FCRA appeals against refusal of registration are to be heard by a Division Bench because they are treated like appeals from original decrees and lack monetary valuation. Rule 9 requires Form FC-3A applicants to accurately disclose whether their character is religious, including the applicable religious classification. Zen Buddhist philosophy is religious; describing a religious organisation as non-religious while conducting religious programmes constitutes material misrepresentation and may justify refusal. Sections 11 and 12 do not absolutely bar religious organisations from registration, but registration is discretionary rather than vested. Educational or cultural instruction differs from worship and rituals, while conversion-related activities are statutorily prohibited. Discretion remains reviewable for illegality, perversity, non-application of mind, or disregard of relevant material.

Assessments founded solely on PAN-linked Form 26AS and risk-management data require disclosure of adverse material and independent verification when a taxpayer denies the reported transactions and alleges PAN misuse. Portal information, unsupported by inquiry from the alleged vendor or other cogent evidence, does not establish the taxpayer's connection with the transactions. Aggregating cash-payment and corresponding Form 26AS figures may duplicate alleged turnover. The Revenue bears the evidentiary burden to establish that connection. An appellate remedy may be ineffective where exceptional demands, required security or deposits, and accruing interest materially prevent access to relief. Fresh action must rest on cogent material and comply with applicable limitation requirements.

Material turnover discrepancies between VAT returns and income-tax accounts may support reassessment where VAT returns were not shown to have been disclosed during the original assessment. Reconciliation based on MRP reporting, duty, freight and local taxes requires factual verification in reassessment proceedings rather than writ review. A notice issued beyond four years may therefore rely on possible income escapement where full and true disclosure is not established. For notices issued before 1 April 2021, Section 148A does not apply; preliminary objections limited to jurisdiction do not require withdrawal where they concern reassessment merits.

Pre-amendment consideration for the sale of self-generated trademarks and trade brands is capital in nature but is not chargeable to capital gains where the cost of acquisition and improvement is unascertainable and no retrospective deeming rule applies. A dissolution clause providing indefinite, profit-linked payments may assign user rights rather than transfer ownership; subsequent consideration for ownership rights is therefore not royalty, annuity, or income from other sources. An arbitral award determining ownership and entitlement binds its parties unless evidence supports a colourable or non-genuine arrangement. Where the related tax addition does not survive, concealment penalty is not leviable.

Condonation of delay in electronically filing Form 10B under Section 119(2)(b) was granted despite substantial delay because the audit report had been physically signed within the prescribed period, the former accountant failed to upload it without the assessee's knowledge, and the lapse was promptly remedied after discovery. COVID-19 disruption and the death of the successor accountant supported the explanation. Payment of costs within the stipulated period sets aside the rejection and requires processing of the return as if Form 10B had been filed on time; non-payment results in dismissal of the writ petition.

Retrospective validation of reassessment jurisdiction is constitutionally sustainable only when legislation removes the statutory defect underlying earlier jurisdictional rulings; it cannot merely override those rulings while the governing faceless scheme remains unchanged. Section 151A and the 2022 Scheme require automated allocation and faceless reassessment, including the interlinked pre-notice process under section 148A and notice under section 148, leaving Jurisdictional Assessing Officers without authority to initiate proceedings outside that mechanism. Concurrent-jurisdiction notifications and non-compliant transfer to the National Faceless Assessment Centre do not cure that defect. An amendment expressly commencing after repeal cannot be inserted into the repealed Income-tax Act, 1961.

Deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts under the first proviso to section 36(1)(viia)(a) operates as a separate optional benefit from the main-clause deduction. The phrase "at its option" gives the assessee the choice to claim the special deduction for assets classified under RBI guidelines as doubtful or loss assets; it cannot be treated as redundant or made conditional on the Assessing Officer's discretion. Allowance of deduction under the main clause does not, by itself, exhaust or bar the first-proviso deduction, provided the RBI classification, prescribed conditions and statutory ceiling are satisfied.

Reassessment initiated solely on an alleged withholding-tax default and a consequential disallowance cannot continue where proceedings establish that the payee had no tax liability, no withholding obligation arose, and the taxpayer was not an assessee-in-default. The disallowance lacks an independent basis once the alleged failure to deduct tax is negated. Reassessment must rest on the grounds disclosed in the notice; an unspecified alternative ground cannot subsequently cure the failure of its stated basis. Consequently, reassessment founded only on the failed withholding-tax premise is unenforceable and must be closed.

Section 264 revisional jurisdiction may consider a new question or point of law only where it arises from facts already available in the assessment record. It cannot admit a fresh claim requiring facts outside that record, because doing so would effectively allow revision of the return after the statutory deadline. The Tribunal's appellate powers do not expand either the revisional authority's powers or the assessing authority's jurisdiction to entertain an otherwise time-barred claim. Consequently, a fresh claim not made through a timely revised return cannot be raised in revision.

Recipient-specific GST exemptions under Serial Nos. 3 and 3A apply only where specified pure or composite services are supplied directly to the Central Government, State Government, Union territory, local authority, Governmental Authority, or Government Entity in connection with prescribed functions. Manpower supplied by a subcontractor to a private principal contractor does not meet that recipient condition, even where the services support a Government water-supply project. Ultimate use in the Government project does not change the private contractor's status as the immediate recipient. The subcontract supply remains taxable, with GST stated to apply at 18%, subject to applicable classification and rate notification.

Section 107 prescribes a three-month appeal period and permits the First Appellate Authority to condone delay only for one further month on sufficient cause. That statutory outer limit cannot be enlarged through the appellate process, although constitutional writ jurisdiction may provide exceptional relief. Restoration of cancelled GST registrations pursuant to appellate directions may render a departmental challenge academic where businesses have resumed operations and subsequent transactions would be unsettled. The inability to apply for revocation through the common portal under Rule 23 does not extinguish the independent statutory right to appeal cancellation under Section 107.

Appellate authorities cannot condition restoration of GST registration on cash payment or reversal of disputed input tax credit without a show-cause notice, statutory adjudication, and meaningful opportunity to respond. A conditional undertaking to reverse credit after verification does not replace these procedural requirements, and an automatic-void clause is unenforceable. Registration cancellation must remain within the grounds stated in the show-cause notice; where the notice alleges non-existence of business premises, cancellation cannot additionally rest on alleged wrongful input tax credit. Fresh lawful proceedings on disputed credit may be initiated by the competent authority.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure may arise where any inputs used in the course or furtherance of business bear a higher tax rate than output supplies, even if the principal input and output attract the same rate. "Inputs" is not confined to the principal raw material and excludes capital goods. Administrative circulars addressing rate reductions on the same goods at different times, or concessional supplies, do not cover accumulation caused by other higher-taxed business inputs. Such circulars cannot restrict a statutory refund entitlement where the prescribed conditions are satisfied.

Valid credit notes issued during the relevant refund period must reduce gross turnover when computing adjusted total turnover for refunds under Rule 89(5) of the CGST Rules. Section 34 permits credit notes where supplied goods are returned and requires a corresponding reduction in taxable turnover, subject to the prescribed time limit. Where credit notes are timely issued and reconciled with GSTR-1 disclosures and the Chartered Accountant's certificate, excluding them would overstate turnover despite the reduced taxable value. Adjusted total turnover must therefore reflect the deduction of those credit notes.

Credit notes validly issued and reported during the relevant refund period, including within the statutory time limit for issuing credit notes, reduce the taxable value of outward supplies. They should therefore be deducted when determining adjusted total turnover under the accumulated input tax credit refund formula. Verification through GSTR-1, voucher records and a chartered accountant certificate supports this treatment where it confirms issuance within the relevant period. Excluding eligible credit notes would inflate adjusted total turnover and distort the refund computation.

Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund of accumulated input tax credit where the tax rate on inputs exceeds the rate on output supplies. Packaging materials, PET containers and printed flexible packaging used to market packaged tea qualify as inputs, and their higher tax rate against the tax rate on packaged tea creates an inverted duty structure. Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST concerns tax-rate reductions on the same goods at different times and does not apply to this situation. Circulars issued under Section 168(1) cannot restrict a statutory refund entitlement. Accumulated credit attributable to higher-taxed packaging inputs is therefore refundable.

Input tax credit omitted from relevant financial-year returns may be rectified and claimed within the prescribed period where invoices, transport records and other material verify genuine inward supplies. For the period addressed, GSTR-2A operated as a facilitative record, so a mismatch alone did not establish credit ineligibility where entitlement was independently verified. Effective notice and a hearing are required before an adverse GST decision; uploading notices in a secondary portal tab, leaving hearing particulars unspecified, and deciding on uncommunicated dates impair natural justice. Appellate orders must address appeal grounds, identify points for determination, and state reasons; failure to do so renders the adjudicatory process unsustainable.

GST registration amendments adding rented premises require verification of the premises' business or storage use, the lease or rent agreement, and prescribed support for the lessor's ownership. A pending civil title dispute or questions concerning the lessor's constitution cannot become an additional registration condition; registration neither confers title nor adjudicates lease validity. Verification should not demand conclusive ownership proof or a civil decree where prescribed documentation, including certified copies where available, can be assessed. Undisclosed third-party material cannot be relied on without a response opportunity, and reasons must address relevant documents and contentions. Deficiencies require disclosure and a fresh reasoned determination after hearing.

Ex parte GST demand based on a return mismatch was quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication because the claimed tax payment was not clearly verifiable from the annual return and no merits determination had occurred. Fresh adjudication was conditioned on deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and submission of a reply supported by relevant documents. Tax liability must be determined on merits after considering the taxpayer's response and evidence.

Section 74A GST demand concerning turnover previously addressed in ASMT proceedings requires consideration of payments already made towards differential tax and corresponding interest. Where ASMT-10 and ASMT-12 records establish such payment, a demand issued without the taxpayer's reply to the DRC-01 notice requires fresh merits determination after submission of the reply and supporting documents. The demand was set aside, with prior notice required before fresh adjudication and recovered amounts refundable in accordance with law.