Full GST liability paid before demand under the IGST head, instead of the applicable CGST and SGST heads, does not by itself attract interest or penalty where the error was an inadvertent clerical mistake. Section 77(2) of the CGST Act does not apply unless tax was paid under a genuine misconception that an intra-State supply was inter-State. Incorrect remittance between tax heads, without any unpaid tax liability, therefore does not warrant interest or penalty solely on account of the mistaken tax-head classification.

Assessment of tax liability under Section 73(9) cannot be made before expiry of the due date for filing the relevant financial year's annual return. For financial year 2022-23, an order made before 31 December 2023, when that was the annual-return due date, lacked authority. The assessment was set aside, with fresh assessment permitted only after notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Parallel State GST assessment and rectification proceedings cannot be sustained where Central GST authorities have already adjudicated identical issues for the same assessment period. The pendency of an appeal against the earlier Central GST adjudication does not permit duplicate State GST proceedings on those matters. State GST assessment and rectification orders covering the same issues and period are therefore unsustainable.

Section 75(7) bars an adjudicating authority from confirming tax or penalty beyond the amounts specified in the show cause notice. Where the notice proposed tax of Rs. 96,000 and penalty of Rs. 20,000, confirmation of an equivalent Rs. 96,000 penalty exceeded the proposed penalty. Such excess confirmation breaches the mandatory statutory limit and is without jurisdiction. The penalty confirmation beyond the notice was invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Service-tax demand orders require consideration of the relevant work contracts and agreements where those materials are placed on record. Complete contractual material must be examined, with parties permitted to produce further relevant documents and given an opportunity of hearing before a fresh determination. The existing demand order was set aside for reconsideration by the competent Commissioner on the complete record.

GST registration cancellation may be challenged through the statutory appeal under Section 107 within the prescribed period. Writ jurisdiction is generally unavailable where that alternate remedy remains unavailed and the appeal period has expired. Departure from the alternate-remedy rule requires exceptional circumstances; absent such circumstances, delay beyond the statutory appellate period does not justify writ interference.

Under the CGST Act, 2017, sections 73 and 74 contain no prohibition on a single show-cause notice covering multiple financial years; consolidated GST notices are therefore legally maintainable. Appellate disposal after a personal hearing confined to condonation of delay, without an opportunity to address the merits despite a request, breaches principles of natural justice. The appeal requires reconsideration after a proper merits hearing, while the validity of consolidated notices remains unaffected.

GST does not apply to a penalty recovered from an employee for stock shortage arising during employment. Section 7 read with paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II applies only where a supply of services exists, including an agreement to refrain from, tolerate, or undertake an act. A stock-shortage penalty imposed within the employer-employee relationship is not consideration for any supply of goods or services between a supplier and recipient. The recovery therefore remains outside the scope of taxable supply under GST.

GST registration cancellation may be set aside in writ jurisdiction where rigid application of the statutory appeal limitation would deprive a taxpayer of the constitutional right to carry on trade and commerce. Although the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the prescribed period, restoration does not create a corresponding right for the State and supports legitimate business operations and revenue collection. Registration was restored subject to filing pending returns and paying outstanding dues, interest, penalty and late fees.

Medical circumstances affecting the taxpayer's accountant, supported by medical records and the particular facts, constituted sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing a statutory GST appeal. The limitation-based dismissal was set aside so that the appellate remedy could be pursued. The underlying input tax credit dispute remained for determination by the Appellate Authority and was not decided at this stage.

Rule 86A permits restriction on the use of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger only where the competent officer has reasons to believe and records those reasons in writing. Blocking credit without a proper reasoned order fails to meet these mandatory conditions; the absence of a prior hearing was also identified as a procedural deficiency. Reactivation of the ledger after the statutory restriction period may make further substantive relief unnecessary in exceptional circumstances. Future blocking that does not comply with Rule 86A may expose the affected party to appropriate compensation.

Challenges to adjudication orders should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appellate remedy where resolution requires examination of disputed facts. Questions whether replies to show-cause notices were considered and the individual role of each taxpayer in alleged transactions require factual appraisal by the Appellate Authority. The principle requiring consideration of a taxpayer's response does not by itself justify writ intervention when a consolidated adjudication concerns numerous firms and individuals. Writ jurisdiction should not bypass an efficacious appellate mechanism in such circumstances.

Regular bail was granted in proceedings alleging GST evasion through invoices without actual supply, wrongful availment of input tax credit, falsified financial records, and shell entities. Completion of investigation, filing of the charge sheet, absence of a likelihood of evidence tampering, and the period in judicial custody supported release, subject to the prescribed bail bond and sureties.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause removes its restriction from pending proceedings concerning refunds of integrated tax paid on exports. The omission, effective from 8 October 2024, ends the rule's operation rather than preserving it for unresolved refund claims. An advisory recommendation for prospective operation does not retain the omitted restriction. Consequently, pending export refund proceedings cannot be denied by applying Rule 96(10), and any communication founded on that restriction lacks legal basis.

Meaningful personal hearing under section 75(4) of the Bihar GST Act requires that the hearing date allow the taxpayer a real opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. Fixing the hearing before expiry of the reply period renders the opportunity ineffective. Cancellation of GST registration may require reconsideration where pending GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns are subsequently filed and outstanding tax, late fee and penalty are paid, particularly because permanent cancellation can effectively end business operations. Revocation may be sought within three weeks and must be decided on merits without rejection solely for limitation.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without a saving or sunset clause, ends the export-refund restriction for pending proceedings concerning integrated tax paid on exported goods and services. Applying the principle that an omitted provision cannot be kept alive without express preservation, communications founded on the former restriction cannot sustain denial of such refunds.

Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act are addressed in relation to regular bail for allegations of fraudulent invoices, wrongful input tax credit, falsified records and shell entities. Arrest requires recorded reasons to believe tax evasion or the specified conditions under section 132. The absence of those reasons in the arrest authorisation and memo, together with omission of the applicable tax-evasion threshold relevant to conviction, is treated as indicating suspicion rather than concrete material. These deficiencies support release on regular bail, subject to furnishing a bond and sureties.

Rule 86A permits restriction on debit of input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger only when its prescribed conditions are met, including recorded reasons to believe and reasons in writing. The High Court found that the authorities could not establish compliance with these mandatory requirements before blocking the ledger. As the statutory period had expired and the ledger had been reactivated, the writ petition was disposed of exceptionally upon acceptance of an unconditional apology. The High Court warned that any future non-compliant blocking of credit would expose the authorities to appropriate compensation liability.

GST cannot be collected on a penalty imposed on an employee for stock shortage merely because an employment relationship exists. Paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act applies to agreements connected with a supply of services. A stock-shortage penalty arising from the employer-employee relationship is not, without more, consideration for a supply of services. Accordingly, that provision does not authorise GST on such recovery. The de novo enquiry concerning the collection was sustained, while the intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are maintainable under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST and SGST enactments, which do not prohibit clubbing tax periods in one notice. Quashing such a notice and consequential orders solely because multiple years were combined is unsustainable. An appellate authority must also provide an effective hearing on the merits where the appellant seeks condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for that purpose. Restricting the hearing to delay and deciding the appeal without a merits hearing breaches principles of natural justice. The appellate order was set aside and remitted for a merits hearing.