Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible under section 29(2) only where the prescribed contingencies exist. The notice must specifically disclose the proposed retrospective effect and the grounds supporting it, enabling the registered person to respond effectively. Any cancellation order imposing retrospective effect must record reasons justifying that consequence. Cancellation without prior notice of the proposed retrospective action violates principles of natural justice and is illegal.

Fair opportunity to reconcile input tax credit reported in Form GSTR-3B with Form GSTR-2A, supported by transaction documents, was treated as necessary for adjudication on merits. The adjudication and demand orders were quashed to allow responses to the show-cause notices, subject to stipulated conditions. The petitioner may establish the genuineness of its input tax credit claims through reconciliation and supporting material despite earlier non-participation following the full-time director's cessation of association.

Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an effective opportunity of personal hearing before assessment. Where an assessment confirms show-cause proposals without the taxpayer participating because of ill health and the consultant's failure to attend, the absence of an effective hearing breaches principles of natural justice. The assessment requires setting aside and fresh adjudication after granting a meaningful personal hearing.

Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules was omitted prospectively from 8 October 2024. In the absence of a saving or sunset clause, the omitted refund restriction cannot support continuation of pending proceedings or rejection of refund claims. Refund claims rejected solely under Rule 96(10) must be processed without reliance on that omitted restriction.

Portal-based GST notice is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response requires use of other available service methods, preferably registered post, to secure effective service. An ex parte assessment founded solely on formal portal uploads, without a personal hearing, denies an effective opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice. The resulting assessment and consequential order are unsustainable because effective service and a meaningful hearing were not provided.

Section 74 demand proceedings initiated and concluded in the name of a deceased sole proprietor are without jurisdiction where the revenue authority knew both of the death and the legal heir's status. Disclosure of those facts in earlier registration-cancellation and demand proceedings prevents fresh action from being taken against the deceased person. The alleged input-tax-credit liability remains unexamined on merits. Fresh proceedings may be commenced against the legal heir, if otherwise permissible in law.

Duplicative confirmation of tax proposals concerning GSTR-1/GSTR-3B reconciliation and excess input tax credit cannot be sustained where identical proposals were already determined in an earlier order pending appeal. Complete overlap existed between the later and earlier determinations, including input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B compared with auto-populated GSTR-2A. The impugned confirmation was quashed to the extent it duplicated those proposals.

Rectification is available where the same turnover may have been included in the assessments of two separately registered units and thereby taxed more than once. Verification must examine the assessee's computation together with departmental records of both units holistically to establish whether turnover overlaps. Where overlap is established, the duplication constitutes a rectifiable mistake and turnover must be reworked so that it is taxed only once. Fresh examination is necessary to verify the alleged overlap before rectification.

Generation of three digitally signed personal-hearing notices within minutes on the same date, each carrying a different notice number and hearing schedule, raises concerns over the integrity of the State Tax portal's notice-generation process. The discrepancy was treated as a serious system lacuna capable of enabling manipulation. Scrutiny of portal functioning and the mechanism permitting inconsistent notices was required, together with a report on the process and a fresh appellate order.

Double taxation of the same turnover across separately registered units constitutes a rectifiable mistake where the assessee establishes that turnover taxed in one unit was assessed again in another. Separate registrations or assessment under different charges do not prevent the Department from examining all relevant records holistically to ensure that turnover is taxed only once. The assessment was set aside solely for verification and reworking of the alleged overlapping turnover between the units, with a fresh determination directed on that limited issue. Other disputed issues remained open to be pursued through available remedies.

Proceeds of crime must be property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Receipts under debenture subscription and consultancy agreements received before the relevant bank disbursal lacked the required nexus. The unpaid consideration under a pre-existing dairy-business sale agreement remained an independent lawful transaction. Banking transfers and later disbursals to legal entities cannot be characterised as proceeds of crime without cogent evidence of that nexus. Attachment therefore could not continue, and the properties were released.

Duplicate GST adjudication cannot be sustained where tax proposals concerning GSTR-1/GSTR-3B reconciliation and excess input tax credit in GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A have already been determined in an earlier order. Complete overlap between the proposals prevents a second determination, even while an appeal against the earlier order is pending. The impugned order was quashed to the extent it repeated those two proposals.

GST demand proceedings initiated in the name of a deceased sole proprietor lacked jurisdiction where the authority had been informed of the death during cancellation proceedings and knew that the legal heir had pursued an earlier appeal. Fresh action against the deceased was therefore invalid, notwithstanding allegations of wrongful input tax credit availment. The intimation, show-cause notice and demand order were quashed. The authority retained liberty to initiate proceedings against the legal heir where permissible in law, while the merits of the input tax credit allegations and all contentions concerning such proceedings remained open.

Prospective omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules removed the restriction relied on to reject an IGST refund claim for exports made using Advance Authorisation imports. In the absence of a saving or sunset clause, the omitted restriction could not continue to defeat the claim. The refund rejection was quashed, and the claim was required to be processed within 12 weeks.

GST adjudication concerning a mismatch between input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B and reflected in Form GSTR-2A was reopened after the taxpayer's non-participation following a board change. The adjudication and demand orders were quashed conditionally, requiring timely submission of a reconciliation and supporting transaction documents, together with deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, pending fresh adjudication.

Penalty under section 129 for alleged e-way bill reuse requires cogent, positive evidence of prior transportation or delivery of the same goods; extended document validity and the driver's statement on loading date, without independent corroboration, are insufficient. Matching quantities and descriptions in tax invoices and valid e-way bills supported the recorded movement, while omission of the dispatching premises' GSTIN did not establish unaccounted goods or a fictitious transaction. In the absence of proof of earlier delivery, unloading, return, second loading, or an intent to evade tax, the penalty could not be sustained. The order setting aside the penalty remained in force and the departmental appeal failed.

Transfer of input tax credit in a merger requires examination of the interaction between section 16(2), section 18(3) and rule 41, particularly whether a transferee may directly avail credit reflected against the transferor's GSTIN without using the prescribed transfer mechanism. The issue concerns whether that mechanism is mandatory and whether non-compliance is procedural or substantive. Statutory interpretation of eligibility and transfer requirements constitutes a question of law for purposes of Division Bench jurisdiction under section 109(8), rather than merely a factual dispute. The appeal is to be heard by a Division Bench on merits.

Reassessment jurisdiction for alleged sham mutual-fund transactions requires a reason to believe supported by a rational, live nexus with material specific to the investor. Allegations that a mutual fund manipulated accounting or inflated distributable surplus do not, without prima facie material linking the investor to knowing participation or a fictitious loss claim, establish income escaping assessment. The reassessment order and notice were quashed because the information concerning the fund lacked an assessee-specific correlation.

Reassessment limitation for assessment years commencing on or before 1 April 2021 remains governed by the first proviso to Section 149(1), which preserves the pre-amendment limitation. A post-amendment search cannot by itself invoke the substituted ten-year period. The six-year period under Section 153A covers years immediately preceding the search assessment year, while the ten-year period under Explanation 1 runs from the end of, and includes, the search assessment year. On that computation, A.Y. 2012-13 lay outside both periods, rendering the reassessment notice and consequential proceedings time-barred and quashed.

Reassessment founded solely on material seized during a search of group entities is impermissible where proceedings should have been initiated against another person under the special search-assessment scheme. The Assessing Officer of the searched person must record and transmit a satisfaction note before seized incriminating material may be used against another assessee. Reassessment under sections 147 and 148 requires independently obtained material and cannot rest exclusively on search material. In the absence of a satisfaction note and any independent material, the reassessment notice and order under section 148A(d) were quashed.