Issues: (i) Whether the show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, proposing recovery of input tax credit, was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed before statutory adjudication; and (ii) Whether the period during which further proceedings remained stayed in the writ petition was liable to be excluded for limitation under Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, proposing recovery of input tax credit, was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed before statutory adjudication.

Analysis: Section 73 authorises initiation of proceedings concerning alleged wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit, with the proposed demand to be adjudicated in accordance with Section 75. Possession of invoices, receipt of supplies, payment through banking channels, non-reflection of invoices in GSTR-2A, the supplier's compliance, and the applicability of precedent were matters requiring determination by the proper officer. An audit finding could validly form the basis for initiating proceedings; a show-cause notice is not itself an adjudication. The absence of a counter-affidavit did not convert disputed factual assertions into a basis to decide the entitlement to credit in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notice was not without jurisdiction and was not liable to be quashed at the pre-adjudication stage. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the period during which further proceedings remained stayed in the writ petition was liable to be excluded for limitation under Section 73(10) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Further statutory proceedings were restrained by the interim protection obtained during the pendency of the writ petition. The time consumed under that protection could not be permitted to prejudice the statutory proceeding.

Conclusion: The direction to exclude the period of pendency of the writ proceeding for limitation purposes was sustained. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The proposed input tax credit demand remains subject to statutory adjudication, and all factual and legal defences concerning entitlement to credit may be raised before the proper officer.

Issues: Whether expiry of an e-way bill, without discrepancies in the consignment or material establishing an intention to evade tax, justified detention and levy of tax and penalty under Section 129(3).

Analysis: Section 129(3) requires material supporting an inference of tax evasion; non-compliance with Rule 138 by itself is insufficient where the surrounding facts do not establish such intent. The invoice, builty and e-way bill particulars consistently described the goods, and physical verification disclosed no discrepancy in their description, quantity, value or tax. The unrebutted explanation that a vehicle breakdown during the Covid-19 lockdown caused the e-way bill to expire, coupled with the absence of an independent enquiry or contrary finding, precluded an adverse inference of tax evasion.

Conclusion: Mere expiry of the e-way bill, in the absence of material demonstrating an intention to evade tax, did not attract Section 129(3).

Issues: Whether penalty and interest could be confirmed when the show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 did not specify their amounts.

Analysis: Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the amounts of tax, interest and penalty proposed to be clearly specified in the show-cause notice. The statutory form did not quantify the proposed penalty and interest.

Conclusion: Penalty and interest could not be confirmed without their quantified proposal in the show-cause notice; the confirmation was contrary to Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether an order under Section 73 could be sustained where, after cancellation of registration, the show-cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal.

Analysis: Section 73 proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice. Upon cancellation of registration, the registered person is not obliged to monitor the GST portal; service of a show-cause notice exclusively through that portal does not provide an effective opportunity to respond. Notice was therefore required through an alternative proper mode of service.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside for violation of principles of natural justice, with liberty to the Department to issue a proper notice and proceed in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether consideration represented by interest on extending deposits, loans or advances is exempt under Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; (ii) Whether the appellant established that the disputed turnover was exempt interest attributable to other States but mistakenly reported as taxable Chhattisgarh turnover.

Issue (i): Whether consideration represented by interest on extending deposits, loans or advances is exempt under Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: Entry 27 exempts services of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by interest or discount, other than interest involved in credit-card services.

Conclusion: Consideration represented by qualifying interest is exempt under Entry 27, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant established that the disputed turnover was exempt interest attributable to other States but mistakenly reported as taxable Chhattisgarh turnover.

Analysis: The claimant of exemption bore the burden of producing cogent, transaction-specific and State-specific evidence showing that the disputed amount was exempt interest of another State erroneously reported in the Chhattisgarh returns. The consolidated audit report, statutory return and Chartered Accountant certificate did not disclose the evidentiary basis or correlate the claimed claw-back interest, interest reversals and other adjustments with identified borrower accounts or the Chhattisgarh registration. Entity-level records were insufficient. As relevant evidence capable of being produced was withheld, an adverse inference was warranted. Even assuming procedural non-compliance, it could not alter the outcome in the absence of proof of the claim.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that the disputed turnover represented exempt interest attributable to other States; the exemption claim for that turnover failed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Exemption for qualifying interest is available in principle, but entitlement to it depends upon substantiating the claimed turnover with reliable State-specific documentary evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming an exemption must prove, through cogent and transaction-specific evidence, that the disputed turnover satisfies the exemption conditions; entity-level declarations or unsupported certificates do not discharge that burden.

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of an amount from a written-off housing loan account is exempt from GST under Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; and (ii) Whether the disputed amount was recovered from a written-off housing loan account.

Issue (i): Whether recovery of an amount from a written-off housing loan account is exempt from GST under Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: An exemption notification issued under statutory authority has the force of law, and a pure question of law founded on such notification may be raised at any stage. Entry 27 exempts services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where the consideration is represented by interest or discount. Recovery of the loan amount was treated as covered by the exemption.

Conclusion: Recovery of the loan amount is exempt from GST under Entry 27 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed amount was recovered from a written-off housing loan account.

Analysis: Entitlement to the exemption requires cogent documentary proof that the amount related to a written-off housing loan account and was recovered in the relevant period. The record contained a loan-account document reflecting a cheque deposit and SARFAESI-related charges, which had not been considered. A certified copy of entries in the banker's books is prima facie evidence under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, and Rule 112(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permits direction for production of documents necessary to dispose of the appeal.

Conclusion: The factual issue requires fresh determination on the basis of a certified copy of Annexure 6 and the record of write-off of the relevant housing loan account; no conclusive factual finding is made on the character of the disputed amount.

Final Conclusion: The claimed exemption is legally available for recovery of loan amounts, but its application to the disputed sum depends on satisfactory documentary proof that it represented recovery from a written-off housing loan account.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure question of law founded on a statutory exemption notification may be raised at any stage of adjudication.

Issues: Whether a demand of tax, interest and penalty under Section 74 could survive without service of a statutory show cause notice.

Analysis: Section 74(1) mandates service of a notice upon the person chargeable with tax, while adjudication under Section 74(9) can follow only after consideration of that person's representation. Rule 142 requires an electronic summary to accompany the statutory notice; a summary in FORM GST DRC-01 or GST DRC-02, correspondence, summons, or an order in FORM GST DRC-07 cannot substitute for the notice. The notice must disclose the foundational facts, the demand and the allegations so as to afford an effective representation. The complete absence of such notice denied audi alteram partem and vitiated the demand proceedings.

Conclusion: The demand proceedings were invalid for want of a statutory show cause notice, and the first appellate order was set aside.

Issues: Whether detention and imposition of penalty for goods transported through a longer route were sustainable despite valid transport documents, where no route was required to be declared and the diversion was explained by difficult terrain on the shorter route.

Analysis: The goods were transported with valid documents. The GST Act and Rules do not require declaration of a specific transportation route or adherence to a designated route. The State did not identify any intended destination within Uttar Pradesh or produce material establishing an intention to evade tax. The explanation that the longer route was adopted to avoid difficult hilly terrain for a heavily loaded vehicle remained unrebutted and was plausible.

Conclusion: Mere adoption of a longer route, without breach of a statutory route requirement or material establishing mala fide intent to evade tax, does not justify detention or penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ challenge to the adequacy of the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the substituted pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued before 01.10.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the writ challenge to the adequacy of the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Determining whether the extensive adjudication order adequately addressed the assessee's contentions would require examination of facts and merits. Section 107 provides a statutory appellate remedy for such examination.

Conclusion: The challenge to the merits and adequacy of the adjudication order must be pursued through the statutory appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the substituted pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued before 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The show-cause notice had been issued before 01.10.2025, and the order imposed only penalty without any tax demand. The appellate remedy was therefore governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the date of issuance of the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The substituted requirement to deposit ten per cent of the disputed penalty does not apply to the assessee's appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: An appeal filed within two weeks must be considered under the pre-substitution pre-deposit regime applicable to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The pre-deposit regime governing a GST appeal is determined by the law applicable when the show-cause notice initiating the proceedings was issued; a subsequently substituted requirement does not govern proceedings initiated earlier.

Issues: (i) Whether GST is applicable to rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce; (ii) Whether GST on such rent is payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism or the Forward Charge Mechanism; (iii) What GST rate applies to the renting of such godowns.

Issue (i): Whether GST is applicable to rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce.

Analysis: Renting of godowns for consideration and the subsequent provision of storage and warehousing services are separate supplies. Although storage or warehousing of agricultural produce is exempt under Entry No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the exemption applies to the outward warehousing service and does not extend to the independent inward supply of renting non-residential godowns. Such renting is a taxable supply of real estate services.

Conclusion: GST is applicable on rent paid for hired godowns notwithstanding their exclusive use for exempt agricultural-produce warehousing, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GST on such rent is payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism or the Forward Charge Mechanism.

Analysis: Renting of non-residential godowns by registered suppliers is taxable under forward charge. Entry No. 5AB of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, requires a registered recipient to pay tax under reverse charge where the non-residential property is rented by an unregistered supplier; the entry applies from 10.10.2024.

Conclusion: Rent paid to unregistered persons for hired godowns from 10.10.2024 is taxable under reverse charge; rent charged by registered persons is taxable under forward charge, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): What GST rate applies to the renting of such godowns.

Analysis: Renting or leasing of non-residential property falls within real estate services under Entry No. 16(iii) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Conclusion: GST is payable at 18%, comprising 9% CGST and 9% SGST, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption available to storage and warehousing of agricultural produce does not alter the taxability of the distinct supply of renting hired godowns.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption of an outward supply does not exempt a separate inward supply; each supply must be classified and taxed independently under the applicable GST notification.

Issues: Whether a further pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is required where the pre-deposit made under Section 107(6) exceeds the prescribed percentage of the tax remaining in dispute after reduction by the first appellate authority.

Analysis: Section 107(6) requires payment of a specified percentage of the disputed tax for a first appeal, while Section 112(8)(b) requires a further prescribed payment for an appeal to the Tribunal. The pre-deposit is a portion of the disputed tax and not an independent liability. The requirement cannot be mechanically applied where the tax in dispute has been substantially reduced in the first appeal and the amount already deposited equals or exceeds the applicable percentage of the surviving disputed tax. Insisting on an additional deposit in those circumstances would produce an anomalous and unworkable result.

Conclusion: No further pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) was required because the amount already deposited under Section 107(6) exceeded the prescribed requirement with reference to the reduced tax remaining in dispute.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 was justified where goods were transported under a second e-way bill generated after expiry of the original e-way bill.

Analysis: Rule 138 requires an e-way bill before movement of goods, and Rule 138(10) permits extension only within eight hours of its expiry; generation of a fresh e-way bill on the same invoice after that period was not authorised. The original e-way bill was not extended, while the second e-way bill was generated three days after expiry by inserting an additional zero in the invoice number. The record did not reliably establish the asserted vehicle breakdown, repair, or movement of goods from Orai to Kachora Ghat. The unexplained delay in covering the earlier route, followed by the rapid movement from Kachora Ghat and the changed loading location, constituted circumstantial evidence supporting an adverse inference. In civil proceedings under Section 129, the facts were assessable on the preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The second e-way bill was the product of fraud and deception, and the goods were transported with intent to evade tax; the Section 129 penalty was warranted, against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under Section 74, passed without a personal hearing after the date originally fixed for hearing, was valid.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of personal hearing. No hearing was held on the scheduled date, no subsequent date was communicated, and the adjudication order was passed more than nine months later without recording any opportunity of hearing. Section 75(5) permits limited adjournments, but no adjournment had been sought by the petitioner. The absence of a fresh hearing opportunity constituted a complete breach of the principles of natural justice and an incurable procedural deficiency.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was invalid for denial of the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing; fresh notice and adjudication after affording such opportunity were required.

Issues: Whether cancelled GST registration could be restored upon payment of outstanding penalty and statutory interest and filing of defaulted returns.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled for non-furnishing of GST returns for six months, and penalty had been imposed. Revenue raised no objection to revival if the outstanding penalty with statutory interest was paid and the defaulted returns were filed within the time stipulated.

Conclusion: The registration may be restored upon compliance with the stipulated payment and return-filing requirements.

Issues: Whether an appellate authority may dismiss a GST appeal solely for non-prosecution without determining the grounds of appeal on merits and recording reasons.

Analysis: Section 107(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an appellate order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision on those points, and the reasons for that decision. Dismissal merely for non-prosecution, without considering the appeal grounds and record, framing points for determination, or giving a reasoned decision on merits, fails to comply with that mandatory requirement and amounts to an abdication of appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: An appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-prosecution; the appellate authority must adjudicate it on merits through a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether alleged excess collection of GST from buyers of affordable apartments could be treated as profiteering under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 171 requires an actual benefit arising from a reduction in the GST rate or from input tax credit to be passed on through a commensurate reduction in price. The project commenced after the introduction of GST, with no pre-GST sales or CENVAT-credit baseline for comparison. The amount treated as profiteering represented alleged excess GST collection, whereas GST had been deposited at 12% and a lesser amount was charged from buyers. Such collection did not constitute a saving arising from a tax-rate reduction or input tax credit, and had no relevance to anti-profiteering computation under Section 171.

Conclusion: Alleged excess collection of GST cannot be classified as profiteering under Section 171; the quantified profiteering amount is unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether retaining the pre-reduction cum-tax cinema-ticket prices by increasing the base price after the GST rate reduction contravened Section 171(1), notwithstanding State-regulated maximum fares; (ii) Whether the DGAP's computation of the profiteered amount and its deposit into Consumer Welfare Funds, where recipients were unidentifiable, was sustainable; (iii) Whether penalty was leviable for the period from 01.01.2019 to 31.10.2019.

Issue (i): Whether retaining the pre-reduction cum-tax cinema-ticket prices by increasing the base price after the GST rate reduction contravened Section 171(1), notwithstanding State-regulated maximum fares.

Analysis: The GST rate for cinema admission tickets priced at one hundred rupees or less was reduced from 18% to 12% with effect from 01.01.2019. Section 171(1) required the resulting benefit to be passed to recipients through a commensurate reduction in price. The State fare regime fixed only a maximum permissible fare and did not prohibit a reduction in ticket price. The admitted retention of the cum-tax ticket prices through an increased base price, without cogent evidence justifying such increase, amounted to retention of the tax benefit and unjust enrichment. The absence of invoices did not alter the character of cinema admission as a taxable supply of services.

Conclusion: The retention of the tax-rate benefit by increasing the base price contravened Section 171(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the DGAP's computation of the profiteered amount and its deposit into Consumer Welfare Funds, where recipients were unidentifiable, was sustainable.

Analysis: The computation was based on the admitted increase in base prices following the rate reduction. Costing elements such as electricity, maintenance and security charges were immaterial to the examination of whether the tax reduction had been passed on. No specific challenge was made to the DGAP's methodology, figures, or the original and supplementary reports; the computation therefore stood unrebutted. Since the recipients were unidentifiable, Rule 133(3)(c) applied.

Conclusion: Profiteering of Rs. 10,19,280, together with applicable interest at 18%, was sustained and directed to be deposited equally in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund and the Telangana State Consumer Welfare Fund, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was leviable for the period from 01.01.2019 to 31.10.2019.

Analysis: The penalty provision came into force only on 01.01.2020. It could not be applied retrospectively to profiteering for the investigated period.

Conclusion: No penalty was leviable for the period from 01.01.2019 to 31.10.2019, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A supplier must pass on a GST rate-reduction benefit by reducing the price charged to consumers; a regulatory maximum fare does not justify retention of that benefit through an enhanced base price.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory maximum-price regime does not excuse a supplier from passing on a GST rate-reduction benefit by commensurately reducing the price; maintaining the cum-tax price through an increased base price violates Section 171(1).

Issues: Whether the supplier contravened the anti-profiteering requirement by failing to pass on the benefit of the reduction in GST rate on cinema admission tickets through commensurate reduction in prices during the investigated period.

Analysis: Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the benefit of a tax-rate reduction to be passed to recipients by a commensurate reduction in price. Although the GST rate on relevant tickets was reduced from 18% to 12%, the inclusive ticket prices for first-class and second-class categories remained unchanged because the base prices were increased. The subsequent reduction in prices from 11.03.2019 supported limiting the inquiry to the preceding period. Commercial considerations relating to particular films, demand, weekends, holidays, or ticket-price ranges could not override the statutory obligation to pass on the tax-rate benefit. The supplier produced no cogent evidence to justify the increased base prices or rebut the presumption against it, and did not dispute the DGAP's methodology or computation.

Conclusion: The supplier contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by not passing on the GST-rate reduction to recipients; profiteering of Rs. 81,722, inclusive of GST, was established for the investigated period, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration without deciding the registrant's request for time to furnish supporting documents violated principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether the revocation and appellate decisions could be sustained on grounds not contained in the original show cause notice and by combining registration-cancellation proceedings with input tax credit demand proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration without deciding the registrant's request for time to furnish supporting documents violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The cancellation notice alleged that registration had been obtained through fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The registrant sought 15 to 20 days to produce purchase and sale bills, e-way bills, transportation evidence and other material supporting its input tax credit claim. The cancellation order, passed within 12 days of the notice, neither addressed that request nor afforded an effective opportunity to produce the stated material before retrospectively cancelling registration. Such procedure was inconsistent with principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The cancellation action was invalid for denial of a meaningful opportunity to furnish evidence and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the revocation and appellate decisions could be sustained on grounds not contained in the original show cause notice and by combining registration-cancellation proceedings with input tax credit demand proceedings.

Analysis: The rejection of revocation relied on purchases from dealers said to have cancelled their registrations, although that allegation had not been notified to the registrant. It also required payment of tax, interest and penalty through GST DRC-03 without a notice proposing disallowance of input tax credit. Registration cancellation and demand proceedings concerning fraudulent availment or suppression under Sections 73 and 74 operate in distinct statutory domains; the appellate process could not cure the original denial of opportunity by introducing new grounds and demands.

Conclusion: The revocation rejection and appellate decision founded on unnotified grounds and conflated statutory proceedings were invalid and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: Fresh action may be initiated only through an appropriate show cause notice, after affording a proper hearing and opportunity to produce evidence; all merits remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: GST registration cancellation must comply with notice and hearing requirements, and cannot be supported by unnotified input tax credit allegations or by conflating cancellation proceedings with separate tax-demand proceedings.