Issues: Whether proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for alleged GST-related tax fraud could be maintained when proceedings concerning the same tax default had already been initiated under the GST enactments.

Analysis: The allegations originated from non-payment of Central and State GST, for which proceedings had already been initiated under the special GST enactments. Sections 4 and 5 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 require offences governed by a special enactment to be investigated and dealt with in the manner prescribed by that enactment. The special statutory procedure therefore prevailed over recourse to the general criminal law.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were impermissible against the applicant, and the charge sheet and cognizance order were set aside qua the applicant.

Issues: (i) Whether an SEZ unit exporting services on payment of integrated tax is entitled to refund where input tax credit was proportionately distributed by an Input Service Distributor; (ii) Whether the declaration under Rule 89(2)(f) is required where input services were not supplied directly to the SEZ unit.

Issue (i): Whether an SEZ unit exporting services on payment of integrated tax is entitled to refund where input tax credit was proportionately distributed by an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis: Export of services is a zero-rated supply under Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A registered person making such supply on payment of integrated tax may claim refund under Section 16(3)(b) read with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Credit validly distributed under Section 20 by an Input Service Distributor may be availed by the SEZ unit and utilised for discharging tax on its exports. The proviso to Rule 89(1), which requires the direct supplier to apply for refund in respect of supplies made to an SEZ unit, applies where the supplier itself makes the zero-rated supply directly to the SEZ unit. It does not bar a refund claim by an SEZ unit that has received proportionate credit through an Input Service Distributor, since no direct supplier can claim that refund and dual claims are thereby avoided.

Conclusion: The SEZ unit is entitled to refund of tax paid on export of services by utilising input tax credit distributed through the Input Service Distributor, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declaration under Rule 89(2)(f) is required where input services were not supplied directly to the SEZ unit.

Analysis: Rule 89(2)(f) concerns supplies made directly to an SEZ unit or developer and requires confirmation that tax was not collected from the SEZ recipient. Where credit is distributed proportionately by an Input Service Distributor and there is no direct supply to the SEZ unit, the factual basis for that declaration does not arise.

Conclusion: The declaration under Rule 89(2)(f) is inapplicable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claims on the ground that an SEZ unit cannot claim refund of ISD-distributed credit, or for want of the specified declaration, is legally unsustainable; the claims require processing in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The supplier-only refund mechanism for direct supplies to an SEZ unit does not preclude an SEZ unit from claiming refund of tax paid on its own zero-rated exports using proportionately distributed Input Service Distributor credit.

Issues: (i) Whether a show-cause notice and adjudication order generated on the GST portal without a digital or physical signature are legally valid; (ii) Whether denial of an effective personal hearing owing to unauthenticated and improperly communicated electronic documents justified exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether a show-cause notice and adjudication order generated on the GST portal without a digital or physical signature are legally valid.

Analysis: Rule 26(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 mandates that electronic notices and orders must be authenticated through a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or another notified mode of signature or verification. Electronic issuance and authentication are cumulative requirements. A system-generated reference number merely tracks the document and cannot establish its authentication, accountability, or application of mind by the proper officer.

Conclusion: An unsigned electronic show-cause notice and adjudication order have no legal existence; the consequential demand and recovery proceedings founded on them are invalid. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of an effective personal hearing owing to unauthenticated and improperly communicated electronic documents justified exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The unauthenticated documents were placed under the portal's additional notices category and were not otherwise served, resulting in the assessee remaining unaware of the proceedings and being unrepresented on the hearing date. This violated the mandatory personal-hearing requirement under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where principles of natural justice are violated.

Conclusion: The denial of an effective opportunity of hearing vitiated the adjudication, and the alternative appellate remedy did not preclude writ relief. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revenue authorities may initiate fresh proceedings only through a duly authenticated notice and after providing an effective opportunity of hearing; the merits of the tax demand remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where electronic tax notices or orders are required to be authenticated, mere portal generation or a document reference number cannot substitute for the prescribed signature or verification; absence of authentication renders the proceedings void.

Issues: Whether the assessment based on contradictory auto-populated input tax credit figures required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: Prima facie contradictions appeared between the auto-populated ITC summary and the ITC reflected in the annual return. The asserted technical or clerical discrepancy required consideration by the adjudicating authority after affording an opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Outcome: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order.

Issues: Whether uploading a show cause notice on the common portal, without effective service on the assessee, could sustain adjudication under Section 74.

Analysis: The governing principle adopted was that mere uploading of a show cause notice on the common portal is not sufficient service where its receipt is not acknowledged and no reply is filed. In such circumstances, an ex parte adjudication cannot be sustained without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to respond and be heard. No factual basis was shown to distinguish the applicable principle.

Conclusion: Uploading the show cause notice on the common portal alone did not constitute adequate service; the assessee was entitled to the consequential restoration of the proceedings and opportunity contemplated by the applicable principle.

Issues: Whether delay in filing a GST appeal could be condoned and the appeal restored for merits adjudication where the order-in-original was allegedly communicated only through uploading on the common portal.

Analysis: The statutory limitation under Section 107 was binding on the Appellate Authority, which lacked power to condone the delay. However, non-adjudication on merits would cause grave prejudice where the petitioner had shown that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond its control and had specifically asserted non-service of the order-in-original. Mere uploading on the common portal, without acknowledged receipt or participation, was treated as insufficient to trigger limitation. The consistent approach permitting merits consideration in such circumstances was applied.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the time-bar dismissal of the appeal was set aside, and the appeal was required to be entertained and adjudicated on merits upon compliance with the stipulated pre-deposit requirement.

Issues: Whether ex parte assessment and appellate orders concerning input tax credit mismatch were passed without adherence to the prescribed verification procedure and adequate opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The impugned orders were passed without following the procedure under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022, which requires the proper officer to obtain invoice-related details and verify satisfaction of the conditions for input tax credit before confirming a mismatch demand. The Court noted the ex parte nature of the consequential orders and required fresh consideration upon a comprehensive representation, while leaving the adjudicating authority free to decide independently on merits.

Conclusion: No final determination was made on the tax demand or entitlement to input tax credit; the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority after affording reasonable hearing.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the State GST show-cause notice and the interlocutory challenge to the Central GST adjudication order warranted exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The State GST show-cause notice stood overtaken by the subsequent Central GST proceedings and adjudication order. The interlocutory challenge to that adjudication order was unrelated to the original writ challenge, and no restraint had prevented the Central GST Proper Officer from initiating proceedings. No jurisdictional error in the adjudication order was established so as to justify exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. However, the petitioners had bona fide pursued the writ proceedings on mistaken legal advice while interim protection remained operative.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice was infructuous and the interlocutory challenge to the adjudication order was misconceived; the petitioners were granted liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, to be considered on merits if filed within 30 days without objection as to limitation.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be revoked to enable the taxpayer to clear statutory dues and resume compliance.

Analysis: The cancellation resulted from continuous non-filing of GST returns. The matter was governed by coordinate-bench orders granting restoration where the taxpayer was permitted to discharge all outstanding statutory dues, penalties and fines, followed by revocation of cancellation. The parties accepted that the same approach applied.

Conclusion: The taxpayer is entitled to revocation of cancellation and restoration of GST registration upon payment of the intimated statutory dues within the prescribed period.

Issues: Whether a pre-arrest bail application was maintainable where the applicant had only been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: A reasonable apprehension of arrest is a pre-condition for invoking pre-arrest bail jurisdiction. The summons required the applicant to appear for recording a statement and tendering documents; it did not indicate any arrest action. The date fixed in the summons had also elapsed. A future statutory notice capable of giving rise to apprehension of arrest had not been issued.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable in the absence of an apprehension of arrest and was decided against the applicant.

Issues: Whether portal-only uploading of notices or orders permits the petitioners to pursue remedial relief where service was not otherwise effected.

Analysis: The respondents could not distinguish the principles applied in the cited decision, under which mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order on the common portal, without acknowledgement or participation by the assessee, is insufficient service. The remedial consequences include restoration of proceedings or appeals, as applicable, and an opportunity to respond or pursue appellate remedies.

Conclusion: The petitioners are entitled to avail the remedies available under the adopted principles governing portal-only service of notices and orders.

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution for alleged fraudulent input tax credit despite the applicant's criminal antecedents.

Analysis: Personal liberty under Article 21, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement of a speedy trial require that pre-trial detention not be punitive. The alleged offence carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by a Magistrate. Investigation was complete, the prosecution rested substantially on documentary material, no charge had been framed, and the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. No material indicated a likelihood of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, evading the process of law, or otherwise subverting justice. Criminal antecedents, without exceptional circumstances demonstrating such risks, could not by themselves justify denial of bail. The absence of assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 could also bear upon the criminal prosecution, although those proceedings remain independent.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail, subject to conditions securing attendance at trial and preventing interference with the proceedings.

Issues: (i) Whether service of the show-cause notice solely by uploading it on the GST portal was valid after cancellation of registration; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing before adverse adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether service of the show-cause notice solely by uploading it on the GST portal was valid after cancellation of registration.

Analysis: Section 169 permits several modes of service and portal-based communication is not an exclusive mode. Following cancellation of registration, the assessee could not be expected to continue monitoring the GST portal. The undisputed service exclusively through the portal therefore did not effect valid communication of the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: Service solely through the GST portal after cancellation of registration was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to an opportunity of personal hearing before adverse adjudication.

Analysis: Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated or a written request is made. Invalid service deprived the assessee of the opportunity to participate in the adjudication.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to a personal hearing before adverse adjudication, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax adjudication founded on ineffective service was set aside, with liberty for fresh notice and adjudication after affording the required hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST registration has been cancelled, service of a notice solely by placing it on the GST portal is not valid service; adverse adjudication must follow effective notice and the statutorily required opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order could be sustained where, after cancellation of GST registration, the show-cause notice was made available only on the GST portal and no effective opportunity of personal hearing was afforded.

Analysis: Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits multiple modes of service and portal-based communication is not the exclusive means where the registration had been cancelled. Effective service must reasonably communicate the notice to the taxable person. Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, embodying the requirement of audi alteram partem. The undisputed facts were governed by the adopted precedent concerning invalid portal-only service following cancellation of registration.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for want of valid service and the required opportunity of personal hearing; the petitioner was entitled to submit a reply and have the matter freshly adjudicated in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy against the ex parte GST adjudication order while being afforded protective directions.

Analysis: Although an appeal was available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the medical exigencies substantiated by the record and the substantial tax, interest and penalty imposed established a prima facie case for protective intervention. Relegation to the appellate forum without such protection would cause prejudice. The merits of the input tax credit demand and the validity of the ex parte adjudication were left for independent determination in appeal.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appeal upon complying with the prescribed pre-deposit and payment of costs; the appellate authority must entertain and decide the appeal independently and expeditiously.

Issues: Whether the assessment orders passed after the assessee did not respond to portal-issued show cause notices should be set aside to permit a reply and fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The notices in DRC-01 had not been answered, while the assessee sought an opportunity to place its merits and supporting documents before the assessing authority and agreed to make a specified deposit. A meaningful opportunity to respond to the notices and substantiate the case warranted fresh consideration, with the deposit operating as a condition for that relief.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were set aside, conditional upon payment of Rs. 50,00,000 in the stipulated instalments and filing a reply with supporting documents; the assessing authority must thereafter make a fresh merits determination after notice.

Issues: Whether the tax-demand order, issued after the petitioner allegedly remained unaware of the show-cause notice because of business closure, should be reconsidered.

Analysis: No merits determination was made. The asserted prior recovery of tax required verification, and an opportunity was provided to file a reply with supporting documents upon payment of any unrecovered balance of disputed tax.

Outcome: The matter was returned for fresh adjudication upon compliance with the stipulated payment and reply requirements.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail pending investigation of allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit through fictitious entities and forged invoices.

Analysis: The firm stood registered in the accused's name, and she was aware that her husband operated it and of its activities. However, she had remained in custody since 15.06.2026; material investigation concerning her appeared complete; certain co-accused had been granted bail; and she was a woman with a minor child while her husband was also in custody. Balancing these circumstances against the nature and gravity of the allegations, further custodial detention was not considered warranted for the investigation.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Outcome: Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether a government works contractor that discharged the incremental GST liability arising from replacement of the VAT regime is entitled to reimbursement from the State as recipient of works contract service.

Analysis: GST was introduced during the currency of the works contract and replaced VAT. The recipient of works contract service bears the differential tax liability attributable to the introduction of GST. Since the contractor had discharged that liability, an enforceable right to tax reimbursement arose, warranting mandamus; the reimbursable amount remains subject to verification of records and calculations.

Conclusion: The contractor is entitled to reimbursement by the State of the verified differential GST liability attributable solely to the introduction of the GST regime, in favour of the assessee.