GST registration cancellation and consequential show-cause notices were set aside, with restoration directed to enable statutory compliance. Although the explanation for compliance lapses was unsatisfactory, a one-time opportunity was considered justified in the interests of justice. Constitutional protection of the freedom to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), read with Article 21, supported restoration. Registration remained conditional on timely filing of returns, payment of outstanding tax liabilities, and payment of costs.

Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was treated as warranting corresponding relief where the facts materially matched an earlier decided matter. The cancellation order was quashed, subject to filing overdue returns and paying statutory dues. The limitation period under the tax determination provisions is to run from the order date, with financial year 2026-27 subject to the specified treatment.

Bail pending trial for alleged CGST Act offences is governed by Article 21 protections of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the principle that pre-trial detention is not punitive. Release on appropriate conditions is warranted where investigation is complete, the complaint has been filed, the evidence is substantially documentary, the accused has no criminal antecedents, and there is no material showing a risk of absconding, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering. Continued custody despite likely trial delay may conflict with the right to a speedy trial.

Statutory appellate authorities must consider and give reasons on grounds seeking condonation of delay before rejecting an appeal as time-barred. Failure to address a claim that notices and the underlying order were unknown because the registered portal email was controlled by a former accountant prevents a proper decision on condonation and merits. Rejection solely by reference to the elapsed period is unsustainable; delay may be condoned and the appeal restored for merits determination, subject to costs.

Maintainability of the public-interest challenge to GST on online legal research and legal educational data services failed because the rate had operated since 2017 and the petitioner, practising since 2020, did not explain the delayed challenge or claimed sudden awareness. Those circumstances undermined the public-interest basis, leading to dismissal without adjudication of the GST rate's legality or reasonableness.

Passport-deposit bail condition was dispensed with because the recurring requirement to obtain its release hindered foreign travel, while advance notice adequately secured the accused's participation in trial. The applicant had complied with the condition, previously obtained travel permission, and redeposited the passport after each trip. Foreign travel now requires written notice to the trial court 30 days before departure, including the travel schedule, and written intimation upon return.

Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act requires an appellate authority to consider grounds pleaded for condoning delayed appeals before rejecting them as time-barred. Where inadequate advice and an accountant's failure to communicate are specifically advanced as reasons for delay, reliance on limitation alone without addressing those grounds is unsustainable. The delay was condoned, and the statutory appeal was restored for adjudication on merits, subject to costs.

Show-cause notice for tax adjudication must be issued within the statutory limitation period through an effective mode of service. Although the outer time limit for the relevant financial year was extended, the notice required issuance by the corresponding earlier deadline and became available on the common portal only after that date. Internal system generation, pending GSTN confirmation, and absence of a common reference number did not constitute issuance or service. Re-uploading could not retrospectively validate the notice without statutory authority. Scrutiny communications and personal-hearing opportunities could not replace the foundational show-cause notice; the delayed notice and consequential adjudication were therefore legally unsustainable.

Full payment of tax where a Tribunal appeal contests only interest does not require a percentage-based pre-deposit of that interest under the CGST Act appellate provisions. The full-payment requirement applies to admitted amounts, while the percentage-based deposit applies to tax remaining in dispute. Once applicable appellate requirements are met, the deemed stay protects the balance demand, including disputed interest, until the Tribunal disposes of the appeal. Bank recovery notices for disputed interest cannot operate during that statutory stay.

Belated payment of an undisputed GST liability does not displace the statutory consequences of non-payment within the prescribed period. Penalty and interest under Section 74(9) remain payable despite subsequent deposit of tax at the appellate stage. An asserted absence of fraud or mens rea does not negate those consequences where the liability was undisputed and payment was delayed.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available despite an alternative statutory appeal, but ordinarily warrants restraint where the appellate forum can assess objections to GST demands. Detailed allegations concerning an invoicing network, transactions and modus operandi did not justify writ intervention merely because the notice was alleged to lack material particulars for invoking Section 74. References to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression cannot substitute for factual disclosure, although adequacy depends on each notice's contents. Penalty challenges requiring examination of notices, replies, investigation material, adjudication findings and applicable provisions are appropriately addressed through the statutory appellate process.

Under the statutory appellate pre-deposit scheme, where the entire underlying tax has been paid, no percentage-based pre-deposit of disputed interest is required. Compliance with applicable pre-deposit conditions results in a deemed stay of recovery of the balance demand while the appeal remains pending. Recovery communications for disputed interest, consequential bank notices, and bank restrictions are therefore barred during that period and must be withdrawn. The basis and computation of the interest demand remain open for determination in the pending appellate proceedings.

Section 73's three-month minimum period for issuing a GST show-cause notice before the deadline for an order is mandatory and preserves a meaningful opportunity to respond. Extension of the outer time limit for the order does not extend the deadline for issuing notice unless the statute provides otherwise. A notice created only in an internal system, awaiting GSTN confirmation and lacking a CRN, is not issued or served where it is neither integrated with the common portal nor otherwise communicated to the taxpayer. Later portal upload cannot retrospectively cure limitation; scrutiny communications and hearing opportunities cannot replace a foundational notice.

Condonation of delay in GST appeals requires the appellate authority to consider the taxpayer's specific explanation rather than reject the appeal solely by referring to the statutory limitation provision. Failure to assess a plea that an accountant did not inform the taxpayer of the limitation period undermines the rejection, irrespective of whether that plea ultimately merits condonation. The delayed appeal was restored for decision on merits after condonation, subject to payment of costs within the stipulated period; failure to comply withdraws that benefit.

Failure to consider grounds advanced in a delay-condonation application rendered the rejection of a delayed GST appeal unsustainable, irrespective of whether those grounds would ultimately succeed. The High Court set aside the limitation-based rejection, condoned the delay subject to timely payment of costs, and required the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits. Protection would lapse upon non-compliance with that condition or unnecessary adjournments. The underlying tax demand was not examined.

Pre-conviction detention in GST prosecutions alleging fake entities and wrongful input tax credit is not punitive; bail serves to secure attendance at trial. Continued custody was considered unwarranted after completion of investigation and filing of the complaint where the Magistrate-triable offence carried a maximum five-year sentence and trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The absence of criminal antecedents or material suggesting absconding, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or subversion of justice supported release. Bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring trial participation and protecting evidence and witnesses.

Pre-arrest communication of recorded reasons to believe is required where an authorised officer effects an arrest under section 26 of the Act. As section 26 is in pari materia with comparable arrest provisions, the reasons must be supplied to the arrestee before arrest, enabling anticipatory-bail remedies and judicial review; production before the Magistrate at remand is insufficient. Constitutional-court rulings generally declare existing law and apply retrospectively unless expressly confined to prospective operation. Arrest without communication of the reasons breaches the safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 and is liable to be quashed, with release subject to any other lawful custody.

Retrospective cancellation of a supplier's registration alone does not establish that supplies were fictitious or that the recipient was complicit, so input tax credit eligibility requires examination of invoices, e-way bills, transport records and other evidence against statutory conditions. The recipient bears the initial burden of proof, but the department cannot deny credit solely under section 155 or on the supplier's non-existence. Fraud-based demands require foundational facts and cogent material of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. If those elements fail, section 75(2) permits treatment under section 73 only where the original notice met the applicable section 73 limitation; eligibility must then be determined after hearing and evidence review.

Section 140(2), read with its Explanation, permits transition of unavailed CENVAT credit on pre-GST capital goods where the credit was admissible under both the existing and GST laws and was not carried forward in the earlier return. No requirement exists that part of the credit must previously have been availed, and a nil prior claim does not restrict otherwise eligible credit to fifty per cent. Where TRAN-1 records one capital-goods invoice but includes an annexure covering multiple invoices, omitted invoice details may be produced for verification. Credit on those invoices depends on verification of their eligibility and supporting records.

Merchant-export concessional GST rate requires direct movement of goods from the supplier to the export port or registered warehouse; movement through third-party distilleries does not satisfy the condition, notwithstanding actual export. For supplies disclosed through departmental intimations, incorrect availment of the concession alone did not establish fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax, requiring redetermination as a non-fraud demand under Section 73(1). The fraud-based demand remained applicable to a supply for which no intimation was filed. Interest is compensatory and applies to tax ultimately determined as payable. Tax liability must be recomputed with cum-tax benefit under the CGST valuation rules.