Faceless assessment under section 144B must provide a requested personal hearing through video conferencing, reflecting principles of natural justice. Where technical glitches prevented the assessee from availing the requested facility, without any default by the assessee, passing the draft assessment order without that hearing breached those principles. The draft assessment order and consequential final assessment order were therefore invalid, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

The issue concerned disallowance under section 43B and the treatment of a subsidy received from the Government of Haryana. Insufficient cause for delay led to rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the special leave petition as time-barred. No substantive determination of the section 43B disallowance or subsidy treatment is recorded.

GST appellate appeal registration requires copies of the show cause notice and order-in-original, together with proof of pre-deposit. Where these mandatory accompanying documents are not filed and notified defects remain uncured despite repeated opportunities, the Registrar may decline to register the appeal under the prescribed procedure. Failure to upload pre-deposit proof or have it reflected on the portal prevents compliance with registration requirements and can result in rejection of the appeal form.

Section 73 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act requires a substantive show cause notice specifying the grounds for determining unpaid or short-paid tax, erroneous refunds, or wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit. Rule 142 additionally requires that notice to be accompanied by a prescribed summary. Service of a summary notice alone does not satisfy these mandatory requirements. The summary notice and consequential assessment order were quashed, while the competent authority retained liberty to issue a fresh substantive notice with its summary in compliance with Section 73 and Rule 142.

Input tax credit reversal on stock transfers requires verification where reconciliations, monthly returns, Form WW and chartered accountant certification support inter-State purchases and corresponding credit. A reversal based solely on an asserted absence of supporting evidence is unsustainable when relevant material is already on record, particularly if the allegation concerning manufacture outside the State was not raised in the show-cause notice. The credit claim requires fresh determination after verification and an opportunity to provide additional particulars.

Input tax credit cannot be denied solely for delayed return filing where the returns were filed within the statutorily extended period recognised under Section 16(5), despite the filing restriction in Section 16(4). Disputes over ineligible input tax credit, return mismatches and interest require fresh determination where assessment was completed without a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Reconsideration of those liabilities must follow hearing safeguards and remain subject to the stipulated remittances or discharge of interest.

Full discharge of tax liability before issuance of Form DRC-01A, coupled with denial of a hearing, required fresh adjudication of the tax demand under Section 74. The tax-demand order was set aside subject to payment of the interest component and a penalty equal to 10% of the tax. Reconsideration must permit a reply to the show-cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before a fresh order is made.

Service of a GST adjudication order solely through the common portal may not amount to effective communication or constructive notice where the taxpayer has long ceased production or manufacturing. Although section 169(1) permits alternative modes of service, the selected mode must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Authorities should use an additional mode, such as email or registered post, where portal access cannot reasonably be assumed. Limitation for appeal runs from the taxpayer's actual knowledge of the order in such circumstances, supporting treatment of the appeal as timely and condonation of the resulting delay.

GST transitional refund treatment distinguishes voluntary pre-GST service-tax payments from amounts recoverable through assessment or adjudication. Section 142(8)(a) applies only where recovery arises from those proceedings; an information request followed by closure of an investigation does not itself constitute assessment or adjudication. Service tax, interest and penalty paid in that setting are voluntary rather than recovered amounts and are not barred from refund under Section 142(8)(a). Section 142(3), read with the saving provision in Section 174(2)(c), preserves refund processing where credit could otherwise have been availed under the earlier excise and service-tax regime.

GST portal upload is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response to portal notices requires the officer to consider other prescribed service methods, preferably registered post, to ensure effective notice. Proceeding solely through portal uploads in those circumstances reduces service to an empty formality. Failure to afford a personal hearing further undermines compliance with procedural fairness. Ex parte GST assessment and consequential rectification orders are therefore unsustainable where effective service and hearing opportunity are absent.

Retrospective Section 16(5) permits registered persons to avail input tax credit for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 through returns filed up to 30 November 2021, notwithstanding the time limit in Section 16(4). Input tax credit claims falling within that extended period cannot be denied solely as time-barred under Section 16(4). The retrospective provision therefore displaces limitation-based denial for eligible claims made within the prescribed extended filing window.

GST portal upload is a legally sufficient mode of serving notices. Where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices and repeated reminders, however, the officer should use other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to ensure effective service. Confirming a proposed demand without providing a personal hearing in those circumstances reduces the process to a procedural formality and denies a meaningful opportunity to respond. An assessment order issued without effective notice and an opportunity of personal hearing is unsustainable.

Effective communication of an adjudication order is required before limitation for a statutory GST appeal begins. Uploading an order under a portal tab not designated for notices and orders does not establish sufficient knowledge to pursue an effective remedy, and routine portal use for return filing does not substitute for communication. Where the appellate authority does not address the delay explanation, limitation-based rejection is unsustainable. Alleged ineffective communication and breach of natural justice may also justify writ jurisdiction despite an alternative appellate remedy. The appeal should be restored for merits adjudication after a personal hearing.

Portal uploading is a valid mode of service under the GST Act, but repeated non-response to portal notices requires the officer to use other prescribed modes, preferably registered post, to secure effective service. Confirming show-cause proposals without ensuring effective service and affording a personal hearing denies the taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to respond. Ex parte GST assessment orders issued in those circumstances are invalid.

Section 74(1) of the CGST Act requires a show-cause notice to state foundational facts supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax; a bare statutory recital is inadequate. Audit findings of unpaid or short-paid tax, delayed filings, unpaid late fees, reverse-charge liabilities, prior communications, and non-compliance with the final audit report may support the proper officer's prima facie satisfaction and, where demands, interest, penalties, and a response opportunity are specified, meet natural-justice requirements. An Article 226 challenge to an appealable order-in-original ordinarily will not proceed absent a jurisdictional defect or recognised exception; merits remain for the statutory appeal under Section 107.

Proper-officer assignment under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act determines whether the Joint Commissioner could issue and decide penalty proceedings. Sections 2(91) and 122 are identified as governing the assignment and exercise of proper-officer functions. Although issued after the impugned proceedings, a CBIC circular designates the Joint Commissioner for matters above the prescribed monetary threshold, which the proceedings met. Section 160 preserves proceedings that substantially conform to the Act despite mistakes, defects, or omissions. On that basis, the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original are not void for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 74 may be invoked for the extended five-year limitation only where the show-cause notice itself sets out specific allegations and supporting material establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. Merely using those expressions without factual particulars does not justify recourse to the extended limitation period instead of the three-year period under Section 73. A notice lacking disclosure of the factual basis or material for those allegations does not validly invoke Section 74 and is unsustainable.

Electronic service of notice through the Common Portal raises whether portal availability constitutes actual or constructive communication sufficient to commence limitation. The issues include the Information Technology Act's application to electronic dispatch and receipt, the absence of hierarchy among alternative service modes under section 169(1)(a)-(e), and the restricted scope of deemed service under section 169(2) and (3). Revenue bears the burden of establishing prior communication.

Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act requires service by personal delivery, registered or speed post, or the registered e-mail address as primary methods. Publication or making notice available on the common portal may be used only where those methods fail or are impracticable. Portal-only service without using, or establishing the impracticability of, the prescribed primary modes does not meet the statutory service requirement and breaches natural justice. An assessment and consequential rectification order founded solely on such portal service cannot be sustained.

Whether prior attachment orders made without a legally required proclamation can override the petitioner's claim remains in issue. The further question is whether the proclamation requirement extends to the Central Goods and Services Tax Department. State authorities were allowed time to file further material, including on alleged post-attachment steps and proclamation proceedings; the petition was adjourned for an additional affidavit and further hearing.