Rectification cannot be used to obtain reappreciation of evidence where no error apparent on the record exists, and factual disputes cannot be reopened in an appeal limited to substantial questions of law. Rejection of rectification and objections seeking factual reassessment therefore remains undisturbed. A three-month interval between conclusion of hearing and pronouncement, attributable to heavy pendency, does not by itself invalidate the Tribunal's order. Personal penalties are sustainable where a person deals with excisable goods known or reasonably believed to be liable to confiscation, as permitted under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Confiscation and penalty findings consequently remain effective.

Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 permits full credit for specified input services used for both taxable and exempt output services unless the input service is used exclusively for exempt services; separate credit accounts are not determinative. After renting of immovable property became taxable, input-service credit must be assessed by the nexus between the input service and the taxable renting output service, rather than by treating the immovable property itself as the relevant test. Fit-out infrastructure forming part of leased office premises is included in the leasing consideration for service-tax purposes. VAT payment does not independently exclude service-tax liability where both levies' factual requirements are met.

Section 107 confines the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to the expressly prescribed outer limit; equitable relief under Article 226 cannot enlarge that statutory jurisdiction. Condonation beyond that limit is therefore without jurisdiction. Restoration of taxpayers' registrations following implementation of appellate orders materially changes the parties' position, making subsequent departmental relief to unsettle those orders ineffective and potentially disruptive to intervening transactions and input-tax-credit consequences. The appellate remedy against registration cancellation remains independent of the revocation mechanism under Rule 23, so inability to seek revocation through the common portal does not extinguish the right to appeal.

Section 107 of the CGST Act confines the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to the statutory outer limit; extraordinary relief under Article 226 cannot enlarge that jurisdiction. Registration restoration implemented by the Department creates altered legal and commercial consequences, so relief seeking to unsettle the restored status requires addressing those consequences. Expiry of the period for revocation applications under Rule 23 does not extinguish the separate statutory right to appeal a registration cancellation under Section 107. The principles distinguish statutory appellate remedies from revocation procedures and prevent equitable considerations from overriding express limitation periods.

Confiscation proceedings must provide a real and reasonable opportunity to reply and be heard. Where a show-cause notice allows seven days for a written response, issuing a confiscation order on the date of service, before that period expires and without objections, breaches principles of natural justice. A direction to appear on that date does not cure the lack of effective opportunity. Payment made to secure release of detained goods and conveyance does not constitute admission, acquiescence, or waiver of the right to contest the demand. The confiscation and consequential demand require fresh adjudication after allowing a written reply and personal hearing.

Input tax credit eligibility is assessed when invoices are issued by a supplier shown as registered with a valid GSTIN, rather than being automatically defeated by later retrospective cancellation of that registration. Retrospective cancellation preserves the supplier's prior tax liability but does not itself invalidate earlier invoices or withdraw recipient credit. Actual tax payment may be evidenced by GSTR-2A and filed GSTR-3B where payment is admitted. A demand cannot be sustained on alleged non-payment or doubts concerning supplies where those grounds were absent from the show cause notice and the recipient's evidence remains unchallenged. Credit requires statutory conditions to be met at the time of supply; cancellation may justify inquiry but not automatic denial.

Section 109(5) of the CGST Act permits the Principal Bench of GSTAT to hear matters pending before different State Benches where they involve an identical question of law and the President is satisfied that such identity exists. The provision applies to eight appeals concerning refund of interest paid on tax discharged through the electronic credit ledger after retrospective substitution of the proviso to Section 50(1). Their common legal question places them for hearing before a Division Bench of the Principal Bench.

Separately generated e-way bills against the same invoice may indicate additional taxable outward movements where electronic bill numbers, validity periods, vehicles or movement particulars are distinct and remain unreconciled. Rule 138 permits changes of conveyance through Part-B updates and, in exceptional circumstances, extension of an existing e-way bill; a fresh e-way bill does not conclusively establish a second supply. Under Section 73, the Department bears the burden of establishing tax short-payment, while continuity of transport, trans-shipment and vehicle changes are matters particularly within the taxpayer's knowledge. Continuity may require contemporaneous delivery, transporter, recipient, toll or other transport evidence. Tax liability can arise without fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, with delayed payment attracting interest and the prescribed penalty.

Transitional input tax credit carried forward under section 140(1), where the TRAN-1 declaration exceeds balances in pre-GST ER-1 and ST-3 returns, requires verification against relevant records through a reasoned order before eligibility is determined. Invocation of section 74(1) requires material proving fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with deliberate intent to evade tax; incorrect information or ordinary non-declaration alone is insufficient. In the absence of investigation or evidence of deliberate intent, the fraud-based notice cannot be sustained, while the credit claim remains subject to factual verification.

GST registration cancellation and revocation are governed by the CGST Act and Rules. Issuance of a show-cause notice before cancellation defeats a claim that no opportunity of hearing was granted. In the stated circumstances, cancellation-related orders were set aside, subject to complete filing of pending GST returns, correction of incorrect nil-liability returns, and payment of costs. Revocation of registration must then be considered in accordance with law.

GST registration cancelled under the earlier revival framework may be restored only after pending pre-cancellation returns are filed and outstanding tax, interest, and applicable fine or fee are paid. Post-cancellation returns must also be filed, with GST paid in cash. Input tax credit may be utilised only after scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. Compliance with these conditions permits restoration of the cancelled registration and setting aside of the cancellation.

Service of a demand-cum-show-cause notice under the CGST framework defeats a claim of complete absence of notice or jurisdictional error, even though an electronic DRC-01 summary cannot replace the statutory notice. Form GST DRC-07 serves only as a summary of the adjudication order. Alleged discrepancies between the notice, order and DRC-07, non-compliance with statutory limits on adjudication, and denial of hearing require examination of the underlying records in statutory appellate proceedings. Disputed entitlement to input tax credit, including transaction genuineness and fulfilment of conditions, involves factual issues. Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable where an effective statutory appeal exists and no jurisdictional or natural-justice exception is established.

GST registration cancellation founded on a show-cause notice that the taxpayer did not receive was quashed where the electronic portal barred a revocation application after the prescribed period expired. The taxpayer must file all outstanding returns within the stipulated period and discharge applicable tax, penalty, interest and late fees. The remedial approach applied to comparable GST registration-cancellation matters addresses both ineffective notice and the practical unavailability of portal-based revocation.

Retrospective section 16(5) of the CGST Act preserves input tax credit for specified financial years where Form GSTR-3B was furnished by 30 November 2021, notwithstanding the earlier section 16(4) deadline. Where the relevant 2018-19 return met that extended limit, a rectification request seeking the amendment's benefit required consideration. An assessment and appellate rejection based solely on the earlier time-limit were set aside.

Input tax credit disallowance based on alleged fake invoices requires fresh consideration of whether gold consignments were actually received and whether the extended period of limitation applies. The impugned order was set aside, with the matter returned for fresh consideration after the petitioner files a reply to the show-cause notice.

Sections 16(5) and 16(6), inserted through the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 with retrospective effect from 1 July 2017, address belated availment of Input Tax Credit. Input Tax Credit cannot be denied solely because it was claimed after the prescribed time limit. Entitlement to the credit remains conditional on verification and fulfilment of all other statutory requirements.

Input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B despite discrepancies with relevant GSTR returns requires evidentiary verification. Where credit is based on IGST paid on imported goods, Customs/ICEGATE records and supporting documents must be examined before confirming the disputed credit. Recovery through the electronic credit ledger does not remove the need for that verification. The credit claim requires reconsideration on merits after notice and an opportunity to submit supporting material.

Retrospective cancellation of GST registration requires prior notice of the proposed retrospective effect and an opportunity to respond on that basis. A show cause notice alleging only continuous non-filing of returns does not support cancellation from an earlier date where it does not disclose that proposed consequence. In the absence of allegations of wrongdoing, and where pending returns have been filed, cancellation was confined to prospective operation and the retrospective cancellation was set aside.

GST assessment confirming a demand was set aside for fresh merits determination despite the taxpayer's failure to answer the show-cause notice, attend personal-hearing opportunities, pursue the ordinary statutory appeal, or promptly invoke writ jurisdiction. Fresh adjudication was conditional on a cash pre-deposit of 50% of the disputed tax and submission of a reply to the show-cause notice. The remand enabled merits review only after compliance with those conditions.

Mismatch-liability determinations based solely on Section 16(4) require reconsideration where the supplier's GSTR-3B return was filed within the extended time limit available for input tax credit under Section 16(5). Replies, supply documents, a supplier certificate and the supplier's return are relevant materials for assessing credit eligibility. Disregarding Section 16(5) despite those materials renders the asserted input tax credit eligibility unaddressed and the resulting liability determination unsustainable.