Blocking input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A requires a meaningful pre-decisional opportunity. When a taxpayer seeks an adjournment, refusal should be supported by recorded reasons, particularly where the blocking order is made on the scheduled hearing date. Allegations that credit arose from transactions with non-existing suppliers do not dispense with a reasoned process. The authority must consider the taxpayer's detailed response, provide a hearing, and determine on the merits whether the credit block should continue.

GST registration cannot be cancelled on the premise that no reply was filed where the registered person has placed replies on record electronically and manually. Allegations concerning input tax credit transactions and the adequacy of business premises must be assessed after considering those replies. Because cancellation has serious consequences, disregarding material already on record denies the registered person a reasonable opportunity to respond. The cancellation therefore requires fresh consideration, with an opportunity to furnish relevant supporting documents.

Adjudication under Section 73 must address a reply filed in the prescribed form to a show-cause notice. Treating no reply as filed despite the record and deciding without examining the response breaches fair adjudicatory process. Supporting documents for the claimed transactions require consideration in fresh proceedings. The adjudication order and consequential recovery action cannot continue on the premise of an unfiled reply and require reconsideration after review of the reply and relevant documents.

Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing whenever an adverse tax or penalty decision is contemplated, even without a specific request from the noticee. Failure to communicate the date, time and venue of that hearing breaches this mandatory requirement and invalidates adjudication founded on the show-cause notice. The adjudication order was set aside and fresh adjudication after a personal hearing was required; owing to delay in seeking relief, this was conditional on deposit of 10 per cent of the disputed tax.

Recovery of penalty solely because an e-way bill was not extended after expiry was treated as warranting intervention where delayed extension could be condoned. Recovery of a 200% penalty in those circumstances was considered inconsistent with principles of natural justice. Refund of the recovered penalty could be sought through an application to the proper officer, without a final determination on the merits of the penalty.

Section 107 of the GST enactment confines an appellate authority to the prescribed limitation period, so marginal delay or its cause cannot extend statutory appellate jurisdiction. Separately, an assessment premised on no reply having been filed, despite a reply in Form GST DRC-06, may warrant writ intervention where a subsequent order for the same tax period reasonably created confusion that the demand had been dropped. Quashing the assessment and limitation dismissal permits fresh merits adjudication after considering the reply and granting a hearing; tax liability remains undecided pending that process.

Rule 86A(3) confines restrictions on utilisation of input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger to one year. A registered person may seek an order from the Commissioner under Rule 86A(2) after credit is blocked. Where that remedy has not been pursued, and registration cancellation and demand proceedings remain separately challengeable, no entitlement to mandamus relief for unblocking the credit is established.

Rule 164(2) requires the demanded tax to be credited against the debit entry created by the relevant order. Its second proviso requires Form GST DRC-03A where payment was made through Form GST DRC-03. Failure to file DRC-03A may be procedural rather than fatal where the debited amount was not used for another tax liability. The continued availability of an equivalent amount in the electronic credit ledger until the impugned order requires verification; after verification, post facto filing of DRC-03A may be permitted. Rejection of the waiver application was set aside for fresh determination and a lawful response to the notice.

Assessment proceedings concerning blocked input tax credit, reverse-charge tax and turnover differences required fresh merits consideration where an inadequate opportunity to respond was asserted. Tax liabilities for blocked credit and reverse-charge tax were recorded as paid, while interest remained payable and the turnover-difference demand had been dropped. The assessment order was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration, subject to payment of admitted interest and verification of the required pre-deposit.

GST registration cannot remain rejected solely for non-response to a Form GST REG-03 clarification notice where the applicant is granted a conditional opportunity to respond. The High Court quashed the rejection and remitted the registration application for fresh consideration on merits after hearing the applicant. The applicant must furnish the requested response within 30 days; otherwise, the authorities may proceed in accordance with law.

Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing where a written request is made or where the proposed GST adjudication is adverse. This obligation operates independently of whether the assessee requested or opted for a hearing. Consequently, an adverse adjudication under Section 74 imposing tax, interest and penalty without affording an opportunity of hearing is invalid, even where no personal hearing was sought.

GST assessment orders and DRC-7 must remain within the tax proposal in the show cause notice and must account for tax payments already appropriated. Where a determination exceeds the notice or omits acknowledged payments, fresh proceedings require a proper fresh notice and accurate payment adjustment. Discontinuance of business is an express ground for GST registration cancellation. Outstanding tax dues do not alone justify refusing cancellation because statutory recovery powers continue after cancellation. Cancellation applications must therefore be considered independently of pending tax recovery.

Verification of e-way bill authenticity is necessary before sustaining a Form GST MOV-09 penalty where the bill lacks the vehicle number. Although the displayed generation time made the claimed technical glitch implausible, the system-generated bill required examination to determine whether it was fabricated or genuine. The proper officer must make a fresh determination of its authenticity and validity before imposing the penalty.

Alleged non-service of an adjudication order was considered in relation to access to the statutory appellate remedy after expiry of limitation. A prior deposit of 25% of disputed tax exceeded the appellate pre-deposit requirement, while knowledge of the order was claimed only when recovery proceedings commenced after the business changed location. An appeal was permitted within 30 days and was to be considered on merits without applying limitation.

GST appellate rejection as time-barred was set aside and the matter remitted for merits adjudication. Restoration depended on the existing 10% pre-deposit, the appellant's government-enterprise status, payment of a further 15% pre-deposit, and submission of a detailed reply to the show-cause notice. Fresh consideration must proceed without objection based on statutory limitation once those requirements are met. No final determination was made on the allegation of excess input tax credit.

Principles of natural justice warranted limited reconsideration of an ex parte tax demand confirmed after no reply to the show-cause notice was filed. The High Court directed fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the taxpayer, conditional on filing a reply within the stipulated period and making the required pre-deposit of disputed tax. The conditional relief preserved participation in adjudication despite the absence of grounds to otherwise challenge the demand or pursue appellate relief.

GST demand challenges requiring factual substantiation of fuelwood and charcoal exemption claims should proceed before the statutory appellate authority. The confirmed demand's partial recovery and need to clarify reliance on Form GSTR-8A require appellate examination. Liberty was granted to file a statutory appeal within 30 days; the appeal is to be decided without reference to limitation.

Anticipatory bail was denied in alleged GST-fraud proceedings because the allegations concerned fraudulent GST transactions causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. The seriousness of the alleged economic offence, coupled with the applicant's involvement in multiple similar criminal matters, weighed against granting pre-arrest protection. These combined factors negated eligibility for anticipatory bail.

GST registration was cancelled because the taxpayer also held another registration as a tax deductor or tax collector at source. The High Court quashed the cancellation and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on merits. Any alternate registration held solely for tax deduction or collection at source may be cancelled instead, preserving consideration of the taxpayer's regular GST registration under the applicable legal requirements.

Personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory before an adverse order is passed. The provision establishes two independent grounds for a hearing: where the person chargeable with tax or penalty requests one, or where the proper officer proposes an adverse decision. The officer's obligation to provide an effective hearing in the latter circumstance applies irrespective of whether the taxable person requested a hearing or filed a reply to the show-cause notice.