Section 75(7) prohibits an adjudication order from confirming tax, interest or penalty exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice or on grounds not stated there. Where the notice proposed a composite demand but the final order imposed a substantially higher tax, interest and penalty liability, the demand exceeded the notice on its face. Such a demand contravenes Section 75(7) and is invalid; the demand order was set aside.

GST registration cannot be cancelled through an unreasoned order without demonstrating application of mind or giving the registered person an opportunity of hearing. Such cancellation is arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 where the order does not disclose the grounds supporting the action. The cancellation order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with fresh adjudication to occur after considering the petitioner's reply and providing a hearing.

Substantial vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh Benches of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal were recorded, while the process for filling sanctioned posts remained pending approval by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. The High Court directed the responsible Department of Revenue officer to file an affidavit on the status of the vacancies and appointments. The matter was listed for further hearing, and the interim order was continued.

GST appeal delay may be condoned where portal upload does not effectively communicate the order in the circumstances and the taxpayer was denied a personal hearing. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by the prescribed appeal limitation, circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control, material prejudice from denial of hearing, and the risk of grave injury from refusing merits review supported condonation. The appeal was permitted to be entertained and decided on merits if filed within the stipulated period.

Assignment by sale and transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and building transfers the benefits arising from immovable property from the existing lessee to the assignee, who replaces the original lessee. Such assignment falls outside taxable supply under the GST framework, including Section 7(1)(a), Schedule II and Schedule III, and does not attract GST under Section 9. The stated position follows an earlier binding decision whose challenge before the Supreme Court was dismissed. Consequently, GST proceedings initiated under Section 73 were quashed.

Bail pending trial in allegations of fraudulent input tax credit and allied forgery was supported by the period of alleged claims, delay in lodging the FIR, suo motu cancellation of GST registration with a pending appeal, and the accused's incarceration. The prosecution case on merits remained unexamined. The text states that these factors warranted release on bail pending trial.

Bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit availment, passing of credit, and wrongful export refunds was supported because the offences carried a maximum five-year sentence, were triable by a Magistrate, and investigation had concluded with the complaint filed. As no charge had been framed and trial completion was unlikely within a reasonable time, continued pre-conviction detention was not justified. Personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a speedy trial favoured release, particularly as the applicant had no criminal antecedents and no material showed flight risk, repeat offending, witness intimidation, or tampering with documentary or electronic evidence. Release on bail was warranted subject to appropriate safeguards.

Cancellation of GST registration must satisfy Article 14's requirement of non-arbitrariness because it adversely affects the right to carry on business. An order cancelling registration must disclose reasons and demonstrate application of mind; a registrant must also receive an effective opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and be heard. The text states that cancellation and the consequential appellate order, having lacked these requirements, were unsustainable and set aside. Fresh adjudication is to occur after the registrant's reply is received and its defence is considered at a hearing.

Where an assessment order was already under challenge in pending proceedings, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order and dismissed the special leave petition. The petitioner was permitted to continue pursuing the pending proceedings, and pending applications were closed. The operative point is that the existing challenge to the assessment order remained available for adjudication in those proceedings.

Cancellation of GST registration requires reasons demonstrating application of mind and an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. The High Court stated that an unreasoned cancellation order fails the test under Article 14. As the taxpayer had not effectively responded, it was permitted to submit a reply, which must be considered after a hearing. The cancellation order and appellate order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

Pre-trial detention in alleged fraudulent input tax credit offences is not punitive and should secure the accused's presence at trial. Bail was considered appropriate where the offence was triable by a Magistrate with a maximum five-year sentence, investigation was complete, no charge had been framed, trial was unlikely to conclude promptly, and the accused had no criminal antecedents. In the absence of exceptional circumstances or material indicating absconding, repeat offending, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering, bail was granted subject to conditions requiring cooperation with trial and non-interference with evidence or witnesses.

Effective communication of a GST adjudication order is examined in relation to delay in filing a statutory appeal where the order was uploaded only on the GST portal. The notes state that, although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation period under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, delay may be condoned where circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control prevented timely filing and denial of merits adjudication would cause grave prejudice. The appeal was directed to be entertained and decided on merits if filed within the period specified by the Court.

GST registration cancellation requires a reasoned quasi-judicial order that shows application of mind and complies with Article 14 where it adversely affects the right to carry on business. An unreasoned ex parte cancellation order issued without an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. The High Court quashed the cancellation and appellate orders, permitted a reply to the show-cause notice, and directed fresh adjudication after hearing the parties and considering the defence.

Bona fide GST return errors involving invoices reported under a GST TDS GSTIN rather than the regular GSTIN may be rectified where the correction causes no revenue loss and is necessary to enable input tax credit consideration. The text states that portal limitations on altering filed entries do not, by themselves, justify refusal of rectification. It also notes that retrospective relaxation of the input tax credit time limit for the relevant financial year supported the request. Amendment or rectification of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B was directed through online or manual means within four weeks.

A refund claim for excess service tax cannot be rejected on an objection not disclosed to the assessee through a show cause notice. Although a Tribunal finding of refund eligibility with consequential relief does not require automatic disbursement and permits examination of legal impediments, including notification conditions and unjust enrichment, the adjudicating authority must give the assessee an opportunity to respond to any objection concerning tax paid on an abated value while CENVAT credit was availed. The High Court quashed the rejection and required fresh adjudication after notice, hearing and a reasoned order.

Section 62(2) of the GST law provides for deemed withdrawal of a best-judgment assessment when the registered person files the required returns within the prescribed framework; delayed filing requires payment of the applicable late fee. The note records that, following amendment of the provision, delay in filing GSTR-3B may be condoned where the relevant returns and late fee have been furnished. In the described matter, the assessments were treated as deemed withdrawn, and consequential recovery proceedings and attachments of immovable property were rendered ineffective.

Section 62(2) of the CGST Act provides that a best-judgment assessment for non-filing of a return is deemed withdrawn where the registered person furnishes a valid return within the prescribed period after service of the assessment order, although interest and late-fee liability continues. The notes state that the dealer filed the return for the disputed period with applicable interest and late fee after the assessment order, which the revenue did not dispute. Applying the statutory provision and cited High Court decisions, the January 2024 assessment was treated as withdrawn and set aside.

Interest and penalty for delayed payment of CGST and SGST were made subject to verification of the taxpayer's claim that tax dues had already been discharged through adjustment of input tax credit within the permissible period. The High Court directed the competent authority to examine that claim and determine whether any interest or penalty remained payable. The taxpayer may submit a representation for expeditious decision, and recovery under the challenged order and notice remains stayed until the representation is disposed of.

Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings does not permit resolution of disputed factual defences concerning alleged wilful failure to furnish returns pursuant to search-assessment notices. Assertions that seized material was requested but not supplied, and that the default lacked wilfulness or mens rea, were disputed and lacked prima facie proof of requests before the stipulated period expired. Such matters require evidence and cannot be determined through a mini-trial at the quashing stage, where the Court assesses only whether a prima facie case exists. The quashing petitions were dismissed, leaving the Trial Court to decide the prosecutions on evidence without being influenced by the order's observations.

Eligible-industrial-unit deductions are discussed in relation to interest on staff advances and deposits, overdue customer-bill interest, and a Sikkim manufacturing unit. The notes distinguish interest not eligible for deduction from overdue-bill interest and address continuity where prior-year positions govern. They also cover exempt-income expenditure: sufficient interest-free own funds may preclude interest disallowance, while administrative expenditure is computed under the prescribed method. For LLP-interest transfers, partnership rights are capital assets, but related-party status and approved valuation require examination. In book-profit computation, the notes address exempt-income adjustments, intangible-asset amortisation, and trea.....