GST appellate procedure requires an order-in-original to be challenged first before the Appellate Authority under Section 107. Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 112(1) is confined to orders passed under Sections 107 or 108, or corresponding State GST provisions. Pendency of a statutory first appeal does not transform the original adjudication order into an appellate order capable of direct Tribunal challenge. Rule 24(4) procedural scrutiny powers cannot expand the statutory category of appealable orders. Consequently, a direct Tribunal appeal against an order-in-original is not maintainable where no appellate or revisional order exists.

For 2017-18, a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch alone does not establish wrongful input tax credit where return data identifies timely declared credit-note adjustments and no double reduction of output tax. Tax on an issuer's own outward-supply credit notes is not input tax credit, but section 34 permits output-tax adjustment when credit notes are properly declared; a mistaken return-table entry may be revenue-neutral. Sections 61 and 73 require examination of explanations and return data, while section 75(7) bars demands on grounds absent from the show cause notice. Recipient credit reversal was not then a condition for supplier adjustment. Interest requires wrongly availed and utilised credit, and penalty requires tax due.

Section 142(3) of the CGST Act permits refund claims for amounts paid under the pre-GST law to be processed under that earlier regime. Service tax paid under reverse charge after GST commenced, but not reflected in the final ST-3 return, cannot be transitioned as GST credit or availed as CENVAT credit because the CENVAT regime had ceased. Cash refund is therefore available under Section 142(3) where the service tax amount could not otherwise be transitioned or credited.

Section 107(12) requires a written appellate order to identify points for determination, decide each point, and give reasons. A cryptic dismissal that omits the taxpayer's defence, does not formulate issues, and gives no reasons violates this statutory requirement and principles of natural justice. Such a non-speaking appellate order is unsustainable and requires fresh adjudication by the First Appellate Authority through a reasoned order after adequate opportunity to produce evidence.

Works contractors that discharge additional GST liability arising from the replacement of the VAT regime are entitled to reimbursement of the verified differential tax from the State as recipient of works-contract services. The recipient's obligation applies because the differential burden caused by the GST regime is attributable to it as beneficiary of the executed works. Reimbursement remains subject to verification of the contractor's records and lawful computation of the payable amount.

Separate statutory appellate rights apply where a composite order imposes distinct liabilities on a company and its director. Confirming the director's personal penalty under Section 122(1A) while deciding only the company's appeal, without joining or hearing the director and while his independent appeal remains pending, denies an effective opportunity to present separate grounds and impairs the statutory appellate remedy. The penalty confirmation was void for breach of natural justice and quashed to that extent; the director's appeal must be decided independently, uninfluenced by the earlier observations.

Retrospective Section 16(5), effective from 1 July 2017, permits a registered person to claim input tax credit for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021. Delayed GST returns for 2017-18 filed before that cut-off fall within the provision's stated eligibility. The amendment applies retrospectively despite not being part of the statute when the adjudication order was made, preserving input tax credit entitlement for returns meeting the prescribed filing deadline.

Section 73 adjudication requires observance of natural justice through adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order only under the GST portal's "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, breaches those requirements where the taxpayer cannot submit a reply. The ex parte adjudication was quashed, with fresh reasoned adjudication directed after allowing a reply and affording a hearing.

Section 74 proceedings require prima facie material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts intended to evade tax. Where the relevant turnover had already been examined in audit, tax liability was discharged, and audit closure was intimated, the available material did not prima facie establish those statutory conditions. Treating a turnover adjustment as wilful misstatement was therefore insufficient at the interim stage. Coercive action under the Section 74 order was restrained pending the next hearing.

Portal-only service of notices under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was inadequate after cancellation of registration where earlier proceedings had required physical-mode service. Repeating portal-only communication denied the taxpayer an effective opportunity to respond and breached principles of natural justice. Ex parte adjudication orders founded solely on that service mode were set aside, with an opportunity to file a reply and undergo fresh adjudication.

Under the CGST Act, a discrepancy between an order-in-original's operative tax demand and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 may constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 161 permits rectification of clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions without the otherwise applicable six-month limitation. Where the detailed order records a demand or adjustment different from that communicated in Form GST DRC-07, the mismatch is rectifiable rather than a disputed substantive determination, enabling correction of the demand in favour of the assessee.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice under an "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, prevented the affected party from responding and breached principles of natural justice. Rejection of the statutory appeal solely on limitation, without examination on merits, did not bar judicial intervention in the stated circumstances. The notice, consequential adjudication order and appellate order were quashed, requiring fresh notice, an opportunity of hearing, and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

GST adjudication under Section 74 raised a prima facie procedural concern where the order was allegedly uploaded only under the Additional Notice and Orders tab, without separate intimation and without a post-reply hearing. No determination was made on the underlying tax demand or alleged statutory breaches. The adjudication order was set aside for fresh, reasoned adjudication after consideration of the reply and an opportunity of hearing.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice under the "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, can prevent an assessee from responding and violate principles of natural justice. Where the statutory appellate remedy is rejected solely as time-barred and the merits remain unexamined, adjudication and appellate action require merits-based reconsideration. The assessee must receive a hearing before a fresh determination on the merits.

Availability of a statutory appellate remedy does not automatically preclude writ jurisdiction where breach of natural justice, including denial of a personal hearing, is alleged. Where alleged non-service of hearing notices depends on disputed registered-email, dispatch, and portal records, and objections to penalty, interest, deposit appropriation, Form DRC-07, and DIN require review of audit and adjudication records, those matters require factual examination in statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction is therefore not exercised for those objections.

Revocation of cancelled GST registration is governed by the CGST Act and the corresponding rules, which prescribe a period, including available extensions, for seeking revocation. Where that period has expired, restoration of registration may nevertheless be extended on terms applied to similarly situated taxpayers. Revocation and restoration remain conditional on timely payment of outstanding statutory dues, penalties and fine as intimated by the competent authority.

Rule 96(10)'s omission without a saving clause raises issues concerning the continuing legal effect of the omitted provision, its constitutional validity, and recovery of tax refunds under tax law. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the High Court's common orders on those issues, leaving those orders undisturbed in their operative effect.

Discrepancies between the operative part of a GST order-in-original and FORM GST DRC-07 may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Rectification provisions cover clerical or arithmetical errors caused by accidental slips or omissions, notwithstanding the ordinary limitation applicable to rectification. Where the adjudicating authority records such a discrepancy, it must consider correction under section 161 rather than reject rectification on the basis that no apparent error exists.

Retrospective operation of section 16(5) permits input tax credit for specified years where the registered person filed the relevant returns on or before 30 November 2021. The provision applies even if it was not in force when the original adjudication occurred, provided the delayed returns satisfy the statutory cut-off. Eligibility within that period requires the tax position to be reconsidered and formal effect given to the available input tax credit entitlement.

Separate statutory appeals by a company and its director require an independent opportunity of hearing on their respective liabilities, even where they arise from a composite adjudication order. Confirmation of a director's personal penalty while deciding only the company's appeal, without making the director a party or hearing him and while his own appeal remains pending, violates natural justice. Such confirmation effectively disposes of the director's independent appeal and deprives him of the consequential appellate remedy. The penalty confirmation against the director was quashed, leaving his pending appeal to be decided independently and without influence from the prior appellate observations.