Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse assessment order is made under Section 73. The statutory requirement remains applicable where no hearing date has been fixed. Selecting "No" for personal hearing in an online adjournment request does not waive or displace that obligation. An adverse assessment made without affording the required hearing is invalid.

Arrest under Section 69(1) requires pre-arrest communication of the Commissioner's order recording reasons to believe based on relevant material; an arrest memo cannot replace that safeguard. This communication enables recourse to anticipatory bail and judicial review. A seven-working-day undertaking to provide prior arrest notice requires a specific arrest notice, while a Section 70 summons for inquiry attendance, evidence, or documents does not suffice. The twenty-four-hour production requirement under Article 22(2) and Section 58 runs from de facto arrest, assessed by actual deprivation of liberty and custody rather than the arrest memo alone. Subsequent remand cannot cure an arrest that breaches mandatory pre-arrest safeguards.

Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 prohibits all commercial services in a Designated Smoking Area following its 2017 amendment. Preparing, supplying, maintaining or replenishing hookah apparatus or tobacco for consideration falls within that prohibition; describing the arrangement as self-service or rental does not alter its commercial character where effective control is not transferred. The restriction operates within the statutory prohibition on smoking in public places and supports public-health and clean-air protection. Food-safety and municipal licensing regimes do not authorise separate licensing or regulation of hookah bars. Authorised police may enforce smoking-area and tobacco-sale requirements, including statutory search, seizure and confiscation powers.

Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act extends penalty exposure to any person, including non-taxable or unregistered persons, only where both conditions are established: retention of benefit from a specified Section 122(1) transaction and conduct of that transaction at the person's instance. Its penal consequences require prospective application, so it applies only to underlying acts or transactions occurring on or after 1 January 2021, not by reference to the show-cause notice date. Statutory appellate remedies do not prevent consideration of recurring pure legal questions, while transaction dates and proof of the twin conditions require evidentiary determination in the appellate process.

Rule 101(4) requires consideration of a registered person's audit reply when audit findings are finalised. A brief statement that the reply is unsatisfactory does not, by itself, invalidate a Section 74 show-cause notice or warrant writ intervention, because the notice does not determine tax liability. The noticee may raise objections on audit findings, limitation, computation, jurisdiction, and the effect of payments or appropriations during statutory adjudication. Those objections require independent consideration by the Adjudicating Authority in accordance with law.

Ex parte orders under Section 74 issued after the scheduled hearing date require prior communication of any further hearing date. The authority must either decide the matter on the date already fixed or notify the affected person of the rescheduled hearing. Failure to give that notice denies an effective opportunity for personal hearing, breaches principles of natural justice, and makes the ex parte proceeding unfair. Such an order is invalid and may be quashed, with a direction to provide a personal hearing and issue a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Article 226 challenge to a GST show-cause notice alleging wrongful utilisation of excess input tax credit from a non-existent firm remained subject to the alternative statutory remedy. The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition without interfering with the High Court's order and extended the limitation period until 16 October 2026 for pursuing that remedy. Writ-jurisdiction considerations identified included error apparent on the face of the record, clerical or arithmetical error, infringement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, and challenge to vires.

CGST arrest commences when the person is actually deprived of liberty and placed in custody, not merely when present during a search, inquiry or statement recording. The twenty-four-hour period for production before a Magistrate runs from that actual arrest. Where a judicial undertaking requires seven working days' prior notice of arrest, a summons requiring attendance, evidence or documents is insufficient because it does not communicate a contemplated arrest. The Commissioner's arrest authorisation must contain and disclose reasons to believe, supporting material and application of mind before arrest. An arrest memo cannot substitute for that authorisation; failure of prior communication vitiates the arrest and later remand cannot cure the defect.

Section 67(2) of the CGST Act does not permit seizure of cash or securities merely because they are found during a GST search. Goods excludes money and securities, and the residuary expression "things" cannot be used to include items expressly excluded from goods. Cash being allegedly unaccounted, or an unsatisfactory explanation of its source, does not by itself establish the necessary nexus with GST proceedings. Money seized without authority must be returned or refunded. Interest and compensation for the unlawful seizure were not awarded, and other remedies remain available in law.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under an inverted duty structure remains available where higher-taxed packing materials used to make sulphur marketable in customised packets cause credit accumulation, even though the principal goods at input and output stages are identical. Statutory refund conditions do not exclude such claims based on identity of the principal goods. CBIC circulars issued for uniform implementation cannot add restrictions or curtail the statutory entitlement. The Tribunal upheld the taxpayer's refund and directed release of the sanctioned amount, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Transporting separately identifiable higher-value copper scrap under transit documents describing aluminium scrap constitutes more than a classification dispute or clerical error and supports an inference of intent to evade tax. Tax and penalty under section 129 may follow where the discrepancy conceals higher-value goods, particularly alongside repeated document irregularities. An invoice and e-way bill generated only after interception are post-detection measures; without statutory authority, they cannot validate the original transit-document breach or rebut the inference of tax evasion.

Pre-movement e-way bill compliance requires the e-way bill to be generated before goods begin moving, with the tax invoice and e-way bill carried by the person in charge. Generating those documents only after interception does not cure transportation undertaken without them. Their absence at interception creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, which may be displaced only by a reasonable explanation. The explanation did not rebut that presumption, and the detention-related penalty under section 129 was sustained.

Non-generation of an e-invoice bearing IRN/QR Code before movement of goods is a procedural breach, but it does not by itself warrant detention penalty under Section 129. Where the tax invoice, e-way bill and lorry receipt identify the parties, goods, value and tax liability, and a later e-invoice matches the transaction, the lapse does not conclusively establish intent to evade tax absent fictitious documents, mismatched goods, value suppression or concealed supply. On these facts, the Section 129 penalty was unsustainable, the appellate order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted subject to statutory procedure.

Kitchen exhaust hoods exceeding a 120 cm maximum horizontal side and incorporating factory-fitted Capture Jet fans are classified under CTH 8414 80 90 as "Other", rather than as fans under CTH 8414 59 90. Heading 8414 separately identifies fans and ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan. An integral fan does not change a structurally complex hood assembly's essential character where its components and market identity remain those of a hood. The specific hood entry under CTH 8414 60 00 applies only where the maximum horizontal side does not exceed 120 cm.

Defence end-use customs exemption applies on a functional, end-use basis to missile-warning-system components with a demonstrable nexus to military aircraft; tariff classification is not determinative. The specified imaging lens, sensor front-end and coupling unit qualify in principle as aircraft sub-assemblies and, alternatively, accessories because they are engineered exclusively for a missile-warning system fitted in military helicopters; specified weapon exclusions do not apply. Private defence suppliers may use the exemption, but Condition 17 requires a prescribed Ministry of Defence certificate issued by an officer not below Joint Secretary rank at import. An Indian Air Force end-use certificate alone is insufficient. Each consignment remains subject to mandatory certification and Customs verification.

Section 74(1) may be invoked for delayed GST payment only where the show cause notice discloses foundational facts permitting an inference of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Mere mechanical reproduction of those statutory expressions does not satisfy that condition. Because the notice contained no such factual basis, recourse to section 74(1) was unwarranted; the Tribunal sustained the setting aside of the proceedings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

GST cross-empowerment permits Central and State officers to undertake intelligence-based enforcement action. A notification under section 6(1) is intended to prescribe conditions for that authority rather than operate as a precondition; its absence therefore does not make cross-empowerment inoperative or restrict its exercise. Protection against duplicate proceedings and the treatment of overlapping inquiries remain subject to applicable Supreme Court conclusions and guidelines. The writ-court orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal under those principles.

Section 67(7) of the CGST Act prevents continued retention of seized articles beyond six months unless an order extends the seizure. Where no extension order existed, the seized mobile phones and bank debit cards could no longer remain under seizure. The investigating officer was directed to return the articles immediately upon production of a certified order copy and acknowledgement.

Cash does not fall within the category of articles that may be seized during a search under section 67 of the CGST Act. Retention of seized cash until refund is illegal, and refund does not extinguish entitlement to accrued interest; the interest must be calculated and paid. Following issuance of a demand-cum-show-cause notice, seized mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card are liable to be released forthwith upon production of a certified copy of the order.

Self-assessed GST liability is discharged only when amounts credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger are debited and appropriated towards the relevant liability through the return. Mere deposit in the ledger before the return due date does not constitute payment or prevent interest under Section 50(1); interest accrues until actual debit, notwithstanding unsubstantiated technical difficulties. Recovery of the resulting interest after issuance of notice and consideration of objections does not breach principles of natural justice. The challenge to the interest demand and recovery proceedings was dismissed.