CGST audit commencement under Section 65(4) is determined by the later of the date records are made available and the date the audit is actually instituted at the registered person's business premises. Where actual institution was the later event, the audit report was completed within the prescribed three-month period and remained valid. Failure to promptly intimate outstanding documents did not itself invalidate the audit. Show-cause notices under Section 74(1) remain subject to the statutory adjudicatory process and are not ordinarily quashed at the writ stage where a response may be filed and an appellate remedy is available under Section 107.

GST refund limitation ordinarily runs from physical communication of an appellate order because a refund claim may be filed on the basis of an order received physically, while FORM GST APL-04 is only its statutory summary. A delayed departmental upload may exceptionally become the relevant date where necessary to implement a final refund direction and avoid retention without legal authority. Interest is payable at 6% per annum from 15 August 2024 until payment, increasing to 9% per annum upon non-compliance beyond the stipulated implementation period.

Refund limitation following an appellate order setting aside a tax and penalty demand may, in exceptional circumstances, run from the belated portal upload of Form GST APL-04 rather than physical communication of the order. Although physical communication ordinarily constitutes the relevant date and the refund form does not require awaiting portal upload, treating the later upload date as relevant preserved express appellate refund relief where the application was filed immediately thereafter. The refund rejection was quashed and processing directed. Interest was payable at 6% from the court-fixed date until payment, rising to 9% if directions remained unimplemented after the stipulated period.

Overlapping input tax credit demands must be assessed after considering the objection that parallel Central GST proceedings invoke the statutory bar under section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/MGST Act. The High Court set aside an order denying input tax credit because that objection had not been examined on merits, and remanded the show-cause proceedings for fresh adjudication with all merits kept open.

Assignment of GIDC industrial-plot leasehold rights is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a GST-taxable supply. Input tax credit restrictions for construction of immovable property apply only where goods or services are received for construction; they do not apply where the recipient undertook no construction. Consequently, credit claimed on acquiring such leasehold rights was not blocked. Fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression could not be invoked for recovery on the contrary premise, particularly where GST collected on the onward assignment had been deposited. The recovery show-cause notices were quashed and the writ petitions succeeded.

Specific written request for a personal hearing in a reply to a GST show-cause notice cannot be disregarded solely because the noticee inadvertently selected "No" in the relevant form. Such an erroneous selection does not amount to an express waiver of the right to be heard where the written reply clearly seeks a hearing. Denial of the requested hearing breaches principles of natural justice. The adjudication order was therefore quashed, and the adjudicating officer was directed to grant a personal hearing and determine the show-cause notice afresh in accordance with law.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC confines scrutiny of a plaint to its averments and does not permit determination of disputed issues requiring evidence at the threshold. A will-based claim for declaration and injunction is not rendered liable to rejection merely because benami acquisition is alleged, where the plaint does not plead that the claimant acquired the property benami in the testator's name. The validity and proof of the Will, and the alleged benami nature of the transactions, require adjudication at trial. Pending criminal prosecution does not by itself bar the civil remedy. The plaint therefore discloses a cause of action for trial on merits.

Under the Explanation to Section 65(4), a GST audit commences on the later of the date records are made available and the date audit is actually instituted at the registered person's place of business. Where complete furnishing of required records is disputed, the asserted furnishing date need not govern commencement; actual institution supplies an alternative statutory basis. Although outstanding documents should be identified within a reasonable time, failure to do so after repeated notices does not override the later-event rule. The audit report was treated as prepared within the three-month period, and challenges to show-cause notices were left to statutory responses and remedies.

Intra-court appellate interference with a Single Judge's order is confined to demonstrable error or perversity; the availability of another possible view does not suffice. In GST registration-cancellation matters, where a Single Judge relegates an appellant to the statutory appellate remedy for failing to invoke it, that direction should stand if supported by cogent reasons and free from perversity. Substantive contentions remain open before the appellate authority, and a timely statutory appeal must be considered on merits without treating it as delayed.

Composite show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot combine several financial years or tax periods with separate assessment, return, demand and limitation timelines. Each period must be assessed independently because aggregation obscures distinct due dates and statutory limitation requirements. In-limine dismissal of a special leave petition against a contrary High Court view does not trigger the doctrine of merger or displace later decisions binding on tax authorities. Non-compliant composite notices and consequential orders are subject to quashing, while fresh period-specific notices may be issued in accordance with law, subject to other legal impediments.

Project-specific anti-profiteering computation may compare pre-GST credit and post-GST input tax credit with corresponding project purchase values, rather than turnover, to quantify the benefit allocable per square foot to eligible homebuyers. Pre-GST purchase and credit data may remain relevant where records establish a project nexus, notwithstanding formal post-GST commencement of construction. Total project area and eligible sold area must support a reconciled allocation of the project-level benefit. GST collected on excess realisation arising from profiteering forms part of the amount to be passed on. Penalty may apply for contraventions occurring after the penal provision commenced, subject to statutory immunity where the profiteered amount is deposited within the prescribed period.

Delayed furnishing of Form No. 10 for charitable-income accumulation raises whether the filing requirement is directory and whether genuine hardship warrants condonation. Contemporaneous disclosure of the accumulation claim in the original return and audit report supports that the omission was inadvertent rather than an afterthought. Furnishing the form before an intimation may constitute substantial procedural compliance. Condonation addresses non-wilful default, particularly where the accumulated income was invested in a specified mode.

Assessment initiated under section 153C must proceed in accordance with section 153A, so pending returns under section 139(1) or section 139(4) cannot remain operative for determining concealment. Where an assessee discloses additional income in the section 153A return and the assessment accepts it without further addition, the tax assessed equals the tax payable on that return. The statutory computation therefore yields no tax sought to be evaded, precluding concealment penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty restoration was quashed and the appeal succeeded.

Reassessment proceedings under section 148A require the Assessing Officer to examine the taxpayer's explanation and supporting documents before deciding that a reassessment notice should issue. Where alleged undisclosed amounts are disputed as not constituting business turnover, the officer must determine their character and record cogent reasons. Non-consideration of the response and material invalidates the section 148A(3) order and consequential notice, requiring reconsideration; approval based on the quashed order does not survive.

Sufficient cause for delayed appeals against revision orders requires a credible explanation for the entire period of inaction under section 253(5). A consequential assessment order does not itself justify failure to challenge the underlying revision order within limitation. Reliance on professional assistance or a change of auditor is inadequate where it does not establish a bona fide reason for the delay, particularly if the assessee was represented in consequential reassessment proceedings. Failure to establish sufficient cause results in rejection of the delay-condonation request and dismissal of the appeal as time-barred without consideration on merits.

Voluntary ex gratia payments received under an employer's early retirement scheme are not compensation or profits in lieu of salary where no service-rule obligation requires the employer to make them. The payment's voluntary character prevents its assessment under the provision governing profits in lieu of salary. Applying that principle to employees of the same employer, the addition for amounts received under the early retirement scheme was deleted.

Section 144B requires service of a show-cause notice before a faceless assessment or reassessment makes a variation prejudicial to the assessee, so that an effective response can be given. A disallowance of cost of acquisition or construction made without notice proposing that variation breaches the mandatory faceless-assessment procedure and natural justice. Failure to disclose the grounds for proposed additions similarly denies a fair opportunity to respond. The resulting assessment is non-est, rendering other challenges academic and allowing the appeal.

Reasonable cause under section 273B precludes penalty for delayed furnishing of a tax audit report where the taxpayer establishes a justified explanation. Illness, specifically viral fever, was accepted as a reasonable cause for delay despite the absence of supporting medical evidence, because the Revenue produced no material rebutting the explanation. Consequently, penalty under section 271B was not leviable, the order confirming it was set aside, and the taxpayer's appeal succeeded.

Penalty notices for under-reporting and search-related penalties must specify the statutory circumstance or clause invoked, since a generic allegation does not disclose the precise charge or provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. Identifying the clause only in the final penalty order does not cure a defective initiation. Cash expenditure recorded in contemporaneous informal books during an unclosed financial year, later entered in regular books and reflected in an accepted return, does not constitute undisclosed income merely because it was absent from regular books on the search date or admitted in a search statement. On these grounds, the penalties for both assessment years were deleted.

Consideration for supplying standard software to Indian customers, directly or through an Indian subsidiary, is characterised under the India-USA DTAA as business income rather than royalty where the relevant facts, transaction terms, and legal position remain unchanged. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, Article 7 prevents taxation of that business income in India. The corresponding addition that treated the software receipts as royalty is deleted.