Cross-empowerment under GST - Effect of absence of notification imposing conditions Cross-empowerment of Central and State GST officers for intelligence-based enforcement action in the absence of a notification imposing conditions under Section 6 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT: - The statutory scheme permits cross-empowerment. A notification contemplated under Section 6(1) is intended to impose conditions upon that power and is not a condition precedent to its exercise; consequently, non-issuanc... ... ...

Suspension and cancellation of GST registration - exhaustion of statutory remedies Maintainability of the writ petition against the intimation suspending registration and proposing its cancellation, without filing pending returns or furnishing a reply before the Proper Officer - HELD THAT: - The statutory scheme permits revocation of suspension on completion of cancellation proceedings and requires the Proper Officer to drop such proceedings where the reply is satisfactory; where cancellation... ... ...

Mandatory personal hearing before adverse GST order Requirement of granting personal hearing before passing an adverse order under the UKGST Act despite the assessee not opting for such hearing on the online portal - HELD THAT: - Noting that no date for personal hearing had been fixed, the Court held that the Department was obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. The petitioner's non-selection of personal hearing on the portal did not dispense with tha... ... ...

Enforcement of judicial undertaking for prior notice of arrest - Prior communication of Commissioner's arrest authorisation under CGST Act Commencement of arrest by actual restraint - Twenty-four-hour production before Magistrate - Computation of the twenty-four-hour period for producing the petitioner before the Magistrate following the CGST search and inquiry - HELD THAT: - The commencement of arrest must be determined by actual deprivation of liberty and assumption of custody, and not ... ... ...

Hookah service in Designated Smoking Areas Hookah service in Designated Smoking Areas - Interpretation of prohibition on service - Whether the post-2017 prohibition on service in a restaurant's Designated Smoking Area permits provision of hookah through a self-service or rental model? - HELD THAT: - The exception permitting a smoking area must be construed narrowly in furtherance of the public-health object of the statutory prohibition on smoking in public places. By substituting "no othe... ... ...

Scope of "any person" for penalty on fraudulent invoice and input tax credit transactions - Prospective operation of penalty for fraudulent invoice and input tax credit transactions - Writ jurisdiction despite statutory appeal against GST penalty orders Personal penalty on non-taxable beneficiaries of specified transactions - expression "any person" in Section 122(1A) is not confined to a taxable person - HELD THAT: - Section 122(1A) deliberately employs "any person" in contrast with the expr... ... ...

Premature writ challenge to GST show cause notice - Consideration of audit objections in statutory adjudication - Interference with a GST demand-cum-show cause notice on the ground that the assessee's reply at the audit stage was inadequately considered HELD THAT: - A show cause notice merely initiates the statutory adjudicatory process and does not determine liability. Although the statutory requirement to consider the registered person's reply must be complied with, the notice refer... ... ...

Violation of Natural justice - ex parte GST adjudication without notice of subsequent hearing HELD THAT: - The Court found the facts to be similar to the coordinate Bench decision M/S SHUBHAM STEEL TRADERS [2024 (2) TMI 1180 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] concerning an ex parte order where the matter was not decided on the date fixed for hearing and the subsequent date was not communicated. It followed that view and found no reason to take a different view. [Paras 5] The impugned adjudication ord... ... ...

Maintainability of Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 - assailing the show cause notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act - wrongful utilization of excess ITC from a non-existent firm - efficacious statutory appellate remedy - Error apparent on the face of the record - Clerical or arithmetical error- breach of fundamental rights - violation of natural justice - excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. HELD THAT:- The special leave petition was disposed of withou... ... ...

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.