Personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory before an adverse order is passed. The provision establishes two independent grounds for a hearing: where the person chargeable with tax or penalty requests one, or where the proper officer proposes an adverse decision. The officer's obligation to provide an effective hearing in the latter circumstance applies irrespective of whether the taxable person requested a hearing or filed a reply to the show-cause notice.

Ex parte assessment for tax period 2019-20 was restored for fresh determination because it had been confirmed without a response to the show-cause notice. Fresh adjudication is conditional on the taxpayer depositing 50% of the outstanding IGST and cess and filing a reply to the notice. The specified tax payments already claimed formed part of the taxpayer's submission supporting reconsideration.

GST appellate jurisdiction requires appeals from adjudication orders of Central proper officers to be heard by the competent appellate authority under the Central GST regime. A State Appellate Authority cannot acquire jurisdiction merely because such an appeal is presented before it; deciding it breaches jurisdictional propriety and consistency in the GST framework. Accordingly, an order issued by the State Appellate Authority on a Central adjudication appeal is to be quashed, with the appeal remitted for fresh determination by the competent Central Appellate Authority according to law.

Bail pending trial for alleged CGST offences requires assessment of whether continued custody is necessary to secure the accused's attendance and protect the justice process. Pre-conviction detention is not punitive; the presumption of innocence, personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial weigh against continued detention where investigation is complete, the complaint is filed and evidence is documentary. Bail was granted because the accused had no criminal antecedents and no material indicated absconding, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, repeat offending or subversion of justice, while trial completion was unlikely within a reasonable period.

Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits extended-limitation action for wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax is specifically established. A show-cause notice must disclose the foundational facts, identify the precise conduct alleged, and correlate that conduct with a categorical statutory charge. Mechanical or alternative recitals of fraud, wilful misstatement, and suppression, without explaining the attributed conduct and its basis, do not validly invoke Section 74. The notice was therefore set aside.

Uploading a show-cause notice only under the portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation, may deny the noticee an effective opportunity to respond. Such denial breaches the principles of natural justice where the affected party cannot access or answer the notice. The resulting adjudication is vitiated and requires fresh determination after the petitioners are afforded a hearing.

Meaningful opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice requires that the personal hearing be scheduled after expiry of the permitted time for filing a reply. Fixing the hearing before that deadline denies the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing and breaches principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate orders were quashed, and the proceedings were directed to recommence from the show-cause-notice stage after allowing a reply and a proper personal hearing.

Appeals filed beyond the ordinary limitation period but within the statutory condonable period require consideration of any explanation for delay. Where medical circumstances are asserted as preventing a response to a notice, the explanation should be assessed unless shown to be ungenuine. Fair opportunity to establish sufficient cause and a hearing before the appellate authority are necessary before rejecting the delayed appeal. Rejection without considering the condonation request cannot be sustained.

Pecuniary limits imposed through the Commissioner's administrative order constrained the Deputy Commissioner's authority to block input tax credit. The prescribed ceiling was Rs. 1 crore, yet credit exceeding that amount was blocked before being unblocked. Statutory power must be exercised within jurisdictional limits fixed by the competent administrative authority; consequently, the Deputy Commissioner lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to block input tax credit beyond the prescribed limit.

Statutory GST claims for pre-effective-date periods that are not lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process are extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, including unassessed, unknown, interest and penalty claims. Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds governmental authorities to the approved plan, and its overriding effect prevents later GST adjudication or recovery of extinguished liabilities. General GST adjudicatory provisions and liquidation-related provisions cannot revive such claims. Availability of a statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction or contrary to binding insolvency law.

Article 226 jurisdiction ordinarily does not displace a statutory appeal where objections to an input-tax-credit adjudication require examination of the underlying record and disputed facts. The bar under Section 6(2)(b) depends on identity of the precise subject matter, including tax periods, transactions, invoices, liabilities and allegations; a common supplier or general ITC connection is insufficient. An independent finding of ITC availment on goods-less invoices does not facially constitute a new basis beyond the show-cause notice. Objections concerning hearing opportunities, evidence, limitation, period clubbing, replies and Section 74 require appellate scrutiny unless an ex facie jurisdictional error or undisputed breach of natural justice is established.

Section 54(11) of the CGST Act permits withholding of a refund where the refund-generating order is subject to appeal, further proceedings, or another pending proceeding and, after hearing the taxable person, the Commissioner considers release harmful to revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. "Other pending proceedings" can include an ongoing statutory anti-evasion investigation, not only a formal appeal. Material indicating non-existent or cancelled suppliers, no established movement of goods, and no connection with the manufacturer's supply chain can support the required opinion concerning fraudulent input tax credit. A later show-cause notice may crystallise an existing investigation; no separate appellate proceeding or judicial stay is required for valid withholding.

Section 54(11) of the CGST Act permits withholding an export IGST refund where the underlying refund order is subject to appeal or other pending proceedings and, after hearing the taxable person, the Commissioner independently concludes that release would adversely affect revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. This statutory safeguard operates without a separate judicial stay; a proposed appeal alone is insufficient, but an already commenced anti-evasion investigation may qualify as pending proceedings. Material concerning allegedly non-genuine or non-operational suppliers and unestablished goods movement supported the withholding. Questions on supply genuineness remained for GSTAT; withholding was sustained and writ relief refused.

Approved resolution plans bind government authorities, extinguishing pre-approval statutory dues not lodged in insolvency proceedings or provided for in the plan, where the plan covers known and unknown, assessed and unassessed claims. Such extinguishment prevents subsequent GST demand notices, adjudication and recovery because determination cannot survive independently of the extinguished liability. The CGST first-charge provision yields to the IBC's overriding effect, and liquidation cannot revive the liability. Writ jurisdiction remains available despite an appellate remedy where proceedings lack jurisdiction and the dispute is a pure legal issue on admitted facts; a pre-deposit appeal need not be pursued.

Section 74 of the HPGST Act requires a show cause notice to state the foundational facts showing that wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit resulted from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. Bare, alternative recitals of those expressions, without identifying the taxpayer's precise conduct and linking it to the alleged default, do not meet that requirement. An ITC mismatch or short payment alone cannot justify Section 74 unless the notice records supporting reasons and facts. The High Court set aside the defective notice, permitted a fresh notice within 60 days without limitation bar, and kept the challenge to ITC provisions open.

Bail in a CGST prosecution involving alleged diversion of online-gaming merchant funds was granted because pre-conviction detention is not punitive and must secure attendance at trial. Completed investigation, filing of the complaint, documentary evidence, Magistrate-triable offences, and absence of criminal antecedents or material showing witness tampering, flight risk, repeat offending, or exceptional circumstances meant continued custody was unjustified. Delay likely to prevent trial completion within a reasonable time further supported release, subject to attendance and non-interference safeguards.

GST demand challenges founded on claims that supplies were exempt fuelwood and charcoal require substantiation during adjudication; where that defence is not properly supported, the statutory appeal is the appropriate remedy. The taxpayer may clarify an apparently incorrect reference to Form GSTR-8A before the Appellate Authority by filing supporting material. Despite substantial recovery of the confirmed demand, an appeal filed within the permitted period must be decided without applying limitation.

Ex parte GST assessment is addressed where statutory appellate limitation prevents appellate recourse. Fresh consideration is contemplated because the demand was made ex parte, provided the taxpayer files a reply to the show-cause notice, treats the impugned order as an addendum, and makes pre-deposit of the disputed tax. The respondent must then decide the matter on merits after hearing the taxpayer. Non-compliance permits proceedings in accordance with law as though the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

Rule 86A limits restrictions on input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger to one year and provides a statutory route for unblocking. A person whose credit is blocked must approach the Commissioner for an order under Rule 86A(2). Where registration is subsequently cancelled and a demand is determined, unblocking cannot be pursued solely by relying on issues concerning communication of the blocking reasons. The cancellation and demand orders must first be validly challenged; an unblocking request may then be made in accordance with law.

Input tax credit proportionate to consideration unpaid beyond 180 days must be added to output tax liability, and interest runs from availment until a financial or commercial credit note is received and recorded. A supplier's full waiver through such a credit note leaves no unpaid supply value and permits retention of original-invoice credit because the note does not reduce transaction value or invoice tax; beneficial Board clarifications bind departmental officers. Recorded unpaid balances and a bona fide view, later supported by clarification, do not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression merely because audit detected the issue. The GST demand for credit and penalty fail, while interest for the intervening period remains payable.