E-invoicing requirements apply to notified registered persons, requiring an invoice with IRN/QR code before goods commence movement. Failure to generate the e-invoice at that stage is a procedural lapse, but a transit penalty is not justified where the tax invoice, e-way bill and lorry receipt accurately identify the parties, goods, value and tax liability. Where no discrepancy, concealment, falsification, undervaluation or intent to evade tax is established and the later e-invoice corresponds to the same transaction, the penal consequence under Section 129 is unsustainable.

Input tax credit eligibility, including any exception to blocked credit, requires contemporaneous evidence proving the factual basis and business nexus; invoices, payments, and assertions alone are insufficient. Section 17(5) requires identification of the applicable blocked-credit clause and cannot operate as a general ground to disallow expenditure. Vehicle, construction, renovation, gift, catering, and personal travel claims remain inadmissible where statutory restrictions apply or business use, non-capitalisation, asset nexus, or an exception is unproved. Lawfully leviable cess separately charged forms part of taxable value. Interest on inadmissible credit is confined to wrongful availment and utilisation. Penalty is not automatic, but applies under Section 73 to tax legally sustained, subject to recomputation.

Retrospective Section 16(5) preserves input tax credit for specified financial years when taken through a Section 39 return filed by the prescribed deadline, notwithstanding the former Section 16(4) time limit. GSTR-3B constitutes a Section 39 return, and availment through it differs from later utilisation of credit. Errors or non-carry-forward in GSTR-9 or GSTR-9C do not by themselves negate credit already availed. Section 75(7) prevents a limitation-based demand from being sustained on fresh Section 16(2) grounds absent from the show-cause notice. The special rectification procedure does not displace substantive entitlement, while interest and penalty require underlying wrongful availment or liability.

Section 74(1) of the CGST Act applies only where tax non-payment or short-payment results from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Delayed GST payment, belated GSTR-3B filing, or short payment of interest does not independently establish these conditions. A show-cause notice must set out foundational facts and supporting material for an allegation of deliberate tax evasion; merely repeating statutory language is insufficient. Where tax and interest were paid before issuance of the notice and no material demonstrated intent to evade tax, proceedings under Section 74(1) were unsustainable.

Tax invoices must be issued before or at removal of goods for supply, and e-way bills must be generated before movement begins. Persons in charge of conveyances must carry both documents during transit. Movement without these mandatory records contravenes GST requirements and attracts detention and penalty under Section 129. Generating and producing an invoice and e-way bill about seven hours after interception does not retrospectively validate the earlier undocumented movement. The absence of required transit documents creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax; an unsupported explanation, particularly where repeated conduct is recorded, does not displace it. Penalty under Section 129 therefore remains applicable.

Misdescription of higher-value copper scrap as aluminium scrap in contemporaneous invoices and e-way bills, coupled with concealment of separately identifiable copper, supports a rebuttable inference of intent to evade tax on a preponderance of probabilities. The inference is not displaced by an explanation of labourers' error where the mismatch is not a mere classification, HSN, or typographical discrepancy. Under Section 129, transit documents generated after interception cannot retrospectively validate earlier movement or cure missing matching documentation; resulting tax and penalty consequences apply.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure provision is available where higher-taxed packing materials are used to produce packaged sulphur subject to a lower tax rate, causing credit accumulation. Repacking bulk sulphur into retail packets does not negate that entitlement merely because CBIC circulars characterise the input and output goods as the same. Circular-making power is limited to securing uniform implementation and cannot add to or derogate from statutory refund rights. A circular concerning rate reductions on the same goods at different times does not apply to these facts.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure is available where higher-taxed packing materials are used to make bulk sulphur marketable as customised packaged sulphur, even though bulk and packaged sulphur bear the same GST rate. Such packing materials qualify as inputs, and accumulated credit arises because their tax rate exceeds that on the output supply. The restriction concerning identical input and output goods does not apply where accumulation is not caused by a rate reduction on the same goods. Instructions issued to ensure uniform GST implementation cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Section 67(2) permits seizure only of goods liable to confiscation and documents, books or things useful or relevant to GST proceedings. Cash and securities are excluded from the statutory definition of goods, while money is separately defined. Applying literal interpretation, the residual expression "things" cannot extend seizure powers to money or securities that the statute treats distinctly. GST search powers therefore do not authorise seizure of cash or securities merely because they are found during a search; any seizure power must have a proximate nexus with GST proceedings. Money seized without such authority must be returned or refunded.

Fresh GST registration should be assessed independently where the applicant's earlier registration was cancelled and the statutory period for filing the related returns has expired without a notified extension. Section 37 permits extension of the period for furnishing outward-supply details only through notification. Requiring returns that can no longer be furnished under the statutory framework imposes an impossible compliance condition. Non-filing of those time-barred returns should therefore not itself justify rejection, subject to fulfilment of other applicable registration requirements.

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.