Under the CGST Act, a discrepancy between an order-in-original's operative tax demand and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 may constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Section 161 permits rectification of clerical or arithmetical errors arising from accidental slips or omissions without the otherwise applicable six-month limitation. Where the detailed order records a demand or adjustment different from that communicated in Form GST DRC-07, the mismatch is rectifiable rather than a disputed substantive determination, enabling correction of the demand in favour of the assessee.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice under an "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, prevented the affected party from responding and breached principles of natural justice. Rejection of the statutory appeal solely on limitation, without examination on merits, did not bar judicial intervention in the stated circumstances. The notice, consequential adjudication order and appellate order were quashed, requiring fresh notice, an opportunity of hearing, and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

GST adjudication under Section 74 raised a prima facie procedural concern where the order was allegedly uploaded only under the Additional Notice and Orders tab, without separate intimation and without a post-reply hearing. No determination was made on the underlying tax demand or alleged statutory breaches. The adjudication order was set aside for fresh, reasoned adjudication after consideration of the reply and an opportunity of hearing.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice under the "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, can prevent an assessee from responding and violate principles of natural justice. Where the statutory appellate remedy is rejected solely as time-barred and the merits remain unexamined, adjudication and appellate action require merits-based reconsideration. The assessee must receive a hearing before a fresh determination on the merits.

Availability of a statutory appellate remedy does not automatically preclude writ jurisdiction where breach of natural justice, including denial of a personal hearing, is alleged. Where alleged non-service of hearing notices depends on disputed registered-email, dispatch, and portal records, and objections to penalty, interest, deposit appropriation, Form DRC-07, and DIN require review of audit and adjudication records, those matters require factual examination in statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction is therefore not exercised for those objections.

Revocation of cancelled GST registration is governed by the CGST Act and the corresponding rules, which prescribe a period, including available extensions, for seeking revocation. Where that period has expired, restoration of registration may nevertheless be extended on terms applied to similarly situated taxpayers. Revocation and restoration remain conditional on timely payment of outstanding statutory dues, penalties and fine as intimated by the competent authority.

Rule 96(10)'s omission without a saving clause raises issues concerning the continuing legal effect of the omitted provision, its constitutional validity, and recovery of tax refunds under tax law. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the High Court's common orders on those issues, leaving those orders undisturbed in their operative effect.

Discrepancies between the operative part of a GST order-in-original and FORM GST DRC-07 may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Rectification provisions cover clerical or arithmetical errors caused by accidental slips or omissions, notwithstanding the ordinary limitation applicable to rectification. Where the adjudicating authority records such a discrepancy, it must consider correction under section 161 rather than reject rectification on the basis that no apparent error exists.

Retrospective operation of section 16(5) permits input tax credit for specified years where the registered person filed the relevant returns on or before 30 November 2021. The provision applies even if it was not in force when the original adjudication occurred, provided the delayed returns satisfy the statutory cut-off. Eligibility within that period requires the tax position to be reconsidered and formal effect given to the available input tax credit entitlement.

Separate statutory appeals by a company and its director require an independent opportunity of hearing on their respective liabilities, even where they arise from a composite adjudication order. Confirmation of a director's personal penalty while deciding only the company's appeal, without making the director a party or hearing him and while his own appeal remains pending, violates natural justice. Such confirmation effectively disposes of the director's independent appeal and deprives him of the consequential appellate remedy. The penalty confirmation against the director was quashed, leaving his pending appeal to be decided independently and without influence from the prior appellate observations.

Refund claims for service tax paid under reverse charge on foreign-currency royalty fall to be processed under the existing service-tax law through the transitional mechanism in section 142(3) of the CGST Act, even where the tax was deposited after GST implementation. This treatment preserves the applicability of the pre-GST refund framework to service tax paid under the Finance Act. Cash refund of the reverse-charge service tax is therefore admissible, rather than being denied solely because payment occurred after the GST transition.

GST treatment of tax on credit notes for returned goods requires distinguishing a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch from wrongful input tax credit. Credit-note tax relating to the supplier's own outward supply is not input tax and should reduce output tax liability; where credit notes are timely declared, original output tax was paid, and no duplicate reduction or revenue loss arises, incorrect return-table reporting is procedural. A demand must remain within the grounds stated in the show cause notice. For 2017-18, recipient reversal of credit was not a condition for the supplier's output-tax reduction; recipient non-reversal is separately assessable. Interest and penalty depend on tax being due.

Section 112(1) confines Tribunal appeals to orders made in first appeal or revision; an original adjudication order remains outside that jurisdiction even where a statutory first appeal is pending. Presentation defects involving the respondent, supporting documents or deposit do not remedy the absence of an appealable order or allow a filing to be retained pending a future first-appellate order. A direct Tribunal challenge to the original order is therefore not maintainable, while the merits of the demand, the pending first appeal and recovery remain unresolved.

Cancelled E-Way Bills require transaction-wise verification against GST/E-Way Bill portal records before any conclusion on tax liability. A chart matching cancelled bills with newly generated bills does not by itself establish that the cancelled bills were unused or that the new bills cover the same transactions. Verification must examine cancellation reasons and timing, matching material particulars, actual goods movement, and possible use of cancelled bills for transportation. The original and appellate orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh, reasoned adjudication after giving the dealer an opportunity to respond, without determining tax liability on merits.

Failure to account for goods requires tax determination by treating them as supplied under statutory assessment provisions. Excess or unaccounted stock identified during a business-premises survey should therefore be assessed under those provisions rather than subjected directly to confiscation or a fine in lieu of confiscation. On that basis, confiscation proceedings and the consequential tax, penalty and fine were unsustainable, and the original order remained set aside while the revenue challenge failed.

Packing materials used to market packaged tea qualify as inputs used in the course or furtherance of business, without a statutory distinction between principal and ancillary inputs. Their higher tax rate, despite bulk and packaged tea attracting the same rate, supports refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. Circulars addressing rate reductions on the same goods at different times and supplies under concessional notifications do not apply to this situation. Executive circulars cannot expand or restrict statutory refund entitlement. Revenue appeals challenging refunds of accumulated input tax credit on eligible packing materials were dismissed.

Input tax credit claimed through self-assessment remains provisional and conditional on the supplier's actual tax payment. For FY 2020-21, invoices not disclosed by suppliers were treated as tax unpaid, while later disclosure permitted reclaim of the credit. A taxpayer claiming credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A must establish supplier-wise tax payment. Rule 36(4) limits the quantum of provisional credit but does not validate credit unsupported by supplier tax payment. Interest on ineligible credit is incidental and must be calculated from availment to repayment or output-tax adjustment using invoice-level details; a separate interest basis not stated in the show-cause notice falls outside adjudication.

Section 74 penalty for input tax credit retained despite non-payment to suppliers requires a show-cause notice that specifically identifies the material facts allegedly wilfully suppressed and the statutory basis for penalty. Mere breach of the payment condition for input tax credit, or detection during audit, does not by itself establish wilful suppression; Revenue bears the burden of proof. Suppression also requires identification of the undisclosed information and the return, statement, report or document requiring its disclosure. Fresh audit-based grounds cannot be introduced at the appellate stage or through Tribunal submissions. The penalty proceedings were void ab initio and the penalty was set aside, while liability for balance interest remained.

Finding that fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression was absent makes a demand sustained under section 74 internally inconsistent where that finding remains unchallenged. A demand cannot be defended on the hypothetical basis that proceedings under section 73 would have been within limitation when the show cause notice invoked section 74. Penalty under section 73(9) cannot be imposed where the notice proposed penalty only under section 74, because it exceeds the charges put to the taxpayer; a lower penalty amount does not cure the lack of notice. These jurisdictional defects require the demand and penalty to be set aside without considering remaining grounds.

Adjudication cannot sustain an alleged IGST short-payment demand on input-tax-credit eligibility grounds absent from the show-cause notice, particularly where the explanation for payment under different GST heads remains unaddressed. Payment of CGST and SGST instead of IGST because of a clerical error constitutes wrong-head payment rather than non-payment or short payment. Excess CGST and SGST credit should be set off against the IGST liability through the electronic credit ledger, with only any balance remaining after set-off recoverable in cash together with applicable interest.