Interlocutory relief in an unregistered appeal - Expedited scrutiny of appeal Consideration of stay and early-hearing relief in an interlocutory application before scrutiny and registration of the statutory appeal. - HELD THAT: - Rule 29 contemplates interlocutory relief in a pending matter. Since the appeal was still under scrutiny and had not been registered, substantive relief in the application could be considered only after registration. The urgency shown warranted expeditious completion... ... ...

Input tax credit - GSTR-2A mismatch for FY 2018-19 - Supplier certificate for B2B supplies reported as B2C - Burden of proving input tax credit eligibility - Set-off across IGST, CGST and SGST credit heads - Additional evidence and remand in input tax credit proceedings - Interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit - Penalty under non-fraud input tax credit proceedings Input tax credit - GSTR-2A mismatch for FY 2018-19 - Supplier certificate for B2B supplies reported as B2C - Bu... ... ...

Penalty for expired e-way bill - Mens rea for section 129 penalty Validity of penalty under section 129 for transportation with an expired e-way bill resulting from an erroneous consignor PIN code - HELD THAT: - Although section 129 does not expressly stipulate mens rea, it is a measure to prevent tax evasion and must be applied accordingly. The Board's instructions identifying cases in which section 129 need not be invoked are binding on the proper officer. The consignment was accompa... ... ...

E-way bill Part-B omission - penalty u/s 129 - intent to evade tax Liability to penalty u/s 129 for non-updation of Part-B of an e-way bill where the movement was supported by genuine tax documents - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that strict-liability rulings under the legacy manual check-post regime did not govern the integrated electronic GST framework. Section 129 is directed against active attempts to evade tax; a technical or procedural omission in Part-B, where the invoice, Part-A and ... ... ...

Penalty for non-filling of Part-B of e-way bill-mens rea to evade tax - Detention proceedings-mandatory final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 Validity of penalty under section 129 for transport of customised self-adhesive labels with Part-B of the e-way bill unfilled, despite genuine invoices and Part-A particulars - HELD THAT: - Section 129 could not be mechanically invoked for a technical or clerical documentation omission. Conversely, the jurisprudence developed under the GST era-exem... ... ...

Waiver of interest on delayed payment of self-assessed tax - Classification between disputed tax and self-assessed tax - Interest on self-assessed tax liability Eligibility for waiver of interest on belated deposit of self-assessed GST liability under the statutory waiver scheme - HELD THAT: - The waiver contemplated by Section 128A, as clarified by the Circular, applies to proceedings initiated under Section 73. Interest on delayed payment of admitted self-assessed tax arises under Section 5... ... ...

Defects pointed out in the Impugned Order - Input Tax Credit availed on blocked credit under Section 17(5) of the respective GST enactments, tax payable under the reverse charge mechanism on residential buildings AND omission of turnover based on the comparison with Form 26AS HELD THAT:- As such, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned order. Further, the petitioner, having admitted to the tax liability insofar as the first two defects are concerned, shall pay the interest and pen... ... ...

Validity of Assessment Order - petitioner has also been asked to pay interest and penalty under Sections 50 ad 73 of the respective GST enactments - case of the petitioner is that on zero rated supply, the petitioner is entitled to refund in terms of Section 16(2) of IGST r/w 54 of CGST/TNGST Act HELD THAT:- No procedural irregularity committed by the respondent while passing the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. At this distant point of time, the tim... ... ...

Section 74 proceedings for input tax credit mismatch - Invocation of section 74 in respect of mismatch between input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B returns and that reflected in GSTR-2A HELD THAT: - On examining the show cause notice and the impugned order, the Court found that the ingredients for invoking section 74 were not satisfied. Reconsideration was consequently required under section 73. [Paras 4, 7] The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh proceedings unde... ... ...

Cancellation of GST registration for non-disclosure of bank details - Curable procedural non-compliance under GST law - Opportunity to cure GST registration non-compliance - HELD THAT: - The Court held that cancellation of GST registration has severe civil consequences and that the object of GST law is compliance rather than punishment. As the allegation was confined to non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations linked to a joint bank account, and not to fraud, fake invoices, c... ... ...

Bar on parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter - Opportunity of hearing in ex parte GST adjudication - Constitutional validity of input tax credit conditional upon payment of tax by supplier Bar on parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter - Applicability of the statutory bar on parallel GST proceedings to demand proceedings concerning alleged wrongful availment and passing on of input tax credit - HELD THAT: - The statutory bar operates only where proceedings under the ... ... ...

Service of GST notices through Common Portal - Condonation of delay in GST appeals under writ jurisdiction Delayed GST appeal against an input tax credit demand where the proceedings were uploaded on the common portal without the assessee having effective knowledge thereof - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the view that a show-cause notice cannot be deemed sufficiently served merely because it was uploaded on the Common Portal where its receipt was not acknowledged and no reply was filed. Tho... ... ...

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through upload on the Common Portal may be inadequate where receipt is unacknowledged, no reply is filed, and the taxpayer lacks effective knowledge of the proceedings. Although the statutory limitation period binds the appellate authority, writ jurisdiction may address delay caused by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control where refusing merits adjudication would cause grave injury or prejudice. In the stated circumstances, delay in filing the GST appeal against an input tax credit demand was condoned, the limitation-based dismissal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the fresh appeal on merits without raising limitation.

Parallel GST proceedings are barred only where proceedings under the State enactment were initiated earlier and both proceedings concern the same subject matter. Turnover reconciliation based on GSTR-3B and allegations of issuing invoices without supply and wrongly passing input tax credit involve distinct subject matters, so the bar does not apply. Ex parte adjudication does not breach natural justice where hearing notices are properly sent and the noticee neither appears nor provides a substantive reply. Input tax credit may validly be conditional on the supplier's payment of tax, a position affirmed by the Supreme Court. Statutory appellate remedy remains available for objections to the demand without a merits determination.

GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations linked to a joint account is addressed as curable procedural non-compliance where fraud, fake invoicing, circular trading and tax evasion are absent. Because cancellation has serious civil consequences and GST law prioritises compliance over punishment, taxpayers willing to furnish correct bank details, file pending returns and pay statutory dues, interest and penalty should receive an opportunity to establish bona fides. Cancellation may be set aside and restoration considered through a reasoned hearing, with restoration conditional on filing pending returns and payment of outstanding dues.

GST assessment order was challenged on the basis that zero-rated supplies entitled the petitioner to a refund under the IGST and CGST/TNGST provisions. The assessment also required payment of interest and penalty under the respective GST enactments. No procedural irregularity was found in the assessment process, and the writ challenge was dismissed. The dispute therefore centred on the procedural validity of the assessment despite the asserted entitlement to a refund for zero-rated supplies.

Section 129 penalties for an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill require independent, recorded evidence of intent to evade tax; a technical or clerical omission alone is insufficient where invoices, Part-A particulars and other documentation establish a transparent, tax-paid transaction. Penalties imposed without positive proof of tax-evasion intent are legally unsustainable. Following detention and consideration of objections, a final reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09 must be issued after providing a hearing. Failure to issue that speaking order prejudices the taxpayer's rights and vitiates the resulting penalty demand.

Section 129 penalty for an expired e-way bill must serve its tax-evasion prevention purpose, notwithstanding that the provision does not expressly require mens rea. Board instructions identifying situations in which section 129 need not be invoked bind the proper officer. Where goods matched the e-way bill and delivery challan, and an erroneous consignor PIN code shortened rather than extended validity, the lapse was clerical. Without any allegation of intent to evade tax, detention and penalty proceedings under section 129 were unwarranted.

Section 129 penalties for failure to update Part-B of an e-way bill require independent findings of an intent to evade tax where the goods movement is otherwise supported by genuine tax documents. The integrated electronic GST framework distinguishes technical or procedural omissions from active tax-evasion attempts. Where the invoice, Part-A details and underlying transaction transparently establish the movement, non-updation of Part-B alone should not sustain a penalty. Strict-liability principles developed under the legacy manual check-post regime are not treated as governing such electronic GST compliance failures.

GSTR-2A non-reflection for FY 2018-19 operates as a scrutiny trigger rather than an automatic bar to input tax credit, but the claimant must prove substantive eligibility with objective, transaction-level evidence. A supplier certificate is evidentiary material, not a statutory deeming rule; unsupported B2C-reporting errors and residual IGST mismatches do not establish credit. IGST, CGST and SGST are distinct credit heads, so cross-head set-off requires legally permissible, transaction-level reconciliation. Additional evidence cannot fill evidentiary gaps or justify remand after adequate opportunities. Where wrongly availed credit was utilised, interest follows absent a demonstrated computational error, and non-fraud penalty applies where no separate basis for relief exists.