Reassessment notices issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year require prior approval from the authority specified under Section 151(ii). Approval by a Principal Commissioner alone does not satisfy this mandatory jurisdictional requirement where approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or other specified authority is required. A notice issued without such valid approval is without jurisdiction and must be invalidated. The stated analysis confirms that the reassessment notice was invalid for failure to obtain approval from the appropriate authority.

Business-promotion expenditure claimed as secret commission is deductible under Section 37(1) only where the taxpayer proves its nature, genuineness and business purpose through primary particulars and supporting evidence. Failure to provide recipients' identities and addresses, payment dates, payment mode, or documentary proof justifies disallowance, irrespective of whether recipients were private persons or public servants. Where the Tribunal's findings rest on the record and are neither perverse nor unsupported by relevant material, no substantial question of law arises for interference under Section 260A. The claimed expenditure was therefore not allowable as a business deduction.

Reassessment cannot be reopened merely because investigation information shows subsequent cash withdrawals by a payment recipient where the assessee had disclosed and substantiated the underlying purchase transactions in the original scrutiny assessment. Invoices for cotton purchases had already been examined under Section 143(3), while the recipient proprietor's cash withdrawals did not provide new tangible material showing that the assessee's income had escaped assessment. Such reopening constitutes a fishing and roving inquiry and an impermissible change of opinion. The reassessment notice was quashed.

Bogus-purchase additions may be confined to the embedded profit element where suppliers and goods movement are unverifiable, but the assessment does not invoke unexplained-expenditure provisions and the books, recorded sales and disclosed profits remain accepted. On those facts, a 10% estimation of the disputed purchases was treated as a permissible exercise of discretion. Reassessment was also treated as procedurally valid where the notice and record showed compliance with the reopening process; the Assessing Officer need not provide all material at the notice stage. No substantial question of law arose.

Section 80P(2)(d) deduction applies to interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks where the statutory conditions are met. The third proviso allowing unavailed additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year applies from 1 April 2016 and covers Assessment Year 2016-17. Milk cans, artificial insemination equipment and laboratory-testing equipment qualify as plant and machinery for additional depreciation where applicable conditions are satisfied; treatment of milk cans as plant for normal depreciation supports their eligibility. The deductions and additional-depreciation claims therefore remain available for the relevant assessment years.

Non-adjudication of appellate grounds does not justify recall where the Tribunal has already considered and rejected those grounds. The High Court found that the allegedly undecided grounds had been addressed, leaving no basis to interfere with the appellate order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on that basis.

For penalty-only GST appeals arising from proceedings initiated before 1 October 2025, the subsequently introduced proviso requiring a ten per cent pre-deposit under Section 112(8) does not apply retrospectively. The pre-amendment provision required payment of admitted amounts and a prescribed percentage of disputed tax, while the new penalty-specific condition contains no express or necessarily implied retrospective effect. Applying it to earlier proceedings would restrict the vested substantive right of appeal. Accordingly, no pre-deposit is required for admission of the penalty-only appeal.

In transitional real-estate projects, input tax credit (ITC) benefit is project-specific and must be passed on to each eligible purchaser, including purchasers who booked units after GST implementation where post-GST construction inputs were used. Buyer-wise identified recipients must receive the unpassed benefit; deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund is limited to genuinely unidentifiable recipients. Excess benefit given to some purchasers cannot be set off against amounts due to others. Profiteering includes GST charged on the inflated base price. Interest at 18% per annum is computed from each eligible buyer's last instalment payment until refund. Penalty cannot apply retrospectively to a contravention completed before the penal provision took effect.

Delay in filing a statutory GST appeal may be condoned through writ jurisdiction where an assessment order is uploaded under an incorrect portal category and the assessee therefore does not receive effective notice within the limitation period. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by the limitation framework under Section 107, denial of a merits hearing in circumstances beyond the assessee's control would cause grave prejudice. The appeal was permitted to be filed within 30 days of uploading of the order, with a direction for merits-based adjudication.

Late fee for failure to file GST returns may be assessed and demanded under Section 73 read with Section 47 of the Central and State GST Acts. The text states that, for the relevant tax period, returns were not filed and a show-cause notice preceded assessment of tax and late-fee liability. Section 47 specifically authorises late fee for non-filing of returns, and no jurisdictional defect in the demand notice was identified. The demand was therefore described as validly made against the assessee.

Consolidated show cause notices and consequential orders cannot validly cover distinct financial years where binding High Court decisions require separate proceedings for each assessment year. A composite notice and order spanning financial years 2019-2020 to 2023-2024 were inconsistent with that principle and were quashed. Separate notices may be issued for the relevant assessment years, with the specified period excluded in computing limitation.

The statutory amnesty mechanism applies where tax liability is accepted but payment has been delayed; it is not available to a taxpayer disputing the basis of the assessment or asserting that no tax is payable. Such a challenge must be pursued through the prescribed statutory appellate remedy. Where the disputed tax had already been recovered, the appeal was to be entertained on merits despite limitation, and further recovery was to remain in abeyance if the appeal was filed within the stipulated period.

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through the portal is ineffective where registration was cancelled before the notice was issued. Although portal communication is a permissible service mode, valid service must be effected through legally prescribed modes, and a former registrant cannot be required to monitor the portal after cancellation. Consequently, an adjudication founded on exclusive portal service cannot be sustained. The taxpayer must also be given a personal hearing where requested.

Section 75(4) of the GST law requires a personal hearing before an adverse adjudication decision. Recording the hearing date, time and venue as "NA" in notices establishes that no oral hearing was offered. A written reply and a personal hearing operate as independent procedural safeguards, so failure to file a written reply does not remove the registered person's right to be heard orally. Denial of this mandatory hearing is a material procedural defect, rendering the adverse adjudication order invalid and making recourse to an alternative remedy inappropriate.

Mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order-in-original in the GST Common Portal's 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab does not constitute valid service under the CGST Act. Section 169, read with Section 146, does not treat portal uploading alone as a substitute for formal service. The retrospective amendment enabling GST Rules functions to be performed through the Common Portal does not create an express mechanism for service of notices or orders. Electronic communication must validly convey the notice or order itself, particularly where adverse civil consequences may follow. In the absence of acknowledgment or evidence that the assessee had knowledge, service is defective and consequential relief principles apply.

A writ challenge to a second demand-cum-show cause notice and the resulting assessment order was not entertained because determining whether the later proceedings relied on material available during an earlier audit required factual and legal examination. That examination falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and the assessment order is subject to an available appellate remedy. The petitioner may pursue the statutory appeal.

Consequential GST return corrections arising from amended export shipping bills were permitted for Financial Year 2017-18. Following delayed Customs amendment certificates and prior correction of shipping bills, GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the parties agreed that the taxpayer could rectify short reflection in GSTR-3B, reconcile the resulting GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch, and amend GSTR-9. The permission does not limit independent assessment, verification or scrutiny of the amendments. Consequential proceedings must be decided on their merits and cannot be rejected solely on limitation.

Provisional attachment of the petitioners' bank accounts was challenged, alongside their request for de-freezing. The writ petitions were disposed of with directions for the petitioners' authorised representatives to appear before the investigating authority on the specified date. The text does not state any determination on the validity of the attachment or entitlement to de-freezing.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an effective statutory appellate remedy where GST proceedings are challenged as wholly without jurisdiction on a pure question of law requiring no resolution of disputed facts. The competence of a State GST investigation officer, including an officer of the Bureau of Investigation, to issue a show-cause notice and exercise adjudicatory powers requires prior determination. Conflicting High Court views on cross-empowerment support consideration of that jurisdictional objection. The adjudicating authority may decide its own jurisdiction and must first determine the objection before undertaking fresh adjudication of the remaining issues.

Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the limitation period for statutory appeals and permits condonation only within its fixed outer limit. Where the appellate order was pronounced, subsequently communicated by letter, and later uploaded on the departmental website, the appeal required fresh adjudication on merits rather than dismissal as time-barred. The limitation dismissal was set aside and the appeal was remitted for a fresh decision on merits.