Section 107 of the GST Act provides a statutory appellate remedy before the appropriate authority. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue that remedy, subject to payment of the stipulated statutory deposit within the time granted.

Personal hearing must be effectively afforded where the show-cause notice provides for it and the taxpayer specifically requests it. Failure to communicate the date and time of the requested hearing breaches the principles of natural justice; consideration of a written reply alone does not cure that defect. The adjudication order was therefore invalid and quashed, with fresh adjudication required after giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

Rejection of a KARA SAMADHANA scheme application for waiver of penalty and interest without disclosing material particulars or reasons was treated as illegal and arbitrary. A non-speaking notice under Section 128A of the CGST/KGST Act failed to provide the basis for denial. The rejection was quashed, and the reconsideration request must be decided in accordance with law after granting the assessee a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Communication of GST audit findings in FORM GST ADT-02 under Rule 101(5) read with Section 65(6) is administrative and informs the registered person of the audit findings. It does not itself constitute an adjudication or recovery action. Recovery cannot be initiated solely on the basis of ADT-02; any further proceedings must be undertaken under the applicable provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in accordance with law.

Fresh hearing in ex parte tax determination proceedings was required because the petitioners' pleaded material facts were undisputed and the respondents had not filed an affidavit-in-opposition. The tax demand's merits were not examined. Respondent authorities were directed to provide a renewed opportunity to raise objections and to issue a reasoned order within four weeks, ensuring that the determination follows a proper hearing process.

Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars writ intervention against GST adjudication unless fundamental rights, natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or vires are implicated. Challenges to the invocation of Section 74, audit proceedings, evidentiary assessment, input tax credit, reverse-charge liability, export material, and demand computation require factual appraisal by the appellate authority; participation in adjudication and disagreement over evidence do not establish denial of hearing. A consolidated show cause notice spanning multiple financial years is not inherently without jurisdiction, since statutory language permits notices for periods and separate order-limitation calculations do not require separate notices. Year-specific limitation objections remain for statutory appeal.

Cross-examination of persons whose statements are relied upon in GST penalty proceedings is necessary to satisfy principles of natural justice where the affected party specifically requests it. Denial of that opportunity before imposing penalty constitutes a serious procedural defect. The penalty order and consequential notices were set aside, with fresh consideration required after supplying relevant documents, granting a personal hearing, permitting cross-examination of relied-upon persons, and allowing a fresh reply. The merits of the underlying allegations remained open for independent reconsideration.

GST adjudication challenges involving the extended-demand provision, audit objections, input tax credit, reverse-charge liability, export transactions and factual demand heads require statutory appellate review where the taxpayer participated in proceedings and had an opportunity to present its defence. A disagreement over the evaluation of replies, documents or evidence differs from a denial of natural justice and does not by itself justify writ jurisdiction. A consolidated show cause notice may cover multiple financial years because the statutory language permits notices for periods, while limitation for the order is calculated by financial year. Limitation for an individual year remains available for determination in appeal. Writ interference is unavailable absent patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest breach of natural justice.

Opportunity to contest a GST show-cause notice may warrant restoration of demand proceedings where failure to reply resulted from bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. On acceptance of sufficient cause, the adjudication and appellate orders were set aside and the proceedings remitted to the reply stage. Fresh adjudication must permit the assessee to file a reply, produce documents and receive a hearing, subject to imposed conditions.

Form GST ADT-02 issued after a GST audit under Rule 101(5) communicates audit findings to the registered person as required by section 65(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The communication is administrative in nature and does not by itself create authority to recover tax or other dues. Any action consequential to the audit findings, including recovery proceedings, must be initiated and pursued separately in accordance with the Act.

Rejection of a Kara Samadhana Scheme application for waiver of penalty and interest must disclose material particulars and reasons under section 128A of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017. An unreasoned adverse notice is illegal and arbitrary where the applicant is denied a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing. The rejection notice was quashed, requiring fresh consideration of the representation after hearing, with coercive steps restrained until that decision.

Section 110(5) limits provisional attachment of bank accounts under customs law to six months, with one recorded-reasons extension of up to six months. A debit freeze continuing beyond one year, after investigation culminates in adjudication, lacks statutory support. Where an appeal against the adjudication order is filed with the mandatory pre-deposit, continued freezing is coercive and unlawful; the affected bank accounts must be defreezed.

Rejection of a GST rectification application without addressing the contentions raised or providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity violates principles of natural justice. The deficiency arose from summary dismissal despite multiple submissions in the rectification application. The rejection was set aside, and the application was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petition consequently succeeded.

For goods detained while accompanied by a tax invoice, penalty proceedings fall under section 129(1)(a) where the taxpayer can be regarded as the owner of the goods. Subsequent restoration of GST registration prevents treating the consignor or consignee as bogus or maintaining proceedings under section 129(1)(b) on the basis that the taxpayer was unregistered. The penalty was therefore enforceable under section 129(1)(a), and the orders were modified accordingly.

GST appellate limitation bound the Appellate Authority, but delay caused by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control was treated as sufficient cause for condonation to prevent prejudice from denial of a merits hearing. A fresh statutory appeal could therefore be filed within the permitted period for adjudication on merits. Alleged duplicate recovery of GST demand required verification rather than an immediate factual finding; any excess recovery identified on verification was to be refunded with applicable interest.

Rule 26(3) requires electronic GST notices and orders to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate, e-signature or another notified mode; a system-generated reference number establishes issuance and tracking but does not replace authentication. Signature verifies origin, accountability and application of mind, so an unsigned notice or order is treated as non-existent in law. Portal upload under an additional-notices section, without other service, may deny an effective hearing where the taxpayer remains unaware and unrepresented. Such denial breaches natural justice and permits writ intervention despite an appellate remedy. Unsigned proceedings, consequential orders and recovery action may be set aside, with fresh action permissible after authenticated service and a meaningful hearing.

Under the CGST/WBGST appellate framework, the maximum of three adjournments is a ceiling, not an entitlement to obtain three postponements. Each adjournment requires sufficient cause and written reasons, consistent with the requirement for expeditious disposal of appeals. Physical incapacity may justify a final hearing opportunity where adequately demonstrated, but does not create a right to further adjournments. The appellate authority may reject subsequent requests and must determine the appeal independently on merits.

GSTR-2A is a facilitation tool rather than a statutory bar to input tax credit. Credit claimed within the extended period for FY 2017-18 requires invoice-wise reconciliation; non-reflection in GSTR-2A for FY 2018-19 alone cannot establish supplier default. Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing before an adverse GST decision, even without a specific request. Return scrutiny under Section 61 and demand proceedings under Section 73 are independent, so absence of FORM GST ASMT-10 does not itself invalidate a direct demand proceeding. Interest and penalty remain consequential to sustainable tax liability. The disputed credit was remanded for verification and fresh adjudication after hearing.

Misreporting eligible IGST input tax credit under CGST and SGST heads is a technical classification error where aggregate eligible credit has not been exceeded and underlying eligibility is undisputed. Electronic credit ledger balances across IGST, CGST and SGST must be assessed collectively before sustaining an excess-credit demand. Limited verification of unclaimed eligible IGST credit is required; if available, the demand, interest and penalty must be dropped, with consequential ITC restoration or adjustment according to law.

Reassessment initiation against a deceased assessee is jurisdictionally defective where the show-cause notice is issued after death. Service of a show-cause notice is a condition precedent to an order under Section 148A(3) and a reassessment notice under Section 148; a notice issued to a dead person is non-est and cannot be cured through later proceedings against the legal representative. Section 159 requires reassessment proceedings concerning a deceased person's income to be instituted against the legal representative and does not validate proceedings begun against the deceased, particularly where the Department knew of the death. Participation after a jurisdictional objection does not confer jurisdiction. Consequential proceedings may be quashed, without barring fresh lawful proceedings within limitation.