Reassessment under Section 147 requires recorded reasons based on fresh tangible material with a rational nexus to a belief that income escaped assessment; conclusive proof is unnecessary at the notice stage. Where reopening occurs after four years from a completed assessment, the proviso additionally requires a prima facie basis for failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reassessment and requires that an opinion was consciously formed during the original assessment. Investigation findings on share overvaluation, property acquisition, capital-gains adjustments and deductions may constitute fresh material where no prior opinion is evident, including under Section 143(1).

Complete non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) cannot be cured by Section 292BB, which addresses only defective, delayed, or improper service of a notice actually issued. An assessee's participation in reassessment proceedings does not confer jurisdiction to complete a reassessment without that notice. Treating an earlier return as the return furnished in response to a notice under Section 148 does not remove the requirement to issue notice under Section 143(2). A letter under Section 142(1) cannot substitute for the mandatory scrutiny notice. Reassessments completed without notice under Section 143(2) are therefore invalid.

Manpower supply without any supply of goods constitutes pure services for GST purposes. Exemption for pure services connected with functions entrusted to municipalities requires satisfaction of every condition, including supply to the prescribed recipient and an established nexus with a municipal function. Personnel labels such as "Sweeper" or "Paryavaran Mitra", contractual GST clauses, and a recipient's non-levy request do not determine eligibility. Where the contract and supporting material do not identify a separable sanitation-related supply satisfying those conditions, the municipal-function exemption is unavailable. The non-exempt manpower outsourcing service is taxable under its applicable classification at 18% for intra-State supply.

Interpretation of statutory requirements governing documents accompanying movement of goods, detention and penalty proceedings, and the legal effect of an applicable circular raises a question of law under section 109(8) of the CGST Act. These issues are not confined to factual verification of documents carried with a conveyance and require consideration by a Division Bench comprising a Judicial Member and a Technical Member.

Section 73 permits direct adjudication of unpaid or short-paid tax on credible material without prior scrutiny under section 61 or audit under section 65; Audit-wing designation does not restrict an officer assigned proper-officer functions. A GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B mismatch is rebuttable evidence, not proof of a separate taxable supply. Where reconciled GSTR-7 records and tax-payment patterns establish that a GSTR-1 entry duplicates an already-taxed supply, no additional tax liability arises. A demand cannot rely on an unnotified suspicion, as section 75(7) confines adjudication to notice grounds. Consequential interest and penalty fail where the underlying tax liability is not established.

GST demand adjudication under Section 73 requires a substantive show-cause notice specifying the proposed liability; Form GST DRC-01 is only a statutory summary and cannot replace that notice. An adverse order also requires a personal hearing under Section 75(4), irrespective of delay in filing a reply. First appellate review cannot sustain a demand on new factual or legal grounds not contained in the original charge, without notice and an opportunity to respond. Reverse-charge liability for office-meal expenses requires an identified statutory basis, notified supplies where Section 9(3) applies, and proof of the taxable supply, value, and liable person. Absence of DIN or RFN in electronically communicated proceedings does not itself invalidate communications where the applicable requirements do not govern them.

Pre-26 July 2023 supplies falling under compensation-cess Entry 52B required ground clearance to be assessed in the laden condition, using the applicable vehicle type-approval standard where the entry did not define the measurement. The later substitution expressly introducing unladen ground clearance enlarged the cess scope and applied prospectively. Statutory type-approval certificates showing laden clearance below the prescribed threshold prevailed over unsupported website or commercial-portal material; the Revenue bore the burden to establish classification under the higher-rate entry. Each registered dealer nevertheless remained independently responsible for self-assessment, and a manufacturer's applied rate was not a complete defence. As no differential cess was established, corresponding interest and penalty did not arise.

Quasi-judicial GST determinations must give reasons and address material evidence, including written submissions, transport documents, returns and turnover records. Rejecting an exemption claim on the basis that no evidence was furnished despite contrary material on record reflects a lack of application of mind and breaches natural justice. Rail transportation of agricultural produce is exempt under the identified GST notification. Hatching eggs documented as fresh shell eggs without further processing may fall within that category, subject to applicable eligibility conditions. An exemption claim is not precluded solely because it was not raised initially where eligibility is established, requiring a merits-based examination of the taxpayer's explanations and evidence.

Penalty for delayed reverse-charge tax payment and non-reversal of input tax credit requires proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Mere non-disclosure in returns or payment following audit verification does not, by itself, establish those aggravated elements. Where tax and interest are paid before the show-cause notice, records are available and undisputed, explanations are bona fide, and relevant exemption treatment has not been verified, Section 74(1) cannot be invoked mechanically. These circumstances establish reasonable cause; the penalty was therefore set aside.

Pure questions of law arising from facts already on record may be raised in appellate proceedings where necessary to determine tax liability. Applying the earlier version of Section 129(1)(a) affects the demand mechanism but does not, by itself, remove the proper officer's power to detain goods for a breach of the Act or Rules. Inter-State movement of inputs or capital goods for job work is governed by the Section 143 framework. Where the e-way bill and delivery challan meet prescribed requirements, absence of IGST alone cannot justify detention under Section 129 without a taxable supply or other statutory contravention.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit for zero-rated export supplies may include the value of invoices issued during the relevant period for goods cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, even where shipping bills show export in a later period. Invoice issuance before or at removal determines the relevant supply turnover for refund calculation, while export is completed when goods leave India. Eligibility remains conditional on proof that the goods were actually exported.

Sections 107(11) and 107(12) require appellate orders to identify points for determination, decide them and give reasons; non-appearance does not excuse failure to address a pleaded input tax credit reconciliation. CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST is limited to specified supplier-reporting mismatches for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and does not govern a later-year GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A comparison where earlier-year reflected credit was claimed within time. Omitted credit may be claimed within the applicable deadline if invoice-wise reconciliation and returns substantiate it. The later invoice-reflection condition does not apply retrospectively. A mismatch alone cannot support credit denial without reconciliation verification.

Section 74 applies only where unpaid or short-paid tax results from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression intended to evade tax. Delayed GST return filing alone does not meet those conditions where filed returns correctly disclose turnover, rate and liability, and tax and interest are paid before Section 74 proceedings begin. If Section 74 proceedings are unsustainable, any ordinary-demand determination under Section 73 must be made by the proper officer under Section 75(2) within statutory limits; an appellate authority cannot directly modify the penalty under Section 73. Fraud-based proceedings therefore fail, while any Section 73 liability requires lawful determination by the proper officer.

GST refund claims for excess tax paid must be filed within two years from the relevant date under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Where a claim does not fall within a specified category, the relevant date is the date of tax payment, not the later discovery of an incorrect tax rate. Statutory authorities have no express power to condone delay or entertain a belated refund claim. The disbursal provisions, including the requirement that tax incidence was not passed on, apply only after refund eligibility is established and do not override limitation. Claims alleging tax collection without authority of law may require recourse to writ jurisdiction.

Input tax credit eligibility requires prescribed statutory conditions to be proved by the claimant through invoices, supplier-payment evidence, transport or goods-receipt records, and supplier ledgers; absent proof, credit may be denied with consequential interest. Where a supplier remains unpaid beyond 180 days, the recipient must add the corresponding credit to output tax liability with interest, while retaining the right to re-avail it after payment. Non-operation of FORM GSTR-2 does not remove this liability because reversal through FORM GSTR-3B and voluntary payment mechanisms remain available. Private payment arrangements cannot extend the statutory period. Integrated-tax penalties aggregate corresponding central and state GST penalties, subject to the statutory minimum.

Section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to every person who collects an amount as tax but does not pay it to the Government, including registered suppliers collecting GST under valid invoices. The provision does not distinguish between registered and unregistered persons or confine its scope to unauthorised tax collections. GST collected from recipients is held for the public exchequer, and its retention after filing nil or no returns attracts a penalty equivalent to the amount collected.

Section 76 applies where any person, including a registered supplier, collects an amount as GST from recipients and fails to remit it to the Government, whether or not the underlying supplies are taxable. The terms "every person" and "any amount" extend the provision to registered and unregistered collectors alike. Collected GST is held for the State, so its retention triggers remittance and equivalent-penalty consequences. Recovery mechanisms for unpaid tax do not displace Section 76 where collected GST remains unremitted.

Composition-levy eligibility under the CGST framework requires an opting registered person to furnish Form GST ITC-03 containing stock details and input tax credit reversal. Where the form is filed belatedly, the delayed compliance and the taxpayer's reply require consideration before eligibility is determined. Refusal of composition treatment without accounting for subsequently furnished Form GST ITC-03 requires fresh determination after considering the reply and compliance.

Rule 86A blocking of electronic input tax credit carries serious civil consequences and requires an effective pre-decisional hearing consistent with natural justice. A three-day notice was insufficient to permit production and substantiation of transaction records and supporting documents. The blocking order and consequential actions were quashed, credit was directed to be unblocked, and any fresh action under Rule 86A must follow an appropriate prior opportunity.

GST liabilities, including liabilities arising before, during, and after the insolvency moratorium and corporate insolvency resolution process, remain attached where a corporate debtor is sold as a going concern in liquidation. Such a sale transfers the corporate debtor as a composite undertaking with identified assets and liabilities, unlike an asset sale that realises and distributes proceeds. Clean-slate relief in a liquidation-sale order does not independently extinguish those tax liabilities, and purchasers assume the associated commercial risk.