Section 148A requires disclosure of the definite information, computations and material proposed to support reassessment, together with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to respond before a determination is made. Bank credits cannot automatically be treated as undisclosed turnover without disclosing the underlying computation and supporting material. Adverse allegations concerning fund parking, unsecured loans, expenses or accounting practices cannot be introduced in the determination if they were absent from the show-cause notice. Reassessment initiation based on undisclosed material or new propositions amounts to a roving enquiry and requires reconsideration after proper disclosure and opportunity.

Penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable where additional income disclosed in a return filed under Section 153A pursuant to a Section 153C notice is accepted without further addition. Under Section 271(1)(iii) and Explanation 4(c), the tax sought to be evaded is the difference between tax on assessed income and tax chargeable after excluding concealed income. Where assessed income equals returned income, no such tax difference arises. Explanation 5 does not apply to this position.

Completion of the block assessment, absence of any outstanding tax demand, and absence of an operative attachment over the bank locker supported release of the jewellery. The assessee could operate the locker in accordance with the bank's procedure, while the Revenue's lack of objection and undertaking to release the jewellery enabled its handover to the assessee.

Delay in furnishing Form No. 10 for accumulation under Section 11(2) may be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) where the original timely return and audit report disclose the claim, demonstrating that the omission was not an afterthought. Filing the form before issuance of the intimation constitutes substantial compliance with a directory procedural requirement. Condonation is appropriate where inadvertence is supported by contemporaneous records, accumulated funds are invested in prescribed Section 11(5) modes, and denial would cause undue hardship to the charitable trust's corpus and activities.

Real-estate anti-profiteering calculations may quantify additional input tax credit by comparing actual pre-GST credit and post-GST ITC with corresponding project purchase values, rather than turnover, where buyer receipts, construction activity and credit accrual do not align. The resulting project-level savings may be allocated across eligible sold area as a per-square-foot benefit and passed to buyers through commensurate price reductions. Pre-GST purchases and credits remain relevant despite a post-GST commencement certificate if certified records establish project nexus. GST collected on excess realisation forms part of the profiteered amount. Penalty exposure applies for conduct within the provision's effective period, subject to timely-deposit exemption.

Section 74 CGST proceedings must be initiated separately for each financial year or tax period. GST liability, assessment, recovery, annual-return obligations, and limitation periods operate independently year-wise; consequently, a consolidated show-cause notice aggregating periods with different due dates and separately running limitation periods conflicts with the statutory scheme. Binding jurisdictional High Court decisions prohibiting such consolidation govern authorities within the State. Dismissal in limine of a challenge to a contrary High Court ruling neither triggers the doctrine of merger nor displaces the binding local precedent. Consolidated Section 74 notices and consequential adjudication orders spanning multiple years or tax periods are therefore impermissible.

Separate assessment proceedings are required for each tax period under the statutory scheme governing GST assessments. Sections 73 and 74 preclude a single show-cause notice or assessment order covering multiple tax periods. Composite proceedings may restrict access to statutory benefits and impair the statutory right of appeal. Consequently, a composite assessment order spanning more than one tax period is legally unsustainable, while separate proceedings for each relevant period may be initiated in accordance with law.

Cancellation of GST registration should be challenged through the statutory appellate forum under section 107 of the CGST Act, which can address factual and legal objections. Intra-court writ appellate jurisdiction under Article 226 permits interference with a Single Judge's direction to use that remedy only where demonstrable legal error or perversity is shown. Where the direction is plausible and no such defect is established, recourse to the statutory appeal remains required.

Requested personal hearing under section 75(4) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 must be afforded where the taxpayer seeks it to explain factual matters and supporting documents. Proceeding with adjudication on the basis that no representative attended, without evidence that a hearing date was notified after the request, denies a fair opportunity of hearing. Such denial vitiates the adjudication, requiring the issue to be resolved in favour of the assessee.

Under section 75(4), a written request for a personal hearing in response to a show-cause notice must be assessed holistically. An inadvertent "No" selection in Form GST DRC-06 does not amount to an express waiver where the reply expressly seeks a hearing. Denial of the hearing breaches principles of natural justice and requires fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

Transfer of leasehold rights in an industrial plot is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a taxable supply. Consequently, input tax credit on acquiring those rights cannot be characterised as blocked credit under the construction-related restriction, which applies only to lawfully taxable inward supplies of goods or services received for construction of immovable property. No construction occurs merely through a transfer of leasehold rights. Fraud-based recovery cannot be invoked where the underlying transaction is non-taxable and the credit is not ineligible. Tax collected on a subsequent transfer was deposited with the Government.

Adjudication of an input tax credit demand must address an objection that central GST proceedings cover the same period and credit and trigger the statutory bar on parallel proceedings. Confirming tax, interest and penalty without determining the asserted overlap fails to provide reasoned adjudication. The overlap and statutory bar require fresh determination in accordance with law, while the substantive eligibility of the input tax credit remains open.

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.