A GST appellate authority must consider jurisdictional objections and supporting reconciliation evidence before dismissing an appeal.

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice dated 29 May 2024, an order-in-original dated 8 August 2024 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Acts, and an appellate order dated 15 May 2025 under Section 107(11).

It alleged that the audit officer initiated proceedings without conducting an audit and before completion of a Vigilance Wing inspection concerning a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for 2019–20.

The petitioner had submitted a reply to the DRC-01A intimation on 25 May 2024, including a reconciliation, but did not respond to the subsequent show-cause notice.

The adjudicating authority found the supporting documents insufficient, and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal, treating the petitioner as having failed to respond to the intimation and avail the opportunities provided.

The petitioner later filed a rectification application, which was rejected.

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the initiation of proceedings on the ground that the show-cause notice was issued without jurisdiction.

2. Whether the appellate order should be set aside where the authorities had not considered the petitioner’s reply and reconciliation submitted in response to the DRC-01A intimation.

Sections 73(1) and 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Acts govern the show-cause notice and adjudication of tax not paid or short paid; Section 107 provides the statutory appeal.

The Court stated that a jurisdictional question going to the root of the matter, if it is a pure question of law, may be raised even after the first appeal.

However, the Court may defer deciding whether to interfere with the initiation of proceedings where the circumstances warrant reconsideration by the appellate authority.

The petitioner had not raised the jurisdictional objection in its response to the DRC-01A or in the appeal, and the Court considered it appropriate to defer interference with the initiation of proceedings.

However, the record showed that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply and reconciliation to the DRC-01A, which the adjudicating and appellate authorities had not adequately considered.

The appellate order proceeded on the mistaken premise that the petitioner had not responded to the intimation.

In those circumstances, the appeal required reconsideration, including consideration of the jurisdictional objection and the supporting material.

The Court quashed the appellate order dated 15 May 2025 and restored the appeal for reconsideration.

The petitioner was directed to place the Court’s order before the appellate authority within three weeks of receiving the certified copy, and the authority was directed to issue appropriate notice for hearing.

The Court did not determine the jurisdictional challenge, directing instead that it be considered as part of a complete adjudication, without requiring the petitioner to first insist on a separate finding on jurisdiction.