Issues: Whether the continuation of search proceedings beyond the stated validity of the authorisation and alleged coercive recovery from the petitioner for a supplier's purported wrongful input tax credit warranted interim protection.

Analysis: The respondents' position that a search initiated within the authorisation period may continue thereafter was recorded. The allegation of pressure to discharge the supplier's liability was also noted, and instructions were directed to be obtained.

Outcome: The petitioner may carry on normal business activities, and the authorities shall not take coercive steps or exert pressure to recover the allegedly defaulting supplier's liability until the next listing.

Issues: Whether interim protection should continue pending consideration of challenges to orders raising GST demands where the adjudicating authority recorded inability to reconcile extensive e-way bill, invoice and accounting data.

Analysis: The orders indicated a prima facie inability to analyse and reconcile the delivery channels, e-way bills, invoices and supporting accounting records. The material comprised a substantial volume of entries, e-way bills and invoices, and no further material had been sought from the petitioner for reconciliation. The complexity of the amounts and documents warranted consideration of the petitions.

Outcome: Rule issued and the existing ad-interim relief continued until final disposal of the petitions.

Issues: (i) Whether assignment or acquisition of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot constitutes a taxable supply liable to GST; (ii) Whether input tax credit on GST charged for acquisition of such leasehold rights is blocked under Section 17(5)(d); (iii) Whether proceedings under Section 74(1) could be invoked on the basis of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether assignment or acquisition of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot constitutes a taxable supply liable to GST.

Analysis: Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot transfers benefits arising from immovable property to the assignee, who takes the place of the original lessee. Such a transaction does not fall within the scope of supply under Section 7(1)(a) read with Entry 5(b) of Schedule II and Entry 5 of Schedule III, and is not chargeable to GST under Section 9. GST charged by the supplier on the transaction was therefore without legal authority, and the reversal of credit and interest payment founded on its assumed taxability could not survive.

Conclusion: Assignment or acquisition of the leasehold rights was not a taxable supply, and the tax and interest paid through DRC-03 were liable to be refunded to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit on GST charged for acquisition of such leasehold rights is blocked under Section 17(5)(d).

Analysis: Section 17(5)(d) applies to goods or services received for construction of an immovable property. The transaction involved only acquisition of leasehold rights, without any construction activity. Further, the blocking provision presupposes a lawfully taxable inward supply, which was absent because the underlying assignment was not taxable.

Conclusion: Section 17(5)(d) did not apply, and the demand founded on alleged blocked input tax credit was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether proceedings under Section 74(1) could be invoked on the basis of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The credit was disclosed in statutory returns and books of account, and was reversed with interest before the show-cause notice. As the underlying transaction was not taxable and the alleged blocked credit was misconceived, the statutory prerequisites of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax were not established.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 74(1), including the consequential penalty, was without basis and unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication and appellate orders founded on the assumed taxability of the leasehold-rights transaction, blocked credit, and fraudulent availment of credit were rendered legally ineffective, requiring restoration of the amounts recovered from the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Assignment of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and, being outside the taxable scope of supply, cannot attract blocked-credit restrictions or fraud-based recovery proceedings predicated on GST liability.

Issues: Whether Uttar Pradesh GST authorities could detain and seize goods merely transiting through Uttar Pradesh from Delhi to West Bengal.

Analysis: The goods were undisputedly destined for West Bengal and were only passing through Uttar Pradesh. The applicable precedent establishes that State GST authorities lack territorial jurisdiction to detain or seize goods that are merely in transit through the State and are not intended for delivery there.

Conclusion: The detention, consequential penalty and appellate order were without jurisdiction; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be permitted to avail the statutory appellate remedy despite delay in filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides an appellate remedy against the adjudication order. Direct writ interference was declined for non-exhaustion of that remedy. The delay of 99 days beyond the statutory appeal period was found to have arisen from circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, constituting sufficient cause for permitting recourse to the appeal.

Conclusion: The Appellate Authority shall entertain and decide the appeal on merits if it is filed within 30 days from uploading of the order.

Issues: Whether, following the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause, the restriction under that rule could be applied to a pending claim for refund of integrated tax on exports.

Analysis: The omission of Rule 96(10) was held to have ended the restriction without preserving its operation for pending proceedings. The show-cause notice was issued after the rule had been omitted with effect from 08.10.2024.

Conclusion: The restriction under Rule 96(10) could not be invoked against the assessee, and the show-cause notice and consequential order were quashed.

Issues: Whether a penalty order under Section 129(3) could stand where the person claiming ownership of the detained goods had appeared and produced the e-way bill, tax invoice and bilty, but those materials were not considered.

Analysis: The statutory detention proceedings required consideration of relevant material produced by the person claiming to be the owner of the goods. The e-way bill, tax invoice and bilty produced in support of ownership had not been considered. The authority was also required to consider the issue specified at serial No. 6 of Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018.

Conclusion: The penalty order could not be sustained and was set aside for fresh consideration of the ownership documents in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ex parte assessment order could be sustained where it was not passed on the scheduled hearing date and no notice of the subsequently fixed hearing date was communicated to the assessee.

Analysis: Rules of natural justice require that, where an authority does not decide the matter on the date originally fixed for hearing, it must fix and communicate any subsequent hearing date before proceeding ex parte. Failure to communicate the rescheduled date deprives the assessee of a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing and results in an ex parte order attributable to the authority's own procedure.

Conclusion: The ex parte order passed without notice of the subsequent hearing date was unsustainable for breach of principles of natural justice; the assessee was entitled to a fresh personal hearing and a reasoned determination in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether proceedings and demands founded solely on Rule 96(10), after its unconditional omission without a saving clause, could be sustained.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted with effect from 8 October 2024 without a saving clause. The governing principle is that, absent an express saving provision or a statutory device preserving pending proceedings, an omitted rule ceases to operate and cannot support either initiation or continuation of proceedings. The binding declaration on the omission of Rule 96(10), together with the departmental instruction not to initiate or pursue proceedings under that omitted rule, applied to the proceedings in question.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and consequential orders founded solely on omitted Rule 96(10) were quashed and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under the GST enactments could be sustained when the taxpayer's explanation for turnover mismatch and supporting documents were rejected by a general observation without evaluating their evidentiary efficacy.

Analysis: The reply specifically attributed the mismatch between returns to duplicate uploading of invoices and erroneous tax rates, and was supported by invoices, sales-ledger extracts and statements. A meaningful opportunity required evaluation of those documents and reasons for treating them as insufficient. A bare statement that the documents were inadequate did not meet that requirement.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for failure to afford meaningful consideration of the taxpayer's explanation and evidence; the matter must be decided afresh after considering the relevant documents. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the search authorization and consequential proceedings were invalid for want of reasons to believe or a Document Identification Number; (ii) Whether scrutiny under Section 61 and issuance of FORM GST ASMT-10 were mandatory before initiation of demand proceedings founded on search and investigation; (iii) Whether a consolidated show-cause notice invoking Sections 74 and 74A for different financial years was without jurisdiction; (iv) Whether the proposal of penalties under Sections 74/74A and 122 in the same notice violated Section 75(13); (v) Whether the allegations of suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement and quantification of demand warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the search authorization and consequential proceedings were invalid for want of reasons to believe or a Document Identification Number.

Analysis: Section 67(2) requires the competent officer to have formed reasons to believe before issuing written search authorization in FORM GST INS-01 under Rule 139(1). Existence of INS-01 does not itself establish fulfilment of that condition, but non-supply of recorded reasons to the taxable person does not establish their absence. The adjudicating authority must verify the original authorization and contemporaneous departmental record to determine whether the requisite belief existed before authorization. The applicability of the DIN circulars, any permissible exception, and regularization are factual matters requiring verification of records.

Conclusion: The search authorization and consequential proceedings were not liable to be quashed at this stage; the issues concerning contemporaneous reasons and DIN are to be determined in adjudication. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether scrutiny under Section 61 and issuance of FORM GST ASMT-10 were mandatory before initiation of demand proceedings founded on search and investigation.

Analysis: Section 61 and Rule 99 govern discrepancies detected on scrutiny of returns. That procedure is mandatory where a demand rests on such scrutiny, but is not an indispensable preliminary stage for every investigation. The proposed demand was founded on search, records allegedly found during investigation, software entries, slip pads, statements and third-party information, rather than on return scrutiny alone.

Conclusion: Absence of proceedings under Section 61 and FORM GST ASMT-10 did not invalidate the notice where the demand was founded on search and investigation. Against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a consolidated show-cause notice invoking Sections 74 and 74A for different financial years was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: No statutory prohibition prevents a consolidated notice covering multiple financial years. Nevertheless, liability must be determined separately for each year under the provision applicable to that year, with independent consideration of limitation and the statutory ingredients for invoking Sections 74 and 74A.

Conclusion: The consolidated notice was not without jurisdiction merely because it covered different financial years and invoked Sections 74 and 74A. Against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the proposal of penalties under Sections 74/74A and 122 in the same notice violated Section 75(13).

Analysis: Section 75(13) prohibits more than one penalty on the same person for the same act or omission; it does not prohibit reference to Sections 74/74A and 122 in a single show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority must ensure that the same act or omission is not subjected to double penalty.

Conclusion: The combined proposal of penalties did not invalidate the proceedings at the notice stage. Against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the allegations of suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement and quantification of demand warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The notice contained quantified allegations of undisclosed taxable supplies based on business records, software entries, slip pads, statements and third-party information. Whether those materials establish suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement, and whether the turnover and tax quantification are correct, require factual appraisal, reconciliation and consideration of the payment made through DRC-03. Such matters fall within statutory adjudication unless the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or suffers from a patent legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The factual allegations and quantification did not warrant writ interference and must be resolved by the adjudicating authority. Against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The notice and search-related action remain subject to statutory adjudication, with separate year-wise application of the relevant demand provisions and an opportunity to raise factual and legal objections before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST demand notice founded on search and investigation is not invalid merely because prior return scrutiny was not undertaken, and disputed factual allegations of suppression and quantification ordinarily require statutory adjudication rather than writ determination.

Issues: Whether adjudication and appellate orders could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the portal tab 'Additional Notice and Orders', without separate intimation, resulting in the assessee being unable to respond.

Analysis: The notice was uploaded only in the specified portal tab and no separate intimation was given. The assessee was consequently unable to file a reply to the show-cause notice. Since the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal solely on limitation and had not considered the merits, the denial of an effective opportunity to respond constituted a breach of principles of natural justice warranting interference.

Conclusion: The adjudication and appellate orders could not be sustained; the assessee must be afforded an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and receive a fresh reasoned determination after hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be appropriated towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the statutory appellate remedy should be preserved after rectification of an erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 and portal-related filing difficulties.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be appropriated towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(6) requires payment of the prescribed pre-deposit, while Section 49(4) permits utilisation of credit in the electronic credit ledger subject to statutory restrictions. A restriction under Rule 86A prevents debit of the blocked credit for discharge of liability; blocking neither constitutes payment nor appropriation against an adjudicated demand. The adjudication order contained no appropriation of the petitioner's blocked credit. The subsisting restrictions were imposed by an authority not impleaded in the writ proceedings, and the underlying orders, recorded reasons, and current running credit balance were unavailable for review.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, the blocked credit could not be treated as payment of, or appropriated towards, the statutory pre-deposit unless the competent authority removes or modifies the Rule 86A restriction. Credit otherwise lawfully available and capable of debit may be used for the pre-deposit.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory appellate remedy should be preserved after rectification of an erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 and portal-related filing difficulties.

Analysis: The erroneous summary order had caused the portal to compute the pre-deposit on the combined tax and penalty amount, and the error was rectified only after the petitioner had attempted to file its appeal and pursued rectification. The merits of the input tax credit demand involve disputed factual questions requiring consideration by the statutory appellate authority.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the petitioner was permitted to file the statutory appeal within four weeks without rejection on limitation, subject to compliance with Section 107(6). Necessary electronic filing assistance was directed, with manual filing available if the portal continued to prevent filing despite compliance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax demand and to the validity of the Rule 86A restrictions remains open for adjudication before the competent forum, while the petitioner's access to the statutory appeal is protected.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit blocked from debit under Rule 86A cannot satisfy a statutory pre-deposit requirement merely because it is unavailable to the registered person; it must be lawfully debit-able or the restriction must first be removed or modified by the competent authority.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under Section 74 could be maintained without an effective opportunity to respond where the registration had been cancelled and a change of address had been communicated.

Analysis: Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governed the initiated proceedings, while the possibility of action under Section 73 remained in issue. Cancellation of registration, the communicated address for correspondence, and the absence of an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause proceedings implicated procedural fairness and the right to be heard. The asserted voluntary reversal of excess input tax credit before initiation of the proceedings also required an opportunity to contest the continuation and characterisation of the proceedings. The merits of the show-cause notice, including the applicability of Sections 74 and 73, were left open.

Conclusion: An adjudication founded on the absence of a reply could not be sustained in the stated circumstances without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to respond; the substantive questions concerning the proposed proceedings remained open.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned and the appeal considered on merits.

Analysis: Although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation prescribed under the GST enactments, the delay arose from circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including lack of effective knowledge of the proceedings and order. Refusal to permit merits adjudication in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The consistent approach permitting delayed appeals to be entertained on merits was applied.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the assessee was entitled to have its appeal entertained and adjudicated on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal as barred by limitation resulted in merger of the original GST-registration cancellation order and precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the GST-registration cancellation order, passed upon non-response to the show-cause notice, warranted interference and restoration of registration.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal as barred by limitation resulted in merger of the original GST-registration cancellation order and precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appellate order was a summary rejection on limitation and did not adjudicate the merits of the cancellation order. Such rejection did not cause merger of the original order and did not restrict jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The time-barred appellate dismissal did not result in merger or bar writ relief, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the GST-registration cancellation order, passed upon non-response to the show-cause notice, warranted interference and restoration of registration.

Analysis: The failure to respond to the show-cause notice was attributed to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. A justice-oriented approach warranted one further opportunity, with the assessee undertaking to file returns and discharge outstanding tax liabilities.

Conclusion: The cancellation order warranted being set aside and the GST registration restored upon compliance with the stipulated return-filing and payment requirements, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The original cancellation was removed and the assessee became entitled to restoration of GST registration on fulfilment of the specified fiscal compliances.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary appellate rejection solely on limitation does not merge the original order or preclude constitutional writ jurisdiction where justice warrants substantive relief.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory appeal beyond the period prescribed for appeal and condonation could be condoned.

Analysis: Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes a three-month period for filing an appeal, while Section 107(4) permits condonation for a further period of one month upon sufficient cause. The appeal was filed beyond those periods. Having regard to the extent of delay, the factual matters requiring consideration in appeal, and the applicable co-ordinate bench decision, relief was considered expedient.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appellate order was set aside; the appellate authority must proceed in accordance with law, with all merits contentions kept open.

Issues: Whether an appeal dismissed for the petitioner's non-appearance should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The stated inability of the petitioner's auditor/tax consultant to attend the notified hearings was accepted as sufficient to restore the appeal, while safeguarding the proceedings through imposition of costs and directions for appearance before the appellate authority.

Outcome: The appellate dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for further proceedings, subject to payment of costs; merits were kept open.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand should be entertained despite the unavailed statutory appellate remedy and the delay in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The statutory appeal mechanism was available but had not been invoked. The petition was instituted more than a year after the impugned demand order. The merits of the demand and the alleged breach of natural justice were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined; the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether service-tax liability could be sustained without examining whether turnover from trading in farm products was taxable and without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond.

Analysis: The impugned adjudication recorded non-filing of a response and non-attendance at hearings. However, the material question whether the stated turnover from trading in farm products was exigible to service tax had not been considered. A sustainable liability required due consideration of taxability after affording an opportunity to place a response and supporting documents.

Conclusion: The liability could not be sustained without fresh consideration of the taxability of the turnover after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.