GST transport provisions do not require a transporter to declare or follow a specified route. Where goods carry valid documents, use of a longer route, explained by difficult terrain for a heavily loaded vehicle, does not alone establish an intention to evade tax. Detention and penalty under Section 129 require a statutory breach or material showing mala fide intent to evade tax; absence of evidence of an intended in-State destination or evasion makes route-based action unsustainable.

Service of a statutory show cause notice is mandatory before tax, interest, and penalty may be determined under Section 74. The notice must state the foundational facts, proposed demand, and allegations, enabling the taxpayer to make an effective representation. An electronic summary in FORM GST DRC-01 or DRC-02 must accompany, rather than replace, that notice; correspondence, summons, and an order in FORM GST DRC-07 are also insufficient substitutes. Where no statutory notice is served, the denial of audi alteram partem invalidates the demand proceedings and requires the first appellate order to be set aside.

Entry 27 of the GST exemption notification exempts services of extending deposits, loans or advances where consideration is represented by interest or discount; recovery of loan amounts may therefore qualify for exemption. A pure legal issue arising from a statutory exemption notification may be raised at any stage of adjudication. Application of the exemption to an amount said to have been recovered from a written-off housing loan account requires cogent documentary proof of both the write-off and the relevant recovery. Certified banker's-book entries are prima facie evidence, and necessary supporting documents may be required for determination.

Entry 27 exempts services of extending deposits, loans or advances where consideration is interest or discount, excluding interest involved in credit-card services. Entitlement to exemption for disputed turnover requires cogent, transaction-specific and State-specific evidence linking the amount to exempt interest and the relevant registration. Consolidated audit material, returns and unsupported Chartered Accountant certificates do not discharge that burden where they fail to correlate interest adjustments with identified borrower accounts. Withholding relevant available evidence permits an adverse inference. Qualifying interest is exempt in principle, but an unsubstantiated claim that turnover relates to another State fails.

Refund of unutilized input tax credit under the GST framework is available to Special Economic Zone units. Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, does not limit refund applications to suppliers making supplies to such units. The reference to suppliers in the second proviso to Rule 89 identifies an eligible applicant category and does not exclude Special Economic Zone units from seeking refunds.

The first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates that an accused must receive an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken on a complaint. Cognizance taken without affording that mandatory pre-cognizance hearing is invalid, as the statutory safeguard is a condition that must be satisfied before proceeding on the complaint.

GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation may be challenged through the statutory appellate mechanism where an effective appeal is available. Failure to satisfactorily establish a timely response to the show-cause notice, together with allegations of transactions and input-tax-credit claims involving cancelled registrants, supported declining writ relief. The appellate remedy under the CGST framework was treated as complete, requiring the challenge to proceed through that route.

Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act makes input tax credit conditional on proof that the supplier paid the charged tax, and the condition is treated as neither arbitrary nor disproportionate; a supplier's default does not justify reading it down. Challenges concerning receipt of goods, supplier tax payment, adequacy of hearing, non-application of mind, statutory overlap, and duplicate demands involve factual or mixed questions. Those objections must be pursued through the statutory appeal, where they remain open for independent determination. A hearing defect is curable and, without a jurisdictional defect, does not justify writ intervention.

Proper-officer functions may be assigned by circular to officers already appointed as Central Tax officers, with specified functions and monetary limits for action under the CGST Act. The relevant distinction is between assigning functions to existing tax officers and assigning them to persons lacking appointment as customs officers. Where a demand order considers defence material and affords a personal hearing, factual and documentary objections require appellate review. An effective statutory appeal remains the appropriate route absent a recognised exception to writ intervention.

Expiry of the ordinary limitation period did not preclude the petitioner's use of the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner received two weeks to file the appeal, which must be entertained on merits without a limitation objection. The direction preserves access to statutory appellate review notwithstanding the lapse of the ordinary filing period.

Service of a show-cause notice under Section 73 exclusively through the GST portal after cancellation of registration breaches principles of natural justice. Once registration is cancelled, the registered person is not obliged to continue monitoring the portal, so portal-only service does not provide an effective opportunity to respond. A proper alternative mode of service is required. The order passed without such effective notice was quashed, while the Department retained liberty to issue a valid notice and continue proceedings in accordance with law.

Section 75(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires a show-cause notice to clearly specify the proposed amounts of tax, interest and penalty. Where Form DRC-01 does not quantify the proposed interest and penalty, those liabilities cannot be confirmed. Confirmation of unquantified interest or penalty is contrary to the statutory requirement that the notice disclose the amounts proposed for recovery.

Expiry of an e-way bill alone does not justify detention, tax or penalty under Section 129(3) unless material supports an inference of intent to evade tax. Breach of e-way bill requirements is insufficient where invoices, transport documents and e-way bill particulars consistently identify the goods and physical verification finds no discrepancy in description, quantity, value or tax. An unrebutted explanation that a vehicle breakdown during the Covid-19 lockdown caused expiry, without independent enquiry or contrary evidence, prevents an adverse inference of tax evasion.

Section 73 permits proceedings for alleged wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit, with entitlement to be adjudicated under Section 75. Audit findings may support initiation, and a show-cause notice does not itself determine liability. Questions concerning invoices, receipt of supplies, banking payments, GSTR-2A reflection, supplier compliance and precedent require determination by the proper officer; the notice therefore remains for statutory adjudication rather than pre-adjudication quashing in writ jurisdiction. Where interim writ protection restrains further proceedings, the period of that restraint is excluded when applying the limitation period, preventing the stay from prejudicing the statutory proceeding. All factual and legal credit defences remain available before the proper officer.

Section 129(3) detention and penalty provisions should not be applied solely because an e-way bill has expired where invoices and transport documents are accurate. An unrebutted vehicle breakdown, coupled with no independent enquiry, does not support an adverse inference that goods were moved to evade tax. In these circumstances, expiry alone does not establish intent to evade tax, and detention, consequential tax and penalty cannot be sustained; deposited amounts are refundable in accordance with law.

Proper-officer functions under the CGST Act may be assigned by circular to Central Tax Officers already appointed under a statutory notification, including demand-related functions allocated by monetary limits. Such assignment does not constitute delegation requiring a separate notification. Challenges to the circulars and to the officer's competence on that basis were rejected. A writ challenge to a GST demand order should ordinarily not proceed where an effective statutory appeal is available, unless a recognised exception applies. Where the authority considered the defence, examined documents and granted a personal hearing, reassessment of disputed material lies with the appellate authority. The demand challenge was therefore directed to the statutory appeal, with limitation protection for filing within 30 days.

GST refund provisions for unutilised input tax credit do not restrict refund applications to suppliers making supplies to SEZ units. The relevant refund rule identifies suppliers as one category of applicants but does not exclude an SEZ unit from claiming its own refund. Reading such a restriction into the statutory scheme would impermissibly add a limiting condition. SEZ units are therefore entitled to have eligible refund claims processed under the GST refund framework, and orders rejecting the claim on that restrictive basis were set aside.

Entry 27 exempts services of extending deposits, loans or advances where consideration is represented by interest or discount, except interest in credit-card services; qualifying interest recovery is therefore exempt from GST. A taxpayer claiming that turnover reported in one State actually comprised exempt interest attributable to another State must prove that assertion through cogent documentary evidence. Form GSTR-09C and a Chartered Accountant's certificate without disclosed findings or identifiable documentary support do not discharge that burden. Failure to provide supporting evidence permits an adverse inference, leaving the disputed turnover unestablished as exempt interest and resulting in rejection of the claim.

GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 may apply to recovery of amounts under written-off housing loan accounts. As a statutory notification has force of law, its applicability constitutes a pure question of law capable of being raised at the appellate stage. Entry 27 covers services by way of extending loans, while entitlement to exemption for a particular recovery depends on cogent proof that it arose from a written-off housing loan in the relevant financial year. Certified banker's books are admissible as prima facie evidence, but supporting loan write-off records are required. A cross-objection is unnecessary where the respondent has received complete relief and may operate as a reply. Factual applicability remains for determination after consideration of the records.

Section 74 tax determinations based on suppression of facts require service of a statutory show cause notice and consideration of the taxpayer's representation. The notice must specify the demand, foundational facts and necessary particulars so the taxpayer can respond effectively. GST DRC forms or other communications cannot substitute for the statutory notice. Determining a demand without serving such notice denies the taxpayer knowledge of the allegations and an effective opportunity of representation, vitiating the proceedings; the first appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed.