Input tax credit requires the claimant to prove actual receipt and genuine supply of goods. Invoices, e-way bills, stock records and banking payments are insufficient where reliable material, including bogus suppliers or deficient vehicle verification, establishes no physical movement on a preponderance of probabilities. Compliance with the payment condition cannot replace actual receipt. Tax and interest may consequently be recovered for inadmissible credit. Where a penalty is imposed under the tax-recovery provision, a further penalty for the same act or omission is barred; imposing it requires reasoned findings and compliance with natural justice. The penalty therefore requires fresh determination.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit for zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking may include invoice values issued within the relevant refund period even where the related goods are exported later. Zero-rated turnover is determined by invoices issued during that period under the rules on time of supply and invoicing. Actual export remains necessary to obtain the refund, but the shipping-bill date does not exclude subsequently exported goods from that period's turnover.

Section 74(1) requires facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; merely reciting those terms does not justify extended limitation or penalty. Non-disclosure of rental receipts in GST returns, though identified in Form 26-AS, constitutes suppression, sustaining tax, equal penalty and interest. Freight and disputed input-tax-credit components evident from returns or audit material cannot proceed under Section 74 and must be addressed under Section 75(2) as a Section 73(1) demand. A consolidated notice covering multiple tax years is valid, and the supplier's registered location retains jurisdiction over rent from property in another State. Input tax credit cannot be refused solely for absence from GSTR-2A; substantive eligibility, including blocked credit, requires fresh determination. Late fee and interest remain independently payable.

Concessional GST treatment under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) requires strict compliance with the direct-movement condition; movement to third-party premises before export falls outside the prescribed routes, so the concession is unavailable. Section 74 recovery and equivalent penalty require fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. For supplies whose proposed third-party dispatch was disclosed, those elements are not established merely by an incorrect exemption claim; tax must instead be determined under Section 73. An undisclosed supply remains subject to Section 74 demand. Interest follows unpaid tax, statutory penalty applies to Section 73 tax, and cum-tax valuation must be allowed on recalculation.

Section 140(2) permits transition of the entire unavailed CENVAT credit on pre-GST capital goods where the credit is admissible under both the earlier regime and GST, even if no part of that credit was previously availed. The provision does not impose a fifty per cent restriction merely because capital-goods credit was ordinarily availed in instalments. Clerical recording of only one invoice number in TRAN-1, where the entry relates to multiple underlying invoices, requires verification of those invoices rather than automatic denial; credit remains allowable if otherwise in order.

Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's GST registration does not, by itself, establish fictitious supplies, non-receipt of goods, or recipient wrongdoing sufficient to deny input tax credit. Eligibility must be tested independently against statutory conditions, with invoices, transport and stock records, and payment evidence examined; the claimant initially bears the evidentiary burden. Cross-examination is not automatically required where documentary evidence can resolve supply genuineness. A fraud-based tax notice requires foundational material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression; supplier non-existence alone is insufficient. If those elements fail but the notice is timely, it is treated under the statutory non-fraud procedure, requiring fresh determination after hearing.

Section 26 requires a two-stage arrest process: the competent officer must record reasons to believe on material and evidence, and an authorised officer may then execute the arrest. The recorded reasons must be communicated to the proposed arrestee before arrest to permit an effective challenge and pursuit of anticipatory bail. This requirement applies to earlier arrests unless constitutional adjudication is expressly prospective. Producing the reasons before a Magistrate during remand does not replace prior communication. Non-communication makes the arrest unlawful and violates the constitutional protections of personal liberty and information on arrest grounds.

Delayed GST return filing attracts late fee as the specified consequence. A general penalty under Section 125 of the relevant GST enactments applies only where no other penalty is prescribed for the default. Where late fee has been levied for delayed return filing, imposing an additional general penalty for the same default is unsustainable. The general penalty was therefore set aside, while the liability to pay late fee remained.

GST registration cancellation and consequential show-cause notices were set aside, with restoration directed to enable statutory compliance. Although the explanation for compliance lapses was unsatisfactory, a one-time opportunity was considered justified in the interests of justice. Constitutional protection of the freedom to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), read with Article 21, supported restoration. Registration remained conditional on timely filing of returns, payment of outstanding tax liabilities, and payment of costs.

Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was treated as warranting corresponding relief where the facts materially matched an earlier decided matter. The cancellation order was quashed, subject to filing overdue returns and paying statutory dues. The limitation period under the tax determination provisions is to run from the order date, with financial year 2026-27 subject to the specified treatment.

Bail pending trial for alleged CGST Act offences is governed by Article 21 protections of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the principle that pre-trial detention is not punitive. Release on appropriate conditions is warranted where investigation is complete, the complaint has been filed, the evidence is substantially documentary, the accused has no criminal antecedents, and there is no material showing a risk of absconding, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering. Continued custody despite likely trial delay may conflict with the right to a speedy trial.

Statutory appellate authorities must consider and give reasons on grounds seeking condonation of delay before rejecting an appeal as time-barred. Failure to address a claim that notices and the underlying order were unknown because the registered portal email was controlled by a former accountant prevents a proper decision on condonation and merits. Rejection solely by reference to the elapsed period is unsustainable; delay may be condoned and the appeal restored for merits determination, subject to costs.

Maintainability of the public-interest challenge to GST on online legal research and legal educational data services failed because the rate had operated since 2017 and the petitioner, practising since 2020, did not explain the delayed challenge or claimed sudden awareness. Those circumstances undermined the public-interest basis, leading to dismissal without adjudication of the GST rate's legality or reasonableness.

Passport-deposit bail condition was dispensed with because the recurring requirement to obtain its release hindered foreign travel, while advance notice adequately secured the accused's participation in trial. The applicant had complied with the condition, previously obtained travel permission, and redeposited the passport after each trip. Foreign travel now requires written notice to the trial court 30 days before departure, including the travel schedule, and written intimation upon return.

Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act requires an appellate authority to consider grounds pleaded for condoning delayed appeals before rejecting them as time-barred. Where inadequate advice and an accountant's failure to communicate are specifically advanced as reasons for delay, reliance on limitation alone without addressing those grounds is unsustainable. The delay was condoned, and the statutory appeal was restored for adjudication on merits, subject to costs.

Show-cause notice for tax adjudication must be issued within the statutory limitation period through an effective mode of service. Although the outer time limit for the relevant financial year was extended, the notice required issuance by the corresponding earlier deadline and became available on the common portal only after that date. Internal system generation, pending GSTN confirmation, and absence of a common reference number did not constitute issuance or service. Re-uploading could not retrospectively validate the notice without statutory authority. Scrutiny communications and personal-hearing opportunities could not replace the foundational show-cause notice; the delayed notice and consequential adjudication were therefore legally unsustainable.

Full payment of tax where a Tribunal appeal contests only interest does not require a percentage-based pre-deposit of that interest under the CGST Act appellate provisions. The full-payment requirement applies to admitted amounts, while the percentage-based deposit applies to tax remaining in dispute. Once applicable appellate requirements are met, the deemed stay protects the balance demand, including disputed interest, until the Tribunal disposes of the appeal. Bank recovery notices for disputed interest cannot operate during that statutory stay.

Belated payment of an undisputed GST liability does not displace the statutory consequences of non-payment within the prescribed period. Penalty and interest under Section 74(9) remain payable despite subsequent deposit of tax at the appellate stage. An asserted absence of fraud or mens rea does not negate those consequences where the liability was undisputed and payment was delayed.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available despite an alternative statutory appeal, but ordinarily warrants restraint where the appellate forum can assess objections to GST demands. Detailed allegations concerning an invoicing network, transactions and modus operandi did not justify writ intervention merely because the notice was alleged to lack material particulars for invoking Section 74. References to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression cannot substitute for factual disclosure, although adequacy depends on each notice's contents. Penalty challenges requiring examination of notices, replies, investigation material, adjudication findings and applicable provisions are appropriately addressed through the statutory appellate process.

Under the statutory appellate pre-deposit scheme, where the entire underlying tax has been paid, no percentage-based pre-deposit of disputed interest is required. Compliance with applicable pre-deposit conditions results in a deemed stay of recovery of the balance demand while the appeal remains pending. Recovery communications for disputed interest, consequential bank notices, and bank restrictions are therefore barred during that period and must be withdrawn. The basis and computation of the interest demand remain open for determination in the pending appellate proceedings.