Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 applies to pending proceedings where no savings clause or legal fiction preserves actions initiated under the omitted rule. Without an enabling provision permitting their continuation, proceedings based on the omitted rule enure to the benefit of assessees. Erroneous-refund demands raised under the rule in the identified pending issues could not survive and were quashed.

Assessment under Section 73 was quashed where it was made without the Government works contractor's reply to the show-cause notice. Although prima facie return discrepancies had been identified, no final finding on those discrepancies or tax liability was made. The contractor, having approached within limitation, must be allowed to file a reply; the assessing authority must then reconsider the matter on merits after providing a hearing.

GST appellate procedure requires the Appellate Authority to consider sufficient cause for delay, afford a hearing, and issue a written order stating the points for determination, decision and reasons. A system-generated filing acknowledgement is ministerial and cannot replace quasi-judicial adjudication. Mechanical rejection of delayed appeals without a hearing or reasoned order is invalid; the appeals and accompanying condonation applications require fresh consideration. Maintainability and condonation must be determined independently on their merits.

GST assessment and rectification orders founded on a mismatch between Forms GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C require fresh consideration where records explain that works-contract consideration was received in another financial year. Returns, tax-discharge details in Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, and reconciliation statements for both years require consideration, particularly where supporting material filed in a second rectification proceeding was not addressed. The orders were remitted for a fresh determination on merits after production of the prescribed records and notice to the petitioner.

GST registration cancellation proceedings based on alleged invoices or bills without supply raised a vagueness challenge to the original show-cause notice issued under Rule 21(b). That challenge was not accepted because it was not raised with supporting material at the initial stage and the claimed reply was not produced. A subsequent notice specifically alleged wrongful input tax credit through transactions with a non-existent or fake entity, but remained unanswered. The cancellation and subsequent adverse orders were set aside, while the original notice was retained and the matter restored for a response, production of supporting documents, and factual determination.

Section 73 adjudication requires consideration of a taxpayer's reply before a show-cause proposal is confirmed. A response to an audit intimation explained that an annual-return tax figure resulted from a clerical error and that no debit notes had been issued for the relevant period. Treating no response as having been filed was inconsistent with the record. The adjudication order and consequential garnishee notice were quashed, and proceedings were restored to permit submission of a detailed response to the show-cause notice.

GST return mismatch adjudication under section 73 of the CGST and KGST Acts concerns discrepancies between Forms GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B where no response was filed to the intimation or show-cause notice. A further opportunity to submit a reply and reconciliation material is required before reasoned determination where the taxpayer contends that delayed supplier returns caused the mismatch and attributes non-response to its registered email being managed by an unassisting Chartered Accountant.

Statutory appellate remedy under the CGST Act was available against the impugned order, making appellate review the appropriate route for objections to overlapping demands. The Appellate Authority could examine those objections and consider any legally permissible exemption from pre-deposit. Challenges to the relevant notifications remained pending before the Supreme Court and were not decided. Restoration of the writ petition was refused, while preserving the right to file a statutory appeal within the stipulated period.

Constitutional challenges to statutory input tax credit conditions and denial of credit where a supplier has not paid tax received no final adjudication. The High Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and directed that a proposed appeal lodged within 60 days be treated as filed within limitation. The validity of the challenged conditions and the supplier-default basis for denying credit therefore remained undecided.

Police may investigate distinct general criminal offences arising from the same transaction as alleged GST offences unless the special fiscal statute expressly excludes that power. General criminal procedure applies to offences under other laws where the special enactment contains no contrary investigation or trial mechanism; the GST framework instead requires police assistance to proper officers. An FIR initiates investigation rather than supplying a complete case narrative. Quashing at a preliminary stage is unwarranted where investigation remains pending, evidence is yet to be collected, and the concerned person has not been named as an accused.

Anticipatory bail was considered unwarranted in allegations of misappropriating funds entrusted for GST payments and furnishing fabricated GST payment forms. Substantial sums allegedly received for payment were not deposited through the GST portal, while fabricated documents were allegedly used to represent that payment had been made. The seriousness of the alleged financial misconduct weighed against granting pre-arrest protection.

Nil or reduced interest for belated payment of tax on outward supplies applies only where GSTR-3B returns are filed and tax is paid within the deadlines prescribed by the relevant notifications. Failure to meet those stipulated timelines excludes the taxpayer from concessional interest treatment. In those circumstances, an interest demand for delayed tax payment remains consistent with the circular and does not warrant judicial-review interference.

Pre-deposit for a statutory appeal against a penalty-only order must be determined under the principles applicable where proceedings were initiated before the amended appeal requirement took effect. Because the show-cause notice predates the amendment, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the applicable pre-amendment principles governing penalty-only proceedings. The required pre-deposit must therefore be assessed by reference to those principles rather than solely under the amended framework.

Ex parte GST adjudication is procedurally defective where requests for relied-upon documents and cross-examination remain unaddressed. Available relied-upon documents must be furnished, undisclosed documents excluded from reliance, and any cross-examination request decided by a reasoned order. Fresh adjudication should follow only after these disclosure and procedural requirements are properly addressed.

Section 75(7) of the GST law restricts an adjudicating authority to confirming only the tax and penalty proposed in the show-cause notice. The provision operates as a mandatory jurisdictional limit. Where the adjudication order confirms tax and penalty exceeding the respective amounts proposed in the notice, the excess confirmation is without jurisdiction and invalid.

MGST offences may be investigated alongside distinct BNS offences arising from the same fraudulent GST transactions. Special-enactment offences remain subject to the Code unless the MGST framework expressly provides otherwise; tax-officer powers and police-assistance provisions do not themselves prohibit police investigation. Parallel prosecution under the MGST regime and general penal law is permissible where each statute addresses distinct offences, while double punishment for the same offence remains barred. On that basis, the FIR alleging both MGST and BNS offences was not quashed and the criminal writ petition was dismissed.

GST registration cancellation founded on alleged input tax credit from a non-existent or fake supplier requires a meaningful opportunity to establish transaction genuineness where supporting material can be produced. The initial show cause notice remained undisturbed because no recorded response or timely vagueness objection was shown. Cancellation, revocation and appellate orders were set aside, and proceedings returned to the original authority for a fresh response and examination of supporting documents. Registration must be restored if transaction genuineness is established.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without a saving provision or legal fiction preserving pending proceedings, prevents continuation of recovery action for allegedly erroneous refunds founded on that omitted rule. Because the show-cause notice did not aver any enabling provision, the High Court quashed the demands under Issues 1 and 2. The writ petition was partly allowed, while the remaining issues were left for response and determination in accordance with law.

GST registration of a rented additional place of business must be assessed by verifying the premises, the applicant's business use or storage, and prescribed occupancy documents; ownership disputes, third-party complaints, and absence of a civil decree cannot be made conditions for registration. For rented premises, a rent or lease agreement and specified ownership-supporting documentation are required, but conclusive title proof or an original lease held by a civil court is unnecessary; deficiencies must be specifically notified. Reliance on undisclosed post-hearing third-party material and failure to address material documents breach natural justice and reasoned decision-making. Rejection and appellate action were set aside, with limited remand for fresh verification without deciding title or lease validity.

Input tax credit for genuine inward supplies from FY 2018-19, inadvertently omitted from corresponding returns, remained available when claimed in the April 2019 GSTR-3B within the then-permitted rectification period. At that time, GSTR-2A was facilitative; therefore, a GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch alone could not support reversal once the underlying supplies and credit were verified. Effective notice and a personal hearing were mandatory before an adverse GST decision. Notices placed only in a secondary portal tab, without hearing particulars, and orders issued on uncommunicated dates breached natural justice. Failure to consider appeal grounds and evidence or give reasons also invalidated the appellate decision. The demand and consequential orders were set aside.