Tax determinations under Section 74 cannot be retained once fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion and suppression are found absent and that provision is inapplicable. Potential applicability of the limitation period under Section 73 does not validate a demand issued and confirmed under Section 74. Penalty under Section 73(9) cannot be substituted at the appellate stage where the show-cause notice proposed penalty only under Section 74(1), because doing so exceeds the scope of the notice. Accordingly, both the tax demand under the inapplicable provision and the substituted penalty are unsustainable.

Wilful suppression must be supported by specific facts identifying suppressed material, the required disclosure, and the prescribed return, statement, report, or document. Failure to reverse input tax credit because suppliers were not paid within the stipulated period, without more, does not establish suppression or justify penalty under Section 74(1). Audit detection alone cannot prove wilful suppression, and Revenue bears that burden. Grounds absent from the show cause notice cannot be added at the second appellate stage. On these principles, the Section 74(1) penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Input tax credit on invoices absent from GSTR-2A was denied where the recipient admitted that suppliers had not uploaded the invoices and failed to establish that suppliers paid the tax, as required under the pre-amendment matching and reversal scheme. Interest on sustained ineligible credit remained recoverable as mandatory and incidental to reversal, even though not expressly proposed in the show-cause notice; however, it must be recomputed invoice-wise from availment until reversal or payment under the statutory mechanism. Separate interest based solely on credit exceeding the Rule 36(4) provisional-credit limit was deleted because it was not contemplated by the show-cause notice and fell outside the original proceedings.

Section 54(3)(ii) permits an inverted-duty refund where eligible input tax credit accumulates because inputs bear a higher tax rate than output supplies. Packing materials used in supplying packaged tea qualify as inputs when used in the course or furtherance of business; their higher rate, compared with the rate on packaged tea, can support refund eligibility even where bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same rate. Circulars addressing rate reductions on the same goods over time or supplies under concessional notifications do not apply where neither circumstance exists. Executive circulars cannot restrict a statutory refund entitlement outside their stated scope.

Unaccounted goods found at registered business premises must be addressed through the tax-determination mechanism. Section 35(1) requires true and correct accounts, while section 35(6) treats unaccounted goods or services as deemed supplies subject to tax determination under sections 73 or 74. Direct confiscation under section 130(2), including consequential tax, penalty and fine, is therefore unsustainable on that basis.

Cancellation of an E-Way Bill does not, by itself, establish movement of goods without payment of tax, and issuance of a replacement E-Way Bill does not conclusively show that the cancelled bill was unused. Tax and penalty consequences require transaction-wise portal-based verification of cancellation timing and reasons, corresponding fresh bills, matching transaction particulars, actual goods movement, and any nexus between cancelled bills and transportation. The Department must establish that nexus through factual verification, while the dealer must have an opportunity to support its explanation and records. Tax liability must be determined afresh following that examination.

GST appellate procedure requires an order-in-original to be challenged first before the Appellate Authority under Section 107. Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 112(1) is confined to orders passed under Sections 107 or 108, or corresponding State GST provisions. Pendency of a statutory first appeal does not transform the original adjudication order into an appellate order capable of direct Tribunal challenge. Rule 24(4) procedural scrutiny powers cannot expand the statutory category of appealable orders. Consequently, a direct Tribunal appeal against an order-in-original is not maintainable where no appellate or revisional order exists.

For 2017-18, a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch alone does not establish wrongful input tax credit where return data identifies timely declared credit-note adjustments and no double reduction of output tax. Tax on an issuer's own outward-supply credit notes is not input tax credit, but section 34 permits output-tax adjustment when credit notes are properly declared; a mistaken return-table entry may be revenue-neutral. Sections 61 and 73 require examination of explanations and return data, while section 75(7) bars demands on grounds absent from the show cause notice. Recipient credit reversal was not then a condition for supplier adjustment. Interest requires wrongly availed and utilised credit, and penalty requires tax due.

Section 142(3) of the CGST Act permits refund claims for amounts paid under the pre-GST law to be processed under that earlier regime. Service tax paid under reverse charge after GST commenced, but not reflected in the final ST-3 return, cannot be transitioned as GST credit or availed as CENVAT credit because the CENVAT regime had ceased. Cash refund is therefore available under Section 142(3) where the service tax amount could not otherwise be transitioned or credited.

Section 107(12) requires a written appellate order to identify points for determination, decide each point, and give reasons. A cryptic dismissal that omits the taxpayer's defence, does not formulate issues, and gives no reasons violates this statutory requirement and principles of natural justice. Such a non-speaking appellate order is unsustainable and requires fresh adjudication by the First Appellate Authority through a reasoned order after adequate opportunity to produce evidence.

Works contractors that discharge additional GST liability arising from the replacement of the VAT regime are entitled to reimbursement of the verified differential tax from the State as recipient of works-contract services. The recipient's obligation applies because the differential burden caused by the GST regime is attributable to it as beneficiary of the executed works. Reimbursement remains subject to verification of the contractor's records and lawful computation of the payable amount.

Separate statutory appellate rights apply where a composite order imposes distinct liabilities on a company and its director. Confirming the director's personal penalty under Section 122(1A) while deciding only the company's appeal, without joining or hearing the director and while his independent appeal remains pending, denies an effective opportunity to present separate grounds and impairs the statutory appellate remedy. The penalty confirmation was void for breach of natural justice and quashed to that extent; the director's appeal must be decided independently, uninfluenced by the earlier observations.

Section 16(5), retrospectively effective from 1 July 2017, permits input tax credit for returns concerning financial years 2017-18 through 2020-21 if furnished by 30 November 2021. Returns filed after the original due date but within that statutory cut-off remain eligible for credit. The provision applies to the relevant tax periods even where it was not in force when an adjudication order was made.

Section 73 adjudication requires observance of natural justice through adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order only under the GST portal's "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, breaches those requirements where the taxpayer cannot submit a reply. The ex parte adjudication was quashed, with fresh reasoned adjudication directed after allowing a reply and affording a hearing.

Section 74 proceedings require prima facie material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Where the relevant turnover had already been examined in audit, tax liability was discharged, and audit closure was intimated, the available material did not prima facie establish those statutory conditions. Treating a turnover adjustment as wilful misstatement was therefore insufficient at the interim stage. Coercive action under the Section 74 order was restrained pending the next hearing.

Portal-only service of notices under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was inadequate after cancellation of registration where earlier proceedings had required physical-mode service. Repeating portal-only communication denied the taxpayer an effective opportunity to respond and breached principles of natural justice. Ex parte adjudication orders founded solely on that service mode were set aside, with an opportunity to file a reply and undergo fresh adjudication.

Under the CGST Act, a discrepancy between an order-in-original's operative tax demand and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 may constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 161 permits rectification of clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions without the otherwise applicable six-month limitation. Where the detailed order records a demand or adjustment different from that communicated in Form GST DRC-07, the mismatch is rectifiable rather than a disputed substantive determination, enabling correction of the demand in favour of the assessee.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice under an "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, prevented the affected party from responding and breached principles of natural justice. Rejection of the statutory appeal solely on limitation, without examination on merits, did not bar judicial intervention in the stated circumstances. The notice, consequential adjudication order and appellate order were quashed, requiring fresh notice, an opportunity of hearing, and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

GST adjudication under Section 74 raised a prima facie procedural concern where the order was allegedly uploaded only under the Additional Notice and Orders tab, without separate intimation and without a post-reply hearing. No determination was made on the underlying tax demand or alleged statutory breaches. The adjudication order was set aside for fresh, reasoned adjudication after consideration of the reply and an opportunity of hearing.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice under the "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, can prevent an assessee from responding and violate principles of natural justice. Where the statutory appellate remedy is rejected solely as time-barred and the merits remain unexamined, adjudication and appellate action require merits-based reconsideration. The assessee must receive a hearing before a fresh determination on the merits.