Issues: Whether the mandatory appellate pre-deposit could be adjusted against input tax credit already recovered from the electronic credit ledger, warranting restoration of the appeal for decision on merits.

Analysis: Section 107(6)(b) requires payment of 10% of the disputed tax for maintaining an appeal. The credit already recovered exceeded the prescribed pre-deposit, and adjustment of electronic credit ledger balance towards that requirement was permissible in the peculiar facts, consistently with the applicable approach to utilisation of such credit for pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The recovered credit shall be adjusted towards the statutory pre-deposit, and the appeal shall be restored for adjudication on merits. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the digitally signed portal order and its annexure jointly constituted an authenticated adjudication sustaining the fourth input-tax-credit demand; (ii) Whether the corrigendum validly rectified the inconsistent portal recital under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (iii) Whether availability of the statutory summaries in FORM GST DRC-07 and FORM GST DRC-08 was required for enforcement and appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the digitally signed portal order and its annexure jointly constituted an authenticated adjudication sustaining the fourth input-tax-credit demand.

Analysis: Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires determination through an adjudication order, and Section 75(6) requires that order to state relevant facts and the basis of decision. The portal order expressly adopted the reasons and details in the attached annexure. The annexure recorded rejection of the claim on the fourth issue and quantified tax, interest and penalty. The documents were uploaded together and had to be read as a composite order; the portal recital of dropping proceedings could not be read in isolation. The digital authentication of the portal order extended to the annexure incorporated by it, which was not an independent unsigned order.

Conclusion: The composite order validly sustained the determination on the fourth issue against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the corrigendum validly rectified the inconsistent portal recital under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 161 permits correction of an error apparent on the face of the record but does not permit a fresh merits adjudication. The contradiction between the portal recital dropping proceedings and the incorporated annexure confirming the fourth demand was apparent from the original composite order. The corrigendum retained relief on the first three issues and neither introduced fresh reasons nor enlarged the pre-existing demand. As the original adjudication had already determined the fourth issue adversely, the correction did not adversely alter the assessee's position so as to require a further hearing under the third proviso to Section 161. Issued within six months, it was a timely rectification rather than a fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was a valid rectification under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether availability of the statutory summaries in FORM GST DRC-07 and FORM GST DRC-08 was required for enforcement and appeal.

Analysis: Rule 142(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires uploading of the summary of an adjudication order in FORM GST DRC-07, while Rule 142(7) requires FORM GST DRC-08 for rectification under Section 161. These forms are summaries distinct from the adjudication itself. The record did not establish whether the forms were presently available; consequently, no factual finding was required. Compliance with the prescribed summaries remained mandatory to enable enforcement and the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The statutory summaries, if not already available, must be uploaded and made available to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The determinations on authentication and rectification govern the statutory appeal, while the merits of the fourth demand and any surviving limitation issue within appellate jurisdiction remain open for independent adjudication after the required documents and statutory summaries are furnished.

Ratio Decidendi: An electronically authenticated order that expressly incorporates an attached speaking annexure must be read as one composite adjudication, and an internal inconsistency in its portal-generated recital may be corrected under the statutory rectification power where the correction neither reopens merits nor enlarges the original determination.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained where the order failed to consider the assessee's reply asserting that an earlier show-cause notice on the same grounds had been dropped.

Analysis: The show-cause notice invoked Rule 21(b) on the allegation of invoices being issued without supply. The reply specifically asserted that earlier proceedings founded on the same reasons had already been dropped and that no further particulars or fresh queries were provided. The cancellation order did not address this material response and merely recorded the allegation of circular transactions. A registration-cancellation order must disclose consideration of the reply and contain reasons dealing with material objections.

Conclusion: The cancellation order could not stand because it was unreasoned and did not consider the material reply; the matter requires fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication could be sustained where, after cancellation of registration, the show-cause notice was served only through the common portal without physical service.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was issued more than four years after cancellation of registration and was uploaded only on the common portal. The binding departmental circular required physical service upon persons against whom adjudication proceedings were initiated after cancellation of registration. A person whose registration has been cancelled may not operate the portal and may consequently remain unaware of proceedings commenced through it.

Conclusion: Service solely through the common portal after cancellation of registration was insufficient in the circumstances, and the resulting ex parte adjudication was invalid.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of as the refund claim was entertained and allowed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's access to furnish Form GSTR-1 on the GST common portal should be restored pending consideration of the departmental proceedings.

Analysis: The request for restoration required consideration of the petitioner's response and supporting documents in the pending departmental adjudication. No finding was rendered on the allegations concerning the registration or on the petitioner's entitlement to portal access.

Outcome: The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation to the issuing authority, which must decide it by a reasoned order after personal hearing; portal activation was directed only if the authority finds the petitioner to be a bona fide registered proprietor.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under the GST law could be sustained without affording a personal hearing where an adverse decision was contemplated.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The show-cause notices did not provide the petitioner a personal hearing. The notices and adjudication order were uploaded only under the portal tab titled 'Additional Notice and Orders', which resulted in a delayed reply and supported the procedural challenge.

Conclusion: The adjudication was invalid for denial of the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing and required fresh determination after considering the reply.

Issues: Whether petitioner No. 1 was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The allegations prima facie disclosed the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy involving forged invoices issued in the names of non-existent firms, collection of tax amounts without their deposit, and resultant wrongful loss. The investigation was at a nascent stage, and custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the manner of commission of the offences and to obtain material establishing the petitioner's connection with the fictitious firm. Pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy to be exercised cautiously, and no exceptional circumstance was established.

Conclusion: Petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether cognizance of alleged offences for non-compliance with summons could be taken without proof that the summons had been duly served and received.

Analysis: Sections 206 and 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 required a sustainable basis for alleging deliberate or wilful non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The available material contained only tracking records and did not establish due service or acknowledgment of the summons. Mere issuance of summons, without proof of service, could not establish deliberate disobedience or evasion, nor disclose a prima facie case for taking cognizance.

Conclusion: The refusal to take cognizance was sustained, as absence of proof of due service of summons precluded a prima facie allegation of wilful non-compliance.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred was sustainable where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation.

Analysis: The materials indicated that the relevant notice and adjudication order were uploaded only in the specified portal tab and that no separate intimation was given. This prevented the petitioner from responding to the proceedings. As the appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without considering its merits, the circumstances disclosed a violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference.

Conclusion: The limitation-based appellate order was quashed, and the appeal was required to be admitted and decided afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether failure to issue the notice under Section 129(3) within seven days of detention and seizure of goods and conveyance vitiates the consequential penalty proceedings.

Analysis: Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes mandatory timelines governing detention, seizure and penalty proceedings. The prescribed period protects against arbitrary or prolonged exercise of coercive powers and requires strict compliance. The goods and conveyance were detained on 02.09.2024, whereas the notice was issued only on 11.09.2024 and uploaded thereafter, beyond the stipulated seven-day period.

Conclusion: The delay in issuing the notice breached the mandatory requirement of Section 129(3) and vitiated the detention-and-penalty proceedings; the appellate and proper-officer orders could not stand.

Issues: Whether the ten-percent penalty pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 107(6) applied where the adjudication order imposed tax, interest and penalty, but the tax and interest had already been paid.

Analysis: The proviso applies only where an order demands penalty without involving any demand of tax. The adjudication order had confirmed liabilities towards tax, interest and penalty, while appropriating the tax and interest already paid. The subsequent recovery order being confined to penalty did not alter the character of the adjudication order as one involving a demand of tax.

Conclusion: The penalty pre-deposit proviso was inapplicable; rejection of the statutory appeal on that basis was invalid, and the appeal is to be adjudicated on merits.

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed pursuant to a show-cause notice contemplating an adverse decision is sustainable without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The undisputed absence of such hearing, despite the show-cause notice contemplating an adverse order, constituted non-compliance with the statutory requirement. The taxpayer must be permitted to respond to the notice, and the proper officer must thereafter decide the matter after hearing the taxpayer and by a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The assessment order is unsustainable for breach of the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement; the taxpayer is entitled to fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an appeal may be filed manually where the rectification order is unavailable on the common portal.

Analysis: The amended appellate procedure permits manual filing of an appeal in FORM GST APL-01 with relevant documents where the order challenged is unavailable on the common portal.

Outcome: The petitioner was permitted to file the appeal within four weeks, without a limitation objection, for decision on merits.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order founded on an analytics report could stand when that relied-upon report was not furnished to the petitioner.

Analysis: The analytics report formed the basis of the classification dispute concerning basic customs duty. Extracting its parameters, entries and core findings in the show-cause notice did not provide an adequate opportunity to meet the case. The relied-upon report and documents were required to be disclosed to comply with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the analytics report vitiated the adjudication order; the matter requires fresh adjudication after disclosure of the relied-upon material.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail in alleged GST-evasion offences.

Analysis: The investigation had concluded; the petitioners had remained in custody for about four months; and the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years and were triable by a Magistrate. The proposed evidence was documentary and the witnesses were official, making the likelihood of witness influence or evidence tampering negligible. As the trial had not commenced and was unlikely to conclude shortly, continued pre-trial detention was not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to regular bail, subject to appropriate safeguards.

Issues: Whether ex parte appellate orders passed after the company's winding up, without notice to or hearing through the liquidator, could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that pending legal proceedings by or against a company in winding up cannot be proceeded with except with the Tribunal's leave. The provision expressly encompasses proceedings pending on the date of the winding-up order. Following winding up, the liquidator steps into the company's position, and an effective opportunity to prosecute the pending appeals must be afforded through the liquidator. The appellate orders had been passed ex parte without considering the company's case.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate orders were set aside, and the appeals were remitted for fresh adjudication after notice and personal hearing to the liquidator.

Issues: (i) Whether the substituted pre-deposit proviso in Section 107(6) applies to appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before 01.10.2025; (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the statutory appeal, including on the alleged incompetence of the officer initiating Section 122 proceedings.

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

Analysis: The conditions governing a statutory appeal are governed by the law prevailing when the adjudicatory proceedings commence. Every show-cause notice in the batch had been issued before 01.10.2025, when the substituted proviso was brought into force. The amended pre-deposit condition therefore could not govern the resulting appeals.

Conclusion: The substituted proviso to Section 107(6) does not apply to the appeals; they are governed by the pre-deposit provision in force on the respective dates of the show-cause notices, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the statutory appeal, including on the alleged incompetence of the officer initiating Section 122 proceedings.

Analysis: The proper-officer objection required construction of the function-specific definition in Section 2(91), the powers under Sections 3 and 5, Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax, Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax and the subsequent Circular dated 27.10.2025. The notifications investing DGGI officers with powers corresponding to their rank prevented the objection from establishing a patent lack of jurisdiction. The remaining challenges concerning evidence, natural justice, individual roles, quantification and multiple penalties involved extensive disputed factual material suitable for the appellate forum. The statutory appeal was efficacious because the amended pre-deposit requirement was inapplicable.

Conclusion: No exceptional ground justified bypassing the alternative remedy under Section 107; the jurisdictional and other challenges may be raised before the Appellate Authority, against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The appellate forum must determine the parties' factual and legal objections independently, while applying the pre-amendment pre-deposit regime to these appeals.

Issues: (i) Whether an order under Section 74A(5) could be passed without granting a personal hearing after issuance of the notice where an adverse decision was contemplated; (ii) Whether an order could be passed before expiry of the sixty-day period available for payment of tax and interest under Section 74A(8)(ii).

Issue (i): Whether an order under Section 74A(5) could be passed without granting a personal hearing after issuance of the notice where an adverse decision was contemplated.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates a hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The notice in question itself stated that personal hearing was not applicable, and no hearing was afforded after its issuance. An earlier hearing concerning a different input-tax-credit mismatch matter did not satisfy the statutory right to personal hearing in relation to the notice giving rise to the impugned order. This constituted a breach of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The order under Section 74A(5), having been passed without the mandatory opportunity of hearing, was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an order could be passed before expiry of the sixty-day period available for payment of tax and interest under Section 74A(8)(ii).

Analysis: Section 74A(8)(ii) permits payment of the demanded tax with applicable interest under Section 50 within sixty days from the show-cause notice, upon which no penalty is payable and the proceedings stand concluded. The impugned order was admittedly made before expiry of that statutory period, defeating the statutory period for payment available to the assessee.

Conclusion: The order passed before expiry of the sixty-day period under Section 74A(8)(ii) was contrary to law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and rectification orders were invalid for denial of the statutory hearing and curtailment of the statutory payment period; costs were imposed on the officer concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse GST determination cannot validly be made without the hearing mandated by Section 75(4), nor before expiry of the statutory period expressly granted under Section 74A(8)(ii) for payment of tax and interest.