Criminal prosecution for failure to deposit tax deducted at source cannot rest on an erroneous assertion that an individual was a company director. Principal-officer status and resulting criminal responsibility require an accurate factual basis. Where the show-cause notice, designation order, prosecution sanction, and complaint all rely on alleged directorship, and the Revenue accepts that the individual was never a director, that foundational error prevents prosecution of that person as the company's principal officer.

Assessment under section 153C concerned whether documents seized during search proceedings related to or pertained to the petitioners' undisclosed income. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court judgment and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the High Court's treatment of the seized documents undisturbed.

Institutional bias is not established merely because a departmental appeal follows a superior officer's review order. The appellate officer exercises independent quasi-judicial authority, and departmental hierarchy alone does not show a real likelihood of bias without personal interest, animus, or direct prejudice. Section 74 penalties require concrete proof of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Audit-detected input-tax-credit and transitional-credit discrepancies, where relevant records were available to the department, do not by themselves establish such intent. Tax and interest paid before the show-cause notice for those issues operate under Section 73(5), attracting the corresponding penalty immunity.

Section 74 of the CGST Act requires evidence that an input tax credit mismatch is linked to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, with intent to evade tax. A discrepancy between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A alone, or a supplier's default, does not establish that nexus against the recipient. Where the recipient pays the ascertained tax and interest before issue of a show cause notice and culpable intent is not proved, the matter falls under Section 73. Invocation of Section 74 and imposition of penalty are therefore unjustified.

Rule 90(2) limits preliminary scrutiny of a GST refund application to its completeness under Rule 89. Refund classification, the applicability of prescribed statements, the evidentiary adequacy of proof of foreign inward remittance, and limitation cannot be determined through a deficiency memo at that stage. The contents and nature of a remittance document, rather than its title, must be evaluated during merits adjudication. A limitation objection also requires merits consideration after an opportunity of hearing. Refund applications must therefore be entertained on refiling, with these objections considered during substantive processing.

GST adjustment in works contracts is a contractual matter between contractor and employer, whereas levy, assessment, recovery and enforcement remain governed exclusively by GST legislation. Reimbursement for incremental tax burden caused by transition from KVAT to GST must be assessed under the applicable contract. The calculation requires comparison of pre-GST and post-GST work, deduction of earlier tax components and addition of applicable GST. Tax authorities cannot permit statute-inconsistent revised returns or waive statutory interest, penalties or limitation. Employers must consider comprehensive contractor representations under the applicable adjustment directions.

Anticipatory-bail jurisdiction extends to both the High Court and Court of Session, allowing an applicant to approach either forum where a direction refers to the "jurisdictional court". For alleged GST-evasion offences, the economic character of the accusation does not by itself require custody. Bail may be appropriate where the statutory punishment is limited, substantial documentary, financial and electronic material has been secured, the applicant has established business roots, cooperates with the investigation, and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. Protection from arrest remains subject to imposed safeguards, investigation and trial.

GST-rate treatment of un-fried or un-cooked snack pellets manufactured through extrusion was regularised for periods up to 27 July 2023 on an "as is" basis under the relevant circular clarification. That clarification was treated as prima facie applicable to disputed earlier demands, without a final determination of their validity. Interim protection against the demands was granted pending writ adjudication, conditional on furnishing an auto-renewable fixed deposit for 10% of the demand.

Arrest for cognizable and non-bailable GST offences requires the Commissioner's recorded reasons to believe, based on material establishing statutory conditions; it cannot be used to investigate whether those conditions exist. Valid registration, invoices, bank-payment evidence and filed returns ordinarily support input tax credit despite a supplier's later cancellation or unavailability, absent fraud or collusion. Anticipatory bail was appropriate where no prima facie collusion or need for custodial interrogation was shown, subject to cooperation conditions.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars a Central Tax proper officer from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already taken up by a State Tax proper officer. Parallel Central Tax show-cause and adjudication proceedings concerning the same tax periods are therefore impermissible once State Tax proceedings have commenced. For a works-contract exemption claim based on the proportion of goods supplied, adjudication should permit the taxpayer to respond and produce relevant invoices, contract documents and other supporting records. A requested personal hearing must also be afforded before the exemption claim is reconsidered.

For the same tax period, completion of proceedings under Section 74 after adjudication under Section 73 is incongruous and cannot be sustained. Where Section 73 adjudication occurred ex parte and the taxpayer seeks to submit exemption-related documents, the liability requires fresh consideration of that material before any mismatch or erroneous turnover declaration is confirmed. The Section 74 notice and adjudication for the overlapping period are liable to be set aside, while the Section 73 proceedings require restoration and reconsideration; consequential garnishee recovery should not continue pending that determination.

Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal may be condoned where the assessee lacked effective knowledge of the proceedings and order, and the delay resulted from circumstances beyond its control. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by statutory limitation, refusing merits adjudication in such circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The appeal may therefore be entertained and decided on merits after condonation of delay.

Interim protection against GST demand orders may continue where the adjudicating authority has prima facie been unable to analyse and reconcile extensive delivery-channel data, e-way bills, invoices and accounting records. Where the record contains substantial transactional material and no further reconciliation material has been sought from the taxpayer, the complexity of the documentation supports continued protection while challenges to the demand orders are considered.

Section 129(3) of the CGST Act requires notice following detention and seizure of goods and conveyance to be issued within seven days. This timeline is mandatory, limiting arbitrary or prolonged use of coercive detention powers. Where goods and conveyance were detained on 2 September 2024 but the notice was issued on 11 September 2024 and uploaded later, non-compliance with the prescribed period vitiated the detention and penalty proceedings, rendering the proper-officer and appellate orders unsustainable.

Mandatory appellate pre-deposit under section 107(6)(b) requires payment of 10% of disputed tax to maintain an appeal. Input tax credit previously recovered from an electronic credit ledger may be adjusted against that requirement where the recovered credit exceeds the prescribed pre-deposit. Such adjustment treats the statutory condition as met and enables restoration of the appeal for determination on merits.

Under GST section 73(2), a show-cause notice meets the three-month requirement if, after excluding its date of issue, three full calendar months remain before the section 73(10) terminal date. A backward calculation to a corresponding calendar date is not a separate limitation cut-off. Applying the General Clauses Act rules on calendar months and exclusion of the issuing date, the notice issued on 29 November 2024 remained valid. However, an ex parte determination requires fresh adjudication where the taxpayer must be allowed to respond to the notice and have its defence considered under sections 73 and 75.

Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires electronic GST notices and orders to be both issued electronically and authenticated through a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or another Board-notified mode. Mere portal upload, ARN generation, or an officer's authenticated portal login does not authenticate the contents or attribute the document to the competent officer. Where no notified alternative verification mode exists, absence of authentication is a jurisdictional defect rather than a curable irregularity under Section 160. Unsigned show cause notices and adjudication orders are non est, invalidating consequential recovery action and bank-account attachment; fresh compliant proceedings remain permissible.

An assessing authority that postpones decision beyond the notified hearing date and fixes a further hearing must communicate that new date to the taxpayer. Failure to provide notice denies an effective opportunity of personal hearing and breaches the principles of natural justice. Consequently, an ex parte tax assessment made without notice of the subsequently fixed hearing date is unsustainable.

Notifications under the CGST Act must confer jurisdiction or transfer functions, while administrative circulars may allocate a composite show-cause notice among officers already vested with jurisdiction. A notified class of Additional and Joint Commissioners may exercise pan-India jurisdiction over investigative notices; selecting a Common Adjudicating Authority from that class does not independently confer jurisdiction. Selection based on the highest demand is objective, uniformly applicable and rationally connected to consistent common adjudication, so it does not violate Article 14 or constitute sub-delegation. Jurisdictional objections may be raised in writ proceedings, but challenges to demand, evidence and natural justice must proceed through the statutory appellate remedy.

Statutory appellate review under Section 107 is the appropriate mechanism for factual examination of input tax credit evidence, including work orders, invoices, payments and proof of execution; writ jurisdiction is generally not invoked where that remedy is effective. Specified DGGI officers may exercise central tax-officer powers throughout India under Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax, and Delhi North may be designated to adjudicate a common notice under applicable allocation arrangements. Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST requires transaction-specific analysis to distinguish ineligible credit involving genuine outward supplies from invoices without underlying supplies; appellate review can determine recovery, interest and penalty consequences.