Cancellation of GST registration requires fresh proceedings where no merits determination has been made. A fresh show-cause notice must be issued, the registered person must receive an effective opportunity to submit a timely reply, and that reply must be considered. A hearing must be provided where required before a reasoned decision is made in accordance with law. The competent authority may therefore initiate fresh proceedings and decide the registration-cancellation matter after following these requirements.

Contractual disputes concerning termination and forfeiture of security deposits, where an arbitration agreement applies, may be pursued through available commercial remedies rather than resolved in writ jurisdiction. Disbursement of an admitted amount may be sought without prejudice to those remedies, while the remaining dispute over termination and forfeiture proceeds through the applicable contractual mechanism.

A delayed statutory appeal against GST registration cancellation may be restored through writ jurisdiction where the appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit, but denial of a merits hearing would cause disproportionate hardship. Cancellation materially impairs the conduct of taxable business; where delay is plausibly explained and revenue suffers no serious prejudice, the statutory appellate forum should determine the cancellation dispute on merits. Questions relating to the show-cause notice, service, cancellation and compliance remain open for appellate adjudication. The appeal is to be restored without rejection on limitation.

Service of a show cause notice solely by upload on the common portal, without acknowledgement of receipt or a response from the assessee, is insufficient to sustain an ex parte adjudication. The matter requires restoration to the show cause notice stage, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit a reply and be heard before fresh adjudication. The adjudicating authority may also consider the stated proceedings concerning alleged fraud during the renewed process.

Mandatory pre-deposit for a service-tax appeal under Section 35F may be paid by using validly transitioned CENVAT credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger where the provision does not require cash payment. Transition under Section 140(1) preserves vested credit, while Rule 142(3) recognises electronic payment of tax, interest and penalty. As pre-deposit represents an advance deposit of disputed dues, ledger debit and credit to the Government satisfy the requirement and protect revenue. An administrative instruction requiring payment through a designated portal cannot override the statutory scheme, judicial precedent, or the right to use validly transitioned credit.

Refund amounts previously re-credited as input tax credit may be paid in cash where the taxpayer has discontinued business and cannot use its Electronic Credit Ledger. No statutory prohibition prevents cash payment in these circumstances, while re-crediting unusable credit provides no effective benefit. The amount is therefore refundable in cash, together with applicable interest, if any, in accordance with law.

State tax officer jurisdiction for penalty proceedings depends on the applicable State statutory and administrative allocation framework. State circulars identify the Deputy Commissioner as competent where turnover exceeds the prescribed threshold, and a Central allocation circular does not displace that State framework. Participation in proceedings without a jurisdictional objection may also weigh against invoking writ jurisdiction. Where no prima facie jurisdictional defect exists and an effective statutory appeal is available, the doctrine of election supports recourse to the appellate mechanism. Time spent in writ proceedings may be excluded for limitation purposes if the applicable legal requirements are met.

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through the portal after cancellation of registration is ineffective because portal communication is not the exclusive statutory mode of service and the taxpayer cannot be expected to continue monitoring the portal. Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated or requested in writing; ineffective notice deprives the taxpayer of that opportunity. Tax adjudication founded on such service is liable to be set aside, with fresh notice and adjudication permissible only after effective service and the required hearing.

Section 74 of the GST Act requires subjective satisfaction based on material indicating fraud, concealment or non-payment before its fraud-based assessment mechanism can be invoked. A tax-demand order must disclose the basis for invoking that provision, give reasons for the assessed tax, interest and penalty, and afford an opportunity of hearing; otherwise, it is jurisdictionally defective and non-speaking. Article 226 writ jurisdiction may remain available to correct such an order despite dismissal of a statutory appeal as time-barred. Fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee is required in accordance with law.

Corporate guarantees issued without consideration by holding companies for subsidiaries are treated as related-party supplies of services under Schedule I, supported by the subsidiary's economic benefit and the guarantee's business nexus. Rule 28(2) and Section 15(4) permit specialised valuation, but valuation should use ascertainable actual commission or charge rather than compulsorily imposing a higher deemed amount. Rule 28(2) applies prospectively from 26.10.2023 and cannot create a valuation-based tax burden for earlier guarantees, although continuing guarantees may be taxable thereafter. Circulars cannot create levies or operate inconsistently with statutory interpretation. Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression; bona fide disputes over corporate-guarantee taxability and valuation do not meet that threshold.

Tender-evaluation communications seeking commercial justification and supporting documents do not finally determine bidders' rights where they neither reject nor disqualify any bidder. Requests for material to assess the sustainability of quoted discounts and prevent disruption of medicine supplies require the tendering authority to evaluate the responses and documents before reaching a reasoned decision. A challenge at that interim stage is premature because no final bid decision has been made. Bidders may pursue available legal remedies after a final determination if aggrieved.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition without interfering with the impugned High Court judgment and orders. Liberty was reserved to challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Mobile Squad, Gujarat State. The dismissal therefore left the High Court's determinations undisturbed while preserving the available challenge to the State Tax authority's order.

Public-interest challenges to municipal property-tax revisions cannot be used to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism where the grievance is substantially individual and the petitioner does not establish representation of affected residents. Judicial review of municipal fiscal policy is confined to constitutional or legal invalidity, perversity, arbitrariness, or a patent procedural breach; courts cannot reassess the merits of revenue measures or substitute their views for those of the competent municipal body. Property-tax revisions undertaken to support municipal statutory functions and financial autonomy remain effective where no such infirmity is established.

Unexplained jewellery under Section 69A is taxable in the financial year in which the taxpayer is found to own it; jewellery found during a search in FY 2014-15 cannot be assessed as income for AY 2013-14 without evidence of earlier ownership. A retracted Section 132(4) statement and an uncorroborated loose-sheet entry do not, without independent verification, establish an unexplained loan repayment. Repayment should also be assessed in the correct year: where the source income was offered and assessed in AY 2014-15, taxing the same repayment in AY 2013-14 would create double taxation.

Contributions received from settlors with a specific direction that they form part of a charitable trust's corpus are treated as corpus receipts rather than taxable voluntary income. Where charitable registration is restored, the trust becomes eligible to claim the exemption available for income applied or accumulated for charitable purposes, subject to applicable legal requirements. Restoration of registration removes the basis for denying charitable-tax treatment and supports the trust's entitlement to the statutory benefit for registered charitable institutions.

Interest and dividend income received by a co-operative society from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Co-operative banks are treated primarily as co-operative societies for this purpose, and consistent co-ordinate bench decisions support eligibility for the statutory deduction. In the absence of contrary facts or a different legal position, such income remains deductible under the provision.

Penalty proceedings for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars require an independent statutory notice that clearly specifies the precise charge. Where neither the assessment order identifies the applicable limb of section 271(1)(c) nor the notice strikes out the inapplicable charge, the notice is omnibus and vague. Failure to provide this specification denies the assessee clear notice of the allegation and vitiates the penalty proceedings. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is therefore quashed where the charge remains unspecified.

Trading-linked cash withdrawals arising from RTGS/NEFT credits could not be treated wholly as unexplained money where their origin in trading activity remained unrebutted. In the absence of an earlier trading-income estimate, income was estimated at 5% of the withdrawals and taxed at normal rates; the higher rate applied only to transactions from 1 April 2017. Cash-deposit additions remained sustainable because no source was established. Penalties were deleted because estimated income alone did not establish concealment of income particulars. Taxable income was to be recomputed using the 5% estimate while retaining the unexplained cash-deposit addition.

Bogus sales receipts could not be assessed in full as unexplained cash credits where the books were rejected and identical facts had previously justified profit estimation. Applying the accepted approach for the earlier year, income was to be computed at an 8% net-profit rate on gross receipts because no factual or legal distinction supported a departure. Only the estimated net profit was assessable, and the balance of the addition was deleted.

Common approval under Section 153D covering six assessment years does not satisfy the requirement of valid statutory approval for each relevant assessment year. Where assessments are founded on a combined approval rather than a separate valid approval, the approval is defective and the resulting assessments are invalid. The assessments were therefore quashed in favour of the assessee.