Failure to consider detailed year-wise, HSN-wise turnover reconciliation and supporting documents can render an adjudication order unsustainable where those materials are relevant to verifying discharged tax liability. Rejection on the ground that complete, authenticated and reconciled evidence was not produced is inconsistent where the noticee's show-cause reply contains such reconciliation material. The proper course is fresh adjudication after examining the reconciliation and supporting records; no conclusion on the underlying tax liability follows without that examination.

Writ jurisdiction may remain available despite a statutory appeal where adjudication is non-speaking, ignores the taxpayer's reply and evidence, or suffers from jurisdictional defects. Input tax credit cannot be denied automatically to a bona fide purchaser solely because supplier invoices do not appear in GSTR-2A, particularly where invoices and receipt of supplies are undisputed and no collusion is alleged. Extended limitation for tax demands requires material particulars establishing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; bare allegations are insufficient. Failure to consider submissions and documents breaches fair-hearing requirements and requires fresh, reasoned adjudication with a personal hearing.

CGST Act proceedings cannot be initiated or determined against a deceased proprietor. Section 93(1)(b) limits legal representatives' liability to the estate capable of meeting the tax demand, but requires liability to be determined by issuing notice to them in their capacity as legal representatives and giving them an opportunity to respond and be heard. The Section 74 determination mechanism requires notice to the person liable; proceedings against a non-existing person are void. Consequently, a show-cause notice, adjudication and recovery action issued solely in the deceased proprietor's name are invalid, though fresh proceedings may be commenced lawfully against the legal representatives.

Expiry of the prescribed GST appeal period did not preclude pursuit of the statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal after its constitution. Liberty was granted to file the appeal within fifteen days, with the period for which the writ petition remained pending to be taken into account, subject to compliance with statutory requirements.

Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires tax shortfall proceedings to be initiated separately for each financial year or tax period. Tax liability, returns, annual-return due dates, assessment and limitation for demand and recovery operate on a year-wise basis; therefore, a composite show-cause notice aggregating periods with distinct statutory timelines conflicts with that framework. Binding High Court precedent within the relevant jurisdiction governs this issue. An in-limine dismissal of a challenge to a contrary High Court view does not invoke merger or displace the binding jurisdictional position. Multi-year consolidated notices are consequently impermissible.

Section 16(5) grants input tax credit entitlement for specified financial years where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021, but does not prescribe a deadline for applying for that benefit. Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax prescribes a six-month rectification period under the special-procedure power in Section 148. The central issue is whether that procedure contains adequate safeguards, particularly a mechanism to extend the period where sufficient cause prevents timely application. Absence of an extension mechanism may defeat the statutory benefit under Section 16(5). Notice has been issued to newly added respondents for further consideration.

Proportionate refund of a GST statutory pre-deposit is available for the portion of demand set aside in first appeal where that appellate relief has attained finality. Finality attaches separately to the deleted portion when the department has not challenged it, even if the taxpayer intends to contest the surviving demand further. As a statutory pre-deposit operates as security, retention of the amount attributable to the deleted demand lacks authority once appellate relief becomes binding. Rejection of refund solely because the entire appellate proceeding has not concluded is therefore unsustainable.

Statutory pre-deposit under the erstwhile indirect tax regime is a security furnished as a condition for hearing an appeal, rather than duty. Where first appellate relief sets aside part of a demand and the Department does not challenge that relief, the appellate order becomes final to that extent. Refund of the corresponding pre-deposit cannot be refused merely because the taxpayer intends to challenge the remaining sustained demand. The refund claim attributable to the demand set aside was required to be processed and paid, while no interest claim was pursued.

The six-month application period for rectifying orders denying input tax credit was questioned as an impermissible restriction on statutory entitlement. Although the Government may prescribe a special procedure for input tax credit, that power must include conditions and safeguards protecting taxpayers. The amended provision made credit available for returns filed by the stipulated date but did not impose an application deadline. A procedure that bars relief after six months without allowing extension where sufficient cause prevented timely application curtails the accrued right to credit. The notification was considered deficient for lacking such a safeguard, with further consideration directed after impleadment of relevant governmental bodies.

Section 73 of the CGST Act requires GST assessment and demand limitation to be determined separately for each financial year, with reference to the relevant annual return. A composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years improperly combines distinct tax periods, due dates, limitation periods, allegations and response opportunities. High Court precedent is binding within its territorial jurisdiction. The composite notice was quashed, while preserving the respondents' liberty to issue fresh notices separately in accordance with Section 73, subject to any other legal impediment.

Show cause notices issued in the name of a deceased taxable person are void because tax cannot be determined against a non-existent person. Although legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the deceased's estate, that liability requires assessment against them in their representative capacity. They must receive a fresh notice and a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard before liability is determined. Proceedings initiated solely against a deceased proprietor, including adjudication and recovery, are liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication against the legal representatives without determination on merits.

Input tax credit denial to a bona fide purchaser based on a supplier's failure to deposit tax, file GSTR-3B, or reflect invoices in GSTR-2A requires proper consideration of the purchaser's reply and supporting evidence. The High Court found non-application of mind and breach of natural justice, and held that invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act for financial year 2018-19 lacked jurisdiction. The adjudication order and consequential recovery notice were quashed. Fresh adjudication was directed after considering relevant precedents, granting a personal hearing, and issuing a reasoned speaking order.

Passenger transportation follows the place of embarkation for a continuous journey. Where either the supplier or passenger is outside India, a short transit stop does not amount to a stopover or interrupt the journey; transportation embarking outside India consequently has a place of supply outside India and is not subject to GST. Where both supplier and passenger are in India, embarkation from Kolkata makes the service an intra-State supply liable to CGST and WBGST at the notified rate, with economy-class treatment subject to the input tax credit condition. Air transportation of human remains falls within funeral, burial, crematorium or mortuary services and is neither a supply of goods nor services, so remains outside GST.

Faceless assessment procedure requires necessary enquiry, verification and collection of relevant information before issuing a show cause notice, with reasoned consideration of explanations and reconciliations. Blanket notices and additions that disregard disclosed Category III AIF redemption proceeds or explained unlisted-share sale proceeds, including reliance on unrequested purchaser-source details, demonstrate arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Effective personal hearing is also required: a same-day hearing notice and an unresolved video-conference failure deny natural justice. These defects vitiated the assessment, consequential demand and penalty notices, requiring fresh proceedings, a hearing on at least five working days' notice before any adverse order, and a speaking, reasoned order.

Corporate guarantee liability becomes deductible in the previous year in which settlement fixes and crystallises the obligation. Where the settlement occurred in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1998-99, subsequent consent terms merely implemented and discharged the already determined liability; they did not defer the year of deduction. The resulting business-loss deduction was therefore allowable for Assessment Year 1998-99.

The proviso to Section 276CC bars prosecution for failure to furnish an income-tax return where tax payable on total income determined on regular assessment, after reducing advance tax and tax deducted at source, does not exceed the prescribed threshold. Where no tax remains due and tax deducted at source exceeds the assessed liability, delayed filing cannot sustain prosecution. On these facts, continuation of criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process and the prosecution was quashed.

Reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued within the applicable limitation period. The original six-year period expired on 31 March 2020, while the relevant extension notification covered only notices whose original limitation expired on 31 March 2021; it therefore did not extend time for a notice issued on 1 April 2021. Such notice was time-barred, requiring the consequential assessment orders to be set aside. Section 292BB addresses defects in service where an assessee participates in proceedings despite ineffective service; it cannot validate a reassessment notice issued after the statutory limitation period.

The extended period beyond six assessment years for a search assessment under the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) applies only where material available to the Assessing Officer shows escaped income represented by a stipulated asset of the required value. Alleged on-money receipts from project buyers, without a finding that those receipts were represented by such an asset, do not meet that condition. Assessments initiated beyond the six-year period on that basis were void ab initio, and the consequential reassessment orders for the relevant years were invalid.

Commission paid to non-resident agents for procuring export orders through services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India merely because it relates to an Indian exporter's business. Tax deduction at source on such payments arises only where the income is chargeable to tax in India. In the absence of material showing that the agents rendered services in India or maintained a permanent establishment or business operations in India, the commission remains outside Indian tax charge. Consequently, no tax was deductible on the foreign commission payments, and the corresponding disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source was deleted.

WhatsApp records recovered solely from a third party's mobile phone cannot support an unexplained-investment addition unless their authenticity is established and independent corroborative evidence exists. Electronic records require the prescribed certificate for admissibility, and the material must also comply with the stated requirements for extraction of electronic evidence. A search presumption arising from material found with a third party does not bind the assessee. Because the chats were unauthenticated and unsupported by other evidence, the unexplained-investment addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.