Section 264 provides wide, beneficial revisional jurisdiction to relieve an assessee from over-assessment, including where the excess tax results from the assessee's own mistake or failure to claim relief in the return. Expiry of the period for filing a revised return under Section 139(5) does not bar revision where the same income has been taxed in two assessment years. Treating a disallowance in one year and its reversal in another as separate events cannot justify double taxation. Retention of tax not lawfully due contravenes Article 265. The Commissioner must examine reconciliations and the double-taxation claim on merits rather than mechanically reject revision by applying standards associated with Section 263.

Audited accounts of a foreign company undertaking a qualifying turnkey power project cannot be rejected merely because they show losses, work-in-progress, revenue-recognition issues or freight-cost variations, unless material defects are established. A satisfactorily explained loss, including one arising from increased ocean-freight costs, does not justify presumptive profit computation. For transfer pricing, a third-party contract price may constitute a reliable internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price where the Indian project office executes the contract, bears the relevant risks and rewards, and receives the full contract revenue. In those circumstances, the internal CUP method is preferable to TNMM, and no TNMM-based adjustment is warranted.

Discounted Cash Flow Method may support fair market value of shares issued by a newly incorporated company even before its later notification under Rule 11UA, where it was already a recognised valuation approach. Section 56(2)(viib) permits valuation by a prescribed method or another method substantiated to the Assessing Officer's satisfaction. Net Asset Value Method may not capture a newly incorporated company's commercial potential. Procedural prescription of valuation methods cannot displace substantive rights without substantial legal breach. The Assessing Officer may examine defects in the valuation report or methodology but should not substitute the valuer's commercial estimate of expected return with an independently selected rate.

Identity-theft objections to transaction information linked to a PAN do not, without conclusive enquiry, prevent reassessment proceedings under the amended framework. At the Section 148-A stage, the relevant question is whether the matter is fit for a Section 148 notice, and substantial transaction information is relevant material. A GST communication that does not conclusively determine identity theft cannot establish that the taxpayer did not undertake the transactions. The defence requires evidence and examination during reassessment. Once the taxpayer substantiates non-involvement, the Revenue must produce primary positive evidence that the taxpayer undertook the disputed transactions; disputed information alone does not shift that burden.

The statutory eighteen-month period for an Interim Board to decide a pending settlement application begins on its first allotment and receipt by that Board, not on a later administrative transfer. Under Sections 245D(4A)(iii), 245D(9)(iii) and 245M(2), prior exercise of jurisdiction, including calling for a Rule 9 report under the e-Settlement Scheme, establishes that allotment had occurred. An administrative movement of the file cannot restart or extend the prescribed period, since repeated transfers could otherwise indefinitely enlarge the deadline. The period is mandatory; orders passed after its expiry are time-barred, without jurisdiction and a nullity.

Where a dealer states the date on which an assessment order was communicated, the Revenue bears the burden of disproving that date with cogent material. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, limitation for a statutory appeal must run from the dealer's declared communication date rather than the date of the assessment order. Dismissal of the appeal solely as time-barred on the basis of the order date was therefore invalid, and the appellate order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Revocation of GST registration cannot be rejected solely for failure to file a timely reply where the only discrepancy in the show-cause notice-interest on delayed tax payment-has been paid and acknowledged in Form GST DRC-04. Non-consideration of that acknowledged compliance is material to the revocation application and requires an opportunity to submit a reply before a fresh determination. The rejection was set aside, and the revocation application was directed to be reconsidered after permitting submission of a reply.

Ex parte GST adjudication based on an alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 requires a further reasonable opportunity where the assessee seeks to substantiate that the differential turnover relates to export of services. Earlier responses to departmental intimation, circumstances causing non-participation in adjudication, and Board circulars allowing transaction documents and certificates to establish transaction nature support reconsideration. The adjudication and time-barred appellate orders were set aside, and proceedings were restored to the adjudicating authority for a reasoned determination after receiving supporting evidence.

GST recovery for a deceased proprietor's liabilities cannot be enforced against a separate private limited company merely through recovery proceedings, because the company is legally distinct from the proprietary concern. Liability of legal representatives or the deceased person's estate must be assessed under section 93(1)(a) or section 93(1)(b) of the CGST/KGST framework. Where adjudication fails to examine whether heirs continued the business or whether an estate is available for recovery, the statutory basis for liability remains unaddressed. Fresh consideration should permit the legal heirs to respond, while objections concerning separate show-cause notices for the same tax period remain open.

Statutory GST appellate remedy may be pursued where the petitioner files an appeal within two weeks, makes the required statutory pre-deposit, and submits a delay-condonation application. No merits of the challenge to the impugned GST order were adjudicated. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to invoke the appellate process subject to these conditions.

GST registration cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns may be considered for revocation even after expiry of the prescribed portal-based application period. Where online filing is unavailable because the time limit has elapsed, a revocation application may be submitted to the competent authority, including in physical form if the portal does not accept it. The applicant was permitted to file the application within two weeks, and the competent authority was required to entertain and decide it in accordance with law within three weeks thereafter.

Section 128A's waiver framework covers self-assessed tax where determination proceedings are initiated under Section 73. Direct recovery provisions for unpaid self-assessed tax do not exclude such demands, and an administrative circular cannot narrow the statutory waiver where the provision contains no express exclusion. Rule 164 imposes mandatory deadlines for filing applications and making required payments; deemed approval applies only to timely, substantively eligible applications not disposed of within the prescribed period. Waiver approvals in Form GST SPL-05 or SPL-06 become void only upon the specified failures to make additional payments, and cannot be separately invalidated on other grounds.

Duplicate assessment orders based on the same GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 return mismatch for the same assessment period cannot stand. Where the amounts assessed under both orders tally, the absence of a separate SGST and CGST bifurcation in the later order does not alter its duplicative nature. The later assessment order was therefore quashed, preventing duplicate assessment for the same return discrepancy.

Jurisdiction over a GST waiver application under Section 128A(1)(b) should follow the proper officer for recovery under Section 79. Where tax was paid before the notified date, the application was timely, and a combined Section 73 order covered operations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, neither Section 79 nor Chapter XVIII provided a basis to split jurisdiction for the Maharashtra component. Explanation (b) to Rule 164, the requirement of a single waiver application, and the use of "the proper officer" supported consideration by the officer who issued the combined order. Rejection solely for lack of jurisdiction was therefore unsustainable and required fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

GST registration cancellation and rejection of revocation were unsustainable because rental agreements, GPS-map photographs and electricity-payment receipts bearing the taxpayer's trading name supported business operations at the registered principal place of business. The evidence related to relevant periods and showed substantial electricity usage, but the impugned orders relied only on an intelligence-wing report without addressing that material. The cancellation and revocation-rejection orders were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Inherent criminal jurisdiction cannot be invoked to restrain alleged harassment by tax officials during inspection or seizure proceedings merely because the governing tax law requires criminal-procedure safeguards. Such proceedings do not thereby fall within inherent criminal jurisdiction. An aggrieved person may challenge a specific unlawful action before the competent forum, approach superior tax authorities, file a criminal complaint where an offence is disclosed, or seek constitutional remedies. Restraint against tax officials through inherent criminal jurisdiction is therefore unavailable; relief must be pursued through the appropriate legal remedy.

Fresh proceedings under Section 74 remained permissible within two years of communication of the earlier writ order because the final direction expressly allowed renewed action where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax existed. Section 75(3) preserved the consequential period, preventing a construction that would defeat that direction. However, the notice was unsustainable because the issuing adjudicating authority made unnecessary allegations that the assessee had misled the High Court, revealing prejudgment rather than neutral application of mind. Any fresh Section 74 action must be initiated by a different officer, based on jurisdictional facts, with the prescribed opportunity to respond and access relevant documents.

GST registration cancellation appeals should be examined on merits where delay results from genuine inability to comply with online GST requirements and lack of notice of cancellation proceedings. The proprietor's technical limitations, reliance on an accountant or local advocate, the representative's failure to file returns or communicate proceedings, and unawareness of the show-cause notice and original order were treated as genuine circumstances. The time-bar dismissal was set aside, with merits consideration directed subject to payment of admissible late fee, penalty and statutory deposits.

Writ jurisdiction against GST registration cancellation should not ordinarily be exercised where allegations of wrongful input tax credit and breach of registration conditions require factual examination. In the absence of an inherent jurisdictional defect in the show-cause proceedings, revocation of cancellation and statutory appeal remain the appropriate remedies for factual adjudication. Interference under Article 226 was declined, while permitting pursuit of revocation and requiring expeditious, reasoned consideration of a timely application.

Errors or omissions in framing or signing criminal charges invalidate a trial only where the accused was misled and a failure of justice resulted. Substantial compliance exists where charges were recorded and acted upon, the accused had notice of the allegations and their roles, and they effectively defended themselves through cross-examination. An unsigned charge is a curable procedural irregularity under Sections 215 and 464 Cr.P.C. absent demonstrated prejudice. A de novo trial remains an exceptional remedy, limited to serious illegality, jurisdictional defect, denial of material evidence, or real failure of justice. Where proceedings substantially progressed and evidence was recorded, a fresh trial is unwarranted for a curable charge defect; prior evidence remains available for completion of the trial.