Prima facie recording of the disputed CGST dues as discharged in the GSTR-3B return, together with filing of the waiver application within the prescribed period, required fresh consideration after giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The rejection of the waiver application was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration within two months.

Service of a GST show cause notice solely through the portal after cancellation of registration is inadequate because the taxpayer is not obliged to regularly access that portal. Alternative service is required to provide an effective opportunity to respond. Assessment proceedings founded on portal-only service in those circumstances breach the principles of natural justice. The assessment order was quashed, while the department retained liberty to issue proper notice and initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits cancellation of GST registration only where specified statutory grounds exist. The proper officer must independently form satisfaction on cogent, tangible material establishing those grounds. Nil turnover reported in GSTR-3B returns, without verifying evidence of continuing business activity from the registered premises, does not by itself establish discontinuance of business. Cancellation and rejection of revocation cannot rest solely on nil returns or non-response to a subsequent show-cause notice where the statutory basis remains unverified.

GST valuation demands must rest on the valuation rule specified in the show cause notice, unless the assessee receives notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to any changed basis. Where Rule 28(1)(a) was invoked for valuing excavated soil but found inapplicable, substitution of Rule 27(c) at adjudication adopted a distinct valuation basis without such opportunity. This caused prejudice and breached the requirements of a valid show cause notice and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the demand could not be sustained on the substituted Rule 27(c) basis.

A penalty under Section 122(1A) cannot be imposed on a noticee unless the show-cause notice specifically proposes that penalty against that person. Where the notice proposed penalties under Section 122(1) against the noticee but proposed the separate Section 122(1A) penalty against its handler or operator, imposing Section 122(1A) on the noticee conflates penalties intended for distinct persons. Such a penalty is unsustainable because the noticee was not put on notice of the proposed liability.

Availability of statutory remedies for cancellation of GST registration may render a writ challenge non-maintainable. Where an adjudication order under Section 74-A preceded the writ petition, the available remedies comprised revocation of cancellation under Rule 86-A(2) and a statutory appeal under Section 107. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue those remedies within the stipulated period, and timely applications or appeals were to be considered on merits without limitation objections.

Mandatory carriage of an e-way bill for movement of goods is central to GST enforcement. Absence of the bill may create a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, which the owner or transporter may contest through supporting material. Subsequent production of an e-way bill does not by itself remove exposure to detention and penalty. Misclassification of goods and a resulting tax-rate disparity may also indicate evasion. Detention and penalty proceedings require service of notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Penalty under section 122(1A) of the CGST Act must be imposed consistently with the person identified in the show-cause notice. Specified penalties were proposed against the petitioner, while the separate section 122(1A) penalty was proposed against its handler/operator; nevertheless, both penalties were imposed on the petitioner. As this mixing of proposed penalties was not specifically controverted, the penalty order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner, with other issues left open.

GST valuation proceedings require the show-cause notice to identify the valuation rule on which the proposed demand rests. Where a notice invokes Rule 28(a), but the adjudicating authority finds that rule inapplicable and instead confirms the demand under Rule 27(c), the taxpayer must receive notice and an opportunity to respond to that distinct basis. Substituting the valuation rule at adjudication causes prejudice and breaches natural justice. A fresh show-cause notice is required before proceedings may be pursued on the revised valuation basis.

Cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 requires the Proper Officer's independent satisfaction, based on cogent and tangible material, that a statutory ground for cancellation exists. Nil turnover declared in GSTR-3B returns alone does not establish discontinuance of business, especially where material indicates that business continued from the registered premises. A show-cause notice founded solely on nil turnover does not disclose a circumstance warranting cancellation. The cancellation and rejection of revocation were quashed, while the authority retained liberty to verify whether the business continued and proceed in accordance with law.

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through the portal after cancellation of registration may deny the taxpayer a proper opportunity to respond. Once registration is cancelled, the taxpayer is not required to continue checking the GST portal; an alternative mode of service is required. An assessment founded only on such portal-based notice breaches principles of natural justice and was set aside. Fresh proceedings may be initiated upon proper notice, and any recovered amount remains subject to the final outcome of those proceedings.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, without a savings clause was treated as applying to pending refund-recovery proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court pronouncement on the effect of such omission, the High Court set aside the refund-recovery orders and remanded the matters for fresh consideration under that principle. The merits of the refund-recovery claims were not decided.

Delayed statutory appeals against GST assessment orders may be pursued where the taxpayer undertakes to pay outstanding tax and interest and deposits 10% of the penalty. Upon compliance, the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits without applying limitation. If the conditions are not met, tax recovery may proceed after due notice. The permission remains conditional on these payments.

Compulsory acquisition of land and attached structures under eminent-domain powers is an expropriation, not a supply of goods or services for GST purposes. Land and buildings are immovable property and cannot be treated as goods, while a landowner does not provide any service through statutory acquisition. GST deducted from acquisition compensation therefore lacks statutory basis, is beyond the acquiring authority's power, and must be refunded with interest. Interest awarded on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act to account for the period until payment forms part of compensation and is not subject to tax deduction at source.

Portal-only service of GST show-cause notices is insufficient where there is no acknowledgement of receipt or response to the notice. Similarly, uploading a contested order-in-original solely on the Common Portal does not commence the limitation period for filing an appeal. Taxpayers affected by notices or adjudication orders served only through the portal may seek the remedies available for defective service, including protection against limitation being calculated from the portal-upload date alone.

Condonation of delay beyond the ordinarily condonable period for a GST appeal was considered appropriate where rectification proceedings were not the sole explanation and the tax levy was disputed on factual grounds requiring adjudication on merits. The delay dismissal was set aside, the appeal was restored, and merits were left open for decision after an opportunity of hearing. The approach accords with treatment of a similar factual situation involving delayed GST appellate proceedings.

Section 129(6) of the GST Acts requires detained goods to be sold or otherwise disposed of to recover an unpaid penalty after the prescribed period. Its proviso permits a shorter period where goods are perishable, hazardous or likely to depreciate. Inflammable bulk bitumen qualifies as hazardous goods, so the continuing availability of an appeal does not displace the obligation to initiate disposal where risk to the goods and conveyance warrants prompt action. Sale should proceed through public notice, with notice to the owner, within the stipulated timeframe.

GST amnesty waiver eligibility for interest and penalty depends on the disputed input tax credit being availed within the prescribed statutory period, rather than on the financial year in which the underlying debit notes were issued. Excess credit first claimed in the December 2020 return fell outside the scheme's temporal scope despite its connection with debit notes from 2018-19. Guidance or decisions concerning input tax credit mismatch reconciliation cannot extend an expressly limited statutory period. The waiver was unavailable, and the interest and penalty on the excess credit claim were sustained.

Used jute gunny bags without plastic coating remain classifiable as reusable packing bags under Heading 6305 where they are intact, identifiable and fit for repacking agricultural produce. Classification turns on the goods' condition, essential character, commercial identity and functional utility at supply; prior use or auction sale does not by itself convert them into scrap. Worn sacks and bags fall outside Heading 6309, while Heading 6310 applies only to worn-out textile materials fit solely for recovery. GST is determined by sale value per piece: 5% up to the prescribed threshold and 18% above it. Torn, worn-out or cut bags unfit for reuse require separate classification examination.

Medicated Toilet Soap is classified under tariff item 34011110, separate from other toilet soaps classified under tariff item 34011190. The revised GST notification adopts the Customs Tariff nomenclature and interpretative rules. The concessional Schedule I entry for toilet soap applies only to products under tariff item 34011190 and does not extend to Medicated Toilet Soap. Medicated Toilet Soap therefore falls under the residual Schedule II entry and attracts GST at 18% (9% CGST and 9% SGST).