Bail pending trial was considered appropriate after the charge sheet was filed, given custody from 15 July 2026, no flight risk or criminal antecedents, a maximum five-year punishment, and no further need for undertrial detention. Stringent conditions can protect the continuing investigation relating to co-accused while allowing the petitioner's release.

Section 129 permits penalties for contraventions of GST law and is not limited to tax non-payment or tax-evasion cases. Rule 138 requires e-way bills to state accurate delivery particulars so that goods can be tracked. Delivery to an address that is neither the recipient's principal place of business nor a declared additional place constitutes a breach; later registration of that address does not cure it. Suppliers must verify the recipient's declared business location before generating an e-way bill. Tax payment and absence of intent to evade tax do not remove liability for the statutory contravention, and an unchallenged e-way bill may be treated as accepted.

GST demand orders ordinarily should be challenged through the effective statutory appellate remedy rather than extraordinary writ jurisdiction where the petitioner received a show-cause notice, submitted replies, and had an opportunity of personal hearing. A contention that the hearing was fixed before the reply period expired may be examined in the statutory appeal. A writ petition filed nearly one year and six months after the demand order does not warrant bypassing that remedy; the Appellate Authority may consider an application for condonation of delay in accordance with law.

GST chargeability begins on 08.07.2017, the date on which the regime became operative. Recovery or demand of GST for any earlier period lacks a legal basis because GST was not chargeable before that commencement date. Consequently, no GST may be charged from the petitioner in respect of a period preceding 08.07.2017.

GST appellate orders must be written, identify each point for determination, decide those points, and give reasons. Under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without examining its grounds and record. Such dismissal fails the mandatory requirement of a reasoned, speaking determination and abdicates appellate jurisdiction. The appeal must instead be adjudicated on merits after an opportunity of hearing.

Cancelled GST registration for failure to furnish returns for six months may be restored where the taxpayer pays the outstanding penalty with statutory interest and files all defaulted returns within the stipulated period. Restoration is conditional on complete compliance with both payment and return-filing requirements, with no revenue objection to revival once those conditions are met.

Mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) requires that a taxpayer receive an effective opportunity to be heard before adjudication. Where no hearing occurs on the scheduled date, no later hearing date is communicated, and an order is issued without recording any hearing opportunity, the resulting adjudication suffers from breach of natural justice. The limited adjournment mechanism under Section 75(5) does not cure that defect where no adjournment was sought. Such an order is invalid, requiring fresh notice and adjudication after affording a personal hearing.

GST refund claims concerning amounts inadvertently deposited in the Electronic Cash Ledger involve claims for interest and require physical submission of the refund application with all requisite supporting documents. Compliance with the prescribed documentary process is central to seeking recovery of unintended Electronic Cash Ledger deposits, including the material required to substantiate the refund and interest claim under the GST regime.

Regular bail in an alleged fraudulent input tax credit offence under the CGST Act was granted after the charge sheet was filed. Continued pre-trial detention was considered unnecessary because the accused had remained in custody, no flight risk or criminal antecedents were shown, further custodial detention was not required, and the maximum punishment was five years. Bail was subject to stringent conditions requiring cooperation in the ongoing investigation and trial involving co-accused, attendance, and non-interference with proceedings.

Duty-free status limits fiscal levies but does not exempt imported goods warehoused, re-exported or sold through airport duty-free shops from domestic regulatory or public-health requirements. Goods entering Indian territorial waters remain imported goods even without clearance for home consumption, and restrictions under other laws may make them prohibited under the customs regime. Nicotine pouches require product-specific assessment of composition, intended use, statutory drug classification and any available exemption. Where product particulars are unavailable, classification and any import-licensing or registration requirement remain for reasoned determination by the appropriate authority upon submission of supporting material.

Goods and Services Tax on rental dues for land used as a Sumo Taxi Stand applies only from 08.07.2017, when the levy came into operation; payment for an earlier period cannot be compelled. The demand was consequently restricted to liability accruing from that date, with outstanding dues recoverable accordingly. The land-allotment claim was not determined on its merits and must be decided by the competent respondent through a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law within three months.

E-way bill delivery to an address not declared as the recipient's principal or additional place of business constitutes a contravention attracting penalty under Section 129, even where tax has been paid. The e-way bill tracking framework requires the declared delivery location to be a registered business address at the time of supply and interception. Subsequent registration of that location as an additional place of business does not cure the earlier contravention. The penalty order therefore remained undisturbed, while the supplier retained the option to seek recovery of the penalty from the recipient through appropriate remedies.

Writ jurisdiction may remain available for recovery of a GST component withheld from contractual dues where contractual performance, bills and the underlying transaction are undisputed, and the issue can be resolved from the acceptance letter and record. A term providing that GST is payable in addition to quoted rates binds the paying authorities and cannot be displaced by later calculations or correspondence. The contractor's independent payment of GST does not justify deduction from contractual consideration. Reconsideration of dues may defeat delay and laches objections, while GST and other authorities need not be joined where the dispute concerns the payment-processing authority's contractual liability. Release of the withheld GST component with interest was directed.

Relevant date for refund of Kerala Flood Cess mistakenly paid through GSTR-3B is the date of subsequent remittance into the correct account. Where the cess was initially paid with GSTR-3B and later deposited through the prescribed mechanism, the two-year refund limitation under Section 54 runs from the latter payment rather than the erroneous earlier payment. The refund application is therefore treated as timely, requiring the competent authority to reconsider it and issue orders within one month.

Printing on paper and content owned by a GST-registered customer constitutes job work under Heading 9988; where the customer is unregistered, it is a service of treatment or processing of goods belonging to another person under the same heading. Concessional GST treatment applies only to specified printing and to qualifying goods under Chapters 48 or 49 that themselves attract the prescribed concessional or nil rate; other printing services fall under residual entries. Printing religious books using the printer's paper and consumables is a composite supply in which printing is the principal supply. It is classifiable as a printing service under Heading 9989, rather than as a supply of printed books, and attracts the residual GST rate.

Centage-based project management services for construction projects, including project reports, technical sanctions, tendering, supervision, monitoring and coordination, are classifiable as construction project management services under SAC 998339 and taxable at 18% GST. The pure-services exemption does not apply because State and coastal highways and tourism corridor roads were not established as roads or bridges within functions entrusted to Panchayats or Municipalities. The concerned Government Administrative Department is the recipient because it owns the projects, requisitions the services and assigns implementation. A funding agency that only disburses consideration, reviews and monitors does not become the recipient; invoices must be issued to the Administrative Department.

GST exemption applies from 10 October 2024 to NSQF-aligned vocational training supplied by a training body accredited with an Awarding Body recognised by NCVET, where NCVET has approved the relevant qualification package. Training in handheld-device repair and telecom-product assembly meeting those conditions falls within item (e)(iii) of Entry 69. Such structured, nationally recognised skill training is distinguished from generic commercial coaching and is classifiable as other education and training services not elsewhere classified under SAC 999294.

Fermented Nata De Coco is classified under Tariff Item 21069099 as a food preparation not elsewhere specified or included, rather than under Chapter 20. Heading 2007 covers fruit jellies made by cooking or concentrating fruit juice or pulp with sugar, and a jelly-like appearance alone is insufficient. Microbial fermentation produces a distinct edible preparation, while Heading 2008 requires retention of the identity and essential character of an edible plant part. GST applies at 18% from 1 July 2017 to 21 September 2025 and at 5% from 22 September 2025.

Condonation of a 30-day delay in furnishing Form No. 10B for charitable-exemption purposes may be granted under section 119(2)(b) where refusal would cause genuine hardship. Genuine hardship must be construed liberally, with substantial justice preferred over technical non-compliance, absent deliberate delay, culpable negligence or mala fides. A bona fide misunderstanding of an advanced filing due date during the COVID-19 period, coupled with filing before the extended return due date, supported condonation. A pending condonation application did not require the charitable institution to await its disposal. Form No. 10B was treated as timely filed, and the return was to be processed accordingly.

Natural justice was prima facie breached where an unexplained-expenditure addition based on import data was made without meaningful invoice-wise or bill-of-entry-wise particulars. Recorded imports supplied by the assessee exceeded the aggregate data relied on, and apparent duplication in departmental data prevented reconciliation. The High Court treated the addition as raising strong triable issues and stayed recovery pending first appeal, while requiring the appellate authority to decide independently on merits. Administrative directions concerning deposit of a prescribed demand percentage did not fetter the Court's stay power; Revenue's insistence on a 20% payment was rejected. The assessment observations remained confined to the prima facie stay determination.