Anticipatory bail in alleged fake GST registration fraud may be refused where investigation yields technical links between GST filing credentials and the accused, alongside allegations of creating fictitious entities and receiving client payments. Non-cooperation with the investigation, the need for further technical inquiry, and the justification for custodial interrogation weigh against pre-arrest protection. Alleged misuse of PAN cards and personal credentials, wider economic repercussions, and involvement in other financial-fraud matters further support refusal of anticipatory bail.

Use of AI-generated legal material in quasi-judicial orders requires independent verification, human oversight, and the issuing officer's own application of mind. Reliance on non-existent or irrelevant AI-generated precedents prompted an unconditional apology, and non-compliance with departmental safeguards was directed to be treated as contempt of court. GST registration cancellation proceedings were quashed because the authorities proposed to revise the challenged orders and issue a fresh notice. Fresh adjudication must consider the taxpayer's reply and defence and result in a reasoned order in accordance with law; the merits remain open.

Transitional SGST input tax credit refund requires proof that the unutilised erstwhile-regime credit stood as an opening balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger on 1 July 2017. In the absence of the prescribed TRAN-1 declaration or other satisfactory evidence of that balance, the refund claim fails. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ordinarily cannot be used to revive a statutory challenge after the taxpayer's own default has allowed the appeal limitation to expire, particularly where the delay is inordinate. The writ petition was dismissed because the transitional credit was unsubstantiated and the statutory appellate remedy had become time-barred.

Passport renewal may be granted for its regular ten-year term during pending criminal proceedings where prior court permission remains mandatory for foreign travel. Travel restrictions, reinforced by directions to investigating and immigration authorities, provide sufficient safeguards against unauthorised departure regardless of the passport's validity period. In the absence of plausible reasons, substantive harm, or reasonable apprehension, limiting renewal to three years was not justified, particularly given the accused's stated roots in India. Renewal for ten years operates subject to all continuing conditions requiring prior court approval before travel abroad.

GST registration cancellation proceedings require a show-cause notice in Form GST REG-17 that allows seven working days for a reply and specifies the date and time of personal hearing. Omission of hearing particulars breaches the prescribed form and principles of natural justice. Where cancellation is based on physical verification, Rule 25 requires the verification report, supporting documents and photographs to be uploaded in Form GST REG-30 on the common portal within fifteen working days; non-upload invalidates proceedings founded on that verification. Writ jurisdiction remains available despite an alternative revocation remedy where natural justice is violated or the action is ultra vires. Fresh proceedings may be initiated only in compliance with these requirements.

Section 148 permits the Government, on the Council's recommendations and subject to conditions and safeguards, to notify classes of registered persons and special procedures for registration, returns, tax payment and administration. Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax, prescribing a procedure to implement retrospective input tax credit entitlement under Section 16(5), therefore falls within that power. The validity of the stipulated six-month period for rectification, particularly whether it contains adequate safeguards despite no extension mechanism for extraordinary circumstances, remains under consideration. The writ petitions were kept pending on that limited issue.

Service of a show cause notice solely by uploading it to the common portal was treated as ineffective where there was no acknowledgement of receipt or response from the assessee. An ex parte adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act founded on such notice could not be sustained because the assessee lacked an effective opportunity to reply. The ex parte order was set aside, with liberty to submit a response to the show cause notice. The competent authority must then conduct fresh adjudication and pass an order in accordance with law.

Withholding an electronic cash ledger refund during the Revenue's pending appeal requires a specific determination by the Commissioner under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act. Payment or withholding cannot be decided without initiating the statutory process, issuing a show cause notice, and providing the claimant a proper opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner must then pass a reasoned order determining whether the claimed refund should be paid or withheld while the appeal remains pending.

GST appeals must be filed within three months of communication of the order. The appellate authority may admit a delayed appeal only on sufficient cause and only during the further one-month period expressly permitted by the statute. The Limitation Act does not apply to enlarge this limited condonation power where the GST appellate scheme does not provide for such application. An appeal filed after both periods, particularly where the substantial delay remains inadequately explained, is time-barred and cannot be entertained.

GST appeal limitation does not begin merely because an order-in-original is uploaded on the common portal without valid communication to the assessee in the stated circumstances. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by the statutory limitation under the RGST/CGST Act, delay may be condoned where the assessee could not file the appeal for reasons beyond its control and refusal of merits review would cause grave prejudice. The time-bar dismissal was set aside and the statutory appeal restored for merits determination, subject to the directed deposit of outstanding tax.

Collateral challenge to a CGST adjudication order through an interlocutory application in a pending writ petition was not maintainable because the earlier AGST notice challenge had no connection with the subsequent CGST proceedings. No interim restraint covered the adjudication, and no jurisdictional error by the Proper Officer was established; the writ challenge became infructuous and the interlocutory challenge was misconceived. Bona fide and diligent pursuit of the wrong writ remedy justified allowing recourse to the statutory appellate remedy despite expiry of limitation. Petitioners received liberty to file an appeal under the CGST Act within 30 days, to be considered on merits without limitation objection; prior interim protection was vacated.

GST show cause notices served only through the portal after cancellation of registration do not constitute effective service where the taxpayer cannot access the portal. Adjudication based on such service is liable to be set aside, with the tax authorities permitted to restart proceedings from the show cause notice stage in accordance with law. In fresh proceedings, a personal hearing must be provided where the taxpayer requests it under the statutory requirement. The discussion relies on decisions treating portal-only communication after cancellation as inconsistent with effective notice and procedural fairness.

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricted IGST refunds on exports in specified circumstances. The High Court's earlier ruling in M/s Hikal Limited treated the rule as ultra vires section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary. Its subsequent omission without a saving clause meant that proceedings based exclusively on an alleged breach of Rule 96(10) could not continue. Accordingly, a show cause notice seeking to deny or recover an IGST export refund under that rule, along with consequential proceedings, was quashed.

Duplicate GST adjudication on the same issues and assessment period is unsustainable where Central GST authorities have already issued an order and that order remains under appeal. The subsequent State GST assessment and rectification orders addressed identical issues for the identical period, thereby duplicating the earlier Central GST adjudication. The State GST orders were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

Section 74 of the CGST Act requires evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax; mere availment of ineligible self-assessed input tax credit does not meet that standard. Disclosure of ITC reconciliation in GSTR-9C and annual returns on the GST portal negates an allegation of concealed facts absent contrary evidence. Failure to reply to an audit enquiry or final audit report is likewise not suppression where the underlying data is disclosed and no statutory reply is required. A demand also cannot be sustained on a ground introduced beyond the show cause notice, as this denies the taxpayer an opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice.

Section 93 of the CGST/KGST Act limits a legal representative's liability where a deceased proprietor's business has discontinued: recovery may be made only from the deceased's estate and only after notice, inquiry and ascertainment of that estate. Continuation of proceedings without notice to the legal heir or examination of inherited assets is treated as procedurally unsustainable. Separately, Section 16(5), retrospectively effective from 1 July 2017, overrides the belated-return restriction in Section 16(4) for invoices relating to FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the relevant Section 39 return was filed by 30 November 2021. Eligible input tax credit is therefore available where that deadline is met.

Psyllium seeds (Isabgol) fall under tariff sub-heading 1211 90 13 because Heading 1211 specifically covers Psyllium seed and includes Plantago psyllium herbs and seeds used primarily in pharmacy. GST exemption for fresh or chilled seeds depends on the condition of goods when supplied. Storage in dry, ventilated godowns constitutes drying; without evidence that the seeds remained fresh from harvest until supply, they are treated as dried goods. Dried Psyllium seeds are taxable at 5 per cent under the entry for frozen or dried plants and plant parts, while exemptions for fresh or chilled goods and goods of seed quality do not apply.

Penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) must clearly identify whether the charge concerns concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The two limbs are independent and may require different explanations and treatment; therefore, a notice retaining both alternatives without specifying the applicable limb denies the assessee a proper opportunity to defend. Recording satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings does not cure this defect. Applying this principle, the High Court treated the defective notice as invalid, upheld deletion of the penalty, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Pre-reassessment procedure requires the Assessing Officer to issue a show-cause notice, consider the taxpayer's reply and form only a prima facie view that income has escaped assessment. Absence of an oral hearing at that preliminary stage does not by itself invalidate the pre-reassessment order or consequential reassessment notice where a substantive opportunity remains available during reassessment. Information concerning unsecured loans and cash deposits may be considered collectively where intrinsically connected to the alleged escaped income; the genuineness of the loan is to be examined in reassessment. The reassessment must provide a meaningful personal hearing and consider further documents and explanations, with merits left open.

Subletting charges paid to MIDC as a mandatory condition for subletting leasehold property are treated as an integral cost of earning rental income. Taxable income from house property is therefore computed on net rental income after reducing those charges. The standard deduction available for house property income under section 24(a) does not prevent deduction of such pre-receipt expenditure, because the charges are necessary to commercially exploit the leasehold property through subletting. The disallowance of the charges was deleted and the deduction was allowed.