Facts. IDFC Alternatives Ltd. (IAL) ceased to exist w.e.f. 09.12.2022 on an NCLT-approved amalgamation into IDFC Ltd., which in turn merged into the petitioner, IDFC First Bank Ltd. (NCLT order dated 25.09.2024). The petitioner disclosed the amalgamation to the GST authorities by letters dated 16.02.2024 and 24.01.2025, and again in its reply to the SCN dated 27.06.2025. Despite this, both the SCN and the Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025 were issued in the name of the non-existent IAL — and even uploaded on IAL’s own GST portal — with only a parenthetical reference to the merger.

Ruling. The Court held that merely adding “now merged with” cannot infuse validity into proceedings initiated, continued and concluded against a non-existent entity, particularly where the order records no reasoning on the amalgamation though it was specifically raised. It distinguished Mahagun Realtors (where the department was never told of the merger), disclosure here having preceded the notice. While liabilities existing on the effective date devolve on the transferee, any fresh proceeding to impose pre-amalgamation liability must be against the transferee, and the successor’s participation does not validate the defect. The order was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner on merits kept open.

Facts. The proprietor of M/s. J.S. Enterprisers died on 24.11.2022. His legal heirs informed the department, obtained a fresh partnership registration under the same trade name, and secured a non-core amendment (approved 20.06.2023) continuing the GSTIN with the legal heir managing the business. Despite this knowledge, an ASMT-10, a Section 73 demand-cum-show cause notice, and Orders-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 for FY 2021-22 were all issued in the deceased proprietor’s name. One proceeding was dropped after a reply, but a second culminated in an Order-in-Original against the dead person without the requested personal hearing.

Ruling. Relying on Income-tax jurisprudence (Savita Kapila; Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara) and GST decisions (Devendra Kumar Singh; Anil Kumar; Baratam Satish), the Court held that notice to a living, correct person is a foundational jurisdictional requirement. Section 93 enables recovery from legal representatives but does not validate adjudication conducted against a deceased person, and participation by an authorised representative did not cure the defect, the authorities having known of the death and the changed registration particulars before issuing notice. The SCN and Order-in-Original were held non est and quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh against the legal representative; merits kept open.

Facts. An adjudication order dated 12.04.2024 under Section 73 of the WBGST Act for the period April 2018 to March 2019 followed an SCN dated 14.12.2023 and a reminder dated 02.03.2024. In both, the date, time and venue of personal hearing were marked ‘NA’. All three documents were uploaded only in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab of the portal rather than the ‘Normal’ tab. The petitioners claim they learnt of the adjudication only on a payment-demand intimation dated 18.05.2026, by which time the appeal period had already expired.

Ruling. Following the Division Bench in Ram Kumar Sinhal, the Court held that uploading of notices and orders in the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab, as opposed to the ‘Normal’ tab, does not constitute proper communication under Section 73 read with the rules. It further held that the absence of specified personal-hearing particulars deprived the petitioners of a meaningful opportunity, in breach of Section 73(9)’s mandate that liability be determined only after considering the taxpayer’s representation. The order dated 12.04.2024 was set aside, with liberty to reply within 14 working days; the authority was directed to fix a hearing and pass a fresh reasoned order, all points on merits kept open.

Facts. A Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 26.06.2020 was issued under Section 74(1) of the CGGST Act alleging bogus ITC availed from non-existent / bogus dealers, followed by a recovery order dated 01.09.2020 and a bank-account attachment order dated 02.02.2021. The petitioner had sought supply of the documents underlying the allegations but never received them, and thereafter did not participate further in the proceedings.

Ruling. The Court held that Section 74(1) obliges the proper officer to specify the reasons and grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, and that a notice merely reproducing the statutory language does not meet that requirement; withholding the requested documents further denied the petitioner effective participation. Applying Ritesh Tewari (an order bad at its inception cannot be cured at the appellate or revisional stage), the Court quashed the SCN, the recovery order and the attachment order, remitting the matter for a fresh, properly reasoned Section 74 notice and lawful proceedings thereafter.

Facts. The petitioner, proprietor of M/s M.K. Traders (iron/steel scrap), was first examined by the State GST authorities; during that inquiry the DGGI began an intelligence-based investigation into a wider fake-invoice chain alleging fraudulent ITC exceeding Rs. 140 crore, with the petitioner’s share quantified at about Rs. 21.11 crore. Searches under Section 67 revealed non-existent premises; the petitioner was arrested on 16.09.2025 at Bengaluru airport under Section 69(1) for a Section 132(1)(c) offence. He sought quashing of the criminal proceedings, the arrest and the cognizance order, alleging impermissible parallel proceedings and an illegal arrest.

Ruling. Applying the twofold test in Armour Security (India) Ltd. — identity of tax liability/offence and identity of relief — the Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars only overlapping “subject-matter”; mere inquiry, summons, search or seizure is not “initiation of proceedings”. As the State authorities had transferred their inquiry to the Central authorities, there was no impermissible parallel proceeding. On arrest, the Court found the arrest memo and annexed grounds were furnished in writing and duly acknowledged per Instruction No. 01/2025-GST (post Pankaj Bansal / Prabir Purkayastha), with intimation to the petitioner’s mother; the arrest conformed to Sections 69, 132 and 168, and the petition was dismissed.

Facts. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai revoked the respondent Customs Broker’s licence, forfeited its security deposit and imposed penalty, relying substantially on the statement of Shri Rajesh Dilip Gihar, proprietor of exporter M/s G.R. Creation. In written submissions dated 30.06.2022 the broker sought to cross-examine Shri Gihar and one other witness; the request was refused without recording reasons. The CESTAT (Final Order dated 16.02.2024) set aside the revocation and penalty for breach of Regulation 17(4), while finding no violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d) and 10(n). The Revenue appealed to the High Court.

Ruling. The Court held that the Revenue’s question on proportionality did not arise (the Tribunal had not so held), and that its questions on “deemed revocation” and the broker’s non-appearance were rendered irrelevant by the undisputed breach of Regulation 17(4): the broker had specifically sought cross-examination of the witness whose statement framed the charges, and none was granted nor reasons recorded. Following Shasta Freight Services (Telangana HC, SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court), the Court affirmed that this breach alone vitiated the whole proceeding, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, and kept the deemed-revocation question open for an appropriate case.

Facts. The appellant, a 100% EOU / STPI unit exporting IT services, entered a Salary Cost Reimbursement Agreement with its UK parent, ARM Ltd., under which the parent’s employees were seconded for software development for August 2006 to March 2010. Home-country salary was paid by the parent and reimbursed by the appellant; part salary/benefits were paid in India, secondees were treated as its whole-time employees, discharged Indian income tax, and the appellant filed TDS returns. An October 2010 SCN demanded service tax under reverse charge as ‘Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service’, invoking the extended period; the Commissioner confirmed Rs. 1,76,79,723 with interest and penalties under Sections 77 and 78.

Ruling. Applying Northern Operating System, the Tribunal read the secondment agreement and letters of understanding and found the employees belonged to the parent, were seconded for a fixed tenure with mandated repatriation, and that the parent’s payment (merely reimbursed) of home-country salary showed it remained the employer despite the appellant’s operational control — so the arrangement was manpower supply taxable under reverse charge on merits. However, since any tax paid was available to the appellant as CENVAT credit, no mala fide could be attributed; the extended period could not be invoked and the Sections 77/78 penalties were set aside. The demand was confirmed only for the normal period, and the appeal was allowed in part.