Input tax credit cannot be denied under Section 16(2)(c) where the show-cause notice was confined to alleged non-compliance with Section 16(2)(aa), which did not apply to the relevant period. A mere reproduction of Section 16(2)(c), without allegations or factual material that suppliers failed to pay tax to the Government, does not constitute an effective charge. Section 75(7) bars confirmation on a ground not specified in the notice, and changing the basis of demand breaches principles of natural justice. Section 160(1) cannot cure a proceeding that substantively departs from statutory notice requirements. The resulting demand was invalid and set aside.

Section 107(11) of the CGST Act requires the Appellate Authority to conduct any necessary further inquiry and permits it to confirm, modify or annul the appealed order, but prohibits referral of the matter back to the adjudicating authority. A conditional direction requiring the adjudicating authority to verify input tax credit reconciliation workings and then delete eligible credit-related demand, interest and penalty amounts amounts to an impermissible remand. Verification of the reconciliation must therefore be undertaken at the appellate level rather than delegated to the original authority, with the issue resolved in favour of Revenue.

Section 74 permits a consolidated GST demand notice covering multiple financial years where each period is within limitation and the taxpayer's defence and appeal rights are not prejudiced. Prior-year input tax credit reported later, payments under an incorrect tax head, and credit taken under incorrect heads require factual verification of prior benefit, revenue impact, and compliance with Section 49 and Rule 88A. Section 74 requires foundational facts proving fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression intended to evade tax; bare allegations based on disclosed returns do not suffice. In their absence, tax, interest, and penalty require determination under the ordinary demand framework. Interest follows tax lawfully determined payable.

Surplus IGST credit, established through updated GSTR-2A reconciliation and import IGST credit, may offset CGST and SGST shortfalls after IGST liabilities are met. Where aggregate eligible input tax credit exceeds the credit claimed, an alleged excess ITC claim lacks factual and legal basis and does not warrant tax-short-payment proceedings. The electronic credit ledger is treated as fungible for permitted IGST cross-utilisation, subject to applicable jurisdictional precedent. Adjudication without a personal hearing or consideration of the taxpayer's contentions, followed by mechanical appellate affirmation, breaches natural justice and the requirement for a reasoned speaking order, rendering the proceedings invalid.

Section 73 cannot support a tax, interest or penalty demand where admitted excess output tax fully offsets disputed ineligible input tax credit and no net short payment remains. Excess output tax paid beyond actual liability falls within the section 54(8)(c) exception, so its refund is not subject to unjust enrichment. A sales-return demand cannot rest on grounds outside the show cause notice; for 2017-18, non-uploading of credit or debit notes on the GST portal did not invalidate otherwise compliant documents. Orders must address material submissions with reasons, and delayed-return interest demands must identify the default months, tax amounts and interest period.

Transitional credit under Section 140(2) extends to unavailed CENVAT credit on capital goods where it is admissible under both the existing and GST regimes. Neither Section 140(2) nor Rule 117(2)(a) requires prior partial availment before the appointed day or limits transition to half the eligible credit; compliant TRAN-1 disclosure supports the claim. Central excise duty on goods cleared for export before GST cannot be converted into GST input tax credit because Section 140 provides no enabling category, and Section 174(2)(c) does not preserve an unaccrued entitlement. Interest follows recovery of inadmissible credit, and wrongful availment attracts the statutory penalty under Section 73.

Best-judgment assessment for non-filing of a GST return could not be sustained where the taxpayer filed the return shortly after the condonable period and paid tax, interest and late fee. The belated return required scrutiny under the GST return-scrutiny procedure, and the assessment was quashed. Time from the order until completion of scrutiny was excluded from limitation for tax-demand proceedings.

GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns was subject to a revocation application that the online portal would not accept after the prescribed period. Although the statutory appeal against cancellation had been rejected as time-barred and no merits determination on revocation occurred, the petitioner received liberty to file the revocation application online within two weeks, or physically where technical barriers persisted. The competent authority must entertain the application and decide it according to law within three weeks thereafter.

GST registration cancellation required reconsideration where the registered person asserted that its supplies were exempt and that returns had been regularly filed. Those assertions raised factual matters requiring examination after a reply to the show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing. The cancellation order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh merits-based determination.

Rule 96(3) of the CGST Rules assigns processing of IGST refunds on exported goods to the Customs system or the proper officer of Customs once information on a valid GSTR-3B return is received. Where an export is regularised through a manual shipping bill due to an ICEGATE technical failure, the GST Department lacks statutory jurisdiction to sanction the export refund. Customs cannot reject the claim as a GST Department matter and must process and sanction any admissible refund, with applicable interest, in accordance with law.

GST assessment orders founded on notices and hearing intimations uploaded only under the portal's additional-notices tab may breach natural justice where registered-post service is required or advised alongside electronic communication. SMS and email reminders do not, by themselves, cure ineffective statutory service. Failure to ensure effective service deprives the assessee of a meaningful opportunity to submit objections and supporting records before assessment. An assessment completed in those circumstances is vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice.

GST liabilities arising on works contracts during the transition from VAT to GST, including return filing, interest, penalties and limitation, remain governed exclusively by the applicable tax statutes. Contractual terms between contractors and employers cannot alter those obligations or support directions requiring tax authorities to permit revised returns, waive statutory consequences or depart from prescribed limits. Incremental GST burden arising from the transition is a contractual matter: contractors may seek adjustment or reimbursement from the relevant employer by computing pre-GST and post-GST work and submitting representations under the retained guidelines.

Duplicate GST assessments arising from the same mismatch between GST returns and the annual return for one assessment period cannot coexist. The erroneous duplicate assessment was quashed. The remaining assessment was set aside for fresh consideration, requiring verification of recovery of the SGST demand and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Payment of the admitted differential 6% GST for civil construction works was due where the concerned authority accepted its liability and confirmed that payment would be made. The petitioner was entitled to receive the differential GST amount within three weeks, reflecting the admitted obligation to pay the tax component arising from the executed works.

Input tax credit limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act could not survive because the issue was covered by an earlier common decision that had quashed the corresponding departmental determination. The Section 16(4) determination was therefore quashed. For the remaining assessment issues, uploading the show-cause notice and subsequent communications only on the common portal did not provide effective service where no response was received and statutory alternative modes were available. The remaining determinations were set aside for fresh adjudication after allowing objections and a personal hearing.

Delay in statutory GST appeals arising from a proprietor's need to care for a critically ill spouse and the spouse's subsequent death warranted condonation despite expiry of the statutory condonable period. The appellate time-bar orders were set aside, allowing the statutory appeals to be freshly adjudicated on merits. The underlying tax demands remained undecided, while costs were contemplated as compensation for the delay.

Challenges to GST notices and a summary order ordinarily require use of the prescribed statutory process where the notices are not ex facie without jurisdiction. The taxpayer must respond to the show-cause notice, place all defences before the competent authority, and use the appellate remedy if aggrieved. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not bypass alternative remedies in revenue matters unless exceptional circumstances justify intervention; merits-based contentions remain available within the statutory process.

Introduction of additional departmental documents or inputs at the appellate stage requires consideration of an assessee's objection to their admission. Where the assessee objects, the appellate authority must provide an opportunity of hearing before deciding the appeal. Deciding the appeal shortly after receiving the objection, without hearing the assessee on the newly introduced material, violates principles of natural justice and vitiates the appellate order.

GST writ challenges to orders alleging input tax credit availment on fake or bogus invoices should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy where disputed questions of fact require adjudication. The appellate authority may consider an application to condone delay in filing the statutory appeal liberally, enabling consideration of the appeal on its merits.

Full disclosure in discretionary bail proceedings requires parties to reveal parallel remedies and all prior bail or release orders. Pursuing concurrent remedies while withholding rejected bail or refused ad-interim relief constitutes forum shopping, suppression of material facts and abuse of process, requiring the bail application to be reconsidered on a fully informed merits assessment; interim bail may continue on existing terms pending further orders. A direction to list a matter "two weeks hence" ordinarily excludes a court vacation when the period expires during vacation, unless a specific vacation date or Vacation Bench listing is directed, subject to applicable High Court rules.