Alleged forced GST payment was not prima facie sustainable at the interim stage because the withdrawal pursis recorded that reasonable amounts had been deposited and the proceedings concerning payment indicated voluntary payment. Non-disclosure of the anticipatory-bail application and its withdrawal was treated as material suppression requiring explanation. The petitioner was directed to deposit costs and file an affidavit explaining the suppressed facts, with the matter listed for further hearing.

GST proceedings under section 74(1) must be initiated against a person chargeable with tax. An individual proprietor is a "person" under section 2(84), but proceedings cannot validly be initiated or concluded in the name of a proprietor who died before the notice and consequential demand order were issued. Where the taxpayer's prior death is undisputed, the notice and demand order are without jurisdiction and void. The issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Where a person seeking release of goods detained in transit establishes ownership, the release mechanism under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies. For that purpose, valuation cannot be enhanced, and penalty must be determined by reference to the invoice and e-way bill. The stated position requires release of the goods in favour of the assessee under Section 129(1)(a).

Anticipatory bail was denied in an investigation into alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit through invoices issued by non-existent entities. The applicant's role as a director remained under investigation, while a co-director had been arrested in the same matter. The need to establish the applicant's role and identify other persons involved meant that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out. The applicant was therefore not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Writ jurisdiction need not be exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal can examine jurisdictional objections, the reasonable period for issuing a notice under Section 76, and factual disputes over input tax credit and tax payment. The reasonable-period question depends on the facts of each matter, while the appellate remedy can also consider the applicable provision for the relevant financial years. Since the adjudication followed consideration of the reply and an opportunity of hearing, the writ petition was not entertained and the statutory appellate remedy remained available.

Bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit cases may be granted where investigation is complete, the complaint has been filed, and no material establishes criminal antecedents, absconding risk, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering. For Magistrate-triable offences carrying up to five years' imprisonment, prolonged pre-trial detention where trial completion is unlikely within a reasonable period conflicts with the presumption of innocence, personal liberty, and the principle that bail is the rule. The documentary and electronic character of the evidence further reduces the risk of interference. Bail was considered appropriate subject to conditions ensuring trial attendance and protection of evidence and witnesses.

Prohibition orders sealing business premises during GST search proceedings were challenged. The writ petition was disposed of by consent without adjudication on the merits. The premises were directed to be de-sealed in the petitioner's presence, and any further search was required to proceed in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure.

Service of a show-cause notice solely through the electronic portal after cancellation of registration does not provide effective notice where the applicable departmental circular requires physical service for adjudication initiated after cancellation. Portal-only service, undertaken more than three years after cancellation, deprived the assessee of a meaningful opportunity to reply, obtain relied-upon documents, seek cross-examination and attend a personal hearing. The ex parte adjudication order was therefore unsustainable for breach of effective service and adequate opportunity of hearing, requiring a fresh opportunity for participation in the proceedings.

GST arrest powers must not be exercised routinely or mechanically. Credible material, investigatory necessity, and risks of evidence tampering or witness influence are material safeguards under the statutory scheme and departmental guidance. Recorded grounds referred to alleged use of fictitious entities for online-money-gaming transactions, suppression of taxable value, layering of funds, personal benefit, non-cooperation, and possible interference with the investigation. For cognizable special-enactment offences punishable below seven years, arrest may be justified where reasons and necessity are recorded. The recorded grounds and custody reasons were treated as sufficient, supporting the legality of arrest and judicial custody.

Arrest for cognizable and non-bailable GST offences requires credible material, recorded reasons to believe, and consideration of necessity rather than mechanical exercise of power. In alleged online gaming tax evasion involving dummy entities, suppression of taxable value and fund layering, the recorded grounds identified the petitioner's alleged role, risk of evidence tampering, and need for custodial investigation. The notes state that arrest may be justified, including for offences punishable up to five years' imprisonment, to support investigation and prevent further offence, disappearance or tampering of evidence, or witness influence. The High Court found the arrest compliant with the applicable departmental circular, dismissed the habeas corpus petition, and declined release.

Sealing of business premises during GST search proceedings was addressed through directions to de-seal the premises in the taxpayer's presence. Any further search must be conducted in accordance with the CGST Act and the CGST Rules, 2017. The writ petition was disposed of by consent without examination of the merits.

Pre-conviction detention in GST prosecutions for alleged fraudulent input tax credit is not punitive and should secure attendance at trial rather than operate as punishment. The notes state that bail was granted where the maximum sentence was five years, the matter was triable by a Magistrate, investigation and complaint filing were complete, charges remained unframed, and trial completion was unlikely within a reasonable time. In the absence of criminal antecedents, exceptional circumstances, or material suggesting absconding, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering, continued custody was unjustified. Bail remained subject to conditions protecting the trial and preventing interference with evidence or witnesses.

Anticipatory bail was considered in an investigation into alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit through invoices issued by non-existent entities. The note states that a co-director had been arrested, the investigation remained ongoing, and the alleged tax evasion required the investigating agency to ascertain the applicant's role and that of other persons involved in the transactions. On that basis, custodial interrogation could not be ruled out, and anticipatory bail was rejected without addressing the merits of the allegations.

GST proceedings initiated against a deceased taxable person are invalid where the proprietor died before initiation. The notice and demand order issued in the deceased proprietor's name were quashed because they could not be sustained against a dead person. The legal position does not prevent lawful recovery action: proper proceedings may be initiated against the legal heir for any outstanding demand in accordance with law.

Suppression of material facts in writ proceedings arose from the petitioner's failure to disclose an anticipatory bail application and its withdrawal while alleging that GST dues and penalty were paid under coercion. The withdrawal record stated that a reasonable amount had been deposited under protest and that, after appearing before authorities and giving a statement, the petitioner did not apprehend arrest. The HC found prima facie that the non-disclosure was material and that the payment was voluntary. It directed the petitioner to deposit costs and file an affidavit explaining the suppression, while keeping further orders open.

Uploading GST notices and the adjudication order under the portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was treated as insufficient statutory communication. Fixing a personal hearing before expiry of the period allowed for a reply deprived the taxpayer of an effective opportunity to respond and constituted a breach of natural justice in ex parte adjudication. The ex parte order was set aside, with permission to file a reply and a direction for fresh reasoned adjudication after hearing. A time-barred appeal against a separate DRC-OIA intimation did not affect the maintainability of a writ petition challenging the adjudication order.

Loading railway-owned ballast into wagons using a JCB loader is treated as an independent cargo-handling service, not as part of the ballast supply. The ballast supply and subsequent loading were separately contracted, priced and invoiced, and title had passed to the Railways before loading; therefore, the activities were not naturally bundled as a composite supply. The service also does not constitute a works contract because it does not relate to immovable property. As the activity involved handling and loading only, without transportation or operation of railway rolling stock, it is classifiable as other cargo and baggage handling service under SAC 996719 and taxable at 18%.

Section 69C concerns whether the source of expenditure remains unexplained, not merely whether underlying purchases are alleged to be bogus. Documentary support for transactions and bank disbursements upon encashment of letters of credit may explain the funding source. Allegations that goods did not move or documents were forged require independent inquiry, verification, examination of beneficiary entities, or other cogent material. Where sales are accepted, an addition made under section 69C cannot be sustained by recasting it under a different provision. The discussion also addresses consequential taxation under section 115BBE.

Liability for the Special Auditor's fee was addressed where the appointment preceded the amendment effective 1 June 2007, but the audit was conducted under the Assessing Officer's order. The HC considered the spirit of the amendment and the assessee's non-appearance despite service, and directed the Union of India to bear the audit cost. The writ petition was disposed of because the special audit had already been completed.

Appeals to the High Court under the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 are classified as Tax Appeals rather than income-tax appeals. Rule 1(3A) applies to High Court appeals under any other enactment providing for the levy of tax, and section 19 of the Act provides for an appeal against a Tribunal order. An income-tax appeal may therefore be converted and registered as a Tax Appeal, subject to other objections.