Issues: Whether continuation of the debit freeze on the assessee's bank account after expiry of the statutory period for provisional attachment was legally permissible.

Analysis: Section 110(5) permits provisional attachment of a bank account for a maximum of six months, extendable by a further period not exceeding six months only for recorded reasons and upon intimation of the extension. The investigation had concluded, the show-cause notice had been adjudicated, and the assessee had filed an appeal after making the statutory pre-deposit. No material or statutory authority supported continuation of the debit freeze beyond one year or after conclusion of the investigation. Continued freezing in those circumstances operated coercively without legal sanction.

Conclusion: Continuation of the debit freeze beyond the permissible statutory period was impermissible and the account was required to be defreezed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the tax demand order and the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred should be set aside to afford the assessee an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed under Sections 73(9), 122(2)A and 50 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without a reply to the show-cause notice, and the appellate challenge was rejected under Section 107(11) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The inability to file a reply and contest the proceedings was accepted as arising from bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. A justice-oriented approach required a further opportunity, with costs, for a fresh determination after allowing the assessee to place replies and documents and receive a reasonable hearing.

Conclusion: The demand order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration from the stage of filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration, followed by dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation, warranted reconsideration where the personal hearing fixed in the show-cause notice was not a meaningful opportunity and the assessee had subsequently filed returns and paid outstanding dues.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The hearing date was fixed before expiry of the period allowed for furnishing a reply to the show-cause notice, rendering the hearing an empty formality. The assessee had subsequently filed the pending GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns and paid the tax, late fee and penalty. Permanent cancellation of registration could cause civil death to the business.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside. The assessee may apply for revocation of cancellation within three weeks, and the competent authority must decide that application on merits without rejecting it solely on limitation.

Issues: Whether a taxpayer is entitled to proportionate refund of the statutory pre-deposit attributable to the demand set aside in first appeal, notwithstanding its intended further appeal against the surviving demand.

Analysis: Under Section 107(6) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, refund of pre-deposit is admissible once appellate proceedings attain finality. The first appellate order had set aside 64% of the original demand, and the department had not challenged that relief. The taxpayer's intended appeal concerned only the balance demand sustained against it; consequently, finality attached separately to the portion of demand deleted in appeal. A statutory pre-deposit is in the nature of a security deposit and, upon appellate relief, its retention without authority is impermissible. The appellate order, insofar as it set aside the demand, was binding under Section 107(16) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The taxpayer was entitled to refund of the proportionate pre-deposit attributable to the demand set aside in appeal; the rejection founded on absence of finality of the entire appellate proceedings was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the six-month period prescribed under Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax for seeking rectification to avail the benefit of Section 16(5) provides adequate statutory safeguards under Section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 16(5) confers entitlement to input tax credit for the specified financial years where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021, without prescribing a period for an application to obtain that benefit. Although Section 148 permits a special procedure, the procedure must contain safeguards. The absence of a mechanism to extend the six-month application period where a taxpayer is prevented by sufficient cause may defeat the benefit created by Section 16(5).

Outcome: Notice issued to the newly added respondents and the matter listed for further consideration.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 may consolidate alleged tax shortfalls for multiple financial years/tax periods.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the tax liability and assessment for each financial year as distinct, with the limitation for demand and recovery operating separately from the due date of the annual return relating to that year. A composite notice would aggregate tax periods having separate returns, due dates and limitation periods, contrary to this year-wise structure. The binding decisions within the Bombay High Court jurisdiction governed the issue; the in-limine dismissal of a challenge to a contrary decision of another High Court did not attract the doctrine of merger or displace that binding position.

Conclusion: A notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot consolidate multiple financial years or tax periods; proceedings must be initiated separately in accordance with the statutory year-wise framework.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal after its constitution, notwithstanding expiry of the prescribed period for appeal.

Outcome: Liberty was granted to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days, with the period during which the writ petition remained pending to be taken into account, subject to statutory compliance.

Issues: Whether an assessment order confirming the show-cause proposal without a reply could be quashed and restored for fresh adjudication despite expiry of the statutory appellate period.

Analysis: The assessment had confirmed the show-cause proposal in the absence of a reply, and the period for appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments had expired. The petitioner undertook to make a specified cash pre-deposit after adjustment of amounts already recovered and to submit a reply with supporting documents. Fresh adjudication was directed on compliance with these requirements, with recovery remaining subject to verification.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication, conditional upon the stipulated pre-deposit and filing of reply.

Issues: Whether the blocking of input tax credit was liable to be interfered with after cancellation of registration and initiation of proceedings concerning credit availed from non-existing taxpayers.

Analysis: The registered person had closed its business and its registration had been cancelled, but disclosed no intended use for the blocked credit. Separate proceedings had also been initiated in relation to input tax credit availed from non-existing taxpayers. These circumstances warranted participation in the statutory proceedings rather than interference with the credit-blocking order.

Conclusion: The blocking of input tax credit was not interfered with and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for failure to respond to the show-cause notice should be sustained where the non-response was attributed to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances.

Analysis: The cancellation followed the petitioner's failure to reply to a notice that had been sent by email. In view of the stated bona fide reasons and sufficient cause for the omission, a justice-oriented approach warranted a further opportunity to comply with GST obligations.

Conclusion: The cancellation of GST registration was set aside and restoration of registration was directed, conditional upon filing pending returns and payment of outstanding tax, interest and penalty. The conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice and consequential tax determination issued in the name of a deceased proprietor, without notice to the legal representatives, are legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 93(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creates liability of legal representatives, limited to the estate inherited from the deceased, but does not provide machinery to assess a deceased person. The machinery for determination under Section 74 requires notice to the person liable. A notice issued to a deceased person is a nullity; the legal representatives must instead be independently served with a notice and afforded an opportunity to respond and be heard before liability is determined.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, consequential order of determination and recovery notice issued in the deceased proprietor's name were invalid. Fresh proceedings may be initiated by issuing and manually serving a show-cause notice upon the legal representatives, followed by adjudication after hearing them.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition remained maintainable despite the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the Order in Original was liable to be quashed for non-application of mind, breach of principles of natural justice, and invalid invocation of Section 74 for Financial Year 2018-19.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition remained maintainable despite the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the original adjudication was alleged to be non-speaking, to have disregarded the reply and supporting documents, and to suffer from jurisdictional infirmity. These circumstances brought the matter within the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the Order in Original was liable to be quashed for non-application of mind, breach of principles of natural justice, and invalid invocation of Section 74 for Financial Year 2018-19.

Analysis: The notice did not dispute possession of suppliers' tax invoices or receipt of goods and services. The material placed on record also showed proceedings against the defaulting supplier. Mere non-reflection of invoices in GSTR-2A could not, by itself, result in automatic denial of input tax credit to a bona fide purchaser, particularly absent an allegation of collusion; the issue required reconsideration in light of the binding precedent identified in the order.

Analysis: For Financial Year 2018-19, the notice was ex facie beyond the ordinary limitation under Section 73(10). Section 74 was invoked through unparticularised references to fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression, without material disclosing how those ingredients were attracted. The adjudication also failed to deal with the reply and documents, contrary to the requirement of a reasoned order and fair hearing.

Conclusion: The Order in Original and consequential recovery notice were invalidated; the adjudicating authority was required to conduct fresh, reasoned adjudication after considering the reply, relevant documents and binding precedents, with an opportunity of personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The statutory demand could not stand on an unreasoned adjudication founded, for Financial Year 2018-19, on a mechanically invoked extended-limitation provision; the substantive input-tax-credit claim remains for fresh determination in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under Section 74 cannot be invoked through bare allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression without material particulars establishing those statutory ingredients.

Issues: Whether the FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, forgery and fraudulent GST transactions should be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction on the ground that the dispute arose from contractual supply agreements and was purely civil in nature.

Analysis: The contractual indemnity and remedial clauses preserved remedies available in law and did not exclude criminal proceedings where cognizable offences were prima facie disclosed. The material indicated that the agent introduced allegedly bogus and non-existent suppliers, furnished documents to establish their purported genuineness, and facilitated transactions supported by allegedly fabricated GST invoices, e-way bills, KYC documents and registrations. These allegations indicated dishonest intention at inception, inducement to release substantial payments, and a prima facie conspiracy; they were not confined to subsequent non-performance of contractual obligations. Civil and criminal liability may coexist where the alleged conduct involves deception, forgery and financial fraud. Questions concerning proof of criminal breach of trust and connivance require determination at trial.

Conclusion: The FIR prima facie disclosed cognizable criminal offences and did not warrant quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Issues: Whether an adverse GST adjudication order could be sustained without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. It was undisputed that no personal hearing had been granted before the impugned order was made. The established application of the provision required the adjudication to conform to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adverse order could not be sustained without a personal hearing; fresh proceedings may be undertaken only after affording the assessee due opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the assertion that proceedings under Rule 88C had concluded upon acceptance of the response required determination before adjudication under Section 73 could be sustained.

Analysis: The asserted culmination of the Rule 88C process had not been verified or examined. A response setting out the relevant details was required to determine whether that process had concluded in the petitioner's favour and, if so, its effect on the sustainability of the Section 73 proceedings.

Outcome: The adjudication order was quashed and the matter was restored for reconsideration.

Issues: Whether a works contractor is entitled to reimbursement from the State of the differential GST liability incurred due to the introduction of the GST regime during the currency of the contract.

Analysis: The introduction of GST replaced the earlier VAT regime and imposed an additional tax burden in relation to the works contract. The recipient of the works contract service is liable to bear the differential tax attributable to the introduction of GST. Having discharged that differential liability, the contractor acquired a corresponding right to reimbursement, subject to verification of the relevant records and calculations.

Conclusion: The contractor is entitled to determination and reimbursement by the State authorities of the differential GST liability attributable to the introduction of the GST regime.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was invalid for failure to afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing as required by law.

Analysis: The last three hearing dates were not intimated to the petitioner through the common portal, a fact not disputed by the revenue. The mandatory requirement of personal hearing under Section 75(4) was therefore not complied with.

Conclusion: The statutory requirement of personal hearing was breached, and the petitioner was entitled to fresh adjudication after adequate advance notice of hearing.

Issues: Whether registration could be cancelled on the basis that the enterprise appeared in a list of fake entities, without physical verification of its business premises.

Analysis: Cancellation under Section 29(2)(e) requires the proper officer to form an opinion that registration was obtained through fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, after due opportunity. Where the proposed action is founded on a list identifying entities as fake, physical verification under Rule 25 is necessary to ascertain whether the registered person is genuinely carrying on business, particularly where the response includes material concerning proceedings initiated by State authorities.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and cancellation order, founded solely on the list without physical verification, could not be sustained. Fresh action may be taken after verification in accordance with Rule 25.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory GST appeal as time-barred should be set aside and the appeal directed to be decided on merits.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed on the basis that the delay exceeded the Appellate Authority's statutory power of condonation. The petitioner sought adjudication on merits, and the respondents agreed to comply with a direction for such adjudication. Complete relevant documents were also directed to be supplied before further proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a speaking and reasoned decision on merits after hearing the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the period spent in prosecuting an application for rectification must be excluded in computing the limitation for filing an appeal under the GST enactments.

Analysis: The statutory appeal had been dismissed as filed beyond the maximum period contemplated under Section 107. The rectification application under Section 161 was pursued after the adjudication order, and it was undisputed that, on excluding the period consumed in those proceedings, the appeal was within time. The applicable limitation computation required exclusion of that period.

Conclusion: The appeal was within limitation after excluding the time spent on the rectification application, and its dismissal as time-barred was unsustainable.