Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act requires a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated; notices and written replies do not replace that right. An appellate review that merely adopts departmental figures without independently examining relevant records does not cure the breach. A return mismatch alone cannot sustain a demand based on alleged excess input tax credit. Section 155 places the burden of proving credit on the claimant, and the relevant books, invoices, returns and reverse-charge records require verification. Section 44 and Rule 80 do not provide for online alteration of a filed annual return; a bona fide error requires factual verification. Section 113(1) permits fresh adjudication after consideration of additional evidence.

Delayed filing of the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts a late fee under Section 47. A separate general penalty under Section 125 is not warranted for the same delay because that provision applies only where no other penalty is provided for the contravention. The specific late-fee mechanism covers the filing default, so the late fee remains payable but the separate general penalty is invalid.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against an assessment order despite delay in challenging it. The appellate authority was directed not to raise limitation in relation to the appeal.

Under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service alongside other prescribed modes. Where repeated non-response follows portal uploads, officers must make a genuine effort to use other prescribed modes, preferably registered post. Sole reliance on portal uploads in those circumstances denies a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard. An ex parte GST assessment made without effective service and a meaningful hearing violates natural justice.

GST portal upload is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response to assessment notices requires the officer to explore other prescribed modes under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due. Portal upload alone in these circumstances does not afford a meaningful opportunity to reply or be heard and breaches natural justice. Safeguards for fresh adjudication include an opportunity to submit objections and clear notice of a personal hearing. A bank-account attachment cannot survive the setting aside of the underlying assessment.

Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises uploading notices to the GST portal as a valid mode of service alongside other prescribed modes. When repeated portal notices receive no response, the issuing officer must make a genuine effort to serve the taxpayer through another prescribed mode, preferably registered post. Exclusive reliance on portal uploads in those circumstances does not constitute effective service, and an ex parte GST order based on that service violates the principles of natural justice.

Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits extension of the three-month appeal period by one month where sufficient cause for delay is shown. An appeal filed 29 days after the ordinary period remained within the condonable period, and the director's maternity leave was accepted as a genuine reason for delay. The rejection for delay was set aside, and the delay was condoned.

GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns is to be restored subject to portal access, filing all pending returns and paying tax dues, interest and late-filing fees. Financial difficulties were accepted as a genuine explanation for the default, despite the failure to respond to the show-cause notice. The required payments cannot be adjusted against unutilised or unclaimed input tax credit, which may be used only after departmental scrutiny and approval.

Delay-condonation grounds in statutory GST appeals require fair and meaningful consideration. Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate framework. Rejection cannot rest on a bare assertion that the grounds are insufficient; the reasons must demonstrate deliberation and support the conclusion. Rejection without consideration of the grounds and adequate reasons is unsustainable. Fresh consideration requires a speaking order in accordance with law.

Alleged non-deposit of input tax credit must be addressed through the statutory recovery mechanism under sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rather than by cancelling GST registration where returns have been filed regularly. Cancellation in these circumstances does not follow the prescribed legal procedure, and revocation must be allowed in accordance with law. Authorities remain free to initiate proceedings for other violations by issuing a show-cause notice in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Effective service of GST notices requires more than portal upload where a taxpayer repeatedly does not respond. Although uploading notices on the common portal is a valid mode of service, officers must consider other available statutory modes to ensure effective service and a meaningful opportunity of hearing. Mere portal upload without such effort is an empty formality that violates principles of natural justice in an ex parte assessment. The ex parte assessment and consequential summary order were quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity to file objections and receive a personal hearing subject to a stipulated condition. The related bank-account attachment could not continue, and the accounts were to be de-frozen upon compliance.

Personal hearing before an adverse GST demand is a distinct statutory safeguard: a written reply does not replace it, and appellate proceedings do not cure its denial. The adjudication, appellate and rectification orders, including the tax, interest and penalty demand, were set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing. An alleged input tax credit mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 requires verification against books and invoices; a return mismatch alone does not establish excess credit. Although taxpayers bear the burden to prove eligible credit, they must have an opportunity to do so. Fresh proceedings are confined to the show cause notice and require reasoned verification.

Section 129(1) detention-penalty proceedings require a show-cause notice to identify the specific statutory provisions and rules allegedly contravened. A generic allegation of breach of the Act and Rules prevents an effective response and breaches natural justice, invalidating a demand founded on unstated provisions. Goods accepted as having been sent for job work may move without payment of tax. Where the transaction's job-work character and supporting material are accepted, delayed generation of an e-way bill does not change that character; consequently, a detention penalty computed by reference to tax not payable is unsustainable.

Cess demand based solely on an erroneous GSTR-1 entry was unsustainable where the declared cess did not correspond with the taxable value or CGST and SGST liabilities. CGST and SGST liabilities in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were consistent and correctly paid. In the absence of allegations or evidence of suppressed outward supplies, understated taxable value, or short payment of tax, the cess mismatch was accepted as a clerical error. A bare allegation of cess short payment could not support the demand; the appellate order, consequential interest, and penalty were quashed.

Intra-State transport of natural rubber latex from an agriculturist's premises to a taxable recipient's registered business place is exempt from e-way bill requirements when accompanied by a delivery challan under Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax. The exemption applied where the supplier established the agricultural origin of the latex and the prescribed challan accompanied the transport. An incorrect GSTIN in the challan, belonging to an unrelated person and unsupported by evidence of connection with the transaction, was treated as a genuine and condonable clerical error. Penalties imposed for transporting the latex without an e-way bill were set aside, with consequential relief.

Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST governs mismatches between input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B and reflected in GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. Its verification instructions extend to pending adjudication and appellate proceedings for those periods. Where a FY 2017-18 dispute involves excess input tax credit claims and additional documentary evidence, the claim requires fresh examination under the Circular, with observance of natural justice. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for de novo consideration of the mismatch and additional evidence within the prescribed period.

Post-death GST liability of a legal representative for a discontinued proprietary business is confined to the deceased proprietor's inherited estate and its capacity to meet the charge under Section 93(1)(b). Proceedings cannot validly continue where no notice is issued to the legal heir and no inquiry identifies an inherited estate; the proceedings and appellate order were therefore without jurisdiction and set aside. Input tax credit remained available despite a GSTR-2A mismatch where supplier certificates established tax payment and showed that invoices were incorrectly reported as B2C rather than B2B supplies.

GST refund limitation for tax paid on a taxable advance runs from the tax-payment date, and the COVID-19 exclusion applies where that relevant date falls within the notified excluded period. Applying exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last day, a payment made on 19 May 2020 permitted filing until 29 February 2024. Rectified applications submitted after deficiency memos relate back only to a timely original application. GST validly paid on a taxable advance is not a deposit outside the statutory refund mechanism, and the two-year filing period is a substantive eligibility condition. Appellate authorities must decide limitation issues with reasons after considering the taxpayer's reply.

Section 129 penalties for goods transported in contravention must correspond to the nature and extent of the established non-compliance. Where invoices and e-way bills validly cover part of a consignment, and no material shows that those documents or the underlying transaction are false, the documented goods cannot be treated as unsupported merely because excess goods are undocumented. Separate proof of dishonest intent is not essential for invoking section 129, but deliberate tax evasion for the entire consignment cannot be presumed from an excess undocumented quantity. Penalty was therefore confined to the excess undocumented shuttering plywood.

Fermentation using yeast prevents a grape-based beverage from being treated as a fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drink for classification purposes. A beverage qualifies as non-alcoholic only where its alcoholic strength does not exceed 0.5% by volume. Available analysis and a later private test report did not provide valid documentary proof of alcoholic strength, so non-alcoholic status could not be established. Consequently, no HSN classification or tax rate was determined, although the beverage was treated as fermented rather than juice-based.