Issues: Whether assessment and recovery proceedings could stand where notices were uploaded only in the Additional Notices and Orders section of the GST portal, depriving the petitioner of notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Notices and the order were not placed in the designated "View Notices and Orders" window of the GST portal, but in the Additional Notices and Orders section. This placement did not afford the petitioner effective notice or an opportunity to respond. The requirement of a fair hearing under the principles of natural justice was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment and consequential recovery proceedings were quashed, with the matter to be adjudicated afresh after permitting the petitioner to file a reply. The issue of limitation of the show-cause notice was left open for determination by the adjudicating authority.

Issues: (i) Whether deferred ITC relating to FY 2017-18 could be claimed in GSTR-3B filed in FY 2019-20?; (ii) Whether ITC on banking services availed in FY 2019-20 was blocked under Section 17(5)?

Issue (i): Whether deferred ITC relating to FY 2017-18 could be claimed in GSTR-3B filed in FY 2019-20?

Analysis: Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 retrospectively permits ITC relating to FY 2017-18 through FY 2020-21 to be taken in a return under Section 39 filed up to 30 November 2021, notwithstanding the limitation under Section 16(4). The deferred credit was supported by disclosed returns, verifiable accounts, tax invoices and payment evidence. A mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B is a reconciliation discrepancy and cannot, by itself, justify reversal where the underlying supply and tax payment are verifiable.

Conclusion: The deferred ITC was validly claimable in FY 2019-20; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether ITC on banking services availed in FY 2019-20 was blocked under Section 17(5)?

Analysis: Section 17(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 restricts credit only for the specified categories of goods and services. Banking services used in furtherance of business did not fall within any blocked-credit category.

Conclusion: ITC on the banking services was admissible; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deferred ITC and the ITC on banking services remain allowable, and the related tax demand, interest and penalty do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the conditions of Section 16(5) are met and the ITC claim is substantiated, credit cannot be denied merely because it was claimed in a later return or does not correspond with GSTR-2A.

Issues: Whether refund of IGST paid twice on export supplies could be denied because the initial payment was reported in the wrong table of the GSTR-3B return and the second payment was subsequently refunded through the Customs automated system.

Analysis: The export turnover and IGST liability were correctly disclosed in the GSTR-1 returns, but the original IGST payments were entered against non-zero-rated supplies instead of zero-rated supplies in the relevant GSTR-3B returns. This mismatch prevented automated processing of the export refund. The assessee consequently paid the same IGST again in a later return, upon which the Customs system processed refund of that later payment. The records established that the original IGST payments remained unrefunded and constituted excess payment. Retention of tax paid twice, despite absence of any contrary evidence from Revenue, would offend Article 265 of the Constitution of India. A clerical reporting error and procedural infraction could not justify withholding tax not legally due.

Conclusion: The excess IGST paid on the exports was refundable and could not be denied on account of the clerical error in the GSTR-3B returns. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether input tax credit on joinery, carpentry and painting services used for furnishing rented retail shops is barred by Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The services were used to install wooden and glass shelves for storage and display of taxable goods at registered retail premises and bore a direct nexus with the furtherance of business, satisfying Section 16(1). A challenge to the supplier's classification of services could not be introduced at the credit-recipient stage when no such dispute was raised in the show-cause notice. Although construction includes renovation, additions and alterations under Explanation 1 to Section 17(5), the restriction applies only to the extent of capitalisation of the tax component. The chartered accountant's certificate established that the CGST and SGST components were separately accounted for as input tax credit, were not added to the cost of fixed assets, and were not subjected to depreciation.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on the four invoices is admissible; the CGST and SGST components are not barred by Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether input tax credit could be disallowed merely because the supplier was alleged to be bogus and the actual movement and receipt of goods were disputed.

Analysis: Eligibility for input tax credit had to be determined from the statutory conditions and the evidence concerning the recipient's transactions, rather than solely from allegations against the supplier. Purchase orders, tax invoices, e-way bills, banking-payment records, books of account, stock registers, consignment documents, vehicle particulars, supplier returns, and tax-payment records supported actual purchase, transportation, and receipt of goods. The supplier's registration had also been restored, and the departmental authority had been given an opportunity to examine the documents and submitted its report; consequently, no breach of principles of natural justice was established.

Conclusion: Input tax credit was rightly allowed; the allegation that the supplier was bogus did not warrant disallowance on the evidence available. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether proceedings for confiscation and penalty under Section 130(2) read with Section 122 are sustainable where excess or unaccounted goods are found during a survey of business premises, instead of proceedings for tax determination under Sections 73 and 74.

Analysis: Section 35(1) requires maintenance of true and correct accounts. Under Section 35(6), where goods or services are unaccounted, the tax payable is to be determined by treating them as supplied, with Sections 73 and 74 applying for such determination. This statutory scheme governs excess or unaccounted stock found during survey and does not permit direct invocation of confiscation provisions.

Conclusion: The question is answered in the negative. On discovery of excess or unaccounted stock at business premises, proceedings under Section 130(2) read with Section 122 are unsustainable; the liability must be determined under Sections 73 and 74.

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable despite the prescribed monetary threshold where it involved a recurring question concerning eligibility for input tax credit; (ii) Whether input tax credit could be sustained without a reasoned verification of actual movement and receipt of goods where the supplier's genuineness was disputed.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable despite the prescribed monetary threshold where it involved a recurring question concerning eligibility for input tax credit.

Analysis: The monetary-limit circular permits examination of matters involving recurring issues of interpretation. The dispute raised a recurring question regarding the recipient's obligation to establish actual receipt of goods for claiming input tax credit, and the requisite departmental approval for pursuing the appeal was available.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was maintainable notwithstanding the monetary threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit could be sustained without a reasoned verification of actual movement and receipt of goods where the supplier's genuineness was disputed.

Analysis: Eligibility for input tax credit depends on cumulative compliance with the statutory conditions, including actual receipt of goods and payment of tax. The burden to establish eligibility lies on the claimant. An active registration, invoices, portal entries and banking payments may be relevant evidence, but do not by themselves conclusively prove actual receipt of goods when the genuineness of the supply is disputed. Equally, the supplier's later non-availability at its declared premises does not conclusively establish that no supply occurred during the transaction period. The evidence concerning invoices, e-way bills, transport records and other material required proper verification and a reasoned evaluation, which was absent from the orders below.

Conclusion: The prior orders could not stand without specific and reasoned findings on the actual movement and receipt of goods. The input tax credit claim requires fresh adjudication after verification of the relevant documentary evidence and an effective opportunity to the claimant.

Final Conclusion: Entitlement to input tax credit must be determined on the cumulative statutory requirements and the verified evidence of genuine supply, rather than solely on supplier registration status, invoices, portal reflection or payment records.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant of input tax credit bears the burden of proving actual receipt of goods and fulfilment of all statutory conditions; invoices, registration status and banking payments alone do not conclusively establish a genuine supply where the transaction is disputed.

Issues: Whether rejection of a delayed first appeal under the amnesty notification solely because the prescribed pre-deposit was debited from the electronic credit ledger instead of the electronic cash ledger, where a portal technical glitch was asserted, was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The amnesty notification enabled admission of delayed appeals subject to payment of the prescribed pre-deposit, including its stipulated cash component. The entire pre-deposit had been secured through the electronic credit ledger because of the asserted portal impediment. A taxpayer cannot be prejudiced by technical defects on the official portal. Misallocation or shortfall in the cash component of a pre-deposit is a curable procedural defect and does not defeat substantial compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. A reasonable opportunity must be afforded to cure the defect before denying the statutory appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Rejection of the first appeal as time-barred solely for debit from the electronic credit ledger was not legally sustainable. The portal glitch could not prejudice the statutory remedy of appeal, and the taxpayer was entitled to cure the prescribed cash-component shortfall and obtain adjudication of the first appeal on merits.

Issues: Whether hiring transit mixture machines for transportation of ready-mix concrete constituted supply of tangible goods service rather than goods transport agency service.

Analysis: Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies where tangible goods are supplied for use without transfer of both possession and effective control. The relevant determination depends upon the contractual and operational control over the equipment. The transit mixture machines were supplied with the driver, maintenance and diesel remaining the supplier's responsibility, and no evidence of issuance of consignment notes or provision of goods transport agency service was produced.

Conclusion: The hiring receipts were taxable as supply of tangible goods service and not as goods transport agency service; the demand was rightly sustained, in favour of Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the recipient's eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of service tax payable under reverse charge extinguishes its service-tax liability; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78 were sustainable where tax payable under reverse charge would be creditable.

Issue (i): Whether the recipient's eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of service tax payable under reverse charge extinguishes its service-tax liability.

Analysis: Service-tax liability under reverse charge arises independently of the recipient's entitlement to Cenvat credit. Credit under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 becomes available only upon actual payment of tax, with payment being a condition precedent under Rules 4(7) and 9. Eligibility to subsequently avail credit is therefore not a basis to avoid the statutory tax liability.

Conclusion: Eligibility to avail Cenvat credit does not extinguish service-tax liability under reverse charge; the recipient remains liable to pay the tax. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78 were sustainable where tax payable under reverse charge would be creditable.

Analysis: Where tax payable by a service recipient under reverse charge would be available to that recipient as Cenvat credit, the transaction is revenue neutral. In such circumstances, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for recovery.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period is unsustainable and the penalty under Section 78 is set aside; demand for the normal period, if any, and penalty under Section 77 remain sustainable. In favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Service-tax recovery survives only to the extent falling within the normal period, while the extended-period recovery and the penalty under Section 78 cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether service-tax demand for the extended period could be sustained solely on Form 26AS and income-tax-return data without corroborative evidence of taxable services; (ii) Whether service-tax liability for 2017-18 could be confirmed through proportionate allocation of annual income without supporting data and without such basis being proposed in the show-cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether service-tax demand for the extended period could be sustained solely on Form 26AS and income-tax-return data without corroborative evidence of taxable services.

Analysis: Service-tax liability must rest on evidence establishing the rendition and value of taxable services. Form 26AS and income-tax-return information, being third-party tax data, do not by themselves establish taxable turnover. The appellant was registered and regularly filed service-tax returns; the demand was raised solely from mismatch with income-tax data, without independent verification or corroborative evidence. Such material could not sustain invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended-period demand of Rs.12,32,030 was set aside in favour of the assessee. Service tax, if any, for the normal period remains payable with interest after proper quantification.

Issue (ii): Whether service-tax liability for 2017-18 could be confirmed through proportionate allocation of annual income without supporting data and without such basis being proposed in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The liability for the first three months was computed by proportionately allocating annual data despite the absence of data supporting that period. This computational method was not proposed in the show-cause notice, and a demand could not be confirmed on that unproposed basis.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand of Rs.2,01,232 for 2017-18 was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Third-party income-tax data alone cannot found an extended-period service-tax demand, and liability cannot be sustained through a method of computation not proposed in the show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A service-tax demand founded solely on Form 26AS or income-tax data requires independent corroborative evidence of taxable services and cannot sustain invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether a temporary trustee could validly gift temple inam land to the Government and whether registration of that gift was legally effective; (ii) Whether the Government could continue as lessee of the temple land and the appropriate fair lease rent.

Issue (i): Whether a temporary trustee could validly gift temple inam land to the Government and whether registration of that gift was legally effective.

Analysis: The subject land was an inam granted for the deity's support and maintenance. Section 34(5) excluded such inams from Section 34, making Section 41 applicable. Section 41(1) declares a gift of such inam land null and void and permits governmental sanction for specified transactions other than a gift; therefore, a gift could not be validated by sanction. Section 22-A(1)(ii) of the Registration Act, 1908 also precluded registration of a transfer of religious-institution property without the requisite statutory sanction. Sections 23, 27 and 28 impose statutory custodianship upon the State and a fiduciary duty upon trustees, requiring administration under the prudent person standard for the institution's benefit. A gratuitous transfer of temple property is inconsistent with those obligations, and registration cannot validate a transaction declared void by the governing enactment.

Conclusion: The gift deed was void ab initio, its registration had no legal effect, and the subject land remained vested in the Temple.

Issue (ii): Whether the Government could continue as lessee of the temple land and the appropriate fair lease rent.

Analysis: Although the Government had constructed and was operating a Taluk Office on the land, its occupation could continue only as a lease from the Temple. Section 34-A requires fair rent determination with reference to prevailing market rental value. Applying the prescribed committee formula, including 225% of the guideline or market value under the applicable Government Order and the depreciated value of the building, produced a monthly rent of Rs. 31,000. Lease renewal and all future terms remain subject to a fresh determination in the best interests of the trust.

Conclusion: The Government may continue only as lessee, with monthly rent fixed at Rs. 31,000 from 08.03.2019, subject to triennial refixation and lease terms determined by the Temple for its benefit.

Final Conclusion: The Temple's ownership and control over its inam property were preserved; the State's occupation was confined to a compensatory leasehold arrangement, with arrears payable to the Temple and mandatory compliance with the statutory safeguards governing religious endowment property.

Ratio Decidendi: A gift of inam property dedicated to a religious institution is void where the governing statute expressly prohibits gifts and permits no sanction for them; registration cannot cure the statutory invalidity, and the State as statutory custodian cannot acquire such property gratuitously.

Issues: (i) Whether a bail order obtained without disclosure of parallel proceedings and refusals of release may remain final; (ii) Whether a direction to list a petition "two weeks hence" requires vacation to be excluded where the two-week period expires during court vacation.

Issue (i): Whether a bail order obtained without disclosure of parallel proceedings and refusals of release may remain final.

Analysis: While the prosecuting authority was not wholly unrepresented at the bail hearing, its standing counsel could not appear and material facts were not placed before the High Court. The accused pursued successive and parallel remedies for bail or release before the Sessions Court, the High Court and the writ court, without disclosing the rejection of bail and refusal of ad-interim release when seeking urgent listing of the pending bail petition. This conduct amounted to forum shopping, suppression of material facts and abuse of process, defeating the uberrima fides required for discretionary bail.

Conclusion: The final disposal of the bail petition was set aside and the petition was revived for fresh consideration on merits; the accused shall remain on interim bail on the earlier terms pending further orders.

Issue (ii): Whether a direction to list a petition "two weeks hence" requires vacation to be excluded where the two-week period expires during court vacation.

Analysis: A general direction for listing after two weeks does not ordinarily require vacation listing where the expiry falls during a court vacation, unless the matter is made returnable on a specific vacation date or listing before the Vacation Bench is directed.

Conclusion: The two-week period should ordinarily be computed excluding the vacation period, subject to the applicable High Court rules.

Final Conclusion: The bail application requires a fresh and fully informed determination after completion of pleadings, while the stated approach to vacation listing is to be applied ordinarily.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant seeking discretionary bail must disclose all parallel proceedings and material orders; suppression of such facts constitutes abuse of process warranting reconsideration of the bail determination.

Issues: (i) Whether transitional credit of CVD and additional duty on capital goods received after 1 July 2017 was admissible under Section 140(2); (ii) Whether central excise duty paid on goods cleared before GST but exported after 1 July 2017 was eligible for transitional credit; (iii) Whether interest was payable on inadmissible transitional credit; and (iv) Whether penalty for wrongful availment of the inadmissible credit was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether transitional credit of CVD and additional duty on capital goods received after 1 July 2017 was admissible under Section 140(2).

Analysis: Section 140(2) permits transition of unavailed CENVAT credit on capital goods that was not carried forward under the existing law, provided the credit was admissible under both the existing and GST regimes. Neither the provision nor Rule 117(2)(a) requires that credit must have been partly availed before the appointed day or restricts transition to fifty per cent of the eligible credit. The prescribed TRAN-1 particulars were furnished and the capital-goods credit fulfilled the statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The transitional credit of Rs. 2,90,845 is admissible under Section 140(2), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether central excise duty paid on goods cleared before GST but exported after 1 July 2017 was eligible for transitional credit.

Analysis: Table 7(a) concerns credit relating to inputs under specified categories of Section 140 and does not provide a residual route for transitioning central excise duty paid on goods cleared for export before GST. No provision of Section 140 authorises such duty to be converted into GST input tax credit. Section 174(2)(c) does not preserve a right to transitional credit where no such right had accrued under the existing law or the GST transitional framework.

Conclusion: The transitional credit of Rs. 6,99,004 is not admissible, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on inadmissible transitional credit.

Analysis: Interest follows the recoverability of wrongly availed input tax credit. Since the export-related transitional credit was inadmissible, interest is consequentially chargeable on that amount.

Conclusion: Interest is payable only on the inadmissible transitional credit, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty for wrongful availment of the inadmissible credit was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 73 applies to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit in cases other than fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Upon determination of the inadmissible credit, Section 73(9) requires penalty at ten per cent of the tax determined; disclosure in TRAN-1 does not displace that consequence.

Conclusion: Penalty is sustainable at Rs. 69,900, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transitional framework preserves eligible unavailed capital-goods credit, but does not authorise conversion of central excise duty paid on pre-GST export clearances into GST credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 140(2) permits transition of eligible unavailed capital-goods credit not carried forward under the existing law, but transitional credit cannot be claimed where the statute provides no enabling category for the duty concerned.

Issues: (i) Validity of the appellate order for want of a reasoned determination of the appellant's submissions; (ii) Whether a notice under section 73 can be sustained where ineligible input tax credit is fully offset by excess output tax paid; (iii) Whether refund of excess output tax paid is subject to unjust enrichment; (iv) Sustainability of the sales-return demand where the adjudicating authority relied on a ground not stated in the show cause notice and credit/debit notes were not uploaded on the GST portal; (v) Sustainability of interest demand for delayed returns where the show cause notice lacked particulars and the quantified demand was unexplained.

Issue (i): Validity of the appellate order for want of a reasoned determination of the appellant's submissions.

Analysis: The appellate order rejected extensive submissions concerning tax set-off, credit/debit notes and delayed-return interest through a bare one-line observation. It did not address the material contentions or disclose any reasoned basis for confirming the demand. This failed the speaking-order requirement and breached the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The appellate order was invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a notice under section 73 can be sustained where ineligible input tax credit is fully offset by excess output tax paid.

Analysis: The excess output tax payment was undisputed and exceeded the disputed ineligible input tax credit. Section 73 is attracted only where tax remains unpaid or short paid, or credit is wrongly availed or utilised. Requiring payment of the disputed amount followed by a separate refund claim, despite an admitted excess payment, would defeat the permissible set-off of tax liability and produce no revenue loss.

Conclusion: No notice under section 73 lay where the admitted excess output tax payment fully offset the ineligible input tax credit; the related tax, interest and penalty demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether refund of excess output tax paid is subject to unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Excess output tax paid over the tax actually due was found to fall within the exception in section 54(8)(c). Accordingly, the statutory basis asserted for applying the test of unjust enrichment was unavailable.

Conclusion: Refund of excess output tax paid was not subject to the test of unjust enrichment, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Sustainability of the sales-return demand where the adjudicating authority relied on a ground not stated in the show cause notice and credit/debit notes were not uploaded on the GST portal.

Analysis: The show cause notice alleged absence of supporting documents, whereas the adjudication order confirmed the demand because the counterparty had not declared a debit note in its returns. The adjudication thereby travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Further, for the disputed 2017-18 period, GSTR-2A was a reconciliation facility and portal declaration of the credit/debit notes was not mandatory; documents otherwise in order could not be invalidated merely for non-uploading.

Conclusion: The sales-return demand and consequential tax, interest and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Sustainability of interest demand for delayed returns where the show cause notice lacked particulars and the quantified demand was unexplained.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not identify the defaulting months, tax amounts, or period for which interest was claimed. Its stated interest amount also materially differed from the amount in the adjudication order without any disclosed basis. The demand lacked the specificity required by the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The interest demand for delayed filing of returns was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The asserted liabilities for tax, interest and penalty lacked legal foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 73 cannot be invoked where an admitted excess output tax payment fully offsets the disputed ineligible input tax credit and no net short payment of tax remains.

Issues: (i) Whether alleged excess input tax credit was sustainable when the updated GSTR-2A reconciliation, including import IGST credit, disclosed a surplus aggregate credit and IGST could offset CGST/SGST shortfalls; (ii) Whether the adjudication and first appellate orders were vitiated by denial of a personal hearing and failure to address the taxpayer's contentions.

Issue (i): Whether alleged excess input tax credit was sustainable when the updated GSTR-2A reconciliation, including import IGST credit, disclosed a surplus aggregate credit and IGST could offset CGST/SGST shortfalls.

Analysis: The reconciliation based on the latest GSTR-2A figures and IGST paid on imports was unrebutted and showed aggregate eligible credit exceeding the credit claimed. Section 49(5)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits surplus IGST credit, after payment of IGST liability, to be utilised towards CGST and SGST liabilities. The Fungibility of Input Tax Credit principle treats the electronic credit ledger as a unified resource for this purpose. Under Judicial Discipline, the applicable jurisdictional ruling on adjustment of IGST surplus against CGST/SGST shortfalls was required to be followed.

Conclusion: The alleged excess input tax credit was not sustainable; surplus IGST credit validly offset the CGST and SGST shortfalls, leaving no short payment of tax warranting proceedings under Section 73.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication and first appellate orders were vitiated by denial of a personal hearing and failure to address the taxpayer's contentions.

Analysis: The original adjudication was passed without affording a Right to Personal Hearing and without considering the taxpayer's contentions. The appellate order mechanically affirmed the demand without analysing the contentions and evidence. Such adjudication breached the Principles of Natural Justice and the requirement of a Speaking Order.

Conclusion: The adjudication and first appellate orders were vitiated by breach of the Principles of Natural Justice and were null and void.

Final Conclusion: The alleged ITC mismatch had no factual or legal basis after complete reconciliation and permissible cross-utilisation of IGST credit, while the underlying proceedings were independently invalid for procedural unfairness.

Issues: (i) Whether a consolidated show cause notice and order covering multiple financial years is valid under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the disputed input tax credit demands are sustainable; (iii) Whether invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the consequential penalty are sustainable; (iv) Whether interest is payable under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on tax determined as payable.

Issue (i): Whether a consolidated show cause notice and order covering multiple financial years is valid under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Sections 74(1), 74(2) and 74(10) prescribe the conditions and limitation for issuance of a demand notice and order, but do not require separate notices for each financial year. A consolidated notice covering more than one tax period is permissible where each period is within the prescribed limitation and the noticee suffers no prejudice to its right of defence or appeal.

Conclusion: A consolidated show cause notice and order for multiple financial years are valid. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed input tax credit demands are sustainable.

Analysis: The prior-year input tax credit reflected in the subsequent year's return was not rejected on legal ineligibility, but for want of proof that the benefit had not already been granted. Verification of that factual position is required. The claims concerning payment under an incorrect tax head and credit availed under incorrect heads also require verification of revenue impact and compliance with Section 49 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 88A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. A fair opportunity to furnish supporting evidence is required.

Conclusion: The three disputed input tax credit components require fresh factual verification and determination in accordance with law; no final tax liability is fixed on these components.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the consequential penalty are sustainable.

Analysis: Section 74 applies only where non-payment, short-payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful availment of input tax credit is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The show cause notice must disclose foundational facts supporting such allegations; mechanical recitation of those expressions is insufficient. The burden of proving mala fides lies on the Department. The relevant input tax credit particulars were disclosed in statutory returns, and the notice did not establish fraud, deliberate suppression, or mens rea to evade tax.

Conclusion: The confirmation of demand and penalty under Section 74 is set aside in favour of the assessee. Tax, interest and penalty, if any, shall be determined under Section 75(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as if the notice had been issued under Section 73(1).

Issue (iv): Whether interest is payable under Section 50 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on tax determined as payable.

Analysis: Interest under Section 50 is a statutory consequence of tax validly determined as payable.

Conclusion: Interest is payable on the tax ultimately determined as payable. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Consolidation of tax periods does not invalidate the demand proceedings, but liability must be determined after factual verification under the ordinary demand framework, with statutory interest following the lawful determination of tax.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 74 can be invoked only where the show cause notice discloses foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax; a bare allegation founded on disclosed return particulars is insufficient.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority could direct the adjudicating authority to verify reconciliation workings and delete input tax credit demand, interest and penalty to the extent of eligible credit.

Analysis: Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 empowers the Appellate Authority to make further inquiry and to confirm, modify or annul the appealed order, while expressly prohibiting it from referring the case back to the adjudicating authority. The conditional direction for verification and consequential deletion of demand required the adjudicating authority to perform the inquiry that the Appellate Authority itself was required to undertake. There was no dispute regarding the need to verify the taxpayer's reconciliation workings.

Conclusion: The referral to the adjudicating authority was impermissible under Section 107(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues: Whether input tax credit proposed to be disallowed under Section 16(2)(aa) in the show-cause notice could be denied under Section 16(2)(c) on the ground of non-payment of tax by suppliers, merely because the latter provision was reproduced in the notice.

Analysis: The scope of the show-cause notice was confined to alleged non-compliance with Section 16(2)(aa), which was inapplicable to the relevant period. It contained no allegation or factual basis that tax on the disputed supplies had not actually been paid to the Government, as required for invoking Section 16(2)(c). The adjudication order nevertheless disallowed input tax credit on that distinct ground. Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand on grounds other than those specified in the notice. A bare recital of a statutory provision, without identifying its contravention, does not give effective notice of a charge. Such substitution of the basis of demand also violates principles of natural justice. Section 160(1) does not cure a proceeding that is substantively inconsistent with the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: Confirmation of the demand under Section 16(2)(c) was outside the show-cause notice and invalid; mere reproduction of that provision did not constitute a charge or put the taxpayer on notice. The proceedings and demand were set aside.

Issues: Whether an airline is entitled to refund of GST paid on cancelled air tickets where the fare, including GST, was refunded to passengers and the corresponding credit notes could not be adjusted against output tax liability.

Analysis: Section 34(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits adjustment through credit notes, while Circular No. 137/07/2020-GST dated 13.04.2020 permits a refund claim under the category of excess payment of tax where no output liability exists for such adjustment. The ticket number and passenger details consistently linked the air ticket, tax invoice, refund voucher and credit note, and the billing settlement records corroborated the refund mechanism. These records sufficiently established that the fare and GST were returned to the respective passengers and that no incidence of tax was retained or passed on. As the transactions were predominantly business-to-consumer supplies, input tax credit reversal did not arise; the later amendment concerning recipient credit reversal was inapplicable to the relevant period.

Conclusion: The airline is entitled to refund of the GST relating to cancelled tickets, the documentary evidence establishes absence of unjust enrichment, and the refund claim was validly made as excess payment of tax.