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.

Ex parte GST orders issued without a meaningful personal hearing or enquiry breach principles of natural justice. A taxpayer must receive a genuine opportunity to be heard before an adverse tax determination is made. Where the order is passed without that opportunity and without enquiry, it is unsustainable for violating procedural fairness.

GST appeal limitation begins when a cancellation order is communicated through a prescribed mode of service, not when it is merely uploaded on the common portal. The statutory appeal period permits only limited condonation beyond its initial duration, making valid service essential to commencement of limitation. Portal upload alone does not trigger limitation; an appeal against registration cancellation cannot be rejected as time-barred on that basis and must be considered on merits.

First-initiated Central GST proceedings for the same taxable period preclude later State GST adjudication; any State GST adjudication and consequential rectification order cannot survive. Ex parte Central GST adjudication without a newly communicated hearing date, despite a previously filed reply and earlier hearing dates, denies an effective opportunity of hearing and breaches natural justice. Fresh Central GST determination requires an effective hearing and a speaking order.

Conflicting detailed and summary rectification orders arose where the detailed order recognised eligible input tax credit on inward supplies reflected in GSTR-2A and dropped the proposal, but the summary order required payment. Rejection of a rectification request merely by asserting that no apparent error existed, without addressing that inconsistency, was unsustainable. The rectification requires fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity.

GST adjudication challenges based on refusal of cross-examination should ordinarily be addressed through the statutory appeal where relied-upon documents have been supplied, panch witnesses examined, and evidentiary questions require merits review. An unsustainable reliance on immunity provisions to refuse cross-examination does not automatically entitle a taxpayer to examine revenue officers; the necessity remains fact-specific. The appellate authority may consider natural justice objections and, where warranted, direct cross-examination or obtain an appropriate report. Writ intervention is not pursued where these issues remain open within the statutory appellate remedy.

Where a tender permits collection of a specified fee and states that scheduled collections are inclusive of taxes, the tenderer has no contractual right to charge GST separately to performers. Payment of GST, as a statutory liability, does not itself shift the economic burden to recipients or create a reimbursement claim against the Board. Separate recovery or reimbursement requires an express contractual term or statutory basis. The prescribed tender rate therefore remains tax-inclusive.

GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns was not finally adjudicated for validity or for entitlement to revocation after the taxpayer filed the outstanding returns. The taxpayer was permitted to submit a revocation application within two weeks. The competent authority must consider that application and issue a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Challenges to amended show-cause notices under Section 74 alleging suppression should proceed through the statutory response process rather than writ adjudication at that stage. The noticee must file a reply, after which the authorities must provide a hearing and issue a reasoned order in accordance with law. Jurisdictional and other legal questions remain open for consideration.

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was omitted with effect from 8 October 2024. In the absence of an express saving clause or another legal mechanism preserving pending matters, the omitted rule cannot continue to govern proceedings pending on the omission date. Its restrictions therefore cannot be applied to those matters, and proceedings and consequential orders founded on the omitted rule are vitiated.

GST appellate authorities must apply statutory pre-deposit requirements consistently with natural justice. A prior deposit made during investigation that exceeds the required pre-deposit is material and must be considered. Where an alleged shortfall is identified, the appellant must receive a defect memo, notice, or hearing and an opportunity to cure the deficiency before dismissal. Appellate rejection without considering the prior deposit or allowing the appellant to address the asserted shortfall is invalid.

GST appeals cannot be dismissed for an alleged pre-deposit shortfall without a defect memo, notice, and an opportunity to cure the deficiency. Deposits made during investigation that are relevant to the pre-deposit requirement must be considered before dismissal. The High Court quashed the appellate order, restored the appeal, and remitted the pre-deposit issue for fresh consideration after a hearing, while keeping all merits open.