Cross-head ITC reporting discrepancies involving allocation of eligible IGST credit under CGST and SGST heads do not, by themselves, establish excess ITC availment under Section 73. Where aggregate ITC entitlement remains unexceeded, the credit's underlying eligibility is undisputed, and no revenue loss is established, the electronic credit ledger must be verified across IGST, CGST and SGST heads. If sufficient eligible IGST credit remained available and unclaimed, the principal ITC demand cannot survive; consequential interest and penalty must also be dropped.

Statutory deemed stay of recovery under Section 112(9), subject to compliance with Section 112(8), applied after full discharge of GST liability. The challenge to invoking Section 74 remained unexamined on merits while the appeal was under scrutiny. Recovery from works-contract receivables could undermine the pending appeal and cause irreparable injury. Operation of the order rejecting the first appeal on limitation, and recovery of the disputed demand, remained stayed until disposal of the Tribunal appeal.

Input tax credit differences between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for FY 2018-19 require invoice-wise verification where credit is claimed for FY 2017-18 within the extended statutory period. GSTR-2A operated as a facilitation tool, and non-reflection alone does not establish supplier tax default; reconciliation should consider prior-year GSTR-2A, suppliers' GSTR-1, ITC registers, books of account and annual returns. A personal hearing is mandatory before an adverse decision. Scrutiny notice requirements do not apply to independently initiated tax-determination proceedings. Interest and penalty depend on a sustainable principal tax liability and await fresh ITC determination.

Section 107(9) of the CGST and West Bengal GST Acts permits an appellate adjournment only on sufficient cause, with reasons recorded in writing. Its three-adjournment proviso operates as a statutory ceiling, not as an entitlement to obtain three postponements; section 107(13) reinforces expeditious appellate disposal. Exceptional medical circumstances, including a stated terminal condition, may justify one final opportunity for effective representation before the Appellate Authority. Any further adjournment remains within the Authority's discretion, and the appeal must be determined independently in accordance with law.

Contradictory auto-populated input tax credit figures and annual-return disclosures require examination by the adjudicating authority before an assessment is sustained. Where an asserted technical or clerical discrepancy creates a prima facie inconsistency in ITC records, the affected taxpayer must receive an opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice. Fresh adjudication is required to reconcile the differing figures and issue a reasoned assessment order.

Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires electronic notices and orders to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or other notified verification method. Portal generation and a document reference number only identify or track a communication; they do not establish authentication, officer accountability, or application of mind. Unsigned electronic notices and orders therefore cannot sustain consequential demand or recovery proceedings. Placing unauthenticated communications in an additional-notices portal category without effective service may deny the taxpayer the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Breach of natural justice permits writ relief despite an available statutory appeal. Fresh proceedings require duly authenticated notice and an effective hearing.

GST assessment of Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel requires recognition that these petroleum products are treated as non-GST goods. Imposition of GST on invoices relating to such products creates a jurisdictional defect affecting the validity of the assessment. The assessment requires fresh determination based on the registration records, invoices, supporting documents and reply to the show-cause notice, after affording the taxpayer a personal hearing.

Condonation of delay in a statutory appeal under the limitation framework may be warranted where circumstances beyond the assessee's control prevent timely filing and refusal of merits adjudication would cause grave prejudice. A 95-day delay, calculated after the available statutory relaxation, was treated as fit for condonation, permitting a fresh appeal to be filed and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.

Detention penalty applies under Section 129(1)(a) where goods are accompanied by a tax invoice establishing the taxpayer as their deemed owner. Suspension of registration during transit does not render the consignor or consignee bogus when cancellation proceedings are subsequently dropped and registration is restored. Section 129(1)(b), applicable where the owner does not come forward, is therefore inapplicable in these circumstances. The penalty must be determined under Section 129(1)(a), resulting in treatment favourable to the assessee.

Adequate opportunity to file objections and be heard is required before factual assertions underlying GST assessment and demand are determined. Where a taxpayer has not contested proceedings and seeks to raise factual objections, fresh proceedings permitting objections and participation are warranted. Whether reassignment of proceedings requires a fresh notice remains unresolved, and the merits of the assessment remain open.

GST demand proceedings confirmed after non-filing of a reply to the show-cause notice and rejection of the statutory appeal on limitation require a meaningful opportunity for the assessee to respond where bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause are asserted. The assessee may submit a reply, documents and supporting material and receive a reasonable hearing before fresh adjudication, subject to payment of costs. This approach prioritises procedural fairness in contesting the GST demand.

Rejection of a rectification application without addressing specific objections to a tax demand and supporting material breaches principles of natural justice where sufficient and reasonable opportunity is not afforded. Meaningful consideration of the assessee's substantive contentions is required before rejecting rectification. A summary rejection that fails to engage with those objections is legally unsustainable.

Penalty adjudication founded on third-party statements requires a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements are relied upon when the taxable person specifically requests it. Denial of that opportunity prevents an effective rebuttal of the evidentiary material and breaches principles of natural justice. Where the penalty rests on such statements, the adjudication is vitiated by the denial of requested cross-examination, operating in favour of the assessee.

GST registration cancellation for failure to respond to a show-cause notice sent by email may be set aside where the taxpayer establishes bona fide and unavoidable circumstances constituting sufficient cause for non-response. A justice-oriented approach supports granting a further opportunity to meet GST compliance obligations rather than sustaining cancellation solely on that omission. Restoration of registration is conditional on filing pending returns and paying outstanding tax, interest and penalty.

GST demand proceedings confirmed without a response to the show-cause notice were restored for fresh determination after the taxpayer established bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for non-participation. The time-barred appellate rejection was also set aside, enabling submission of replies and supporting documents and a reasonable hearing before fresh adjudication.

Section 110(5) limits provisional attachment of a bank account to six months, with a further extension of up to six months only where reasons are recorded and the extension is intimated. Once the investigation had concluded, the show-cause notice was adjudicated, and the assessee had made the statutory pre-deposit and filed an appeal, no statutory basis supported continuing a debit freeze beyond one year. Continued freezing in those circumstances was coercive and lacked legal sanction. The bank account was therefore required to be defreezed.

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.