Escaped assessment based on an audit objection must follow the procedure and safeguards, including the limitation period, prescribed for reassessment under Section 25(1). The five-year period runs from the last date of the year to which the assessment relates; an audit objection received or acted upon after that period cannot support lawful reassessment. Accordingly, a notice concerning 2009-10 returns issued in December 2020 was time-barred and was quashed.

Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act require separate show-cause notices and assessment proceedings for each financial year once the annual-return due date has been reached. A single composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods is therefore invalid. The stated legal position permits fresh, year-specific proceedings for each relevant assessment year rather than consolidated action across financial years.

Revival of a cancelled GST registration requires filing all pending pre-cancellation returns and paying outstanding tax, interest, penalty, fine and late fee in cash. Input tax credit may be used only after scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. Returns and GST liabilities for the post-cancellation period must also be discharged in cash. Upon compliance with these conditions, cancellation may be set aside and the GST registration revived.

Input tax credit for returns filed from November 2018 to March 2019 cannot be denied solely for delayed filing where the returns were filed before the extended cut-off under Section 16(5). The stated analysis treats Section 16(5) as governing eligibility for the credit, subject to fulfilment of other applicable conditions. Accordingly, denial based on Section 16(4) is described as unsustainable, and the taxpayer's credit claim requires reconsideration and grant if otherwise eligible.

Section 62(2) provides that an assessment order for failure to furnish returns is deemed withdrawn when the registered person subsequently files the required returns within the applicable framework and pays the prescribed late fee for delayed filing. Where Form GSTR-3B for the relevant period is filed with the requisite late fee, the provision applies, including under the amended framework. The assessment order for non-filing of returns consequently stands deemed withdrawn.

Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an opportunity of hearing before an adverse tax determination, regardless of whether the taxpayer specifically requests one. Failure to consider a reply to the show-cause notice and absence of proof that a hearing was granted breach mandatory natural justice requirements. An appellate remedy does not prevent writ relief where the foundational assessment is legally invalid for that breach. Consequently, an assessment order issued without considering the reply or providing a hearing, and the consequential appellate rejection, cannot be sustained.

Section 16(5) preserves input tax credit eligibility where returns for the relevant period were furnished by 30 November 2021. Returns filed for April 2018 to March 2019 within that cut-off must be assessed under Section 16(5), and input tax credit cannot be denied solely by applying Section 16(4) without giving effect to the extended time limit. Eligibility remains subject to satisfaction of other statutory conditions for claiming input tax credit.

Refund of unutilized input tax credit on zero-rated export services cannot be denied by classifying a supplier as an intermediary for an isolated period where identical services were treated as exports and refunds were granted in preceding and succeeding periods. In the absence of material showing that services during the disputed period differed or warranted intermediary classification, the inconsistent treatment is arbitrary and discriminatory. The supplier is entitled to the refund with applicable interest.

A rejected GST refund claim should be reconsidered only after completion of the ongoing investigation into the genuineness of suppliers, movement of goods, and underlying transactions. Verification of these matters may determine whether the transactions are legitimate and whether the related input tax credit is available. The refund claim is therefore to be decided afresh after the investigation is completed, with the merits of the claim and all contentions remaining open.

Input tax credit for March 2019 requires reconsideration where the relevant return was furnished before the cut-off recognised under Section 16(5). Section 16(5) permits credit where the return is furnished by 30 November 2021; a return filed on 13 December 2019 falls within that period. Consequently, denial solely for breach of the time limit under Section 16(4) cannot stand, subject to fulfilment of other input tax credit eligibility conditions.

Principles of natural justice require an appellate authority to afford a hearing and provide reasons when rejecting a statutory appeal affecting rights. A one-line rejection stating only that the taxpayer incorrectly declared the order-issuing authority, without explaining the basis for that conclusion or hearing the taxpayer, was treated as inadequate. The appellate rejection was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for a de novo hearing and a reasoned decision on merits.

Expiry of the limitation period for a statutory GST appeal does not, by itself, permit recourse to extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against an assessment order. Where an effective statutory appellate remedy was available but was not pursued within time, the writ challenge is not maintainable merely because that remedy has become time-barred. A pending rectification application, appearing also to be time-barred, does not alter this position. The challenge to the assessment order therefore fails in extraordinary jurisdiction.

Statutory appellate remedy remains the ordinary route for challenging an original adjudication order where alleged non-service of show-cause and hearing notices is disputed. Service through dispatch to the registered address and portal upload may require factual appraisal, including the sufficiency of service, the effect of a rejected registration-cancellation application, and whether further service modes were necessary. An alleged breach of natural justice does not warrant extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless it is apparent or undisputed. Where these matters require evidentiary assessment, the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory appeal.

Failure to fix or provide a mandatory personal hearing before an adjudication order breaches the principles of natural justice. Where the show-cause notice specifies no hearing date and no hearing is afforded, the resulting order is vitiated and cannot be sustained. The text states that a delay objection does not defeat the challenge because the absence of the legally required hearing invalidates the order.

Challenges to GST registration cancellation alleging inadequate notice or hearing should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy when the record shows that a show-cause notice, reply opportunity, and personal hearing were available. Questions about whether those opportunities were adequate are factual matters for the Appellate Authority to examine. A writ challenge should not bypass that effective appellate framework on those facts. Statutory pre-deposit is mandatory unless the applicable law contains an enabling provision for exemption; where no such provision exists, the requirement cannot be waived. The statutory appeal remains available for examination of the factual natural justice challenge.

The concerned authority must verify the facts supporting the petitioner's claim for differential GST at the enhanced rate and issue a reasoned decision within one month. The direction requires consideration of whether the claimed rate applies, based on factual verification, without determining the substantive entitlement in the document text.

The petitioner elected to pursue the statutory GST appellate remedy rather than obtain adjudication of the challenge to unsigned GST forms or the adjudication order. No merits were decided. Liberty was granted to file an appeal within three weeks, with the prescribed pre-deposit and grounds of law and fact. The appellate authority may consider the delay-condonation application and, if satisfied, determine the appeal on merits.

Challenges were raised to GST adjudication proceedings on the ground that Form GST DRC-01, its attachment, and the order summary in Form GST DRC-07 lacked signatures. The High Court did not examine the merits of those objections. At the petitioner's request, it disposed of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal after making the required pre-deposit and filing an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority may consider the delay application and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined where the taxpayer's statutory appeal against a GST demand had become time-barred. The notes state that the taxpayer submitted a physical reply to the show-cause notice because the portal had earlier been handled by a chartered accountant, but the final order recorded no reply and confirmed the demand. A rectification application under the GST Act remained pending but also appeared time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that expiry of the statutory appellate limitation did not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

Rejection of a GST appeal without affording a hearing and through a cryptic, unreasoned order violated principles of natural justice. The appellate order merely stated a reason for rejection, without supporting reasons, and incorrectly recorded the order-issuing authority. The High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the appeal for a de novo hearing and a reasoned decision on merits, leaving the parties' substantive contentions open.