GST registration cancellation notices must disclose the statutory grounds and essential particulars of alleged wrongful input tax credit, including relevant supplier identities, registration details and periods. Oral intimation or later reliance on statutory provisions cannot cure an inadequate notice. Cancellation proceedings are distinct from proceedings under section 74A. Rule 112 governs the admission of additional evidence on appeal, and natural justice requires an effective opportunity to rebut adverse inquiry material. Appellate proceedings are not ordinarily a fresh investigation to remedy deficiencies in the original adjudication.

GST registration cancellation requires a notice specifying the statutory grounds and material particulars, such as supplier details, registration numbers and relevant periods where wrongful input tax credit is alleged. Cancellation proceedings are distinct from tax determination proceedings, and wrongful input tax credit was subsequently omitted as a cancellation ground. Rule 112 restricts the admission of additional evidence on appeal. An appellate authority cannot cure a defective notice by introducing undisclosed grounds or evidence; natural justice requires an effective opportunity to rebut material relied upon.

Service tax reimbursement remains available under an agreement that generally places taxes on the contractor but provides for reimbursement of service tax on an actual basis. Where the work is complete, tax has been paid and no proceedings against the contractor are pending, the claim is subject to verification and processing under the agreement. Transitional input tax credit under section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 remains available to the contract recipient for reimbursed service tax where the reimbursement claim was made before GST began and no specific bar has been identified as applicable. The transition to GST alone does not extinguish reimbursement or the corresponding credit.

Goods seized under Section 67 of the CGST Act remain eligible for provisional release after confiscation proceedings begin under Section 130. Release is subject to the prescribed bond and security or payment terms and does not prevent continuation of confiscation proceedings. Rule 140 sets out the bond and security requirements. Section 130 contains no express or implied prohibition on applying Section 67 after confiscation proceedings begin; its non-obstante clause was removed with effect from 1 January 2022. Harmonious construction, limits on statutory powers and the right to property under Article 300A inform the relationship between seizure, provisional release and confiscation.

The discrepancy in the adjudicated interest rate was recorded as corrected to 18%. The challenge also concerned the penalty demand, but neither the tax demand nor the penalty demand was adjudicated. The statutory appeal remedy was left open.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction need not be exercised to entertain a prolonged, unexplained challenge to assessment and recovery orders where the taxpayer had an opportunity to participate in the assessment and pursue a statutory appeal. Participation in the assessment without filing a statutory appeal, coupled with failure to raise objections during the delay, is relevant to that determination. An appropriate application for correction may be pursued, subject to its maintainability.

Natural justice may be breached where a taxpayer is not given an opportunity to produce relevant business records identified for verification before assessment, even if personal hearings have been held. Setting aside the assessment is conditional on depositing 10% of the disputed tax within six weeks. Consequential actions, including bank attachment, are revoked, and the period from the assessment order to receipt of the order is excluded for limitation purposes.

The assessment was set aside for fresh determination after notice and hearing, conditional on depositing Rs. 5,000 in costs within two weeks. The demand had been confirmed after the taxpayer failed to file objections or attend the personal hearing. The taxpayer asserted that the tax demanded had already been paid in the relevant return, but neither that assertion nor the tax liability was determined on the merits.

Input tax credit for IGST paid on imports cannot be denied solely because payment is not reflected on the GST portal when the discrepancy results from an integration failure between ICEGATE and GSTN, systems maintained by the authorities. Documents supporting payment are relevant where portal data is incomplete. Authorities must reconcile and reflect the IGST paid and reconsider the matter afresh, with all parties' contentions on the merits remaining open.

Non-submission of a written reply to a GST show-cause notice does not, by itself, dispense with an opportunity for a personal hearing. An oral hearing can enable the taxpayer to present its position independently of a written reply. The notice required a reply but recorded the hearing date, time and venue as not applicable. The substantive tax liability remains undecided.

GST registration cancellation is unjustified solely for non-deposit of input tax credit where returns are regularly filed. Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provide the applicable procedure for recovery of input tax credit. The recovery issue should therefore be addressed through that procedure rather than cancellation of registration on that ground alone.

Conditional bail for the accused in proceedings concerning an alleged GST offence requires a personal bond with two sureties, attendance when called on notice, and abstention from similar offences. The accused had remained in judicial custody since arrest, a voluntary statement had been recorded, and the respondents accepted release on conditions. The bail application was made under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an alleged offence under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

GST adjudication is procedurally vitiated when a show-cause notice under GST legislation requires a reply but specifies no date, time or venue for a personal hearing and no opportunity of hearing is afforded. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of hearing before adjudication, notwithstanding the requirement to submit a reply to the notice.

Pre-trial bail is granted on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to cooperation in the judicial process. On a preliminary assessment, no material implicating the accused applicant is apparent apart from the applicant's disclosure statement. The grant does not adjudicate the merits of the prosecution, and the criminal trial remains pending.

Input tax credit on imports should not be denied solely because IGST is absent from the GST portal where the apparent cause is an ICEGATE-GSTN integration failure and the taxpayer has no role in transmitting the data. Documents supporting payment of tax should be considered, and IGST paid on imports reconciled and duly reflected in the electronic credit ledger. Non-reflection caused by a systemic lapse does not itself determine credit entitlement; the merits and other contentions remain open for fresh consideration.

GST registration cancellation notices must disclose the specific contravention and material particulars needed for an effective reply. Where wrongful input tax credit is alleged, relevant particulars may include the suppliers and the period involved. Fundamental omissions cannot be cured by invoking statutory provisions on appeal or relying on particulars in separate proceedings. Additional evidence in GST appeals must comply with Rule 112 and its procedural safeguards. An inquiry report relied on adversely must be open to an effective and reasonable opportunity for rebuttal.

Confiscation for stock discrepancies requires independent proof of the statutory ingredients, including intent to evade tax; a discrepancy alone does not establish clandestine supply or deliberate evasion. Visual estimates unsupported by actual weighment and internally contradictory verification sheets do not reliably establish excess stock. Stock-accounting discrepancies must be examined under the regular demand and assessment provisions rather than treated as grounds for automatic confiscation. Departmental appeals involving interpretation of the GST Act fall outside prescribed monetary limits, including disputes over whether confiscation or regular demand provisions apply to stock discrepancies.

Rule 138(3) exempts qualifying intra-State feeder movements of up to 50 kilometres from furnishing e-way bill Part-B conveyance details when goods move from the consignor's business to the transporter's business for further transportation. The e-way bill remains valid, and an automated portal warning cannot override the exemption. A minor procedural omission unconnected with intent to evade tax cannot sustain a penalty under section 129(3). Route deviation alone does not establish evasion without corroborating evidence, which the Revenue must produce. Recurring legal issues fall outside the prescribed monetary limits for departmental appeals.

Specialised ophthalmic chairs, stools, refraction chair units, operating tables, instrument tables and trolleys fall under heading 9402 as medical or surgical furniture, rather than heading 9018 for medical or ophthalmic instruments and appliances. The HSN Explanatory Notes exclude medical and surgical furniture from heading 9018 and cover specialised operating and examination tables, eye-treatment seats and medical instrument tables and trolleys under heading 9402. Motorised surgeon's chairs, doctors' stools and refraction chair units fall under subheading 94021090; operating tables and instrument tables and trolleys fall under 94029090. Their supplies attract 18% GST, comprising 9% CGST and 9% SGST.

Advertisement, marketing and promotion expenditure can be treated as an international transaction only where an agreement, arrangement or understanding with the associated enterprise is established. Incidental enhancement of brand value and comparisons with other companies' expenditure do not establish such a transaction, and the Bright Line Test is not a prescribed method for determining the arm's length price. Management support fee cross-charges included in a cost-plus service base must be examined alongside their effect on related service revenue; section 92(3) prevents transfer pricing provisions from reducing taxable income. Challenges directed solely at the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271AA are premature at that stage.