GST registration cancellation may be set aside in writ jurisdiction where rigid application of the statutory appeal limitation would deprive a taxpayer of the constitutional right to carry on trade and commerce. Although the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the prescribed period, restoration does not create a corresponding right for the State and supports legitimate business operations and revenue collection. Registration was restored subject to filing pending returns and paying outstanding dues, interest, penalty and late fees.

Medical circumstances affecting the taxpayer's accountant, supported by medical records and the particular facts, constituted sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a statutory GST appeal. The limitation-based dismissal was set aside so that the appellate remedy could be pursued. The underlying input tax credit dispute remained for determination by the Appellate Authority and was not decided at this stage.

Rule 86A permits restriction on the use of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger only where the competent officer has reasons to believe and records those reasons in writing. Blocking credit without a proper reasoned order fails to meet these mandatory conditions; the absence of a prior hearing was also identified as a procedural deficiency. Reactivation of the ledger after the statutory restriction period may make further substantive relief unnecessary in exceptional circumstances. Future blocking that does not comply with Rule 86A may expose the affected party to appropriate compensation.

Challenges to adjudication orders should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy where resolution requires examination of disputed facts. Questions whether replies to show-cause notices were considered and the individual role of each taxpayer in alleged transactions require factual appraisal by the Appellate Authority. The principle requiring consideration of a taxpayer's response does not by itself justify writ intervention when a consolidated adjudication concerns numerous firms and individuals. Writ jurisdiction should not bypass an efficacious appellate mechanism in such circumstances.

Regular bail was granted in proceedings alleging GST evasion through invoices without actual supply, wrongful availment of input tax credit, falsified financial records, and shell entities. Completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, absence of a likelihood of evidence tampering, and the period in judicial custody supported release, subject to the prescribed bail bond and sureties.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause removes its restriction from pending proceedings concerning refunds of integrated tax paid on exports. The omission, effective from 8 October 2024, ends the rule's operation rather than preserving it for unresolved refund claims. An advisory recommendation for prospective operation does not retain the omitted restriction. Consequently, pending export refund proceedings cannot be denied by applying Rule 96(10), and any communication founded on that restriction lacks legal basis.

Meaningful personal hearing under section 75(4) of the Bihar GST Act requires that the hearing date allow the taxpayer a real opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. Fixing the hearing before expiry of the reply period renders the opportunity ineffective. Cancellation of GST registration may require reconsideration where pending GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns are subsequently filed and outstanding tax, late fee and penalty are paid, particularly because permanent cancellation can effectively end business operations. Revocation may be sought within three weeks and must be decided on merits without rejection solely for limitation.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without a saving or sunset clause, ends the export-refund restriction for pending proceedings concerning integrated tax paid on exported goods and services. Applying the principle that an omitted provision cannot be kept alive without express preservation, communications founded on the former restriction cannot sustain denial of such refunds.

Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act are addressed in relation to regular bail for allegations of fraudulent invoices, wrongful input tax credit, falsified records and shell entities. Arrest requires recorded reasons to believe tax evasion or the specified conditions under section 132. The absence of those reasons in the arrest authorisation and memo, together with omission of the applicable tax-evasion threshold relevant to conviction, is treated as indicating suspicion rather than concrete material. These deficiencies support release on regular bail, subject to furnishing a bond and sureties.

Rule 86A permits restriction on debit of input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger only when its prescribed conditions are met, including recorded reasons to believe and reasons in writing. The High Court found that the authorities could not establish compliance with these mandatory requirements before blocking the ledger. As the statutory period had expired and the ledger had been reactivated, the writ petition was disposed of exceptionally upon acceptance of an unconditional apology. The High Court warned that any future non-compliant blocking of credit would expose the authorities to appropriate compensation liability.

GST cannot be collected on a penalty imposed on an employee for stock shortage merely because an employment relationship exists. Paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act applies to agreements connected with a supply of services. A stock-shortage penalty arising from the employer-employee relationship is not, without more, consideration for a supply of services. Accordingly, that provision does not authorise GST on such recovery. The de novo enquiry concerning the collection was sustained, while the intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are maintainable under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST and SGST enactments, which do not prohibit clubbing tax periods in one notice. Quashing such a notice and consequential orders solely because multiple years were combined is unsustainable. An appellate authority must also provide an effective hearing on the merits where the appellant seeks condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for that purpose. Restricting the hearing to delay and deciding the appeal without a merits hearing breaches principles of natural justice. The appellate order was set aside and remitted for a merits hearing.

Writ jurisdiction challenging GST registration cancellation is ordinarily unavailable where the taxpayer failed to pursue the statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period and shows no exceptional circumstances. A delayed writ petition should not be entertained merely because the appellate remedy has lapsed. The petition was dismissed on that basis, while preserving the taxpayer's ability to file the final return and seek fresh GST registration in accordance with law.

Fresh adjudication of a service-tax demand was required after relevant work contracts and agreements were placed on record and the Department accepted reconsideration on the entire material. The claimed exemption had not been examined on its merits. The demand order and consequential penalties were set aside, with remand for reconsideration of the available and any further relevant documents after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Parallel GST proceedings on identical issues for the same assessment period cannot be sustained where Central GST authorities have already issued an order and the related appeal is pending before the appellate authority. The State GST assessment and rectification orders addressed the same issues already adjudicated under Central GST. Consequently, the subsequent State GST proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Section 73(9) does not permit the Proper Officer to determine tax liability before the statutory due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year has expired. An assessment made before that deadline is premature and beyond the Proper Officer's authority. The premature assessment order was set aside, with fresh assessment proceedings to be undertaken in accordance with law after proper notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Inadvertent payment of GST under the IGST head, where CGST and SGST were actually payable and no IGST liability existed, is treated as a clerical error rather than a payment made under a misconception that the supply was inter-State. Section 77(2) therefore does not apply. Where the full GST liability has effectively been discharged, interest and penalty are not payable. The amount remitted as IGST may be appropriated against the CGST and SGST liability; where procedurally required, refund and transfer of the amount may be sought.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 264 extends to relief omitted from a return where a charitable trust later identifies an error causing over-assessment. Voluntary disclosure of income as taxable does not bar reconsideration if the trust disclosed the capital gains and relevant particulars without suppressing material; the revisional authority must examine entitlement under law. For charitable-trust capital gains, reinvestment of net sale consideration in a bank fixed deposit for six months or more is treated as acquisition of another capital asset under Instruction No. 883. Conditions under public-trust law cannot be imported to deny this standalone exemption.

Reassessment founded on additions and disallowances in later assessment years lacks a subsisting basis where appellate orders for those years delete or decide in the assessee's favour every issue relied upon for reopening. Although later assessment orders may initially constitute material for reopening, the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment cease once their foundation is removed. The reassessment notice and rejection of objections were quashed, while other challenges remained open and proceedings could revive if the Revenue succeeds in pending appeals on a foundational issue.

Reassessment requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor's representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees' provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.