Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through upload on the Common Portal may be inadequate where receipt is unacknowledged, no reply is filed, and the taxpayer lacks effective knowledge of the proceedings. Although the statutory limitation period binds the appellate authority, writ jurisdiction may address delay caused by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control where refusing merits adjudication would cause grave injury or prejudice. In the stated circumstances, delay in filing the GST appeal against an input tax credit demand was condoned, the limitation-based dismissal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the fresh appeal on merits without raising limitation.

Parallel GST proceedings are barred only where proceedings under the State enactment were initiated earlier and both proceedings concern the same subject matter. Turnover reconciliation based on GSTR-3B and allegations of issuing invoices without supply and wrongly passing input tax credit involve distinct subject matters, so the bar does not apply. Ex parte adjudication does not breach natural justice where hearing notices are properly sent and the noticee neither appears nor provides a substantive reply. Input tax credit may validly be conditional on the supplier's payment of tax, a position affirmed by the Supreme Court. Statutory appellate remedy remains available for objections to the demand without a merits determination.

GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations linked to a joint account is addressed as curable procedural non-compliance where fraud, fake invoicing, circular trading and tax evasion are absent. Because cancellation has serious civil consequences and GST law prioritises compliance over punishment, taxpayers willing to furnish correct bank details, file pending returns and pay statutory dues, interest and penalty should receive an opportunity to establish bona fides. Cancellation may be set aside and restoration considered through a reasoned hearing, with restoration conditional on filing pending returns and payment of outstanding dues.

GST assessment order was challenged on the basis that zero-rated supplies entitled the petitioner to a refund under the IGST and CGST/TNGST provisions. The assessment also required payment of interest and penalty under the respective GST enactments. No procedural irregularity was found in the assessment process, and the writ challenge was dismissed. The dispute therefore centred on the procedural validity of the assessment despite the asserted entitlement to a refund for zero-rated supplies.

Section 129 penalties for an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill require independent, recorded evidence of intent to evade tax; a technical or clerical omission alone is insufficient where invoices, Part-A particulars and other documentation establish a transparent, tax-paid transaction. Penalties imposed without positive proof of tax-evasion intent are legally unsustainable. Following detention and consideration of objections, a final reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09 must be issued after providing a hearing. Failure to issue that speaking order prejudices the taxpayer's rights and vitiates the resulting penalty demand.

Section 129 penalty for an expired e-way bill must serve its tax-evasion prevention purpose, notwithstanding that the provision does not expressly require mens rea. Board instructions identifying situations in which section 129 need not be invoked bind the proper officer. Where goods matched the e-way bill and delivery challan, and an erroneous consignor PIN code shortened rather than extended validity, the lapse was clerical. Without any allegation of intent to evade tax, detention and penalty proceedings under section 129 were unwarranted.

Section 129 penalties for failure to update Part-B of an e-way bill require independent findings of an intent to evade tax where the goods movement is otherwise supported by genuine tax documents. The integrated electronic GST framework distinguishes technical or procedural omissions from active tax-evasion attempts. Where the invoice, Part-A details and underlying transaction transparently establish the movement, non-updation of Part-B alone should not sustain a penalty. Strict-liability principles developed under the legacy manual check-post regime are not treated as governing such electronic GST compliance failures.

GSTR-2A non-reflection for FY 2018-19 operates as a scrutiny trigger rather than an automatic bar to input tax credit, but the claimant must prove substantive eligibility with objective, transaction-level evidence. A supplier certificate is evidentiary material, not a statutory deeming rule; unsupported B2C-reporting errors and residual IGST mismatches do not establish credit. IGST, CGST and SGST are distinct credit heads, so cross-head set-off requires legally permissible, transaction-level reconciliation. Additional evidence cannot fill evidentiary gaps or justify remand after adequate opportunities. Where wrongly availed credit was utilised, interest follows absent a demonstrated computational error, and non-fraud penalty applies where no separate basis for relief exists.

Additional court fees are payable on GST first appeals before the State appellate authority under the applicable court-fees law, notwithstanding the statutory pre-deposit prescribed for filing the appeal. The levy binds both the appellate authority and taxpayers within the State's jurisdiction. Where the appellant undertakes to pay the requisite fees, dismissal of the first appeal for non-payment may be set aside and the matter remanded for decision on merits after observing natural justice.

Interlocutory relief under Rule 29 is contemplated only in a pending appeal. Where a statutory appeal remains under scrutiny and is not registered, stay or early-hearing relief cannot receive substantive consideration. Urgency may instead justify expedited scrutiny, subject to procedural compliance. Once deficiencies are cleared and the appeal is registered, the interlocutory application may be tagged to it and placed before the Bench for consideration.

Input tax credit claimed on invoices from a supplier whose registration was retrospectively cancelled requires examination of the facts and evidence for each underlying transaction. Retrospective cancellation alone does not establish credit ineligibility unless specific material shows that invoices were fictitious or sham, or that supplies were not received. Differences between figures in GST returns, standing alone, likewise do not establish an erroneous credit claim. A demand cannot be sustained on a ground materially different from the basis of the original proceedings. Subsequent amendments in GST records may be relevant to determining limited credit eligibility.

Reasoned and speaking appellate GST orders must address material grounds of appeal and cited precedents; merely confirming an ex parte demand for lack of satisfactory evidence fails to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Where original adjudication occurred ex parte and objections concerning notice, relied-upon documents, and hearing remain unresolved, remand for fresh original adjudication preserves the appellate remedy. Fresh proceedings require identification and access to relied-upon documents, a reasonable opportunity to respond, an effective personal hearing, and reasoned findings based on evidence. Non-participation without sufficient cause permits determination on the existing record, but not without reasons.

For export refunds under rule 89(4), net input tax credit, turnover of zero-rated supply and adjusted total turnover must correspond to the same relevant period. Export invoices for goods intended for export are issued before or at removal of goods; their value is included in zero-rated turnover where issued during that period, even if the goods are exported later, provided actual export is established. Refund cannot be denied solely because export occurred after the relevant period. An objection that certain input tax credit was inadmissible did not affect the sanctioned refund because the maximum computable refund remained higher than the amount claimed. The departmental appeal was dismissed.

Stay applications against recovery of disputed income-tax demand require a reasoned exercise of discretion based on factors relevant to granting or refusing interim protection. Rejection solely because an appeal is pending, no separate stay order exists, or the prescribed demand percentage has not been paid under an applicable circular is mechanical and insufficient. The decision-maker must record consideration of the merits relevant to the stay request. The rejection was set aside and remitted to the competent authority for fresh reasoned consideration within one month, without deciding the underlying tax dispute.

Review jurisdiction permits reliance on newly discovered evidence only where, despite due diligence, it was neither known nor capable of earlier production. Publicly available sale deeds and a Tribunal order did not meet that condition because they were accessible during the original proceedings and no due diligence was demonstrated. Seeking to reassess the factual explanation for an unexplained bank credit would amount to an impermissible rehearing rather than correction of an error apparent on the record. The review application was therefore dismissed.

Limitation computation treats an objection filed on the next working day as timely where the statutory final day falls on a Sunday. Under section 144C, a timely objection requires the Assessing Officer to await binding Dispute Resolution Panel directions before making a final assessment. Rejection of the objection as time-barred led to the final assessment being quashed, with the objection requiring merits-based consideration after hearing the assessee. Consequential penalty proceedings remain stayed until completion of that adjudication.

CBDT instructions treat recovery of 20% of disputed tax demand as the ordinary condition for stay pending a first appeal. Recovery above that level requires recorded reasons, including lack of prima facie sustainability of the taxpayer's case or exceptional circumstances. Where a stay order does not record reasons for exceeding the norm, retaining excess collections or adjusting refunds while the stay continues defeats the protection of the stay. Aggregate recoveries and refund adjustments must be verified, and amounts exceeding 20% must be refunded with applicable interest. The assessment and appellate merits remain open.

Limitation governing correction of TDS statements does not justify an employer's failure to file an original TDS statement or return; where no original filing exists, the correction-time-limit plea is inapplicable. An employer that deducts TDS acts as an agent for its collection and remittance and becomes an assessee in default if it neither deposits deducted tax nor files required returns. Recovery mechanisms, including a charge on the employer's assets, apply against the defaulting employer, while the employee must not suffer for that default. Filed statements require verification and employee grievances require redress.

DRP directions bind the final assessment order, but a patent computation omission may be rectified within the statutory period where the directions were reproduced but not implemented. An Indian subsidiary does not create a permanent establishment merely on facts previously found insufficient to establish one, so no business-profit attribution follows on that basis. Third-party cost reimbursements received without mark-up are not fees for included services unless the services are technical or consultancy services and make available the requisite technical knowledge or know-how under the India-USA DTAA. Corporate guarantee commission must be benchmarked on the taxpayer's facts; a fixed formula without examining the taxpayer's benchmarking is inappropriate.

Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom permits replacement of a resolution professional, who has no vested right to remain in office, provided statutory and procedural requirements are met; the replacement was upheld. The professional must nevertheless act independently and consistently with the Code and Regulations. Professional fees depend on work performed and the creditors' acceptance of the applicable scale, while CIRP-expense reimbursement requires factual examination; both claims remain for NCLT adjudication. Adverse observations bearing on the former professional's reputation were expunged as unnecessary.