Principles of natural justice require a meaningful opportunity to respond before a reassessment order is made. Information concerning the source of funds was requested through a later digitally signed communication, issued immediately before intervening holidays and requiring a response by midday on the next working day. The effective response period was about three-and-a-half hours, which was insufficient to furnish the requested particulars. This denial of adequate opportunity vitiated the order under Section 148A(3), and the taxpayer must receive a hearing after providing the requested details, with merits remaining open.

Search-related reassessment for AY 2024-25 may be initiated under section 148 without using section 153C or the section 148A(1) procedure. Where seized cash was disclosed as cash sales, adjusted against tax liability in earlier appellate proceedings, and accepted by the same Assessing Officer as belonging to the taxpayer, its treatment as deemed information of escaped income raises a jurisdictional issue. A notice that neither refers to the cash nor states the jurisdictional facts supporting escaped income requires examination. Reassessment proceedings were stayed pending final hearing.

Section 68 requires the assessee to establish the creditor's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of a credit transaction. Unsupported accommodation-entry explanations and unsubstantiated onward transfers do not discharge that burden. Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence. Material available in public records during the original proceedings does not satisfy that standard, and review jurisdiction cannot be used to rehear settled factual findings without an error apparent on the face of the record.

Stay of tax-recovery proceedings requires the assessing authority to exercise discretion by considering the request's merits and relevant facts. CBDT stay-demand guidelines do not make payment of 20% of the disputed demand an automatic precondition to examining a stay request. Refusal based only on the appeal's pendency and non-payment, without assessing merits or other material circumstances, was unsustainable and required fresh determination.

Zero-rated turnover for an ITC refund must be computed for the same relevant period as Net ITC and adjusted total turnover, using export invoices issued at or before removal of goods. Physical export remains necessary to obtain the refund, but a later shipping-bill date does not shift invoice value outside the relevant-period turnover once export is proved. A proposed reduction for inadmissible ITC does not affect the sanctioned refund where the maximum permissible refund under the formula remains higher than the amount claimed.

Reasoned appellate decision-making requires determination of material grounds, consideration of relied-on authorities, and cogent reasons addressing the evidence and disputes raised. Mere confirmation of original orders without such analysis fails the requirement of a speaking order. Where original adjudication was ex parte and objections concerning notices, relied-upon documents, and effective personal hearing remain unresolved, fresh original adjudication is warranted. The process must identify and make available relevant material, provide a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard, and issue reasoned findings before tax liability is redetermined.

Input tax credit eligibility must be assessed on transaction-specific facts and evidence under the CGST and UPGST Acts. Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's registration does not, by itself, establish that invoices were fictitious, supplies were not received, or credit was otherwise inadmissible. Return discrepancies likewise do not prove ineligibility of identified credit without supporting material. The claimant's burden applies to the particular transactions in question, while any tax demand must remain confined to the grounds stated in the proceedings. Limited input tax credit relief based on examined GST-record amendments was sustained.

Additional court fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act applies to first GST appeals filed before the State GST appellate authority. Although the CGST/KGST appeal provision specifies payments required to maintain an appeal, it does not displace the separately applicable State court-fee levy. The recognised validity and applicability of the additional fee bind both State GST authorities and appellants. A later notification does not remove the pre-existing obligation to pay the applicable court fee. Consequently, payment of additional court fee remains required for a first GST appeal.

Interlocutory relief under Rule 29 may be considered in a pending matter, but substantive consideration of a stay and priority-listing request was deferred where the appeal remained under scrutiny and unregistered. Urgency justified expedited Registry scrutiny. The Registry was directed to register the appeal if no deficiency existed and thereafter place the interlocutory application before the Bench.

For FY 2018-19, absence of supplier invoices from GSTR-2A does not by itself justify denial of input tax credit because section 16(2)(aa) did not apply; it instead triggers verification. The claimant must still establish the conditions for credit under section 16 and discharge the burden of proof under section 155. A supplier certificate under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST is evidentiary, not conclusive, without return-level proof of reporting error and tax payment. IGST, CGST and SGST are separate tax heads, requiring transaction-level reconciliation for any lawful cross-head adjustment. Interest applies to wrongly availed and utilised credit, and statutory penalty follows a sustained tax demand.

Section 129 of the CGST Act is a machinery provision aimed at preventing tax evasion, requiring proof of intent before a transit-related penalty is imposed. Departmental instructions distinguish substantive contraventions from minor procedural lapses. Where goods matched the accompanying e-way bill and delivery challan on physical verification, an incorrect consignor pin code that shortened the recorded distance and caused e-way bill expiry did not establish tax-evasion intent. In those circumstances, invocation of Section 129 and the consequential penalty were unjustified.

Section 129(3) penalty is directed at intentional tax evasion rather than an inadvertent clerical or portal-related lapse in e-way bill compliance. Non-updating of Part-B, by itself, does not establish an attempt to evade tax where the tax invoice, Part-A e-way bill, goods particulars and underlying transaction are genuine and properly accounted for. Manual check-post precedents are distinguishable in the digital GST framework. Revenue must record and support a positive finding of intent to evade tax before imposing a penalty; absent such evidence, Part-B non-updating alone cannot sustain penal action.

Section 129 penalty cannot rest solely on an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill where invoices and Part-A particulars are genuine, the transaction is tax-paid and identifiable, and no intention to evade tax is established. A technical documentation lapse requires assessment of surrounding facts and does not mechanically attract penal consequences. A final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 must quantify tax and penalty after considering objections and providing a hearing. Non-issuance of that mandatory adjudicatory order prejudices statutory rights and invalidates the penalty demand.

Section 128A waives interest and penalty only in relation to demands or proceedings under Section 73, including where tax is already paid and proceedings concern interest or penalty alone. Interest on delayed payment of admitted self-assessed tax arises under Section 50 and remains directly recoverable under Section 75(12) when no Section 73 proceeding exists. Treating disputed tax determined in Section 73 proceedings differently from self-assessed tax constitutes a valid statutory classification and does not violate Article 14.

Blocked input tax credit and reverse-charge tax liabilities admitted and paid leave consequential interest and penalty exposure. Turnover reflected in Form 26AS but omitted from GST returns requires merits examination through the statutory appellate process rather than writ review. The appellate remedy remains available for resolving the alleged unreported-turnover discrepancy.

Absence of procedural irregularity in an assessment precludes interference in writ jurisdiction. Where the statutory appeal period has expired, an appellate remedy may nevertheless be invoked upon verification of recovery of the requisite disputed tax amount. The appeal must then be decided on its merits without reference to limitation. Writ relief is declined when no procedural defect in the assessment is established, while preserving the conditional opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate process.

Section 74 may be invoked for an input tax credit mismatch only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax is established. A mismatch between GSTR-3B and auto-populated GSTR-2A, without facts demonstrating those statutory ingredients, does not support proceedings under Section 74, particularly where invoices and a supplier certificate are on record. The tax determination requires reconsideration under Section 73.

GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of correct bank-account details, including multiple registrations linked to a joint account, may require reconsideration where the lapse is curable. Bank particulars must be disclosed, and specified defaults may trigger cancellation; however, cancellation disables business operations and carries serious civil consequences. Where fraud, fake invoices, circular trading and tax evasion are not alleged, taxpayers willing to regularise returns and outstanding dues should receive a pragmatic assessment. Restoration requires relevant bank documents, a personal hearing, and compliance with statutory requirements.

Section 6(2)(b) bars subsequent Central GST proceedings only where earlier State GST proceedings concern the identical subject matter. Turnover reconciliation proceedings and proceedings based on search material alleging non-existent suppliers, wrongful input tax credit, and invoices without corresponding supplies involved distinct allegations and evidence; the parallel-proceedings bar therefore did not apply. Multiple notices sent by speed post and registered email, followed by non-appearance and no substantive reply, constituted adequate hearing opportunity, so the ex parte order was not vitiated. Section 16(2)(c) remains constitutionally valid following High Court and Supreme Court affirmation. The merits of the input tax credit demand were not adjudicated.

Section 107 of the Rajasthan and Central GST Acts restricts the appellate authority to the prescribed limitation period. Where a show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded in an additional portal location rather than the designated notices-and-orders tab, ineffective service left the assessee without effective knowledge of the proceedings and demand. Writ jurisdiction may be used to avoid substantial prejudice where the statutory appellate mechanism cannot condone the resulting delay. The 121-day delay was condoned, the limitation-based appellate order was set aside, and a fresh appeal was permitted for merits adjudication without a limitation objection.