Issues: Whether excess IGST paid on export supplies, owing to erroneous reporting of zero-rated exports in the GSTR-3B return and a subsequent duplicate payment to obtain automated export refund, is refundable.

Analysis: The export details and IGST liability were correctly reflected in the GSTR-1 returns, but the zero-rated export figures and corresponding tax were entered in the incorrect table of the GSTR-3B returns. Since the automated Customs system did not process refund because of the mismatch, the same IGST was paid again in a later return and that later payment alone was refunded through the automated mechanism. The earlier payment consequently remained an excess payment. The reporting error was a reconciled clerical error and did not negate the fact of duplicate payment. Retention of tax collected in excess of the amount lawfully due is impermissible under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Refund of the excess IGST paid on the export supplies is available and cannot be denied merely on account of the clerical reporting error or procedural discrepancy in the GSTR-3B returns.

Issues: (i) Whether invalidity of the show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order, founded on incorrect facts and grounds outside the notice, warrants their annulment; (ii) Whether, on return of a principal's goods after job work, the value of the original goods forms part of the consignment value for an e-way bill and supports penalty under Section 129.

Issue (i): Whether invalidity of the show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order, founded on incorrect facts and grounds outside the notice, warrants their annulment.

Analysis: The departmental interception records showed that the consignment was accompanied by a job-work invoice, the principal's delivery challan and an e-way bill. The allegations in the show-cause notice that these documents were absent were therefore contradicted by the department's own records. The detention order substituted the allegation of absence of an e-way bill with its alleged invalidity without notice or reasons, while the appellate order relied on an unrelated alleged absence of an e-way bill for an earlier movement. Such new and irrelevant grounds lay outside the show-cause notice and deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to meet the case.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order were unsustainable because they rested on incorrect facts, extraneous grounds and violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether, on return of a principal's goods after job work, the value of the original goods forms part of the consignment value for an e-way bill and supports penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: Read with the transaction-value provision, the consignment-value explanation confines the relevant value to the taxable supply covered by the invoice. Upon return of processed goods by a job worker, the taxable supply is the job-work service; the principal's original goods do not constitute the job worker's taxable supply. The invoice value comprising job-work charges and applicable tax was below the prescribed e-way-bill threshold. The absence of any allegation that the parties were related or that the invoice price was not the sole consideration supported acceptance of that invoice value.

Conclusion: The value of the original goods returned after job work is not includable in the consignment value for the e-way bill; no e-way bill was mandatorily required on these facts, and no penalty under Section 129 was leviable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned enforcement action lacked a factual and legal foundation, and the return of job-worked goods was required to be valued by reference to the job-work service alone.

Ratio Decidendi: For return of goods by a job worker to the principal, e-way-bill consignment value is the transaction value of the taxable job-work service and excludes the value of the principal's goods.

Outcome: The writ petitions were dismissed on account of the available statutory appellate remedy.

Outcome: Appeal rejected for failure to cure filing defects and continued non-appearance.

Issues: Whether detention and imposition of tax and penalty for alleged reuse of invoices and e-way bills were sustainable on toll-plaza movement records and photographs.

Analysis: Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State enactment require a demonstrated contravention relating to the movement of goods. The goods were accompanied by invoices and a valid e-way bill, without discrepancy in their description, quantity, value or ownership. Toll-plaza photographs and vehicle-movement data, without independent and cogent proof that the same goods had already been delivered and re-transported, were insufficient to establish reuse of the documents. The explanation and invoice concerning an earlier transport of cotton cuttings were not verified. Suspicion or a presumed intention to evade tax cannot substitute proof.

Conclusion: Alleged reuse of the e-way bill and contravention of the GST law were not established; the detention and penalty proceedings were unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a penalty order under Section 129(3), passed 445 days after issuance of notice, is legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 129(3) mandates that the penalty order be passed within seven days from service of the notice. The notice was issued on 16.08.2021, whereas the order was made only on 04.11.2022. In a fiscal statute, the prescribed timeline is mandatory and requires strict compliance; the substantial breach vitiated the detention and penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The order passed under Section 129(3) was void ab initio and a nullity; the appellate order affirming it was set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 108(2)(b) of the Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether reversal of the appellate order and restoration of penalty under Section 129 of the Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 108(2)(b) of the Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 108(2)(b) prescribes a three-year limit for exercise of revisionary power. The pandemic-related exclusion of the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 applies to judicial, quasi-judicial and departmental proceedings. On exclusion of the applicable period, the revisional order fell within the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The revision proceedings were not barred by limitation, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reversal of the appellate order and restoration of penalty under Section 129 of the Karnataka State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were justified.

Analysis: Section 68(1) requires the person in charge of a conveyance to carry the prescribed documents, and Rule 138(1) requires generation of the e-way bill before commencement of movement. The goods were unloaded at a location different from that covered by the available tax invoice and e-way bill. The requisite documents for delivery at that location were generated only after interception, and no evidence substantiated the asserted technical glitch. The absence of statutory documents in these circumstances established a wilful attempt to evade tax rather than a minor procedural lapse.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 129(1) was legally valid, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order restoring the statutory penalty for undocumented movement of goods remains operative.

Issues: Whether a penalty order under Section 129(3), issued 28 days after service of notice, is valid.

Analysis: Section 129(3) mandates that the proper officer pass the penalty order within seven days from service of notice. The statutory use of "shall" makes the prescribed timeline mandatory, particularly under a fiscal statute requiring strict construction. Since the notice was issued on 28.06.2019 and the penalty order was made only on 26.07.2019, the mandatory time limit was breached.

Conclusion: The penalty order issued beyond the mandatory period under Section 129(3) is void ab initio and a nullity in law.

Issues: (i) Whether the taxpayer's unutilised input tax credit had accumulated because the GST rate on inputs exceeded the rate on output supplies, within clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; and (ii) Whether paragraph 3.2 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 barred the taxpayer's refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether the taxpayer's unutilised input tax credit had accumulated because the GST rate on inputs exceeded the rate on output supplies, within clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Clause (ii) permits refund of unutilised input tax credit where it has accumulated because the tax rate on inputs is higher than that on output supplies. The inputs, including perfumes, fragrances, chemicals and packaging materials, were commercially distinct from the outward supply of agarbati. Those inputs attracted GST at 12% to 18%, whereas the output attracted GST at 5%, resulting in an inverted duty structure.

Conclusion: The refund arose from an inverted duty structure under clause (ii) of the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether paragraph 3.2 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 barred the taxpayer's refund claim.

Analysis: The circular clarification concerns cases in which input and output supplies are the same goods attracting different rates at different points of time. The later clarification preserved refund where a contemporaneous rate differential exists, including specified concessional supplies. Since the inputs and output supplies were distinct goods, the same-goods clarification did not apply. CBIC circulars bind departmental officers but have only persuasive value before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Paragraph 3.2 of Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 did not bar the refund claim, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory requirements for refund of accumulated input tax credit due to the input-output tax rate differential were satisfied, and the circular clarification could not displace that entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of unutilised input tax credit is available where a higher rate of tax on inputs than on commercially distinct output supplies creates an inverted duty structure; a circular confined to same-goods rate changes cannot enlarge the statutory restriction on such refund.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under the Uttar Pradesh GST law could be sustained where no personal hearing was afforded after the originally fixed hearing date.

Analysis: Section 75(4) requires that a personal hearing be provided in the circumstances contemplated by the provision, while Section 75(5) regulates adjournments of such hearing. No hearing occurred on the date originally fixed, no subsequent hearing date was intimated, and the adjudication order was passed over nine months later. As no adjournment had been sought by the assessee, the absence of a fresh hearing opportunity constituted a complete breach of the statutory hearing requirement and of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication was invalid for denial of a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether alleged non-consideration of the reply and supporting documents justified writ interference despite the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether DGGI and the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, had jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the common notice; (iii) Whether reliance on Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST rendered the demand under Section 74 amenable to writ interference.

Issue (i): Whether alleged non-consideration of the reply and supporting documents justified writ interference despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction need not be exercised where Section 107 provides an effective appellate remedy capable of undertaking factual scrutiny. The impugned order recorded the personal hearing and disclosed its reasons for rejecting input tax credit, notwithstanding an erroneous reference to the date of written submissions and the absence of separate discussion of every document. Verification of work orders, subcontracts, invoices, payments and evidence of execution requires factual appraisal available in appeal.

Conclusion: The alleged inadequacy in consideration of the reply and documents does not warrant writ intervention and is to be pursued in statutory appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether DGGI and the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, had jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the common notice.

Analysis: Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax vested specified DGGI officers with the powers of Central tax officers throughout India. Administrative allocation to State tax authorities does not exclude intelligence-based enforcement by DGGI. The applicable adjudication allocation instruments designated Delhi North for the common notice because the noticee with the highest tax demand was located in Delhi, and the revised allocation likewise retained Delhi North as the designated authority.

Conclusion: DGGI and the Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi North, had jurisdiction over the common notice and its adjudication. The jurisdictional objection fails, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reliance on Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST rendered the demand under Section 74 amenable to writ interference.

Analysis: The Circular differentiates between ineligible input tax credit used for genuine outward supplies and cases where both inward and outward invoices lack underlying supplies. Determination of the applicable situation, the validity of recovery under Section 74, and the resulting consequences for penalties depends upon characterization of the underlying transactions and examination of the evidentiary record. Section 107(11) enables the appellate authority to undertake that inquiry and confirm, modify or annul the adjudication.

Conclusion: Invocation of the Circular does not by itself justify writ interference. Its applicability and consequences remain open for appellate determination, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The enforcement and adjudicatory jurisdiction challenge stands conclusively rejected, while the factual and substantive challenges concerning input tax credit, demand, interest, penalties and applicability of the Circular remain for determination in the statutory appellate forum.

Issues: (i) Whether the Common Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate a composite show-cause notice and whether the impugned circulars validly selected that authority. (ii) Whether the highest-demand criterion for selection of the Common Adjudicating Authority is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge the merits of the adjudication despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Common Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to adjudicate a composite show-cause notice and whether the impugned circulars validly selected that authority.

Analysis: Sections 3, 5(3) and 167 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require jurisdiction-conferring or function-transferring measures to be made through notification, whereas Section 168 permits administrative directions for uniform implementation of an existing jurisdiction. Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax, as amended by Notification No. 2/2022-Central Tax, vested specified Additional and Joint Commissioners with pan-India jurisdiction over notices issued by the investigative authority. The circulars did not enlarge that jurisdiction or appoint an officer outside the notified class; they provided an administrative method for choosing one among officers already competent to decide a composite notice. The absence of an express recital of approval did not invalidate the circulars without material showing absence of authority. The notified appellate hierarchy remained available in the Commissionerate where the Common Adjudicating Authority was posted.

Conclusion: The Common Adjudicating Authority was lawfully vested with jurisdiction, and the impugned circulars validly operated as an administrative allocation mechanism.

Issue (ii): Whether the highest-demand criterion for selection of the Common Adjudicating Authority is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The criterion is objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable. It bears a rational nexus to securing a single, consistent adjudication of a common investigation and avoiding conflicting factual findings. Its application involves no discretionary choice by the issuing officer and does not amount to impermissible sub-delegation of adjudicatory power.

Conclusion: The highest-demand criterion is constitutionally valid and does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iii): Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge the merits of the adjudication despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The jurisdictional challenge was entertained as a recognised exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of an efficacious statutory remedy. Once the jurisdictional foundation of the order was sustained, the remaining challenges concerning the demand, evidence and natural justice fell within the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: Challenges on merits are to be pursued before the statutory Appellate Authority and are not amenable to determination in the writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The notified pan-India adjudication framework and the administrative mechanism for common adjudication are legally sustained, while all unresolved challenges to the tax demand remain available before the statutory appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification has already vested a defined class of officers with jurisdiction, an administrative circular may validly select one competent officer for common adjudication of a composite notice without independently conferring or transferring jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment disclosed a procedural irregularity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The impugned assessment was found free from procedural irregularity. Although the period for statutory appeal had expired, liberty to invoke the appellate remedy was granted upon verification of the stated recovery of the requisite disputed tax amount, with a direction for disposal on merits without reference to limitation.

Conclusion: No procedural irregularity in the assessment was established, and writ interference was declined.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the order confirming the GST demand where liability for blocked input tax credit and reverse-charge tax had been admitted, and where alleged unreported turnover was identified through comparison with Form 26AS.

Analysis: Tax liability on the first two discrepancies had been admitted and paid, leaving interest and penalty payable. The remaining discrepancy concerned turnover allegedly omitted from GST returns despite its reflection in Form 26AS. No detailed merits adjudication of that discrepancy was undertaken in the writ proceedings, for which the statutory appellate remedy remained available.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy for the turnover discrepancy.

Issues: Whether the impugned assessment required fresh adjudication in light of the asserted overlap with an earlier assessment concerning three demand heads.

Analysis: The petitioner had asserted that substantially identical demands relating to blocked input tax credit, commission income and reverse-charge freight had already been confirmed by the jurisdictional officer, and that the tax liability had been discharged. Fresh adjudication was directed after deposit of the interest and penalty imposed in the earlier assessment, with notice to the petitioner.

Outcome: The impugned assessment was quashed and remitted for fresh determination on merits upon compliance with the stipulated deposit.

Outcome: Assessment order quashed and matter remitted for fresh adjudication on stipulated pre-deposit and reply.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment order warranted interference when the record showed service of the statutory pre-notice and show-cause notice.

Analysis: The record established that an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A and a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 had been issued under the Section 73 assessment process. No procedural irregularity was discernible in the making of the impugned order. Nevertheless, a conditional opportunity for de novo adjudication was granted in accordance with the consistent approach adopted in similar matters.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash and filing its reply with supporting documents within the stipulated period. The bank attachment was directed to be lifted upon compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate forum has statutory power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution and to set aside such default dismissal; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to a fresh merits determination in its first appeal after dismissal for non-appearance despite payment of pre-deposit and disputed service of hearing notices.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate forum has statutory power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution and to set aside such default dismissal.

Analysis: Section 111(1) requires the appellate forum to be guided by principles of natural justice while regulating its procedure. Section 111(2)(f) expressly authorises dismissal of a representation for default or ex parte decision, while Section 111(2)(g) expressly authorises setting aside of such default dismissal or ex parte order. The reference to a representation includes an appeal for this purpose.

Conclusion: The appellate forum is empowered to dismiss for default and to set aside a default or ex parte order. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to a fresh merits determination in its first appeal after dismissal for non-appearance despite payment of pre-deposit and disputed service of hearing notices.

Analysis: The first appeal had been validly constituted upon payment of the prescribed pre-deposit. In view of the asserted lack of effective notice of the hearing dates and the absence of any apparent reason for the assessee to abandon an appeal after making the pre-deposit, denial of a merits determination in the first appeal was not justified. The statutory restoration mechanism was available, but the facts warranted preservation of the assessee's opportunity for a first appellate decision on merits.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to a fresh merits determination after due opportunity of hearing. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's right to an effective first appellate adjudication on merits was preserved notwithstanding the appellate forum's statutory power to dismiss matters for default.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate forum expressly empowered to dismiss for default is correspondingly empowered to set aside a default dismissal or ex parte order under the statutory procedure.

Issues: Whether penalty for contravention of GST e-way bill requirements was sustainable where the delivery address stated in the e-way bill was not a declared place of business of the recipient, despite payment of tax and absence of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129 permits penalty for contravention of the applicable GST statutes or rules, and is not confined to cases of tax non-payment. Rule 138 requires accurate e-way bill particulars to facilitate tracking of goods, including the place of delivery. The delivery address was admittedly neither the recipient's principal place of business nor an additional declared place of business on the date of interception; its subsequent registration did not cure the contravention. The supplier was required to verify that the address provided for delivery was a declared place of business before generating the e-way bill. The e-way bill was also deemed accepted because neither supplier nor recipient communicated its rejection under the prescribed mechanism. Payment of tax and absence of intention to evade tax did not eliminate the statutory breach.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 129 was sustained; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether omitted Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could continue to govern pending export refund claims in the absence of a savings or sunset clause.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted without any savings or sunset clause. Omission of subordinate legislation without such preservation terminates its operation in relation to pending proceedings; an advisory recommendation for prospective omission cannot independently preserve the omitted rule.

Conclusion: Rule 96(10) could not be applied to pending refund proceedings after its omission, and the refund direction remained unaffected.