a supplier's GST registration or the supplier's non-existence at the time of investigation does not, by itself, disentitle a purchaser to input tax credit unless collusion between the supplier and purchaser is established. There was no prima facie material showing contravention by the suppliers that could attract the allegation of fraudulent invoices under Section 132(1)(c). The petitioners had previously appeared before the authorities, undertook to produce documents and cooperate, and had no criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation was not necessary.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions ensuring their cooperation with the investigation.

Issues: (i) Whether the tax-demand order invoking Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, without recording material or reasons establishing fraud, concealment or non-payment, was sustainable; (ii) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the tax-demand order invoking Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017, without recording material or reasons establishing fraud, concealment or non-payment, was sustainable.

Analysis: Invocation of Section 74 requires subjective satisfaction founded on material indicating the circumstances warranting that provision. The order neither disclosed the basis for invoking Section 74 nor contained reasons for the tax deficiency, interest and penalty, and was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The order under Section 74 was without jurisdiction, non-speaking and unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred.

Analysis: A patently jurisdictionless, non-speaking and unreasoned assessment order does not preclude exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 merely because the statutory appeal was dismissed on limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax proceedings must be decided afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order invoking the fraud-based assessment provision must disclose the material and reasons establishing its applicability; a jurisdictionally defective and non-speaking order may be corrected in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding a time-barred statutory appeal.