Forum shopping and suppression of material facts undermine the good faith required for discretionary bail jurisdiction. Pursuing parallel bail or release remedies while withholding rejection orders and refusal of interim release constitutes abuse of process. Urgent vacation listing of a pending bail petition, without a returnable date, Vacation Bench direction, or adequate notice to the opposing party, improperly seeks to steal a march and mislead the Court. The bail petition was revived for fresh consideration on merits, while the existing bail continued as interim bail pending further orders.

Serious illness and death of a proprietor's spouse, disrupting the firm's affairs, justified condonation of delay in statutory GST appeals. The High Court set aside appellate orders rejecting the appeals as time-barred and remitted them for determination on merits, based on the parties' concession and subject to payment of costs. Failure to pay costs forfeited the benefit of restoration, while all merits remained open before the appellate authority.

Input tax credit denied as time-barred under section 16(4) of the CGST Act was quashed because the issue was covered by a common order that had quashed the departmental determination. On the remaining adjudication issues, portal uploads of notices and reminders, without any response, did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing where statutory alternative service modes were available. The balance of the adjudication was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration, conditional on agreed pre-deposit, reply filing and effective notice of personal hearing.

Effective service of GST notices requires more than uploading statutory notices and hearing intimations under an additional-notices portal tab when the taxpayer receives no physical service through RPAD. SMS and email reminders do not cure the resulting lack of a meaningful opportunity to file explanations and supporting records, which breaches principles of natural justice. GST adjudication and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 may therefore be set aside for fresh consideration, subject to a 10% deposit of disputed tax. The taxpayer must be allowed to submit objections and documents, followed by a clear 14-day personal-hearing notice and a merits-based order.

Rule 96(3) assigns processing of IGST refunds on exported goods, including goods covered by manual shipping bills, to the Customs system or the proper Customs officer after receipt of information on a valid Form GSTR-3B return. Where the GST Department disclaims jurisdiction to sanction the refund, Customs cannot reject the claim by asserting that it falls within the GST Department's jurisdiction. Customs must process the claim and sanction any admissible IGST refund with applicable interest in accordance with law.

Excess output tax paid beyond monthly liability may be set off against ineligible input tax credit where no overall tax short payment arises, avoiding an unnecessary payment-and-refund cycle. Refund of such excess output tax falls within the stated statutory exception and is not subject to unjust-enrichment scrutiny. Sales-return claims supported by valid credit and debit notes cannot be rejected solely for non-uploading on the GST portal where no mandatory upload requirement applied. Reasoned appellate orders must address material submissions, and demands cannot rest on grounds beyond the show cause notice. Interest for delayed return filing requires a notice identifying the relevant defaults, tax base and computation.

GST input tax credit may be assessed through aggregate reconciliation of IGST, CGST and SGST credits, including IGST paid on imports. Surplus IGST credit remaining after discharge of IGST liability can be used towards CGST and SGST liabilities, so an apparent CGST or SGST credit shortfall may not establish excess credit availment or tax short payment. GST adjudication must also afford a personal hearing, address taxpayer contentions and evidence, and give reasoned findings; orders issued without these safeguards risk breach of natural justice and non-application of mind.

Section 74 requires foundational facts of fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax; mechanical allegations cannot support extended limitation or penalty. Where credit entries were disclosed in statutory returns, the Section 74 demand and penalty were set aside, with any tax payable to be determined under the Section 73 framework through Section 75(2). A consolidated show cause notice spanning multiple financial years is permissible where the full demand is within limitation and no appellate prejudice results. Input tax credit discrepancies require factual verification and an opportunity to provide supporting evidence, requiring fresh adjudication. Interest follows tax ultimately determined payable and must be recomputed.

Section 75(7) prevents confirmation of an input tax credit demand on a ground not set out in the show-cause notice. Where the notice alleged ineligibility only under section 16(2)(aa), which was inapplicable to the relevant period, adjudication could not instead rely on the separate condition under section 16(2)(c) that suppliers must pay tax to the Government. Mere reproduction of section 16(2)(c), without allegations or supporting facts identifying its breach, does not provide adequate notice. A provision protecting proceedings from formal defects cannot cure this substantive defect in the notice and adjudication process.

GST refunds on cancelled air tickets may be available where ticket, passenger, invoice, refund voucher, credit note and BSP records establish that the airline refunded both fare and tax and retained no amount. On those facts, unjust enrichment does not bar the refund. Where credit notes cannot be adjusted because no output tax liability remains after cancellations, refund may be claimed in FORM GST RFD-01 as excess payment of tax. For B2C passenger-ticket transactions, input tax credit reversal is not applicable where no recipient credit is involved; a later proviso requiring reversal of credit attributable to credit notes does not apply to earlier periods. Refund claims should consequently be processed with applicable interest.

Delayed payment of a GST shortfall attracts statutory interest. Payment of tax after the prescribed period does not remove that liability. Where tax and interest remain unpaid within 30 days of a show-cause notice, the statutory penalty for short-payment demands applies. The discretionary penalty principle concerning failure to register as a dealer is distinguishable; interest and penalty were sustained.

Input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B is not denied merely because it is absent from Form GSTR-2A, which operated as a facilitative mechanism during the relevant period; the claimant must nevertheless prove statutory credit conditions, including supplier tax payment. Section 35(6) applies only to goods not accounted for, so verified reconciliation of e-way bills with invoices and ledger entries prevents a demand based on deemed outward supplies. Interest on wrongly availed credit arises only on utilisation, determined where the electronic credit ledger balance falls below that credit; pre-notice tax payment without interest bars notice and penalty. Sales-return credit notes can reduce taxable value and output tax liability subject to statutory conditions, and non-reporting in Form GSTR-1 is a compliance lapse rather than an independent tax liability.

GST refund limitation for an unregistered flat purchaser following cancellation of a construction-linked booking must exclude the period prescribed in Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax when computing the two-year period under section 54(1). The refund application was therefore within time. Where the developer deposited GST but refunded only the non-tax consideration, the purchaser may claim refund if the GST incidence was borne by the purchaser and the requirements of Statement 8 and Rule 89(2) are met. As the ultimate consumer, the purchaser is not barred by unjust enrichment. Refund was admissible with applicable interest after sixty days from the refund application.

GST interest remains payable despite voluntary tax payment before a show cause notice, but must be calculated month by month by identifying the tax liability, due date, actual payment date, and amount payable through the Electronic Cash Ledger under section 50 read with rule 88B. Interest calculated on the entire liability without verification of the electronic cash and credit ledgers requires fresh computation. Where omitted B2C turnover was accounted for, disclosed in the annual return, and fully paid before notice, section 73(5) applies; penalty under section 73(6) is unsustainable. The interest demand was remitted for recomputation and the penalty was set aside.

Section 129(1) treats transportation of goods in contravention of GST requirements as sufficient for detention and penalty; proof of an intention to evade tax is not required because the penalty arises from breach of a civil obligation. Expired e-way bills may therefore attract penalty even for interstate stock transfers where a claimed vehicle breakdown lacks supporting evidence and no timely extension or amendment is sought. Invoices or the stock-transfer character of the movement do not replace a valid e-way bill, and exceptions requiring a valid e-way bill do not apply after expiry. Procedural objections concerning hearing, notices, or forms do not alter the position where a full opportunity to provide explanations and evidence is available before the final fact-finding authority.

Section 129 liability for detained goods must be determined from the actual transport movement, including the route, destination and timing; a later e-way bill cannot retrospectively cure a contravention, and later invoices alone cannot establish onward movement. Conflicting interception accounts, incomplete carrier records and unavailable primary material require fresh, reasoned adjudication of the diversion defence. Acknowledged receipt of and response to FORM GST MOV-07 bars a later service objection, but does not remove the duty to consider the defence and grant statutory hearing. Payment to secure release does not conclude liability and must be adjusted or refunded following the fresh determination.

Post-interception invoices and bilties require reliable corroboration to establish that physically verified undeclared goods were covered by valid transport documents. Delayed documents were insufficient where they could not be linked to the goods, transaction parties did not acknowledge dealings or establish their identity and business credentials, and discrepancies remained unexplained; the penalty for transporting undeclared goods was therefore sustained. A transit-State defence based on asserted movement to an out-of-State destination also requires credible proof of the destination and underlying transactions. Mere passage through the transit State did not invalidate proceedings, and a precedent involving materially different facts was inapplicable.

Section 129(1) of the CGST Act imposes civil penalty for substantive contraventions of transit movement-document requirements without requiring independent proof of intent to evade tax. Authorities must nevertheless assess the taxpayer's explanation and distinguish material discrepancies from minor or technical errors. A sale during transit may occur without prior physical receipt by an intermediary, but the continuing movement must be supported by a valid e-way bill accurately stating the actual origin and destination. E-way bills that do not cover the diverted route, falsely identify the dispatch point, or have expired may constitute substantive non-compliance. Payment through DRC-03 to secure release of goods does not conclusively admit liability or waive statutory appeal rights and may be credited against any liability.

Section 129(1) of the GST Act applies where goods in transit are transported or stored contrary to the Act or Rules; proof of intent to evade tax is not a condition for detention or penalty because the provision addresses breach of a civil obligation and does not require mens rea. Transportation under e-way bills that had expired remained non-compliant where the asserted vehicle breakdown lacked supporting evidence and no extension or amendment was sought. Stock-transfer documentation and e-invoices did not cure the e-way bill lapse, while circular-based exceptions applied only to consignments accompanied by valid e-way bills. Penalties were sustained.

Penalty adjudication under section 129(3) requires a meaningful hearing under section 129(4) and a reasoned order addressing the taxpayer's explanation and consignment documents. Determining penalty the day after a notice allowed seven days to respond, using FORM GST MOV-09 containing unselected alternatives and drafting placeholders, fails those requirements. Payment through FORM GST DRC-03 to obtain release of detained goods neither cures incomplete adjudication nor waives the statutory challenge. Where FORM GST MOV-07 states an intelligible allegation, fresh adjudication should proceed within the existing notice's scope, with merits of the proposed penalty remaining open.