Additional court fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act applies to first GST appeals filed before the State GST appellate authority. Although the CGST/KGST appeal provision specifies payments required to maintain an appeal, it does not displace the separately applicable State court-fee levy. The recognised validity and applicability of the additional fee bind both State GST authorities and appellants. A later notification does not remove the pre-existing obligation to pay the applicable court fee. Consequently, payment of additional court fee remains required for a first GST appeal.

Interlocutory relief under Rule 29 may be considered in a pending matter, but substantive consideration of a stay and priority-listing request was deferred where the appeal remained under scrutiny and unregistered. Urgency justified expedited Registry scrutiny. The Registry was directed to register the appeal if no deficiency existed and thereafter place the interlocutory application before the Bench.

For FY 2018-19, absence of supplier invoices from GSTR-2A does not by itself justify denial of input tax credit because section 16(2)(aa) did not apply; it instead triggers verification. The claimant must still establish the conditions for credit under section 16 and discharge the burden of proof under section 155. A supplier certificate under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST is evidentiary, not conclusive, without return-level proof of reporting error and tax payment. IGST, CGST and SGST are separate tax heads, requiring transaction-level reconciliation for any lawful cross-head adjustment. Interest applies to wrongly availed and utilised credit, and statutory penalty follows a sustained tax demand.

Section 129 of the CGST Act is a machinery provision aimed at preventing tax evasion, requiring proof of intent before a transit-related penalty is imposed. Departmental instructions distinguish substantive contraventions from minor procedural lapses. Where goods matched the accompanying e-way bill and delivery challan on physical verification, an incorrect consignor pin code that shortened the recorded distance and caused e-way bill expiry did not establish tax-evasion intent. In those circumstances, invocation of Section 129 and the consequential penalty were unjustified.

Section 129(3) penalty is directed at intentional tax evasion rather than an inadvertent clerical or portal-related lapse in e-way bill compliance. Non-updating of Part-B, by itself, does not establish an attempt to evade tax where the tax invoice, Part-A e-way bill, goods particulars and underlying transaction are genuine and properly accounted for. Manual check-post precedents are distinguishable in the digital GST framework. Revenue must record and support a positive finding of intent to evade tax before imposing a penalty; absent such evidence, Part-B non-updating alone cannot sustain penal action.

Section 129 penalty cannot rest solely on an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill where invoices and Part-A particulars are genuine, the transaction is tax-paid and identifiable, and no intention to evade tax is established. A technical documentation lapse requires assessment of surrounding facts and does not mechanically attract penal consequences. A final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 must quantify tax and penalty after considering objections and providing a hearing. Non-issuance of that mandatory adjudicatory order prejudices statutory rights and invalidates the penalty demand.

Section 128A waives interest and penalty only in relation to demands or proceedings under Section 73, including where tax is already paid and proceedings concern interest or penalty alone. Interest on delayed payment of admitted self-assessed tax arises under Section 50 and remains directly recoverable under Section 75(12) when no Section 73 proceeding exists. Treating disputed tax determined in Section 73 proceedings differently from self-assessed tax constitutes a valid statutory classification and does not violate Article 14.

Blocked input tax credit and reverse-charge tax liabilities admitted and paid leave consequential interest and penalty exposure. Turnover reflected in Form 26AS but omitted from GST returns requires merits examination through the statutory appellate process rather than writ review. The appellate remedy remains available for resolving the alleged unreported-turnover discrepancy.

Absence of procedural irregularity in an assessment precludes interference in writ jurisdiction. Where the statutory appeal period has expired, an appellate remedy may nevertheless be invoked upon verification of recovery of the requisite disputed tax amount. The appeal must then be decided on its merits without reference to limitation. Writ relief is declined when no procedural defect in the assessment is established, while preserving the conditional opportunity to pursue the statutory appellate process.

Section 74 may be invoked for an input tax credit mismatch only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax is established. A mismatch between GSTR-3B and auto-populated GSTR-2A, without facts demonstrating those statutory ingredients, does not support proceedings under Section 74, particularly where invoices and a supplier certificate are on record. The tax determination requires reconsideration under Section 73.

GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of correct bank-account details, including multiple registrations linked to a joint account, may require reconsideration where the lapse is curable. Bank particulars must be disclosed, and specified defaults may trigger cancellation; however, cancellation disables business operations and carries serious civil consequences. Where fraud, fake invoices, circular trading and tax evasion are not alleged, taxpayers willing to regularise returns and outstanding dues should receive a pragmatic assessment. Restoration requires relevant bank documents, a personal hearing, and compliance with statutory requirements.

Section 6(2)(b) bars subsequent Central GST proceedings only where earlier State GST proceedings concern the identical subject matter. Turnover reconciliation proceedings and proceedings based on search material alleging non-existent suppliers, wrongful input tax credit, and invoices without corresponding supplies involved distinct allegations and evidence; the parallel-proceedings bar therefore did not apply. Multiple notices sent by speed post and registered email, followed by non-appearance and no substantive reply, constituted adequate hearing opportunity, so the ex parte order was not vitiated. Section 16(2)(c) remains constitutionally valid following High Court and Supreme Court affirmation. The merits of the input tax credit demand were not adjudicated.

Section 107 of the Rajasthan and Central GST Acts restricts the appellate authority to the prescribed limitation period. Where a show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded in an additional portal location rather than the designated notices-and-orders tab, ineffective service left the assessee without effective knowledge of the proceedings and demand. Writ jurisdiction may be used to avoid substantial prejudice where the statutory appellate mechanism cannot condone the resulting delay. The 121-day delay was condoned, the limitation-based appellate order was set aside, and a fresh appeal was permitted for merits adjudication without a limitation objection.

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through upload on the Common Portal may be inadequate where receipt is unacknowledged, no reply is filed, and the taxpayer lacks effective knowledge of the proceedings. Although the statutory limitation period binds the appellate authority, writ jurisdiction may address delay caused by circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control where refusing merits adjudication would cause grave injury or prejudice. In the stated circumstances, delay in filing the GST appeal against an input tax credit demand was condoned, the limitation-based dismissal was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the fresh appeal on merits without raising limitation.

Parallel GST proceedings are barred only where proceedings under the State enactment were initiated earlier and both proceedings concern the same subject matter. Turnover reconciliation based on GSTR-3B and allegations of issuing invoices without supply and wrongly passing input tax credit involve distinct subject matters, so the bar does not apply. Ex parte adjudication does not breach natural justice where hearing notices are properly sent and the noticee neither appears nor provides a substantive reply. Input tax credit may validly be conditional on the supplier's payment of tax, a position affirmed by the Supreme Court. Statutory appellate remedy remains available for objections to the demand without a merits determination.

GST registration cancellation for non-disclosure of bank details and multiple registrations linked to a joint account is addressed as curable procedural non-compliance where fraud, fake invoicing, circular trading and tax evasion are absent. Because cancellation has serious civil consequences and GST law prioritises compliance over punishment, taxpayers willing to furnish correct bank details, file pending returns and pay statutory dues, interest and penalty should receive an opportunity to establish bona fides. Cancellation may be set aside and restoration considered through a reasoned hearing, with restoration conditional on filing pending returns and payment of outstanding dues.

GST assessment order was challenged on the basis that zero-rated supplies entitled the petitioner to a refund under the IGST and CGST/TNGST provisions. The assessment also required payment of interest and penalty under the respective GST enactments. No procedural irregularity was found in the assessment process, and the writ challenge was dismissed. The dispute therefore centred on the procedural validity of the assessment despite the asserted entitlement to a refund for zero-rated supplies.

Section 129 penalties for an unfilled Part-B of an e-way bill require independent, recorded evidence of intent to evade tax; a technical or clerical omission alone is insufficient where invoices, Part-A particulars and other documentation establish a transparent, tax-paid transaction. Penalties imposed without positive proof of tax-evasion intent are legally unsustainable. Following detention and consideration of objections, a final reasoned order in Form GST MOV-09 must be issued after providing a hearing. Failure to issue that speaking order prejudices the taxpayer's rights and vitiates the resulting penalty demand.

Section 129 penalty for an expired e-way bill must serve its tax-evasion prevention purpose, notwithstanding that the provision does not expressly require mens rea. Board instructions identifying situations in which section 129 need not be invoked bind the proper officer. Where goods matched the e-way bill and delivery challan, and an erroneous consignor PIN code shortened rather than extended validity, the lapse was clerical. Without any allegation of intent to evade tax, detention and penalty proceedings under section 129 were unwarranted.

Section 129 penalties for failure to update Part-B of an e-way bill require independent findings of an intent to evade tax where the goods movement is otherwise supported by genuine tax documents. The integrated electronic GST framework distinguishes technical or procedural omissions from active tax-evasion attempts. Where the invoice, Part-A details and underlying transaction transparently establish the movement, non-updation of Part-B alone should not sustain a penalty. Strict-liability principles developed under the legacy manual check-post regime are not treated as governing such electronic GST compliance failures.