Demand beyond show cause notice - Jurisdictional error in tax determination - Validity of a tax demand determined in excess of the amount specified in the demand-cum-show cause notice HELD THAT: - Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of tax, interest or penalty in excess of the amount specified in the notice and on grounds other than those stated therein. The proper officer determined a demand exceeding that contained in the demand-cum-show cause notice, which constituted a glaring jurisdicti... ... ...

Pre-charge evidence without summoning order - Opportunity of hearing before cognizance Recording of pre-charge evidence in a GST prosecution complaint without a formal order summoning the accused - HELD THAT: - The trial Court had passed no formal order summoning the petitioners as accused, yet proceeded to record pre-charge evidence. Such course was held to be erroneous. The Court further required compliance with the mandate under Section 223 of the BNSS and the law laid down by the Supreme ... ... ...

Search authorisation - reasons to believe - Document Identification Number in search authorisation - Scrutiny of returns and investigation-based demand - Consolidated show-cause notice for multiple financial years - Prohibition against double penalty - Writ interference with show-cause notice Search authorisation - reasons to believe - Validity of the search authorisation where the taxpayer was not furnished the reasons to believe recorded for its issuance - HELD THAT: - The existence of FORM... ... ...

Meaningful opportunity in GST adjudication - Consideration of documentary reply Validity of GST adjudication rejecting the explanation for the turnover mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 without considering the invoices, sales ledger extract and statements furnished with the reply - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority was required to examine the efficacy of the documents produced in support of the explanation that duplicate uploading of bills and incorrect tax rates caused the discrepanc... ... ...

Effect of unconditional omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 - Proceedings founded on an omitted rule without a saving clause Validity of the show cause notice and consequential orders founded solely upon the omitted Rule 96(10) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the Supreme Court ruling of M/S GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2026 (8) TMI 719 - SUPREME COURT] that, upon unconditional omission of a rule without a saving c... ... ...

Natural justice - ex parte GST assessment without notice of adjourned hearing Natural justice - ex parte GST assessment without notice of adjourned hearing - Validity of an ex parte GST assessment order passed without communicating the subsequent hearing date. - HELD THAT: - Where the authority does not pass an order on the date fixed for hearing, it must fix and communicate a further date before proceeding ex parte. The impugned order was passed ex parte although it was not made on the sched... ... ...

Detention of goods - failure to consider owner's documents - Penalty proceedings for detained goods Detention of goods - failure to consider owner's documents - Penalty proceedings for detained goods - Validity of the detention and penalty order where the person claiming ownership of the goods had appeared and produced the e-way bill, e-tax invoice and bilty. - HELD THAT: - The authorities proceeded without considering that the person claiming to be the owner had appeared and furnished the re... ... ...

Ex parte appellate proceedings against company in winding up - Notice to liquidator Ex parte appellate proceedings against company in winding up - Notice to liquidator - Validity of ex parte appellate orders concerning GST liabilities of a company that had been wound up and was represented through a liquidator. - HELD THAT: - As the appellate orders had been passed ex parte, the Revenue accepted that they should be set aside and the appeals remitted for fresh decision. The Court did not enter... ... ...

Electronic service of GST notices and orders - Violation of principles of natural justice - Dismissal of the GST appeal on limitation where the show cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation HELD THAT: - The Court found that, as the show cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the specified portal tab and no separate intimation was given, the petitioner was unable to respond. Thi... ... ...

Ex parte GST appellate orders against a company in winding up require notice to its liquidator and an advance opportunity of personal hearing. Four appellate orders concerning the company's GST liabilities were set aside because they had been made without the liquidator's participation. The appeals were remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing to the liquidator. The merits of the GST demands remain open.

Detention and penalty proceedings for goods require consideration of documents produced by a person claiming ownership, including the e-way bill, e-tax invoice and bilty. Failure to assess those materials, along with the issue identified in the relevant CBIC circular, rendered the penalty order unsustainable. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration of the ownership documents and circular requirements in accordance with law.

Search authorisation requires the competent officer to record reasons to believe; non-supply of those reasons to the searched person does not itself invalidate the search, but the original authorisation and contemporaneous records require examination in adjudication. Alleged absence of a Document Identification Number requires factual verification and does not alone justify quashing a notice. Investigation-based GST demands may proceed without prior return scrutiny, although scrutiny remains necessary for discrepancies identified solely through return scrutiny. A consolidated notice may cover multiple financial years if liability, limitation and applicable provisions are assessed separately for each year. Penalties cannot be imposed twice f.....

Recording pre-charge evidence in a GST prosecution without a formal order summoning the accused is procedurally erroneous. The trial court must first follow the prescribed process, including the hearing requirement before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the BNSS and the applicable Supreme Court principles. Orders recording pre-charge evidence without compliance were set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed under the statutory procedure.

Writ jurisdiction against GST determinations involving fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression is generally unavailable where objections require resolution of disputed facts. Challenges concerning signatures, the form and content of show-cause notices, consideration of replies, and the hearing officer's authority require factual examination not ordinarily undertaken in writ proceedings. Form DRC-01 summaries identifying the demand and relevant taxable periods, coupled with an order that is not prima facie non-speaking and is passed by a proper officer, support recourse to the statutory appellate mechanism. A taxpayer cannot bypass the prescribed multi-tier appeal merely to avoid mandatory pre-deposit requirements.

Section 75(4) of the GST law requires the proper officer to provide a personal hearing before passing an adverse adjudication order, even where the taxable person has not requested one. Notice of a specific date, time and venue is necessary to satisfy that requirement. A hearing recorded before issue of the show-cause notice does not cure the failure to provide a post-notice opportunity. Non-compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement invalidates the adjudication and requires fresh consideration after allowing a response to the show-cause notice and conducting a properly notified hearing.

GST exemption applies to effluent and waste-treatment services supplied by a section 12AA-registered entity where those activities constitute charitable preservation of the environment. The specific nil-rate exemption prevails over the taxable entry for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal services, particularly where charitable status has been previously determined. Extended demand proceedings require strict proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax; a failure to declare tax liability alone is insufficient. A subsequently discontinued exemption claim and later tax payment do not establish prior intent to evade. The show-cause notice was quashed because the exemption was available and the conditions for invoking the extended-demand provision were absent.

A subsequent adjudication order under section 74 for FY 2017-18 cannot be sustained where it was passed without reference to an earlier adjudication order that had culminated in an appellate order. The consequential Form GST DRC-13 recovery notice issued to the bank also fails because it depends on the invalid subsequent order. The subsequent adjudication order and recovery notice were quashed, and the writ petition was partly allowed.

GST appellate authorities must adjudicate statutory refund appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for an appellant's non-appearance. Appellate orders must also provide reasons supporting their conclusions. The High Court set aside an order dismissing a refund appeal for non-prosecution because it contained neither merits-based adjudication nor reasons. The refund appeal was remanded to the Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law, with all merits left open.

Statutory limitation for GST appeals under section 107 bound the appellate authority, but the High Court condoned delay where circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control prevented timely filing and refusal of merits review would cause grave injury and prejudice. The appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside. The GST appeal concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was permitted to be filed and decided on merits without limitation objection, subject to compliance with the filing period stipulated by the High Court.

Electronic service of GST notices and assessment orders through a taxpayer's web-portal profile constitutes valid and sufficient service under the CGST Act. A taxpayer remains responsible for monitoring the portal, communicating hearing dates and uploaded orders to its engaged lawyer, and responding to departmental communications. Execution of a vakalathnama does not transfer that monitoring obligation or establish denial of opportunity. Where no material demonstrates a lapse by the lawyer, non-participation caused by failure to check the portal does not justify interference with assessment orders or consequential recovery proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed.