GST-rate treatment of un-fried or un-cooked snack pellets manufactured through extrusion was regularised for periods up to 27 July 2023 on an "as is" basis under the relevant circular clarification. That clarification was treated as prima facie applicable to disputed earlier demands, without a final determination of their validity. Interim protection against the demands was granted pending writ adjudication, conditional on furnishing an auto-renewable fixed deposit for 10% of the demand.

Arrest for cognizable and non-bailable GST offences requires the Commissioner's recorded reasons to believe, based on material establishing statutory conditions; it cannot be used to investigate whether those conditions exist. Valid registration, invoices, bank-payment evidence and filed returns ordinarily support input tax credit despite a supplier's later cancellation or unavailability, absent fraud or collusion. Anticipatory bail was appropriate where no prima facie collusion or need for custodial interrogation was shown, subject to cooperation conditions.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars a Central Tax proper officer from initiating proceedings on a subject matter already taken up by a State Tax proper officer. Parallel Central Tax show-cause and adjudication proceedings concerning the same tax periods are therefore impermissible once State Tax proceedings have commenced. For a works-contract exemption claim based on the proportion of goods supplied, adjudication should permit the taxpayer to respond and produce relevant invoices, contract documents and other supporting records. A requested personal hearing must also be afforded before the exemption claim is reconsidered.

For the same tax period, completion of proceedings under Section 74 after adjudication under Section 73 is incongruous and cannot be sustained. Where Section 73 adjudication occurred ex parte and the taxpayer seeks to submit exemption-related documents, the liability requires fresh consideration of that material before any mismatch or erroneous turnover declaration is confirmed. The Section 74 notice and adjudication for the overlapping period are liable to be set aside, while the Section 73 proceedings require restoration and reconsideration; consequential garnishee recovery should not continue pending that determination.

Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal may be condoned where the assessee lacked effective knowledge of the proceedings and order, and the delay resulted from circumstances beyond its control. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by statutory limitation, refusing merits adjudication in such circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The appeal may therefore be entertained and decided on merits after condonation of delay.

Interim protection against GST demand orders may continue where the adjudicating authority has prima facie been unable to analyse and reconcile extensive delivery-channel data, e-way bills, invoices and accounting records. Where the record contains substantial transactional material and no further reconciliation material has been sought from the taxpayer, the complexity of the documentation supports continued protection while challenges to the demand orders are considered.

Section 129(3) of the CGST Act requires notice following detention and seizure of goods and conveyance to be issued within seven days. This timeline is mandatory, limiting arbitrary or prolonged use of coercive detention powers. Where goods and conveyance were detained on 2 September 2024 but the notice was issued on 11 September 2024 and uploaded later, non-compliance with the prescribed period vitiated the detention and penalty proceedings, rendering the proper-officer and appellate orders unsustainable.

Mandatory appellate pre-deposit under section 107(6)(b) requires payment of 10% of disputed tax to maintain an appeal. Input tax credit previously recovered from an electronic credit ledger may be adjusted against that requirement where the recovered credit exceeds the prescribed pre-deposit. Such adjustment treats the statutory condition as met and enables restoration of the appeal for determination on merits.

Under GST section 73(2), a show-cause notice meets the three-month requirement if, after excluding its date of issue, three full calendar months remain before the section 73(10) terminal date. A backward calculation to a corresponding calendar date is not a separate limitation cut-off. Applying the General Clauses Act rules on calendar months and exclusion of the issuing date, the notice issued on 29 November 2024 remained valid. However, an ex parte determination requires fresh adjudication where the taxpayer must be allowed to respond to the notice and have its defence considered under sections 73 and 75.

Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires electronic GST notices and orders to be both issued electronically and authenticated through a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or another Board-notified mode. Mere portal upload, ARN generation, or an officer's authenticated portal login does not authenticate the contents or attribute the document to the competent officer. Where no notified alternative verification mode exists, absence of authentication is a jurisdictional defect rather than a curable irregularity under Section 160. Unsigned show cause notices and adjudication orders are non est, invalidating consequential recovery action and bank-account attachment; fresh compliant proceedings remain permissible.

An assessing authority that postpones decision beyond the notified hearing date and fixes a further hearing must communicate that new date to the taxpayer. Failure to provide notice denies an effective opportunity of personal hearing and breaches the principles of natural justice. Consequently, an ex parte tax assessment made without notice of the subsequently fixed hearing date is unsustainable.

Notifications under the CGST Act must confer jurisdiction or transfer functions, while administrative circulars may allocate a composite show-cause notice among officers already vested with jurisdiction. A notified class of Additional and Joint Commissioners may exercise pan-India jurisdiction over investigative notices; selecting a Common Adjudicating Authority from that class does not independently confer jurisdiction. Selection based on the highest demand is objective, uniformly applicable and rationally connected to consistent common adjudication, so it does not violate Article 14 or constitute sub-delegation. Jurisdictional objections may be raised in writ proceedings, but challenges to demand, evidence and natural justice must proceed through the statutory appellate remedy.

Statutory appellate review under Section 107 is the appropriate mechanism for factual examination of input tax credit evidence, including work orders, invoices, payments and proof of execution; writ jurisdiction is generally not invoked where that remedy is effective. Specified DGGI officers may exercise central tax-officer powers throughout India under Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax, and Delhi North may be designated to adjudicate a common notice under applicable allocation arrangements. Circular No. 171/03/2022-GST requires transaction-specific analysis to distinguish ineligible credit involving genuine outward supplies from invoices without underlying supplies; appellate review can determine recovery, interest and penalty consequences.

Sections 69 and 70(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provide powers to arrest and summon, are constitutionally valid. Those powers support GST levy, collection and evasion control and are ancillary and incidental to legislative power under Article 246A of the Constitution. The constitutional challenge therefore fails, preserving the statutory framework for summons, arrest and prosecution in GST enforcement.

GST writ challenges requiring factual verification of input tax credit claims should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy. Where adjudication turns on correlating work orders, subcontracts, invoices, payments and evidence of actual execution, the appellate authority may examine both factual and legal questions, including the applicability of a relevant circular; non-reproduction of a reply alone does not establish non-consideration. Specified DGGI officers appointed as Central tax officers may investigate State-assigned taxpayers, particularly in alleged multi-State transaction chains. A common show-cause notice may be adjudicated by the Commissionerate allocated under applicable notifications and allocation criteria. The merits of input tax credit, interest and penalty demands remain open in appeal.

Pan-India jurisdiction of specified Additional and Joint Commissioners to adjudicate composite DGGI show cause notices rests on the governing notifications. A circular may operationalise that jurisdiction by selecting a common adjudicating authority from officers already competent, but cannot itself confer or enlarge jurisdiction. Selection based on the highest-demand criterion is objective, uniformly applicable and rationally connected to consistent single adjudication, rather than impermissible sub-delegation or arbitrary classification. The notified appellate forum corresponds to the Commissionerate of the common authority. Once a jurisdictional challenge fails, challenges on merits, evidence and natural justice must proceed through the statutory appeal, with merits remaining open.

Mandatory authentication under Rule 26(3) requires every electronic GST notice and adjudication order to bear a digital signature, e-signature, or another notified verification mode. An officer's portal login authenticates access only; it does not authenticate or attribute a document's contents. Electronic documents issued without a signature or notified authentication mode lack legal existence, and the defect is jurisdictional rather than curable. The unsigned show cause notice, adjudication order, and consequential recovery action were set aside, while fresh proceedings remained available in accordance with law. A statutory appeal does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenged order lacks legal existence.

GST show cause notices required at least three months before the outer deadline for adjudication are assessed by the minimum interval between notice and final determination, rather than by mechanically deriving an independent limitation date through backward counting. The intervening period is computed in calendar months, excluding the date of notice; this may render a notice timely before expiry of the adjudication deadline. Where an ex parte adjudication order is made while challenge proceedings and interim protection are pending, a conditional opportunity to reply may be granted, with merits left open; the order may revive if no reply is filed within the stipulated period.

Electronic credit already recovered from a taxpayer's electronic credit ledger may be adjusted against the mandatory GST appellate pre-deposit where the recovered balance exceeds the required pre-deposit and the taxpayer seeks adjustment rather than refund. On that basis, dismissal of the GST appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit was quashed and the appeal restored for merits determination. The adjustment was permitted on the particular facts, with all merits contentions left open and without precedential effect.

Section 129(3)'s seven-day deadline for issuing notice after detention of goods and conveyance under GST is mandatory. The timeline limits coercive detention and seizure powers, protects against arbitrary or prolonged detention, and requires strict compliance because the provision uses "shall" and affects taxpayer rights. A delay of even one day in issuing the notice vitiates the resulting detention and penalty proceedings. Penalty orders issued or affirmed despite breach of this timeline are liable to be set aside, without preventing other proceedings permissible under the Act. Deposited penalty may be released following due verification.