Full discharge of tax liability before issuance of Form DRC-01A, coupled with denial of a hearing, required fresh adjudication of the tax demand under Section 74. The tax-demand order was set aside subject to payment of the interest component and a penalty equal to 10% of the tax. Reconsideration must permit a reply to the show-cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before a fresh order is made.

Service of a GST adjudication order solely through the common portal may not amount to effective communication or constructive notice where the taxpayer has long ceased production or manufacturing. Although section 169(1) permits alternative modes of service, the selected mode must be fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Authorities should use an additional mode, such as email or registered post, where portal access cannot reasonably be assumed. Limitation for appeal runs from the taxpayer's actual knowledge of the order in such circumstances, supporting treatment of the appeal as timely and condonation of the resulting delay.

GST transitional refund treatment distinguishes voluntary pre-GST service-tax payments from amounts recoverable through assessment or adjudication. Section 142(8)(a) applies only where recovery arises from those proceedings; an information request followed by closure of an investigation does not itself constitute assessment or adjudication. Service tax, interest and penalty paid in that setting are voluntary rather than recovered amounts and are not barred from refund under Section 142(8)(a). Section 142(3), read with the saving provision in Section 174(2)(c), preserves refund processing where credit could otherwise have been availed under the earlier excise and service-tax regime.

GST portal upload is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response to portal notices requires the officer to consider other prescribed service methods, preferably registered post, to ensure effective notice. Proceeding solely through portal uploads in those circumstances reduces service to an empty formality. Failure to afford a personal hearing further undermines compliance with procedural fairness. Ex parte GST assessment and consequential rectification orders are therefore unsustainable where effective service and hearing opportunity are absent.

Retrospective Section 16(5) permits registered persons to avail input tax credit for financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21 through returns filed up to 30 November 2021, notwithstanding the time limit in Section 16(4). Input tax credit claims falling within that extended period cannot be denied solely as time-barred under Section 16(4). The retrospective provision therefore displaces limitation-based denial for eligible claims made within the prescribed extended filing window.

GST portal upload is a legally sufficient mode of serving notices. Where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices and repeated reminders, however, the officer should use other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to ensure effective service. Confirming a proposed demand without providing a personal hearing in those circumstances reduces the process to a procedural formality and denies a meaningful opportunity to respond. An assessment order issued without effective notice and an opportunity of personal hearing is unsustainable.

Effective communication of an adjudication order is required before limitation for a statutory GST appeal begins. Uploading an order under a portal tab not designated for notices and orders does not establish sufficient knowledge to pursue an effective remedy, and routine portal use for return filing does not substitute for communication. Where the appellate authority does not address the delay explanation, limitation-based rejection is unsustainable. Alleged ineffective communication and breach of natural justice may also justify writ jurisdiction despite an alternative appellate remedy. The appeal should be restored for merits adjudication after a personal hearing.

Portal uploading is a valid mode of service under the GST Act, but repeated non-response to portal notices requires the officer to use other prescribed modes, preferably registered post, to secure effective service. Confirming show-cause proposals without ensuring effective service and affording a personal hearing denies the taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to respond. Ex parte GST assessment orders issued in those circumstances are invalid.

Section 74(1) of the CGST Act requires a show-cause notice to state foundational facts supporting fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax; a bare statutory recital is inadequate. Audit findings of unpaid or short-paid tax, delayed filings, unpaid late fees, reverse-charge liabilities, prior communications, and non-compliance with the final audit report may support the proper officer's prima facie satisfaction and, where demands, interest, penalties, and a response opportunity are specified, meet natural-justice requirements. An Article 226 challenge to an appealable order-in-original ordinarily will not proceed absent a jurisdictional defect or recognised exception; merits remain for the statutory appeal under Section 107.

Proper-officer assignment under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act determines whether the Joint Commissioner could issue and decide penalty proceedings. Sections 2(91) and 122 are identified as governing the assignment and exercise of proper-officer functions. Although issued after the impugned proceedings, a CBIC circular designates the Joint Commissioner for matters above the prescribed monetary threshold, which the proceedings met. Section 160 preserves proceedings that substantially conform to the Act despite mistakes, defects, or omissions. On that basis, the show-cause notice and Order-in-Original are not void for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 74 may be invoked for the extended five-year limitation only where the show-cause notice itself sets out specific allegations and supporting material establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. Merely using those expressions without factual particulars does not justify recourse to the extended limitation period instead of the three-year period under Section 73. A notice lacking disclosure of the factual basis or material for those allegations does not validly invoke Section 74 and is unsustainable.

Electronic service of notice through the Common Portal raises whether portal availability constitutes actual or constructive communication sufficient to commence limitation. The issues include the Information Technology Act's application to electronic dispatch and receipt, the absence of hierarchy among alternative service modes under section 169(1)(a)-(e), and the restricted scope of deemed service under section 169(2) and (3). Revenue bears the burden of establishing prior communication.

Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act requires service by personal delivery, registered or speed post, or the registered e-mail address as primary methods. Publication or making notice available on the common portal may be used only where those methods fail or are impracticable. Portal-only service without using, or establishing the impracticability of, the prescribed primary modes does not meet the statutory service requirement and breaches natural justice. An assessment and consequential rectification order founded solely on such portal service cannot be sustained.

Whether prior attachment orders made without a legally required proclamation can override the petitioner's claim remains in issue. The further question is whether the proclamation requirement extends to the Central Goods and Services Tax Department. State authorities were allowed time to file further material, including on alleged post-attachment steps and proclamation proceedings; the petition was adjourned for an additional affidavit and further hearing.

Registered security interests receive priority under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act over government taxes, cesses and other dues. A State tax attachment predating that priority can displace a secured charge only if validly completed through the required public-proclamation process under the applicable land-revenue recovery framework; an attachment order alone is insufficient. Central Excise demands or attachment orders likewise do not supersede the secured charge unless the prescribed recovery process, including attachment and sale of excisable goods and, where necessary, recovery certification as land revenue, has been followed. Tax authorities may independently recover their dues in accordance with law.

Service-tax exemption framework for construction activities applied to receipts supported by documents identifying construction of single-storey houses, road and drainage works for public departments, and material supply. Notification No. 25/2012-ST was relevant to determining the character of those receipts. Documentary evidence establishing the nature of the underlying activities was sufficient, and treating that evidence as inadequate could not sustain a service-tax demand. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside.

Goodwill generated on a court-approved amalgamation, representing excess consideration over the amalgamating entities' net asset value, qualifies as a depreciable intangible asset under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Depreciation is not denied merely because of the accounting treatment adopted or because separately demonstrable commercial benefits from the goodwill are not established. The recorded amalgamation goodwill is therefore eligible for depreciation.

Section 153A does not permit additions in unabated assessment years unless incriminating material is found during the assessee's own search. Documents and statements seized in an earlier third-party search cannot support such additions without invoking Section 153C. That route requires recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officers of both the searched person and the other person. Where assessments had already attained finality, no incriminating material emerged from the assessee's search, and the required satisfaction was absent, the Section 153A assessments and additions were unsustainable; income required recomputation after deleting those additions.

Completed or unabated assessments may be disturbed under Section 153A only on incriminating material found during the assessee's own search. Additions based solely on material or statements from an independent third-party search require Section 153C, including jurisdictional satisfaction by the respective Assessing Officers. An existing Section 80-IA deduction, timely claimed with prescribed supporting material in the original return and accepted on processing, remains an existing rather than fresh claim in a Section 153A return. Its denial solely because the Section 153A return was late lacks a basis where the deduction was not previously disturbed or implicated by the search.

Completed assessments may not be subjected to additions under Section 153A unless incriminating material is found during the search. Registered property-transaction documents that do not show consideration exceeding the recorded value do not provide that basis; a deemed stamp-duty-value difference alone cannot support the addition. Where documents are found in another person's search, action against the assessee must follow Section 153C, with satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officers of both the searched person and the other person. Use of Section 153A without that jurisdictional process cannot sustain an addition based on third-party search material.