Section 129(1) applies to goods transported or stored in contravention of GST requirements without requiring independent proof of intention to evade tax, although explanations for discrepancies remain relevant. An onward supply during transit is permissible under the IGST place-of-supply rule, but does not remove the obligation to maintain e-way bills and other movement records accurately reflecting the physical journey. A live e-way bill for the original destination does not cover a diverted route, while an expired e-way bill showing a dispatch point never reached is materially inaccurate. Combined origin, destination and validity defects constitute substantive contraventions. Payment through DRC-03 for release does not bar appeal, but may be appropriated against the applicable penalty.

Inter-State transit claims concerning undeclared goods require reliable contemporaneous proof that invoices and transport documents cover the consignment, identify genuine transacting parties, and establish the stated out-of-State destination. Invoices and bilties produced after physical verification, without corroboration and containing discrepancies, do not establish genuine transport. A transit-state precedent is inapplicable where its essential facts-documented transactions, identifiable registered parties, acknowledged dealings, and a proven external destination-are absent. Failure to substantiate those matters supports penalty action for undeclared goods.

Detention penalties require an established transport contravention and reasoned consideration of the taxpayer's explanation. Service of FORM GST MOV-07 may be sustained where contemporaneous records and the recipient's response show that the notice was acted upon; however, unresolved notice records, inadequate hearing, or unreasoned findings prevent affirmation of liability. A confined fresh adjudication by the original authority may be necessary where primary evidence concerning vehicle movement and e-way bill compliance remains unresolved. Independent intent to evade need not be proved, but penalty is not automatic. Payment for release does not waive the statutory challenge and must be adjusted or refunded following fresh determination.

Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit under the inverted duty structure requires satisfaction of the substantive conditions in section 54(3) of the CGST Act: accumulation must result from a higher tax rate on inputs than on output supplies, subject to exclusions for nil-rated or fully exempt supplies. Compensation Cess paid on coal, coupled with no cess on domestic leather-product supplies, does not independently satisfy that test. Input tax credit availability, restricted utilisation under the Compensation Cess Act, and refund entitlement are distinct. Rule 89(5) applies only after statutory eligibility is established; circulars on zero-rated supplies do not support refunds for these domestic supplies.

Penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act applies to transportation in contravention of statutory transit-document requirements without requiring proof of intent to evade tax. E-way bills must remain valid throughout movement, and Rule 138(10) permits extension within eight hours of expiry. A six-day lapse, unsupported vehicle-breakdown evidence, and failure to seek extension or amendment constitute a contravention even for interstate stock transfers supported by invoices. Procedural deficiencies do not invalidate proceedings where no prejudice results from notice, hearing, or form-related lapses. Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST covers specified minor discrepancies only where a valid e-way bill accompanies the goods, not where it has expired.

Voluntary pre-notice payment of reconciled GST arising from a clerical omission in monthly returns precludes penalty where the sales were recorded in the books and disclosed in the annual return. Interest on delayed tax payment remains payable despite payment before notice, but must be computed month by month using applicable due dates, actual payment dates, and the portion discharged through the Electronic Cash Ledger, with relevant cash and credit ledger balances verified. Interest cannot be quantified on the entire tax liability without this prescribed ledger-based computation.

Refund claims by unregistered recipients following cancellation of construction or flat-booking agreements are timely when the notified exclusion of 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 is applied to the ordinary two-year limitation period. A subsequent circular cannot operate retrospectively to prejudice the claimant. GST borne by the purchaser and remitted by the developer is refundable where the developer has returned only the non-tax consideration, the prescribed evidence under Rule 89(2) is furnished, and the purchaser is the ultimate consumer. Unjust enrichment does not arise where the purchaser has borne the tax incidence. Interest becomes payable after the stipulated period from the refund application.

Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because of a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch during the relevant period; eligibility still requires proof that suppliers paid the tax, with the claimant bearing the evidentiary burden. E-way bill-based tax demands do not arise where reconciliation records establish that inward supplies were invoiced and accounted for. Interest on wrongly availed credit applies only to the extent of wrongful utilisation, determined by the electronic credit ledger balance; pre-notice tax payment without payable interest precludes penalty. Unreported sales-return credit notes constitute a compliance lapse but do not alone establish short payment of output tax.

GST appellate rejection without a merits determination cannot stand where compliance with the condition to procure 80% of inputs and input services from registered suppliers requires examination of supporting documents and reconciliations. A reasoned, speaking determination after adequate opportunity of hearing is required. The disputed computation must therefore be adjudicated afresh after considering the requisite documents.

Belated payment of short-paid GST does not extinguish liability for interest on the period of delay. Where short payment of GST is established, the penalty framework for non-registration is distinguishable and does not displace consequences arising from unpaid tax. Failure to pay the tax along with applicable interest within 30 days of a show-cause notice attracts penalty under Section 73(9). Taxpayers remain exposed to interest and penalty despite subsequently making good the underlying tax shortfall.

Correction of an erroneously described respondent in an appeal memorandum may be permitted through substitution of the jurisdictional tax authority where the amendment is formal and unopposed. The respondent's description was corrected, and the appellant was directed to file an amended memorandum of parties. The correction ensures that the appeal record identifies the appropriate jurisdictional respondent without altering the substantive dispute.

GST paid on cancelled airline tickets may be refunded as excess payment of tax where the airline has returned both fare and GST to passengers and cannot adjust credit notes against output tax liability. Linked ticket, invoice, refund voucher, credit note and billing-settlement records establish the refund trail and absence of unjust enrichment. For predominantly business-to-consumer supplies, recipient input tax credit reversal does not arise. A subsequent requirement concerning recipient credit reversal does not apply to the relevant period, supporting refund eligibility.

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.