Appeals filed beyond the ordinary limitation period but within the statutory condonable period require consideration of any explanation for delay. Where medical circumstances are asserted as preventing a response to a notice, the explanation should be assessed unless shown to be ungenuine. Fair opportunity to establish sufficient cause and a hearing before the appellate authority are necessary before rejecting the delayed appeal. Rejection without considering the condonation request cannot be sustained.

Pecuniary limits imposed through the Commissioner's administrative order constrained the Deputy Commissioner's authority to block input tax credit. The prescribed ceiling was Rs. 1 crore, yet credit exceeding that amount was blocked before being unblocked. Statutory power must be exercised within jurisdictional limits fixed by the competent administrative authority; consequently, the Deputy Commissioner lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to block input tax credit beyond the prescribed limit.

Statutory GST claims for pre-effective-date periods that are not lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process are extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, including unassessed, unknown, interest and penalty claims. Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code binds governmental authorities to the approved plan, and its overriding effect prevents later GST adjudication or recovery of extinguished liabilities. General GST adjudicatory provisions and liquidation-related provisions cannot revive such claims. Availability of a statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction or contrary to binding insolvency law.

Article 226 jurisdiction ordinarily does not displace a statutory appeal where objections to an input-tax-credit adjudication require examination of the underlying record and disputed facts. The bar under Section 6(2)(b) depends on identity of the precise subject matter, including tax periods, transactions, invoices, liabilities and allegations; a common supplier or general ITC connection is insufficient. An independent finding of ITC availment on goods-less invoices does not facially constitute a new basis beyond the show-cause notice. Objections concerning hearing opportunities, evidence, limitation, period clubbing, replies and Section 74 require appellate scrutiny unless an ex facie jurisdictional error or undisputed breach of natural justice is established.

Section 54(11) of the CGST Act permits withholding of a refund where the refund-generating order is subject to appeal, further proceedings, or another pending proceeding and, after hearing the taxable person, the Commissioner considers release harmful to revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. "Other pending proceedings" can include an ongoing statutory anti-evasion investigation, not only a formal appeal. Material indicating non-existent or cancelled suppliers, no established movement of goods, and no connection with the manufacturer's supply chain can support the required opinion concerning fraudulent input tax credit. A later show-cause notice may crystallise an existing investigation; no separate appellate proceeding or judicial stay is required for valid withholding.

Section 54(11) of the CGST Act permits withholding an export IGST refund where the underlying refund order is subject to appeal or other pending proceedings and, after hearing the taxable person, the Commissioner independently concludes that release would adversely affect revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. This statutory safeguard operates without a separate judicial stay; a proposed appeal alone is insufficient, but an already commenced anti-evasion investigation may qualify as pending proceedings. Material concerning allegedly non-genuine or non-operational suppliers and unestablished goods movement supported the withholding. Questions on supply genuineness remained for GSTAT; withholding was sustained and writ relief refused.

Approved resolution plans bind government authorities, extinguishing pre-approval statutory dues not lodged in insolvency proceedings or provided for in the plan, where the plan covers known and unknown, assessed and unassessed claims. Such extinguishment prevents subsequent GST demand notices, adjudication and recovery because determination cannot survive independently of the extinguished liability. The CGST first-charge provision yields to the IBC's overriding effect, and liquidation cannot revive the liability. Writ jurisdiction remains available despite an appellate remedy where proceedings lack jurisdiction and the dispute is a pure legal issue on admitted facts; a pre-deposit appeal need not be pursued.

Section 74 of the HPGST Act requires a show cause notice to state the foundational facts showing that wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit resulted from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. Bare, alternative recitals of those expressions, without identifying the taxpayer's precise conduct and linking it to the alleged default, do not meet that requirement. An ITC mismatch or short payment alone cannot justify Section 74 unless the notice records supporting reasons and facts. The High Court set aside the defective notice, permitted a fresh notice within 60 days without limitation bar, and kept the challenge to ITC provisions open.

Bail in a CGST prosecution involving alleged diversion of online-gaming merchant funds was granted because pre-conviction detention is not punitive and must secure attendance at trial. Completed investigation, filing of the complaint, documentary evidence, Magistrate-triable offences, and absence of criminal antecedents or material showing witness tampering, flight risk, repeat offending, or exceptional circumstances meant continued custody was unjustified. Delay likely to prevent trial completion within a reasonable time further supported release, subject to attendance and non-interference safeguards.

GST demand challenges founded on claims that supplies were exempt fuelwood and charcoal require substantiation during adjudication; where that defence is not properly supported, the statutory appeal is the appropriate remedy. The taxpayer may clarify an apparently incorrect reference to Form GSTR-8A before the Appellate Authority by filing supporting material. Despite substantial recovery of the confirmed demand, an appeal filed within the permitted period must be decided without applying limitation.

Ex parte GST assessment is addressed where statutory appellate limitation prevents appellate recourse. Fresh consideration is contemplated because the demand was made ex parte, provided the taxpayer files a reply to the show-cause notice, treats the impugned order as an addendum, and makes pre-deposit of the disputed tax. The respondent must then decide the matter on merits after hearing the taxpayer. Non-compliance permits proceedings in accordance with law as though the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

Rule 86A limits restrictions on input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger to one year and provides a statutory route for unblocking. A person whose credit is blocked must approach the Commissioner for an order under Rule 86A(2). Where registration is subsequently cancelled and a demand is determined, unblocking cannot be pursued solely by relying on issues concerning communication of the blocking reasons. The cancellation and demand orders must first be validly challenged; an unblocking request may then be made in accordance with law.

Input tax credit proportionate to consideration unpaid beyond 180 days must be added to output tax liability, and interest runs from availment until a financial or commercial credit note is received and recorded. A supplier's full waiver through such a credit note leaves no unpaid supply value and permits retention of original-invoice credit because the note does not reduce transaction value or invoice tax; beneficial Board clarifications bind departmental officers. Recorded unpaid balances and a bona fide view, later supported by clarification, do not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression merely because audit detected the issue. The GST demand for credit and penalty fail, while interest for the intervening period remains payable.

Input tax credit on goods and services used to construct a resort building and its civil structures is blocked where construction is on the taxable person's own account. The retrospective definition of plant and machinery excludes land, buildings and civil structures; a resort supplying accommodation and restaurant services cannot invoke that exception. Residual credit requires specific proof that inputs are movable assets or qualifying plant and machinery, rather than a general verification request. Interest applies only to wrongly availed credit actually utilised, measured by reduction of the electronic credit ledger below the disputed credit. Failure to pay tax and interest within 30 days of the show cause notice removes penalty immunity. An appellate authority should address cited binding precedent, although fresh final-fact adjudication may cure the omission without prejudice.

Section 129 confines detention of goods to the period of transit and does not support detention after the vehicle has reached the consignee's registered premises. A promptly corrected Part-B omission in an e-way bill, supported by valid invoices and Part-A details, was treated as a minor procedural lapse that could not justify detention or penalty absent revenue loss or evidence of intent to evade tax. An adjudication order dated before the personal hearing breached audi alteram partem by rendering the hearing ineffective. The detention, tax demand and penalty were set aside, with refund of amounts collected under protest and applicable statutory interest.

Pending real-estate anti-profiteering investigations may be remanded for fresh project-level computation of input-tax-credit savings and allocation by total area where the earlier methodology is legally unsustainable. A fresh Standing Committee reference is unnecessary where the original reference remains alive and the DGAP acts under remand. The investigation-report time limit is directory, particularly where delayed records caused the delay, and notice, disclosure of the fresh report and opportunity for objections satisfy natural justice. Input-tax-credit benefit must be actually passed to homebuyers through commensurate price reduction; unpassed benefit is refundable with interest proportionate to sold area. A penalty provision does not apply where the entire contravention ended before its commencement.

Address and business-particular discrepancies in transport documents do not by themselves establish deliberate contravention or intent to evade tax. Where goods are accompanied by a tax invoice and e-way bill and no quantity or quality discrepancy exists, technical or procedural defects require independent, reliable evidence of evasion before a penalty may be sustained. Penalty proceedings cannot rest on assumptions or unsubstantiated allegations. In the absence of sufficient evidence of intent to evade tax, the penalty and the appellate order sustaining it were set aside.

GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B mismatch requires verification of its cause, reconciliation with liability records and subsequent payments, and a determination whether tax remains unpaid; a numerical difference alone cannot establish short payment. Input tax credit reversal demands require a separate statutory basis and computation. Ex parte disposal following non-appearance remains subject to a reasoned determination of material grounds. Statutory claims concerning interest and penalty waiver, service of notices, and duplicate proceedings require examination against applicable conditions and records. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for fresh determination of actual liability and statutory claims.

Expiry of an e-way bill constitutes a procedural or documentary lapse and, without independent evidence, does not by itself establish an intention to evade tax for imposing a GST penalty. Penalty requires assessment of surrounding circumstances, including whether goods were diverted, the transaction was suppressed, goods differed from declarations, or the destination was undisclosed. Where none of these factors is present, the penalty lacks a factual basis and is unsustainable.

Reassessment procedure requires the Assessing Officer to furnish recorded reasons and decide objections to reopening by a speaking order before initiating scrutiny through a notice under section 143(2). A return filed in response to a reopening notice must be processed under the regular assessment procedure, but scrutiny cannot precede determination of jurisdictional objections. Further, no action, including a notice under section 142(1), may be taken for four weeks after service of an order rejecting objections. Notices issued contrary to these requirements, and consequential action, were quashed; the reopening challenge remained open.