Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned where the order-in-original was uploaded on the common portal without the petitioner acquiring knowledge of it within the prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 binds the Appellate Authority to the prescribed limitation. However, the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, namely absence of knowledge of the ex parte order uploaded on the portal. Denial of adjudication on merits in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The principles concerning portal-only service and restoration of the appellate remedy were adopted.

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

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal could be condoned where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were not effectively served through the designated portal tab.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 restricts the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay. However, the notice and order were stated to have been uploaded under an incorrect portal tab, and recovery action was initiated only much later. The circumstances supported the assessee's plea that it lacked effective knowledge of the proceedings and could not timely pursue its statutory remedy. Non-adjudication on merits in those circumstances would cause serious prejudice.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the assessee is entitled to have its appeal entertained and adjudicated on merits if filed within the stipulated period.

Issues: Whether delay in filing a GST appeal could be condoned where the assessee lacked effective knowledge of the show-cause notice and adjudication order due to their uploading under a non-designated portal tab.

Analysis: The statutory appellate authority was bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the GST enactments and could not condone delay beyond the prescribed extent. However, the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the assessee's control: the show-cause notice was uploaded under 'Additional Notices and Orders' rather than the designated 'Notices and Orders' tab, resulting in absence of effective knowledge and an ex parte demand. Consistent with the adopted view that portal uploading alone does not constitute sufficient service in the absence of acknowledgement or response, denial of a merits adjudication would cause grave prejudice.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was directed to be entertained and adjudicated on merits. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be condoned and the appeal restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 107(1) and the further condonable period under Section 107(4). The medical condition and advised bed rest asserted as the cause for delay, together with the factual issues raised in the appeal, warranted a further opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the dismissed appeal was restored to the Appellate Authority for adjudication in accordance with law after adequate hearing.

Issues: Validity of the subsequent tax adjudication order and consequential bank-recovery notice for FY 2017-18 after appellate disposal of the original adjudication.

Analysis: The original adjudication for FY 2017-18 had been carried in appeal under Section 107, and the appellate authority had partly allowed that appeal and determined the liability. The subsequent order under Section 74(9), passed for the same financial year without reference to the original adjudication order or its appellate culmination, could not sustain an independent recovery action. The Form GST DRC-13 notice to the bank was consequential to that subsequent order.

Conclusion: The subsequent adjudication order and the consequential Form GST DRC-13 bank-recovery notice were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent adjudication and consequential recovery for the same tax period are unsustainable where the original adjudication has already culminated in an appellate determination and the subsequent order does not account for that appellate outcome.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was sustainable despite failure to address the reply, including the claimed SEZ exemption.

Analysis: The detailed reply and the specific claim for benefit of the exemption applicable to an SEZ were not dealt with. The order merely stated that the contentions were unacceptable and that the scope of service was wide, without disclosing consideration of the material contentions or reasons for rejecting them. Such cryptic and non-speaking treatment did not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned adjudication.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was invalid for want of reasoned consideration, and a fresh determination after hearing is required with all contentions remaining open.

Issues: Prevention of fraudulent GST registrations obtained by misuse of PAN and Aadhaar particulars of innocent persons.

Analysis: The acknowledged persistence of fraudulent GST registrations since the enforcement of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was noted as adversely affecting innocent citizens and causing revenue loss. Suggested safeguards included enhanced identity verification, data-sharing, physical verification and risk-based monitoring.

Outcome: A final opportunity was granted to the concerned GST and police authorities to devise an effective solution, and the matters were listed for further hearing.

Issues: Whether the writ petition should continue after the GST Appellate Tribunal became functional.

Analysis: The writ petition had been entertained because the statutory appellate tribunal was non-functional. Since the tribunal had subsequently been constituted and made functional, the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112 was available. No merits of the penalty proceedings were adjudicated.

Outcome: The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal, which must entertain it without a limitation objection.

Issues: Whether an adjudication initiated by a show-cause notice uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation, could be sustained when the taxpayer was unable to respond.

Analysis: Uploading the show-cause notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, prevented the taxpayer from filing a reply. This amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice. The circumstances warranted interference and a fresh opportunity to answer the proposed demand.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and adjudication order were quashed, with fresh notice, reply, personal hearing, and reasoned adjudication directed.

Issues: Whether the blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A required reconsideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate its input-tax-credit claim.

Analysis: The material prima facie disclosed reasons to believe that the suppliers were non-existent and their registrations had been cancelled, warranting protective action under Rule 86A. To preserve audi alteram partem, the petitioner was to receive a post-decisional personal hearing and an independent, reasoned consideration of its documentary representation.

Outcome: The petitioner was directed to submit a representation, and the competent authority was directed to decide it by a reasoned order after personal hearing.

Issues: Whether an adjudication initiated through a show-cause notice uploaded only under the GST portal's "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation to the assessee, could be sustained where the assessee was thereby unable to submit a reply.

Analysis: Uploading the show-cause notice only in the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, resulted in the assessee being unaware of the notice and unable to respond. The absence of an effective opportunity to reply constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. In the peculiar facts, judicial interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, adjudication order, and consequential notices were quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, with fresh adjudication to follow after issuance of a fresh notice and opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether an adjudication proceeding initiated through a show cause notice uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation to the taxpayer, violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The show cause notice was uploaded only in the specified portal tab and no separate intimation was issued. The taxpayer consequently remained unable to respond before the adjudication order was passed. This denial of a meaningful opportunity to answer the notice constituted a breach of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and adjudication order were quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, with liberty to commence fresh adjudication after issuing a fresh notice and granting an opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be sustained where the assessee had a bona fide and reasonable belief that its services were not taxable.

Analysis: Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 protects an assessee from penalty where reasonable cause for the failure is established. Contemporaneous departmental communications supported the non-taxability view relied upon by the assessee. Further, the final finding that there was no wilful suppression of facts or intent to evade tax, while disallowing the extended limitation period, materially supported the existence of reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was unwarranted and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in the alleged offence concerning wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit.

Analysis: The complaint had been submitted; the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had remained in custody since 15.06.2026, and the trial was likely to take time.

Outcome: Regular bail granted.

Issues: Whether the payments made through Form GST DRC-03 during and following inspection qualified as voluntary payments based on self-ascertainment under the GST law, and whether their refund was liable to be granted.

Analysis: A payment under Section 74(5) must be founded on ascertainment of tax liability and include the requisite interest and penalty. Rule 142(2) requires issuance of an acknowledgement in Form GST DRC-04 for a voluntary DRC-03 payment. No prior demand, assessment, quantification, or material establishing self-ascertainment was shown. The DRC-03 payments recorded nil interest and penalty, no DRC-04 acknowledgement was issued, and one payment followed an unsupported direction for personal appearance. The statutory framework and departmental instructions do not permit recovery during inspection or investigation without following the prescribed process.

Conclusion: The payments were not voluntary self-ascertained payments, and rejection of the refund applications was erroneous; the assessee was entitled to refund of Rs.53,97,352 with interest at 6% per annum from the dates of payment until refund.

Issues: Whether an appellate authority may dismiss a GST appeal for non-prosecution owing to the appellant's absence, instead of deciding it on merits.

Analysis: Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the Appellate Authority to make such inquiry as necessary and pass a just and proper order confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. Section 107(12) further requires a written appellate order stating the points for determination, the decision and reasons. These provisions require adjudication on merits and do not permit dismissal merely for the appellant's non-appearance. The impugned order neither adjudicated the appeal on merits nor contained reasons.

Conclusion: The Appellate Authority could not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ex parte adjudication under Section 74, founded solely on electronic service of a show-cause notice after cancellation of GST registration, could be sustained.

Analysis: The notice was uploaded to the Common Portal more than three years after cancellation of registration. The binding departmental circular requiring physical service of notice in proceedings initiated after such cancellation recognised that a deregistered person may not access or be required to access the portal. Electronic-only service in those circumstances denied an effective opportunity to participate in the adjudication.

Conclusion: An ex parte adjudication founded on electronic-only service after cancellation of registration cannot be sustained; the noticee must receive an effective opportunity to reply, seek necessary documents or cross-examination, and be heard before fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 by Notification No. 20/2024 dated 08.10.2024 applies to pending proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The binding position adopted was that the omission enures to the benefit of assessees in all proceedings pending on that date. Challenges to show-cause notices, orders-in-original and consequential refund claims were directed to be processed on that basis.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) applies for the benefit of assessees in all pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An omission of a restrictive tax-rule provision, where declared applicable to pending matters, must be given effect in all proceedings pending on the date of omission.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked against the adjudication order despite the statutory appellate remedy where the challenges concerned invocation of Section 74, audit proceedings, consideration of the defence, and factual demand findings; (ii) Whether a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years is without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked against the adjudication order despite the statutory appellate remedy where the challenges concerned invocation of Section 74, audit proceedings, consideration of the defence, and factual demand findings.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, except in cases such as breach of fundamental rights, denial of natural justice, patent excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. The challenge to the existence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression under Section 74 required examination of the show cause notice, material, replies and adjudication findings. The audit-related objections, alleged non-consideration of documents, payments or reversals, input-tax-credit eligibility, reverse-charge liability, export material and computation of demand likewise required factual appraisal. The assessee had participated in adjudication, filed its reply and produced supporting material; a dispute over the appreciation of that material did not establish a denial of hearing or a patent jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not liable to be exercised; the stated challenges must be pursued before the statutory appellate authority. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years is without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory expressions permitting notices for any period or such periods do not prohibit a single notice spanning more than one financial year. Although the time limit for passing an order is computed with reference to each financial year, that limitation framework does not mandate separate notices. Any limitation objection concerning a particular year's demand requires examination in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: A consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is not, merely on that account, without jurisdiction. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenges disclose no exceptional circumstance displacing the specialised appellate mechanism, and the assessee may avail the statutory appeal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal precludes writ intervention against GST adjudication where the asserted defects concern evidentiary appreciation or merits and do not establish a patent jurisdictional error or denial of natural justice; a consolidated notice across financial years is not inherently barred by the statutory scheme.

Issues: Whether the ex parte tax determination proceedings required a fresh hearing.

Analysis: The material facts pleaded by the petitioners were not disputed, and the respondents had not filed their affidavit-in-opposition. A fresh opportunity to raise objections was therefore directed, without examining the merits of the tax demand.

Outcome: The respondent authorities were directed to afford a fresh hearing and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.