Section 74 proceedings for audit-detected GST non-payment or short payment require the proper officer to identify the applicable statutory provision and disclose material supporting satisfaction regarding wilful suppression. A show-cause notice may rely on audit findings, the final audit report and allegations that defaults would otherwise have remained undetected; sufficiency of that satisfaction is not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction. Where the notice discloses no jurisdictional error or non-application of mind, an efficacious statutory appeal generally precludes writ review of the merits of an order-in-original. Merits may instead be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy.

GST appellate limitation depends on effective communication of the adjudication order, requiring actual or constructive knowledge sufficient to pursue an appeal. Portal upload in an "Additional Notices and Orders" tab, where adjudication orders need not be posted, may not constitute communication merely because registered persons use the portal for returns and tax payments. A breach of natural justice may support writ jurisdiction despite an alternative Tribunal remedy. The appellate authority must give reasons when rejecting a delay explanation; merits remain to be determined after a personal hearing.

Effective service of GST notices requires more than portal upload where repeated electronic communications receive no response. Although portal upload is a statutorily sufficient service mode, the proper officer should consider alternative prescribed modes, preferably registered post, to ensure actual notice. Proceeding ex parte without effective service and a meaningful personal hearing is an empty formality. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, conditional on payment of the stipulated disputed-tax portion, objections, and clear notice of personal hearing.

Section 16(5) of the CGST Act applies retrospectively notwithstanding Section 16(4), allowing input tax credit for specified financial years where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021. Claims satisfying that extended filing condition are not barred by the earlier limitation. The relief addresses denial solely on limitation; allegations involving erroneous, excess, discrepant, or fake input tax credit remain subject to action under applicable law.

Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act bars a transitional refund only where service tax becomes recoverable through assessment or adjudication proceedings. An information inquiry, voluntary payment, and closure of investigation do not by themselves create a statutory recovery. Service tax paid under reverse charge on external commercial borrowings after the GST transition therefore remains eligible for consideration as a refund under section 142(3), read with the applicable saving provision, where no assessment or adjudication was instituted. The appellate and Tribunal orders rejecting the claim were quashed, and the refund was remitted for processing under section 142(3).

GST adjudication orders served solely through the common portal may not amount to constructive notice where the Department knows that the registered person has ceased manufacturing. Although prescribed service modes offer a choice, that choice must be exercised fairly and reasonably; email, speed post or registered post should also be used in those circumstances. Limitation for a statutory appeal begins when the person obtains knowledge of the order, rather than on portal upload alone. The delay was condoned, the appellate refusal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for merits adjudication, with directions for non-portal communication of the resulting order.

Input tax credit reversal on stock transfers requires verification of reconciliations, Form WW and Chartered Accountant certification supporting inter-State purchase claims. Annexures supplied in replies, appeal materials and fuller reconciliation may constitute supporting records. A reversal cannot rest on an objection, such as lack of proof of manufacture outside the State, that was absent from the show-cause notices. The input tax credit reversal issue was remanded for fresh verification after hearing the assessee, who may provide additional particulars; merits remained undecided.

Service of a statutory show cause notice under section 73 is mandatory; the notice must state the reasons for initiating proceedings. Rule 142 requires the statutory notice to be accompanied by a prescribed summary, but the summary cannot substitute for service of the notice itself. Where only the summary was served, the mandatory notice procedure was not complied with. The summary notice and assessment founded solely on it were quashed, while the competent authority retained liberty to issue a fresh statutory notice with its summary and proceed in accordance with law.

GST appellate appeal registration requires copies of the show cause notice and order-in-original, together with proof of the prescribed pre-deposit. Where these mandatory documents are absent, pre-deposit proof is neither uploaded nor reflected on the portal, and notified defects remain uncured despite repeated opportunities, the Registrar may decline registration under the prescribed procedure. The appeal form was rejected for failure to furnish the required documents and pre-deposit proof or respond to the defect notices.

GST extended recovery proceedings for short payment of tax on outward supplies require foundational facts showing that the short payment resulted from fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression. A show cause notice must disclose those facts and demonstrate application of mind; merely reproducing statutory expressions is insufficient. Where the notice neither states foundational facts nor alleges fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, invocation of the extended recovery provision is invalid. Consequential proceedings and orders founded on such a defective notice are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

GAAR requires the Revenue to establish an arrangement, a main purpose of obtaining a tax benefit, and at least one further statutory condition before treating a transaction as an impermissible avoidance arrangement. Arm's-length purchases and sales of listed shares through a recognised stock exchange at market prices, without taxpayer control over counterparties or market outcomes, lack the concerted or pre-ordained steps required for that characterisation. A commercially sustained short-term capital loss is not a tax benefit merely because it may be set off against long-term capital gains; the set-off forms part of annual-income computation. The GAAR directions were set aside and the loss set-off was allowed.

Provision for contributions to an approved gratuity fund is deductible under the specific exception in section 40A(7)(b), notwithstanding the general actual-payment requirement in section 43B. The provisions are reconciled because section 43B does not specifically address approved gratuity funds. On that basis, the gratuity-deduction claim was allowable. The Tribunal's conclusion that revision under section 263 could not be invoked for the deduction was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed with the substantial questions answered for the assessee.

Rectification under section 154 is unavailable for issues requiring debate or interpretation, because such matters are not mistakes apparent from the record. Inclusion of surcharge and education cess in minimum alternate tax credit was treated as debatable. Consequently, reducing credit previously allowed through rectification exceeded the permissible scope of section 154, and restoration of the credit was sustained.

FIR allegations against a chartered accountant for filing an audit report in an incorrect form and submitting a revised report after delay did not, even if accepted, disclose criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, or any other cognizable offence. The initial Form 10BB was filed pursuant to the institution's memorandum, and reasons were provided for the delayed electronic filing of revised Form 10B. Criminal proceedings lacking allegations that constitute a cognizable offence amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed. The FIR and consequential criminal proceedings were quashed, and the chartered accountant was discharged.

Gains from share and securities investments made through a Portfolio Management Service retain capital-gains treatment where the underlying transactions remain investments rather than active trading. A Portfolio Management Service is a professionally managed investment facility, and the portfolio manager's execution of purchase and sale transactions does not, by itself, convert the investor's holdings into trading stock or the resulting gains into business income. The High Court concluded that short-term gains arising through such managed portfolios, along with other share and securities gains, were taxable as capital gains, answering the legal questions in favour of the taxpayers.

Verification of software-customisation expenditure is required to establish its nature and source, accounting treatment, genuineness and eligibility for capitalisation as an intangible asset. Differences between book entries and assessment-stage documents alone do not resolve these questions; supporting books, invoices, agreements, ledgers, payment records and salary details require examination. Depreciation on any qualifying intangible asset follows consequentially. Assessment of income also requires comparison of the original and revised returns, return-processing intimation, computation, tax audit report and assessment order to determine whether expenses were already disallowed and whether duplication occurred. The disputed matters were restored for fresh examination after reasonable opportunity.

Cash contributions by a partner towards a firm's capital cannot be aggregated under the cash-receipt restriction merely because they were made by the same person for the same purpose. Aggregation is permitted only where receipts fall within a specified category, including receipt in respect of a single transaction or one event or occasion. Contributions received on separate dates, each below the prescribed threshold, were not shown to relate to a single transaction, event or occasion. The penalty for the alleged contravention was therefore cancelled.

Charitable-trust exemption cannot be denied solely because an original Form No. 10B reported remuneration to a founder trustee when a revised report claims a clerical error. Neither report is conclusive merely because of its contents or the timing of revision after scrutiny. The inquiry must establish whether remuneration was actually paid or credited to a specified person and, if so, whether it was reasonable for services rendered, using books, financial statements, ledgers, bank and payment records, payroll and TDS particulars, and the auditor's explanation. Founder or trustee status alone does not establish a violation. The disputed addition and exemption claim were restored for fresh evidence-based determination.

Article 12(5)(c) of the India-USA DTAA, operating through a non-obstante clause, excludes consideration for teaching in or by educational institutions from Fees for Included Services, even if the service could otherwise fall within Article 12(4). Technical or professionally oriented courses, including customised instruction for corporate employees, retain their educational character where knowledge is imparted to participants. Non-credit status, delivery outside a campus, and an audience of working professionals do not by themselves alter that character. Equalisation Levy treatment under a separate fiscal regime does not change the treaty character of educational-course receipts.

Bank-account continuity after dissolution did not by itself establish that a dissolved partnership continued or that subsequent transactions belonged to it. The dissolution deed, the former partner's assumption of assets and liabilities, bank records, inclusion in the former partner's individual return, and remand verification showed that the transactions belonged to the former partner; additions against the firm were deleted. Because the firm was dissolved and had no assessable income, no return was required and the penalty for non-filing was deleted.