Ex parte GST orders issued without a meaningful personal hearing or enquiry breach principles of natural justice. A taxpayer must receive a genuine opportunity to be heard before an adverse tax determination is made. Where the order is passed without that opportunity and without enquiry, it is unsustainable for violating procedural fairness.

GST appeal limitation begins when a cancellation order is communicated through a prescribed mode of service, not when it is merely uploaded on the common portal. The statutory appeal period permits only limited condonation beyond its initial duration, making valid service essential to commencement of limitation. Portal upload alone does not trigger limitation; an appeal against registration cancellation cannot be rejected as time-barred on that basis and must be considered on merits.

First-initiated Central GST proceedings for the same taxable period preclude later State GST adjudication; any State GST adjudication and consequential rectification order cannot survive. Ex parte Central GST adjudication without a newly communicated hearing date, despite a previously filed reply and earlier hearing dates, denies an effective opportunity of hearing and breaches natural justice. Fresh Central GST determination requires an effective hearing and a speaking order.

Conflicting detailed and summary rectification orders arose where the detailed order recognised eligible input tax credit on inward supplies reflected in GSTR-2A and dropped the proposal, but the summary order required payment. Rejection of a rectification request merely by asserting that no apparent error existed, without addressing that inconsistency, was unsustainable. The rectification requires fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.

GST adjudication challenges based on refusal of cross-examination should ordinarily be addressed through the statutory appeal where relied-upon documents have been supplied, panch witnesses examined, and evidentiary questions require merits review. An unsustainable reliance on immunity provisions to refuse cross-examination does not automatically entitle a taxpayer to examine revenue officers; the necessity remains fact-specific. The appellate authority may consider natural justice objections and, where warranted, direct cross-examination or obtain an appropriate report. Writ intervention is not pursued where these issues remain open within the statutory appellate remedy.

Where a tender permits collection of a specified fee and states that scheduled collections are inclusive of taxes, the tenderer has no contractual right to charge GST separately to performers. Payment of GST, as a statutory liability, does not itself shift the economic burden to recipients or create a reimbursement claim against the Board. Separate recovery or reimbursement requires an express contractual term or statutory basis. The prescribed tender rate therefore remains tax-inclusive.

GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns was not finally adjudicated for validity or for entitlement to revocation after the taxpayer filed the outstanding returns. The taxpayer was permitted to submit a revocation application within two weeks. The competent authority must consider that application and issue a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Challenges to amended show-cause notices under Section 74 alleging suppression should proceed through the statutory response process rather than writ adjudication at that stage. The noticee must file a reply, after which the authorities must provide a hearing and issue a reasoned order in accordance with law. Jurisdictional and other legal questions remain open for consideration.

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was omitted with effect from 8 October 2024. In the absence of an express saving clause or another legal mechanism preserving pending matters, the omitted rule cannot continue to govern proceedings pending on the omission date. Its restrictions therefore cannot be applied to those matters, and proceedings and consequential orders founded on the omitted rule are vitiated.

GST appellate authorities must apply statutory pre-deposit requirements consistently with natural justice. A prior deposit made during investigation that exceeds the required pre-deposit is material and must be considered. Where an alleged shortfall is identified, the appellant must receive a defect memo, notice, or hearing and an opportunity to cure the deficiency before dismissal. Appellate rejection without considering the prior deposit or allowing the appellant to address the asserted shortfall is invalid.

GST appeals cannot be dismissed for an alleged pre-deposit shortfall without a defect memo, notice, and an opportunity to cure the deficiency. Deposits made during investigation that are relevant to the pre-deposit requirement must be considered before dismissal. The High Court quashed the appellate order, restored the appeal, and remitted the pre-deposit issue for fresh consideration after a hearing, while keeping all merits open.

Omission of GST Rule 96(10) without a saving clause or statutory mechanism preserving earlier action prevents pending proceedings under the omitted rule from continuing. Applying the Supreme Court principle in Good Luck India Limited, proceedings founded on Rule 96(10) were vitiated following its omission. The impugned orders were set aside, while respondents remained free to take appropriate measures as permitted by law.

Under a GST-inclusive tender, a supplier's statutory obligation to pay GST remains distinct from any contractual right to pass that cost to service recipients. Where tender terms authorise collection only of a prescribed fee inclusive of all taxes, the tender holder cannot separately collect GST from Chendamelam artists. GST paid by the tender holder also does not create a reimbursement obligation for the Devaswom Board unless a tender condition or statutory provision expressly requires reimbursement. Contractual allocation of tax liability therefore governs both recovery from recipients and reimbursement from the contracting body.

Statutory appellate remedy ordinarily governs a challenge to a GST adjudication order based on denial of cross-examination of revenue officers involved in preparing a panchnama. Once relied-upon documents are supplied and panch witnesses are cross-examined, the earlier procedural defect no longer survives. The evidentiary value of witness statements, proof of the panchnama, and the factual necessity for cross-examining revenue officers concern merits for appellate review. Statutory immunity is not a sustainable reason to refuse such cross-examination, but it does not create an absolute right; necessity depends on the facts. The cross-examination issue remains open before the appellate authority, and an appeal filed within four weeks is to be entertained on merits without a limitation objection.

Prior commencement of Central GST proceedings for a tax period prevents parallel State GST adjudication for that same period; the State adjudication and consequential rectification orders were therefore quashed. An ex parte Central GST adjudication made after a reply was filed, without giving the taxpayer a hearing despite earlier hearing dates, breached natural justice. That order was also quashed and remitted for a fresh hearing and a speaking order in accordance with law, subject to no adjournment by the taxpayer.

Limitation for a GST appeal against cancellation of registration commences only when the adjudication order is communicated to the aggrieved person. Communication must enable access to the appellate remedy, and prescribed modes of service must be strictly followed; rules cannot restrict statutory communication solely to electronic service. Uploading an order on the common GST portal alone does not constitute communication for limitation purposes. The time-barred appellate dismissal was set aside, delay was condoned, and the appeal was remanded for decision on merits without addressing the underlying dispute.

GST appellate jurisdiction to condone delay is confined to the statutory outer limit under section 107(4). High Court writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may mould relief on particular facts, but it does not expand the First Appellate Authority's statutory power; equity and hardship cannot override the prescribed limitation period. Where the Department has implemented an appellate restoration of GST registration, thereby altering taxpayers' legal and commercial position, a subsequent departmental challenge may become infructuous unless the consequences of restoration can be effectively addressed. In such circumstances, no workable relief may be available despite the jurisdictional defect in condoning delay.

Separate e-way bills generated for the same tax invoices do not alone prove a second taxable supply. However, independent validity periods, vehicle details, movement declarations, changed GR particulars and route discrepancies may support an inference of separate consignments where no contemporaneous records establish uninterrupted movement, trans-shipment or delivery. Tax authorities retain the burden of proving short-payment, but taxpayers and transporters must explain material facts particularly within their knowledge. Tax unpaid on additional outward supplies may be assessed under the non-fraud short-payment regime; delayed output-tax payment attracts interest, and statutory penalty may follow despite absence of fraudulent intent.

GST refund appeals involving an identical question of law must be transferred from different State Benches to the Principal Bench when the President is satisfied that the notification's transfer condition is met. The shared issue concerns refund of interest paid on the part of GST liability discharged through the electronic credit ledger after retrospective substitution of the proviso to section 50(1). Because all eight appeals raised that same issue, the transfer condition was met; the applications were allowed and the appeals were directed to be listed before a Division Bench of the Principal Bench, GSTAT.

Input tax credit on laptop invoices issued while the supplier was registered is not automatically invalidated by the supplier's subsequent retrospective registration cancellation. Section 16(2)(a) requires supplier registration when the invoice is issued; cancellation governs the Department-supplier relationship and does not retrospectively erase issued invoices or the supplier's earlier tax liability. Where invoices appear in FORM GSTR-2A, the supplier filed FORM GSTR-3B, and tax payment is not alleged to be outstanding, the actual-payment condition is satisfied. Credit cannot be denied on an unalleged or speculative concern about payment correlation.