Statutory appellate review under Section 107 is the appropriate mechanism for factual examination of input tax credit evidence, including work orders, invoices, payments and proof of execution; writ jurisdiction is generally not invoked where that remedy is effective. Specified DGGI officers may exercise central tax-officer powers throughout India under Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax, and Delhi North may be designated to adjudicate a common notice under applicable allocation arrangements. Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST requires transaction-specific analysis to distinguish ineligible credit involving genuine outward supplies from invoices without underlying supplies; appellate review can determine recovery, interest and penalty consequences.

Sections 69 and 70(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provide powers to arrest and summon, are constitutionally valid. Those powers support GST levy, collection and evasion control and are ancillary and incidental to legislative power under Article 246A of the Constitution. The constitutional challenge therefore fails, preserving the statutory framework for summons, arrest and prosecution in GST enforcement.

GST writ challenges requiring factual verification of input tax credit claims should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy. Where adjudication turns on correlating work orders, subcontracts, invoices, payments and evidence of actual execution, the appellate authority may examine both factual and legal questions, including the applicability of a relevant circular; non-reproduction of a reply alone does not establish non-consideration. Specified DGGI officers appointed as Central tax officers may investigate State-assigned taxpayers, particularly in alleged multi-State transaction chains. A common show-cause notice may be adjudicated by the Commissionerate allocated under applicable notifications and allocation criteria. The merits of input tax credit, interest and penalty demands remain open in appeal.

Pan-India jurisdiction of specified Additional and Joint Commissioners to adjudicate composite DGGI show cause notices rests on the governing notifications. A circular may operationalise that jurisdiction by selecting a common adjudicating authority from officers already competent, but cannot itself confer or enlarge jurisdiction. Selection based on the highest-demand criterion is objective, uniformly applicable and rationally connected to consistent single adjudication, rather than impermissible sub-delegation or arbitrary classification. The notified appellate forum corresponds to the Commissionerate of the common authority. Once a jurisdictional challenge fails, challenges on merits, evidence and natural justice must proceed through the statutory appeal, with merits remaining open.

Mandatory authentication under Rule 26(3) requires every electronic GST notice and adjudication order to bear a digital signature, e-signature, or another notified verification mode. An officer's portal login authenticates access only; it does not authenticate or attribute a document's contents. Electronic documents issued without a signature or notified authentication mode lack legal existence, and the defect is jurisdictional rather than curable. The unsigned show cause notice, adjudication order, and consequential recovery action were set aside, while fresh proceedings remained available in accordance with law. A statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenged order lacks legal existence.

GST show cause notices required at least three months before the outer deadline for adjudication are assessed by the minimum interval between notice and final determination, rather than by mechanically deriving an independent limitation date through backward counting. The intervening period is computed in calendar months, excluding the date of notice; this may render a notice timely before expiry of the adjudication deadline. Where an ex parte adjudication order is made while challenge proceedings and interim protection are pending, a conditional opportunity to reply may be granted, with merits left open; the order may revive if no reply is filed within the stipulated period.

Electronic credit already recovered from a taxpayer's electronic credit ledger may be adjusted against the mandatory GST appellate pre-deposit where the recovered balance exceeds the required pre-deposit and the taxpayer seeks adjustment rather than refund. On that basis, dismissal of the GST appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit was quashed and the appeal restored for merits determination. The adjustment was permitted on the particular facts, with all merits contentions left open and without precedential effect.

Section 129(3)'s seven-day deadline for issuing notice after detention of goods and conveyance under GST is mandatory. The timeline limits coercive detention and seizure powers, protects against arbitrary or prolonged detention, and requires strict compliance because the provision uses "shall" and affects taxpayer rights. A delay of even one day in issuing the notice vitiates the resulting detention and penalty proceedings. Penalty orders issued or affirmed despite breach of this timeline are liable to be set aside, without preventing other proceedings permissible under the Act. Deposited penalty may be released following due verification.

Parallel GST adjudication under Sections 73 and 74 for the same financial period was treated as incongruous once adjudication under Section 73 had concluded; the show cause notice, adjudication order and summary order under Section 74 were quashed. The ex parte Section 73 adjudication was also quashed and restored for fresh consideration because the taxpayer asserted that exemption documents and a reply could substantiate its position on the alleged mismatch or erroneous declaration. Reconsideration must occur after receiving the taxpayer's reply and supporting documents, while the merits of the exemption claim remain open.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars a Central Tax proper officer from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already taken up by a State GST proper officer. Subsequent Central Tax show-cause and adjudication proceedings on the same matter were therefore quashed. For street-light works contracts, the claimed exemption depended on demonstrating that the value of goods supplied remained below the prescribed proportion of the contract value. State Tax adjudication orders and consequential garnishee notices were quashed to permit responses and supporting material, subject to deposit of 10% of the tax demand; the exemption merits remain open.

Input tax credit of a registered purchaser cannot ordinarily be denied merely because the supplier later becomes non-existent or defaults, where the purchaser holds valid registration, invoices, banking-channel payment evidence and filed returns, unless fraud or collusion is established. Documentary proof of actual receipt of goods and absence of prima facie collusion ordinarily make custodial interrogation unnecessary. Arrest for cognizable CGST offences requires the Commissioner's recorded reasons to believe, based on material satisfying statutory conditions rather than suspicion alone. Anticipatory bail in alleged wrongful input tax credit availment was granted subject to cooperation, document production and other safeguards.

For anticipatory bail, the expression "jurisdictional Court" includes both the High Court and the Court of Session, allowing applicants to choose either forum rather than requiring an approach to the Principal Sessions Court. In alleged GST evasion, custodial interrogation was not considered necessary where the maximum punishment was five years, the offences were compoundable, documentary and digital evidence was substantially secured by authorities, and the applicants had business roots and agreed to cooperate. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions including deposit, passport surrender, reporting requirements, bonds, and continued cooperation with the investigation.

GST liability arising from works contracts spanning the pre-GST and GST regimes must be determined under the applicable statute, while reimbursement of any incremental GST burden depends on the contractor-employer contract. Contractual directions may govern work calculation, representations and GST adjustment, but cannot alter statutory assessment, recovery, interest, penalty, return limitations or enforcement by tax authorities. Assessment orders may be challenged through appropriate proceedings, with the time spent pursuing writ petitions excluded when calculating limitation.

Rule 90(2) limits scrutiny of a GST refund application to its completeness under Rule 89(2), (3) and (4); it does not permit a deficiency memo to decide merits. Objections concerning the correct refund category, required statutory statements, adequacy of foreign-remittance evidence, or limitation require substantive examination by the competent authority. An Advice of Foreign Inward Remittance cannot be rejected solely by its label without assessing whether its contents meet the purpose of a Bank Realisation Certificate or FIRC. Deficiency memos on those grounds were unsustainable, and refiled applications had to be accepted for merits consideration after the applicable opportunity.

Input tax credit mismatches between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A may support tax determination under section 73, but do not by themselves justify section 74 proceedings or penalties. Section 74 requires clear evidence connecting wrongful credit availment with fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax; merely reciting those terms is insufficient. Payment of tax and interest before notice, including after verification, falls within section 73(5) where no intent to evade is established. A supplier's default cannot automatically be attributed to the recipient as suppression.

Section 74 penalties for excess input tax credit and irregular transitional credit require positive material proving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax; audit mismatches, record-based discrepancies, and mechanical allegations are insufficient. Where returns and credit declarations are available on the departmental portal and tax and interest are paid before a show cause notice without deliberate evasion, the payments fall within Section 73(5) read with Section 73(8). On those principles, the Section 74 penalties were deleted, and the pre-notice tax and interest payments were treated as voluntary payments. Departmental hierarchy alone also does not establish a real likelihood of institutional bias in statutory appellate proceedings.

Wrongful treatment of an individual as a company's Principal Officer can undermine criminal prosecution for delayed deposit of tax deducted at source when the prosecution is founded on an incorrect assertion that the individual was a director. The show-cause notice, designation order, sanction and complaint must rest on accurate corporate status. Where the Department accepts that the accused was never a director, vicarious liability cannot be sustained on that premise; the prosecution was quashed on its particular facts without precedential effect.

Clean-slate protection applies where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation: past liabilities and related investigations are extinguished, preventing an alleged past interest cessation from being imposed on the purchaser. Reassessment cannot rest on a presumption that unpaid interest was deducted when accounts and the taxpayer's reply showed otherwise. The same alleged cessation from one transaction cannot be taxed repeatedly across assessment years. Failure to address the clean-slate defence and binding precedents rendered the reassessment notice and section 148A(3) order for AY 2021-22 unsustainable and quashed.

Section 13(1)(b)'s restriction on trusts benefiting a particular religious community applies when exemption under section 11 is considered, rather than at the section 12A registration stage. A trust whose objects are largely charitable and directed to the public at large is not disqualified merely because its objects include services to pilgrims and religious places. Where the trust is not established wholly for a particular religious community, its application for approval under section 80G(5) requires fresh consideration after verification and an opportunity of hearing. No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's direction for such reconsideration.

Section 92CA confines the Transfer Pricing Officer's role to computing the arm's length price of a specific international transaction referred by the Assessing Officer. It does not authorise determination of a permanent establishment under the India-Singapore DTAA, taxability of profits, or attribution of business profits. A transfer-pricing reference must identify the relevant international transaction and cannot replace the Assessing Officer's independent examination required by remand directions. An assessment based solely on Transfer Pricing Officer findings on permanent establishment and profit taxability lacks a valid jurisdictional basis.