Assessment order was quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication despite expiry of the statutory appeal period and non-availment of personal hearing. The petitioner undertook to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash and submit a reply supported by documents. Fresh adjudication was made conditional on compliance with those deposit and reply requirements.

Uploading a show-cause notice only under the portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation, prevented the petitioner from responding and breached principles of natural justice. Dismissal of the statutory appeal solely as time-barred, without examining merits, could not cure that denial of opportunity. The appellate and underlying adjudication orders were unsustainable; the petitioner must be allowed to respond to the show-cause notice and receive a fresh reasoned determination after a hearing.

GST registration cancellation requires a show-cause notice stating the factual particulars of alleged fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, so that the registered person can respond effectively. Mere reproduction of statutory grounds, coupled with a same-day appearance requirement, denies a meaningful opportunity to reply. A cancellation order that fails to disclose its basis indicates non-application of mind and is invalid. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available despite an alternate remedy where the action displays apparent illegality affecting a registered trader's rights. The deficient notice and unreasoned cancellation were liable to be set aside.

Bail pending trial was granted after considering the accused-applicant's limited alleged role as a mediator, lack of apparent knowledge that the concerned firm was allegedly non-existent, filing of the charge sheet, and absence of criminal history. No view was expressed on the merits of the prosecution allegations.

Bail in GST prosecutions involving alleged fraudulent input tax credit depends on whether detention is necessary to secure trial attendance or prevent interference with justice. Criminal antecedents alone do not justify refusal without material indicating a risk of absconding, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, repetition of offences, or other obstruction. Pre-trial detention is not punitive, particularly where investigation is complete, the prosecution rests on documentary evidence, and trial may be delayed. The offence being triable by a Magistrate and carrying limited maximum punishment, together with the absence of assessment proceedings that could affect the alleged contravention, supported release on conditions protecting the trial and prosecution evidence.

Bail in GST prosecutions involving alleged fraudulent input tax credit through fake invoices should not be denied solely because of criminal antecedents where no exceptional risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, evasion, or misuse of liberty is shown. Completed investigation, a filed complaint, predominantly documentary evidence, Magistrate-triable offences, and the absence of an immediate prospect of trial completion support release, consistent with the presumption of innocence and the non-punitive nature of pre-trial detention. Bail was granted subject to conditions preventing interference with evidence or witnesses, similar offences, unauthorised foreign travel, and requiring attendance before the trial court.

Extended limitation under Section 74 of the SGST/CGST Act requires a show-cause notice to specifically allege fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax. A notice issued for the relevant tax period without disclosing these statutory ingredients cannot be sustained. The impugned notice was quashed, while the tax authorities retained liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.

Parallel GST proceedings are barred only where Central and State proceedings concern the same subject matter. Common input tax credit issues or the same financial year alone do not establish that condition; the respective show-cause notices, allegations, transactions, computations, evidentiary material and proposed liabilities require comparison. Where an effective statutory appeal is available and the objection requires examination of the underlying record, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised. Failure to raise the objection in a written reply and participation in adjudication may be relevant to discretionary writ relief, without deciding the objection on its merits. The parallel-proceedings issue and demand challenge remain available for appellate consideration.

GST registration requires the registering authority to verify whether the applicant has legal possession of the business premises, without conducting a detailed adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes over the scope of lease rights. Lease documents permitting showroom operations, co-lessees' authorisation for a managing partner to form and operate a partnership firm, and landlords' own proceedings indicating the partner's possession may prima facie establish the firm's legal possession for registration purposes. Where a registration application lacks required supporting documents, a fresh application may be filed with those documents and must be considered in accordance with these principles within the stipulated period.

Additional input tax credit arising in a construction project must be passed to eligible buyers through commensurate price reductions under the anti-profiteering framework. Buyer-wise verification may establish that substantial credit has been passed on while identifying outstanding benefit due to remaining recipients. Unpassed benefit attracts interest from the date of supply because recipients were deprived of the monetary benefit; it cannot generally be withheld against disputed consideration where a separate consumer dispute remains pending. Continuing failure to pass on benefit after the penalty provision took effect can also attract a penalty, subject to the statutory relief available where the profiteered amount is deposited within the prescribed period.

CBIC monetary-limit instructions bind central tax officers, not the Tribunal. Where a composite order covers multiple demands, the total amount involved must be considered; appeals concerning recurring issues or statutory interpretation fall outside the monetary-limit bar. Duty credit scrips became exempt supplies in 2017, but their exclusion from aggregate exempt supplies for proportionate input tax credit reversal applies prospectively from 5 July 2022. The later amendment conferred a prospective benefit and did not retrospectively alter earlier reversal obligations. Extended demand proceedings require material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or deliberate suppression intended to evade tax; mere non-declaration is insufficient. Absent such material, tax liability must be determined under the ordinary demand procedure after hearing the taxpayer.

A draft assessment order cannot support a tax demand or penalty proceedings because a demand requires a final assessment determining the sum payable. Where an order's heading, operative language, proposed disallowance, objection mechanism and express non-issuance of demand consistently identify it as a draft, it cannot be treated as final merely as an uploading error. The statutory curative provision does not validate this substantive defect, particularly where no corrective or final assessment order follows. Draft-assessment procedure is also unavailable where no variation in international transactions is proposed, leaving no competence to issue a draft order. The draft order and consequential demand and penalty notices were set aside.

Revision of block assessment under section 263 could not revisit additions concerning claimed unaccounted expenditure, asset investments and petrol-pump income after those additions had been adjudicated in appellate proceedings and the Tribunal's decision had attained finality following dismissal of Revenue appeals. Revisionary proceedings on those matters were therefore set aside. Regarding tanker acquisition and operating income, concurrent factual findings after record verification established no material showing unaccounted income. With no legal infirmity in those findings, deletion of the tanker-related addition was sustained and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Service permanent establishment analysis under the India-USA DTAA requires services to be furnished through employees or other personnel and excludes services covered as royalties or fees for included services. Stewardship, oversight and other auxiliary activities do not establish a service PE unless the nature of training, administrative, news-gathering or sales-support functions is shown to exceed auxiliary activity or to constitute technical or consultancy services. A distributor operating independently on a principal-to-principal basis, without authority to conclude contracts, maintain delivery stock or habitually secure orders, does not constitute a dependent agent PE. Where intercompany dealings are at arm's length, no further profit is attributable to an alleged PE.

Section 56(2)(viib) share-premium additions may not arise where the issue price of unquoted shares exceeds the Rule 11UA value by no more than 10%. The CBDT's curative safe-harbour amendment treats the issue price within that permissible variation as fair market value. Applying this safe harbour, an addition for excess share premium within the 10% range was treated as unsustainable and deleted.

SaaS subscription receipts from Indian customers for a standard, non-customised software development kit and dashboard facility did not constitute fees for included services under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA. Customers integrated the product and generated reports independently, while the provider retained its algorithms, source code and processes; use of technology did not make technical knowledge available for independent post-subscription use. Incidental account management, support and demonstrations did not change the transaction's predominant automated character. The related additions were deleted for both assessment years. Tax deducted at source credit required Assessing Officer verification before grant, and the challenge to penalty initiation for under-reporting was premature.

Penalty under section 271AAB requires undisclosed income as exhaustively defined in its Explanation; a surrender made during a search does not alone establish that statutory character. Land and other advances represent application or outflow of funds rather than an unrecorded income inflow, and deeming provisions for unexplained investments cannot be automatically applied to this self-contained penal provision. Uncorroborated diary notings without verifiable particulars cannot independently prove real transactions or undisclosed income. As the amount was accepted as current-year business income without a requisite finding of undisclosed income, deletion of the penalty on the surrendered advances was sustained.

Revision of an assessment is warranted where the Assessing Officer fails to apply the statutory deeming provisions to additions for undisclosed investment and unexplained cash, omits the applicable special tax rate, and does not consider penalty proceedings. An order is erroneous when based on incorrect facts or law, made without due application of mind, or contrary to natural justice. It is prejudicial to revenue where lawful tax is not realised. The revisional authority may set aside such an assessment, direct further inquiry, and require reassessment under the correct provisions after providing an opportunity of being heard.

Protective assessment of seized jewellery requires independent evidence that the person in physical possession is its actual or beneficial owner where the same jewellery has been substantively assessed in the hands of a company claiming ownership. Physical possession and inability to prove another person's ownership do not displace the Revenue's substantive treatment when the individual consistently denies ownership and no positive material establishes ownership. Failure to pursue a first appeal does not cure the absence of evidence or transform a protective addition into a substantive charge. The protective addition for unexplained jewellery was deleted, and consequential interest was to be recomputed.

Donor-wise records containing names, PANs, addresses and supporting material established the identity of donors to a charitable trust. Undisputed remand-report records could not be displaced merely because donors did not comply with notices or because no further independent verification occurred. Evidence also showed that corpus contributions were intended for the trust's corpus. Voluntary and corpus donations from identified donors therefore could not be treated as anonymous donations, and the related additions were deleted. The challenge to the scrutiny notice was not pressed.