Input tax credit is conditional on actual payment of tax on the supply to the Government under Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 41. The conditions for credit operate together, so a recipient cannot retain credit where the supplier has not remitted the charged tax. Supplier insolvency and an approved resolution plan do not remove the recipient's independent obligation to meet the actual-payment condition. Input tax credit is therefore unavailable where the supplier's tax payment has not reached the Government.

A summary appellate rejection of a belated GST-registration appeal solely on limitation does not adjudicate the underlying cancellation. The original cancellation order therefore does not merge into the appellate rejection and remains open to constitutional writ review under Articles 226 and 227. Where registration was cancelled for failure to answer a show-cause notice, bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause for non-response may justify a further opportunity. Restoration of registration may be made subject to prescribed return-filing and tax-payment obligations.

Section 75(7) of the CGST and West Bengal GST Acts confines a tax determination to the amount demanded and grounds stated in the show cause notice. A determination exceeding the notice amount or relying on unstated grounds is invalid to that extent. The excess demand was set aside and treated as a show cause notice, requiring the proper officer to conduct adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Electronic Cash Ledger credits constitute available funds but do not, by themselves, discharge self-assessed GST liabilities. Under the GST payment framework, discharge occurs only when the ledger is debited and utilised against the liability on filing GSTR-3B; interest under Section 50(1) therefore continues until that debit, notwithstanding an earlier deposit or unsupported technical difficulties. Where an assessee receives an interest-demand notice, can submit objections and material, and recovery follows consideration of those responses, the process does not breach natural justice. The availability of a statutory appeal does not absolutely preclude writ jurisdiction, but no writ interference arises absent illegality in the demand or recovery.

Section 67(2) restricts seizure to articles within its statutory scope and does not treat cash/currency as a seizable thing. Retention of seized mobile phones, pen drives, bank cards and other articles is permitted only while necessary for examination, enquiry or proceedings. After a demand-cum-show-cause notice has issued and that necessity no longer exists, continued retention is unjustified and return is required. Wrongful withholding of cash gives rise to interest.

Rule 86A permits blocking of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger when statutory conditions are satisfied. Pre-decisional opportunity may be established through a hearing intimation and postal acknowledgement. Claims that the supplier was registered and that transactions were supported by valid invoices and banking-channel payments require evaluation on the taxpayer's supporting material. The taxpayer may submit a detailed response and documents and receive a hearing before continuation of the block is decided. Granting that further opportunity does not automatically require release of the blocked credit.

Seized mobile phones and bank debit cards may be retained beyond six months under the CGST Act only if an order extending the seizure has been made. Where no extension order exists, continued detention is impermissible and the seized articles must be returned to the person from whom they were seized.

Section 65 of the CGST/KGST Act protects input tax credit claimed through belated returns filed by 30 November 2021 for specified financial years. Returns filed on 4 September 2020 fell before that cut-off, requiring reconsideration of the denial of credit. The adjudication order and consequential garnishee notice were quashed, with proceedings restored for a fresh response to the show-cause notice and reconsideration under the provision.

Portal-only service of a show-cause notice after cancellation of GST registration is ineffective where a binding departmental circular requires physical service. In proceedings under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a person with cancelled registration may be unable, and cannot be expected, to access or monitor the common portal. Electronic service alone therefore fails to provide effective notice, making a resulting ex parte adjudication order unsustainable.

Failure to afford a further hearing after an appeal's transfer, issuance of a fresh hearing notice, and a requested adjournment undermines procedural fairness. Where an appellate order follows without any further hearing pursuant to that notice, the appeal requires fresh adjudication after the petitioner receives a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confines a determination order for tax, interest and penalty to the amounts specified in the show-cause notice and bars confirmation on grounds not stated in that notice. Where the notice specifies a lower aggregate liability, a subsequent determination imposing a higher demand breaches that statutory restriction. The excess demand cannot be sustained.

Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises Central and State GST officers to act as proper officers under the corresponding GST enactments. A notification under Section 6(1) may prescribe conditions or restrictions on cross-empowerment but is not the source of that authority; its absence does not invalidate the exercise of cross-empowerment. Section 6(2)(b) prohibits parallel formal adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter. Intelligence-based inquiries, summons, searches, seizures and evidence collection do not alone initiate proceedings. Duplication depends on overlap in the liability, contravention and relief sought.

GST registration suspension and proposed cancellation for non-filing of returns require the registered person to file pending returns or reply within 30 days before seeking writ relief. Suspension may be lifted upon filing the returns, while Rule 21A(4) provides for revocation after Rule 22 proceedings are completed. Under Rule 22(4), the Proper Officer must drop proceedings where the reply is satisfactory and, where applicable, all pending returns are filed with tax, interest and late fee paid. Because recourse before the Proper Officer remained unexhausted, the writ challenge was declined, leaving the registered person to pursue the available statutory process.

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.