Input tax credit claimed by a purchasing dealer cannot be determined mechanically solely because registered suppliers allegedly failed to deposit tax. The proper officer must independently assess the purchaser's liability under the applicable provision, consider documentary material supporting supplies, hear the parties, and issue a reasoned speaking order. Findings that the purchaser's material supported the supplies and that fraud was not established remain undisturbed, while the merits of the credit claim remain open for lawful determination.

Regular bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims may be granted despite continuing further investigation where no recovery or discovery remains, offences carry a limited maximum sentence, and are triable by a Magistrate. Expiry of the statutory period and proposed witness examinations alone do not warrant indefinite custody. Risks of evidence tampering or evasion can be managed through conditions under the triple test. Prolonged detention pending a trial likely to take time constitutes pre-trial punishment and conflicts with the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Bail was granted subject to conditions securing participation and protecting evidence.

Clean slate principle does not extinguish GST liabilities when a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation. Such a sale transfers identified assets and liabilities as a single package, preserves the corporate identity, and requires the purchaser or new management to assume pre-existing, current and moratorium-period liabilities. The statutory priority for distribution of realised liquidation assets does not apply to a going-concern sale. GST demand proceedings require fresh adjudication where no effective reply was filed and transfer-of-business liability requires consideration, subject to a 25% deposit of disputed tax and a detailed reply.

Rule 86A requires a meaningful pre-decisional opportunity before input tax credit is blocked. Where a claimant must produce records and substantiate the credit claim, a three-day notice is insufficient and reduces the hearing requirement to an empty formality. Administrative and quasi-judicial action must be right, just and fair, rather than arbitrary or oppressive; denial of fair hearing may render the action void from inception. The High Court quashed the blocking order and consequential actions, directed unblocking of the credit, and permitted fresh action only after an adequate opportunity to produce records and be heard.

Belated filing of Form ITC-03 requires consideration when determining a taxpayer's eligibility for the composition levy under Section 10 read with Rule 3. Denial based solely on non-filing, particularly where the taxpayer's reply was not considered, should be reassessed after taking subsequent compliance and the taxpayer's response into account. Acceptance of composition eligibility may affect consequential tax proceedings under Section 74, while collection and payment of composition tax may continue without prejudice to the tax authorities' rights.

Section 76(1) applies to every person who collects an amount as representing GST and does not pay it to the Government, without limiting its scope to unauthorised collections or unregistered persons. A registered supplier that collects GST through valid invoices but files nil or no returns and fails to remit the collection falls within the provision, regardless of whether the underlying supplies are taxable. The prescribed penalty equals the tax collected and not remitted. On that basis, the appellate deletion of penalty was reversed and the penalty restored.

Input tax credit eligibility rests on the claimant, who must substantiate invoices, supplier payment, transport or goods receipt, and supplier ledger evidence. Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's registration alone remains unresolved as a basis for denying credit. Where credit is inadmissible, consequential interest requires quantification by the proper officer. Failure to pay a supplier within 180 days requires reversal or addition of equivalent credit to output tax liability with interest; unavailable FORM GSTR-2 does not remove that liability, and later payment permits re-availment without extending the deadline. Statutory minimum penalties apply separately under Central and State enactments and aggregate under the integrated tax regime.

GST refund claims for tax paid at an excess rate must be made within the statutory two-year limitation period. Where excess GST was reported and paid through a GSTR-3B return, limitation runs from the relevant return filing and payment date, not from later discovery of the payment error. Neither the Proper Officer nor the appellate authority has an enabling power to condone delay or grant a refund after limitation expires. Absence of unjust enrichment does not cure a time-barred claim because direct refund provisions apply only to refunds otherwise admissible under the statutory scheme.

Section 74 applies only where unpaid or short-paid GST is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, supported by material on record. Delayed filing of returns alone does not satisfy those conditions where the subsequently filed returns correctly disclose turnover and tax liability, no material information remains undeclared, and tax with applicable interest has been paid before proceedings begin. Where Section 74 is inapplicable, liability may still require determination under Section 73 read with Section 75(2) by the original adjudicating authority within the statutory time limit.

For the disputed period, a year-wise GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch alone could not sustain denial of input tax credit where omitted prior-year credit was claimed within the statutory time and could be verified invoice-wise. GSTR-2A operated as a facilitative statement, and no independent ineligibility of the reflected credit was alleged. A reasoned appellate order must address material grounds, state the points for determination, and provide reasons even where the appellant does not appear. Certification requirements for supplier-side invoice mismatches did not apply where the discrepancy arose solely from comparing current-year GSTR-3B with current-year GSTR-2A, without any supplier reporting default. The disputed ITC demand, related interest, and penalty were quashed.

For refund under Rule 89(4), turnover of zero-rated supplies includes invoices issued during the relevant period for goods cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking. A later actual-export date in the shipping bill does not remove those invoices from the relevant period's zero-rated turnover, provided the exporter establishes that the goods were actually exported. Refund of accumulated input tax credit remains admissible on that basis.

Pure questions of law arising from facts already on record may be raised as additional grounds where necessary to determine tax liability. Amendments to Section 129 affecting the amount payable for release do not remove the proper officer's detention power; reliance on the pre-amended release provision is erroneous but does not itself make detention proceedings void from inception. Goods returned after job work may move without tax where the e-way bill and delivery challan identify job work and contain prescribed particulars. Absence of IGST, without a charging provision or taxable supply, does not by itself establish a contravention supporting detention.

Section 74(1) penalties for reverse-charge tax and input tax credit defaults require fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts causing the tax or credit lapse. Non-disclosure of supplies in returns, payment after audit verification, and accounting entries do not, without more, establish or disprove those conditions. Proper-officer satisfaction must rest on foundational facts rather than mechanical reliance on return discrepancies. Explanations for delayed reverse-charge payments and input tax credit not reversed on written-off vendor liabilities remain material to whether there was an intention to evade tax.

Reasoned quasi-judicial orders must consider material documentary evidence and disclose reasons for accepting or rejecting it. The GST exemption claim for rail transportation of hatching eggs was rejected on the basis that supporting evidence had not been furnished, despite acknowledged written submissions showing that relevant documents were filed before the First Appellate Authority. Non-consideration of that material and the absence of reasons for rejecting it rendered the appellate order unsustainable. The order was set aside and remitted for a fresh, reasoned determination after considering the explanations and supporting documents; exemption eligibility remained undecided on merits.

Pre-substitution Entry 52B required ground clearance to be understood through vehicle type-approval standards, which measured it in the fully laden condition because the entry prescribed neither a definition nor a measurement method. The later unladen-ground-clearance requirement expanded the higher-cess vehicle class and operated prospectively from 26 July 2023. For earlier supplies, statutory test certificates showing below-threshold laden clearance prevailed over unsupported online specifications; Revenue bore the burden of proving higher-rate classification. Dealers nevertheless had to self-assess tax on independent outward supplies. Because Revenue did not segregate or prove liability for post-amendment supplies, the differential cess demand and consequential interest and penalty were set aside.

GST adjudication under Section 73 requires a statutory show-cause notice; Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) must accompany, not replace, that notice. A final audit report or demand summary lacking the grounds of demand does not cure this substantive defect under Section 160. Section 75(4) also requires a personal hearing before an adverse decision, notwithstanding delayed submission of a reply. An appellate authority cannot sustain a demand on new reverse-charge or forward-charge grounds without notice and opportunity. Reverse charge on office-meal expenses requires proof of the applicable charging provision, taxable supply, value and liable person; outdoor catering is not a notified service under Section 9(3).

GST appellate jurisdiction requires Division Bench consideration where an alleged documentary discrepancy during inter-State movement of goods raises statutory interpretation rather than only factual verification. The issues include documents required to accompany goods, conditions for detention and penalty proceedings, and the legal effect of a Circular relied upon at first appeal. Because these matters concern the scope and application of GST requirements, they constitute a question of law, requiring a hearing on merits by a Bench comprising Judicial and Technical Members.

Pure-service exemption for municipal sanitation manpower depends not merely on designations such as Sweeper or Paryavaran Mitra, but on contractual scope, actual deployment, supporting records, supply to the specified recipient, and a connection with qualifying municipal functions. Recipient views, contractual GST clauses, and past tax practice do not determine taxability. The manpower outsourcing arrangement lacked contractual and factual segregation of a separately identifiable qualifying supply and was therefore not exempt. Non-exempt outsourcing is taxable under the applicable service classification; the intra-State supply attracted 18% GST, subject to classification and rate-notification verification.

Notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for reassessment under sections 147 and 143(3), as it enables the assessee to substantiate the return with evidence. Section 292BB deems service only where a notice has actually been issued; it cannot cure complete non-issuance, and participation in proceedings cannot confer jurisdiction to assess without the notice. Treating an earlier return as the return in response to a section 148 notice does not remove the requirement. Nor can an information-gathering letter under section 142(1) substitute for the mandatory scrutiny notice. Complete non-issuance vitiates the reassessment proceedings.

Reassessment beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment requires recorded reasons based on tangible material with a live link to escaped income and a failure of full and true disclosure of material facts. A post-assessment investigation concerning alleged share overvaluation, underlying assets, use of sale proceeds and capital-gains deduction supplied a prima facie basis for reopening. Change of opinion applies only where the original proceeding consciously formed an opinion; an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment, and no prior view on the relevant valuation or deduction issues was formed under Section 143(3). The reassessment notices were therefore valid.