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.

Accumulated input tax credit arising from higher-taxed packing materials used to market bulk sulphur in customised packets falls within the inverted duty refund mechanism under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act. Packing materials constitute business inputs even where the principal input and outward supply of sulphur attract the same GST rate. Where packing materials bear a higher GST rate than the outward supply, the resulting accumulated credit is refundable. Departmental circulars concerning identical input and output supplies cannot impose restrictions not contained in the statute, as implementation directions cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

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.

Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confines a determination order for tax, interest and penalty to the amounts specified in the show-cause notice and bars confirmation on grounds not stated in that notice. Where the notice specifies a lower aggregate liability, a subsequent determination imposing a higher demand breaches that statutory restriction. The excess demand cannot be sustained.

Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises Central and State GST officers to act as proper officers under the corresponding GST enactments. A notification under Section 6(1) may prescribe conditions or restrictions on cross-empowerment but is not the source of that authority; its absence does not invalidate the exercise of cross-empowerment. Section 6(2)(b) prohibits parallel formal adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter. Intelligence-based inquiries, summons, searches, seizures and evidence collection do not alone initiate proceedings. Duplication depends on overlap in the liability, contravention and relief sought.

GST registration suspension and proposed cancellation for non-filing of returns require the registered person to file pending returns or reply within 30 days before seeking writ relief. Suspension may be lifted upon filing the returns, while Rule 21A(4) provides for revocation after Rule 22 proceedings are completed. Under Rule 22(4), the Proper Officer must drop proceedings where the reply is satisfactory and, where applicable, all pending returns are filed with tax, interest and late fee paid. Because recourse before the Proper Officer remained unexhausted, the writ challenge was declined, leaving the registered person to pursue the available statutory process.

Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse assessment order is made under Section 73. The statutory requirement remains applicable where no hearing date has been fixed. Selecting "No" for personal hearing in an online adjournment request does not waive or displace that obligation. An adverse assessment made without affording the required hearing is invalid.