Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in proceedings concerning alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The grant of bail was warranted in view of the co-accused having been enlarged on bail, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the stage of the trial.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted in favour of the assessee, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the concerned Trial Court.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed, and the trial is in progress.

Analysis: The investigation had concluded, and the matter had progressed to trial after filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges. Custodial interrogation was therefore no longer required.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted, subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer, continued cooperation, and appearance before the jurisdictional court.

Issues: Whether the amended pre-deposit requirement, effective from 1 October 2025, applies to an appeal arising from proceedings initiated and adjudicated before that date.

Outcome: Notice issued. Interim permission was granted to file the GSTAT appeal without pre-deposit, subject to the outcome of the petition.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with four weeks granted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether further time should be granted to pursue the statutory appeal against the tax order.

Outcome: The petitioner was granted 30 days to file the statutory appeal without objection as to limitation; all contentions, including pre-deposit, were kept open.

Outcome: Delay condoned; notice issued; High Court judgment and order stayed pending final disposal.

Issues: Whether the bail condition requiring security bond equal to the alleged tax and penalty amount should be enforced.

Analysis: The appellant stood on the same footing as the co-accused whose identical condition had been found onerous and incapable of enforcement. An affidavit had disclosed the family assets, which could adequately serve as security.

Conclusion: The condition requiring a security bond equal to the alleged tax and penalty amount shall not be insisted upon; the assets declared by the appellant's mother shall constitute security for the alleged dues.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be released on bail after filing of the charge-sheet.

Analysis: The charge-sheet had been filed, and no further custodial interrogation was required. The petitioner had remained in custody for nearly three months and had no stated criminal antecedents.

Outcome: The petitioner was directed to be released on bail, and the Special Leave Petition was disposed of.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice issued after expiry of the limitation applicable to non-fraud cases could be sustained under the extended limitation provision on a bare allegation of fraud or concealment of facts.

Analysis: The limitation for a notice under Section 73 for the relevant financial year, after accounting for extension of the annual-return filing date and exclusion of the COVID-19 period, expired on 28.02.2025. The impugned notice dated 13.06.2025 was consequently time-barred under that provision. Invocation of Section 74 required the notice itself to disclose allegations and material indicating fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. A counter affidavit could not supplement deficiencies in the notice. The notice merely used the expression "fraud or concealment of facts" without identifying how either was inferred or detected, demonstrating an unsupported and mechanical invocation of the extended limitation.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice could not validly be sustained under Section 74 and was barred by limitation; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation founded on fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is invocable only where the show-cause notice itself sets out the allegations and material supporting that basis; such defects cannot be cured through pleadings filed before the Court.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with liberty to raise deficiencies in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The order records the availability of an efficacious appellate remedy under Section 107 and leaves all available contentions, including objections concerning the show cause notice, to the Appellate Authority.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of after granting four weeks to file the statutory appeal.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, with time granted to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether Sections 69 and 70(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are unconstitutional.

Analysis: The vires challenge stood rejected by the binding determination that powers to summon, arrest and prosecute for GST levy, collection and evasion-control are ancillary and incidental to the legislative power under Article 246A of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Sections 69 and 70(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are constitutionally valid; the issue is decided against the assessee.