Excess input tax credit demands should rest on the factual basis stated in the show cause notice. The text explains that comparing GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B, after the notice relied on GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, denies the taxpayer an opportunity to respond and requires reconsideration consistent with natural justice. It further states that Section 77 of the CGST Act applies to tax paid under an erroneous inter-State characterisation of a supply, not to a mere mistaken remittance under the IGST head; such payment may instead be appropriated against CGST and SGST liability, subject to procedural requirements.

Provisional attachment of a bank account under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ceases to have effect after one year under section 83(2). As the attachment was continued beyond that statutory validity period, it could not lawfully remain in force. The continued attachment was invalid, the attachment proceedings were set aside, and the bank account was directed to be made operational.

Uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order solely on the GST Common Portal does not constitute valid service where the statutory framework does not expressly authorise the Portal to replace formal communication. The retrospective amendment on functions performed through the Common Portal and the CGST Rules limit its use to specified functions, without treating mere uploading as valid service of notices or orders. Portal-based communication that causes serious civil consequences without effective notice is impermissible. The assessee must receive an opportunity of hearing before adjudication.

A timely manual reply to a show-cause notice must be considered in adjudication even where electronic filing was required. Treating the reply as unfiled solely because it was not uploaded electronically, and deciding the matter due to the assessee's non-attendance at hearing, breaches principles of natural justice. Once the reply is on record, the adjudicating authority remains obligated to examine it; non-appearance does not remove that duty. An adjudication founded on non-consideration of the timely reply is invalid and requires fresh determination after considering the reply, with a personal hearing if requested.

Garnishee recovery action should not proceed without considering the taxpayer's reply, providing a personal hearing, and adjudicating disputed tax and input-tax-credit figures. Material discrepancies in outward supplies, tax liability, inward supplies, input tax credit, net tax payable and tax paid require reasoned determination before coercive recovery, given the serious civil consequences of a garnishee notice. The notice was required to remain in abeyance pending a fresh hearing and reasoned adjudication.

Ex parte tax assessments based on estimation cannot be sustained where the registered person was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing. Fresh assessment proceedings must be undertaken after providing that opportunity, with the consequential demand set aside. The applicable coordinate-bench approach requires the assessing authority to reassess the matter in accordance with procedural fairness.

Assessment orders may be quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication despite expiry of the statutory appellate limitation where the taxpayer claims GST exemption for paddy and rice supplies and undertakes the stipulated pre-deposit. Fresh adjudication was directed subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax in cash, filing a reply with supporting documents within 30 days, and issuance of notice before any fresh order. The assessment order was set aside conditionally, with the matter restored for de novo adjudication.

GST adjudication requires an effective opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse decision, including notice of the hearing date, time and venue. Selection of "No" in a hearing column does not remove the statutory requirement where the proposed determination is adverse. Adjudication orders must also record relevant facts and the basis for the decision; a brief unreasoned order that does not address material submitted in reply is non-speaking. Omission of these safeguards renders the determination vulnerable for breach of natural justice.

GST registration cancelled solely for continuous non-filing of returns may be restored conditionally where no allegation of a dubious tax-evasion process exists. Continued cancellation prevents the registered person from conducting business and issuing invoices, which may impair determination and recovery of tax liability. Restoration is contingent on filing all returns for the default period and paying the resulting tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated period.

GST adjudication orders may be addressed through the statutory rectification mechanism where the taxpayer asserts that tax was discharged on the entire invoice amount. The taxpayer was required to submit a rectification application supported by relevant documents before pursuing the challenge. The proper officer was to entertain the application, provide one hearing opportunity, and decide it within the stipulated period. The writ petition was disposed of by directing recourse to rectification of the GST adjudication order.

Regular bail was granted in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit. Investigation had concluded and the final complaint was filed. As the prosecution relied on documentary and electronic material already held by the Department, further custodial detention was not considered necessary. Continued custody was also unwarranted because the applicant had been detained since January 2026 and trial was likely to take considerable time.

GST registration cancelled solely for continuous non-filing of returns may be restored where there is no allegation of a dubious tax-evasion process. The text states that continued cancellation prevents the taxpayer from conducting business and issuing invoices, which may also impair recovery of tax dues. It supports allowing the taxpayer to regularise the default by filing all pending returns and paying applicable tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated period. On compliance with these conditions, the cancelled registration is to be restored.

The substituted proviso to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, effective from 1 October 2025, does not require a ten per cent pre-deposit for appeals arising from penalty-only proceedings initiated by show-cause notice before that date. The right of appeal vests when the lis commences and includes the applicable appellate conditions. As the amendment imposes a new, burdensome filing condition without express or necessarily implied retrospective application, pre-commencement proceedings remain governed by the earlier appellate regime and require no such deposit.

Challenges to Orders-in-Original for the financial years 2021-2022 to 2023-2024 and an order dated 25.06.2026 were taken up by the SC. Notice was issued, and operation of the challenged orders was stayed until the next hearing.

A vested right of appeal attaches when original adjudicatory proceedings commence, including the conditions for access to the appellate forum. The notes explain that a subsequently introduced, onerous pre-deposit requirement cannot apply to pending proceedings unless the amendment expressly or necessarily provides for retrospective operation. Where a show-cause notice imposing personal penalty liability preceded substitution of the proviso to section 107(6), the earlier appellate regime governs. The substituted requirement to deposit ten per cent of disputed penalties therefore does not apply to penalty-only appeals arising from that notice, although any admitted amount remains payable. The Appellate Authority has no inherent power to waive an otherwise applicable statutory pre-deposit.

Regular bail in alleged input tax credit fraud involving fake invoices was granted after investigation was completed and the final complaint filed. The prosecution case was based on documentary and electronic material already held by the Department, so further custodial detention was not considered necessary. The period already spent in custody and the likely duration of trial also supported release. Bail was granted subject to the stipulated bond and surety conditions, without any opinion on the merits of the allegations.

Proportionality requires that GST registration cancelled solely for non-filing of returns be restored where no tax-evasion allegation exists and cancellation would hinder revenue recovery. As final tax liability can be determined only after returns are filed, the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to regularise the default by filing all pending returns and paying consequential tax, interest, fine and penalty. The cancellation was conditionally set aside, with restoration directed upon timely compliance; otherwise, the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed.

Effective personal hearing is mandatory before an adverse GST adjudication. Where a show-cause notice omits the hearing date, time and venue, the taxpayer must receive separate intimation, and selecting "No" for personal hearing does not remove the authority's statutory duty to provide it. The adjudicating authority must also consider available material and give reasons; non-appearance cannot validate an unreasoned order. Failure to provide hearing particulars, afford the required three hearing opportunities, and issue a reasoned decision breaches natural justice. The GST order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication, with the refund claim left for determination.

Ex parte tax assessments must be preceded by adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice. The note reports that the High Court applied an earlier coordinate-bench approach to set aside an ex parte assessment, the consequential demand and bank-account attachment, and remit the matter for fresh assessment after giving the taxpayer an adequate hearing.

Garnishee recovery action carrying serious civil consequences requires prior adjudication where the taxpayer has raised disputed tax particulars and submitted replies. The material states that recovery should not proceed without considering those replies, providing a personal hearing, and issuing a reasoned order consistent with principles of natural justice. The recovery notice was kept in abeyance pending adjudication, with the authority required to hear the taxpayer and decide the matter within the stipulated period. All substantive merits remained open for determination.