Transitional applicability of the appellate pre-deposit requirement depends on the law in force when adjudicatory proceedings commenced through issuance of the show-cause notice. Appeals against penalty orders arising from notices issued before substitution of the proviso to Section 107(6) of the CGST Act remain governed by the earlier pre-deposit provision. Petitioners must pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with physical filing accepted where electronic filing is unavailable because no individual registration or temporary identification exists. The merits, including whether penalty provisions apply to a person who is not taxable, remain open for determination in accordance with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

Service of GST notices after cancellation of registration must be effective, and an adverse adjudication requires a meaningful opportunity to reply and a personal hearing. Where registration had been cancelled and the taxpayer was not effectively served or heard, the adjudication order was quashed. The taxpayer was permitted to file a reply to the show-cause notice, and the Department could undertake fresh adjudication in accordance with law after granting a personal hearing.

Alternative statutory remedy under GST did not prevent protective writ intervention where an ex parte adjudication was linked to partners' medical exigencies and substantial tax, interest and penalty exposure. The input tax credit dispute remained undecided on merits. Recourse to the statutory appeal was permitted subject to payment of the prescribed pre-deposit and imposed costs, with the appellate authority required to entertain the appeal and determine it independently in accordance with law. The writ proceedings therefore preserved access to the appellate remedy without deciding the underlying input tax credit demand.

Assessment orders passed after non-response to portal-issued show-cause notices were quashed after the assessee agreed to make the stipulated deposit in instalments and appear before the assessing authority. The assessee may file replies and supporting documents, with the impugned assessment orders treated as addenda to the respective show-cause notices. Fresh adjudication on merits is conditional on compliance with the deposit and reply-filing requirements. If those conditions are not met, recovery proceedings may continue as though the writ petitions had been dismissed in limine.

Fresh adjudication of a confirmed tax demand may proceed only after verification that the entire disputed tax has been recovered or after deposit of any unrecovered balance. The demand was remitted for a final decision on merits, conditional on verification or payment of the disputed tax and submission of a reply to the show-cause notice with supporting documents. If those conditions were not met, recovery could continue in accordance with law after due notice.

Article 22(1) requires written communication of arrest grounds within a reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand. Written grounds identifying the accused's alleged role, wrongful input tax credit, entities involved and particulars of fraud were treated as sufficiently specific; refusal to receive them did not render them vague. Conflicting arrest times did not invalidate the arrest where same-day production before the Magistrate caused no prejudice, and recorded reasons to believe were not required to be supplied. Judicial remand was supported by counsel representation, consideration of both sides' submissions, verification of statutory safeguards and recorded satisfaction on the arrest's justification. The criminal writ petition challenging the GST arrest and remand was dismissed without addressing the underlying merits.

GST assessment against a deceased proprietor has no legal efficacy, particularly where it is completed without the statutory personal-hearing opportunity under Section 75(4). The assessment order and consequential appellate rejection were declared invalid because the assessment followed the proprietor's death and did not address the hearing requirement. Fresh assessment proceedings may be initiated by issuing notice and providing a hearing to the legal representative or person carrying on the business. Recovery is limited to the deceased person's available estate, and the intervening period may be excluded when computing limitation for fresh proceedings.

Section 62(2) of the GST law provides that a best-judgment assessment for non-filing of returns is deemed withdrawn when the registered person furnishes a valid return within the prescribed period. Furnishing the relevant GSTR-3B return, together with applicable late fee, additional late fee and interest, removes the assessment while preserving liability for interest and late fees. The provision therefore operates to withdraw the assessment automatically upon compliant post-assessment return filing.

Assessment proceedings and an appellate order against a sole proprietorship were invalid because the proprietor had died before the assessment order was issued and the objection was raised in appeal. Where GST liability is pursued after a sole proprietor's death, the assessing authority must follow the procedure under Section 93(1)(b) of the CGST Act against the legal representative. The common appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh action against the legal representative after an opportunity of hearing.

Burial-ground upkeep and maintenance involving sweeping, cleaning and daily garbage collection is classified under SAC 999424 as general waste collection services, rather than a residuary service category. The municipal-function exemption under Entry 3A requires a composite supply of goods and services. Welfare kits, bins, tools, consumables and equipment used by the service provider to perform cleaning, without transfer of ownership or possession to the Corporation, do not constitute a supply of goods to the recipient. As the arrangement lacked the required composite supply, the Entry 3A exemption does not apply.

Residential housing-unit sweeping, cleaning, collection, segregation and storage of garbage are classified as general waste collection services under SAC 999423, which is more specific than the residuary category for other services not elsewhere specified. The arrangement is not eligible for the exemption available for composite supplies of goods and services to a local authority in relation to municipal functions. Cleaning and garbage removal formed the predominant supply, while welfare kits, bins, tools and consumables merely facilitated service performance and were procured at the service provider's cost. As ownership or possession of those items was not transferred to the local authority, no supply of goods occurred and the composite-supply condition was not met.

Judicial review of a Look Out Circular is confined to testing whether the originating authority acted within constitutional and legal limits; it does not permit re-evaluation of that authority's subjective satisfaction that foreign travel would harm India's economic interests. Review may intervene where no material exists, or the material is speculative or so insubstantial that no reasonable authority could rely on it. Material relating to alleged trade-based money laundering, hawala transactions, over-invoiced exports, fraudulent export incentives, bogus purchases, fake invoices and undisclosed foreign investment was sufficient for the travel restriction. The Look Out Circular was upheld, the order quashing it was set aside, and the challenge was dismissed.

Section 264(4) does not bar revision merely because the statutory period for filing an appeal has expired. Where no appeal or condonation application is pending and waiver of appeal is not relevant, the Revisional Authority should entertain the revision on merits. Refusal on the premise that the revision is non-maintainable is erroneous, and merits observations founded on that premise cannot stand. The rejection was set aside, with the revision restored for fresh adjudication on merits; all substantive contentions remain open.

Section 119(2)(b) supports condonation where genuine hardship would otherwise result and substantial justice would be defeated by a procedural lapse. A timely original return, coupled with a bona fide correction confined to the partnership firm's nomenclature, did not alter income, tax liability, or substantive claims and caused no prejudice to the Revenue. The delay was therefore treated as arising from a purely clerical omission rather than a substantive default. Rejection of condonation was quashed, the corrected return was treated as validly filed, and it was directed to be processed in accordance with law without influence from the rejection order.

Rejection of books of account is sustainable where a civil contractor fails to produce material bills, vouchers and supporting details despite repeated opportunities. Net profit may then be estimated at 8% of turnover by reference to the presumptive-profit benchmark, particularly where no evidence supports a lower rate claimed from an earlier year. Interest income not arising from contract receipts does not form part of turnover-based estimated business income and remains separately taxable. The business income is therefore determined at the estimated net-profit rate, with non-contractual interest assessed independently.

Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional similarity and reliable current-year segmental data. Bilcare Ltd. was excluded because of diversified operations, unavailable segmental data, and its pharmaceutical packaging profile, which differed from paper-based aseptic packaging for food and drink products. Karur KCP Packaging Ltd. was excluded because it produced kraft paper and polypropylene bags principally for the cement industry, making its products materially dissimilar. Earlier-year segmental data could not support current-year inclusion where relevant data was unavailable. The Tribunal's fact-based comparability findings disclosed neither error nor perversity, so no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed; the separate Revenue appeal issue remained open.

Condonation of delay in a statutory appeal may be warranted where the taxpayer explains that the assessment order was not served and became known only during recovery proceedings. Dismissing the appeal solely on limitation without adequately considering that explanation can prevent examination of challenges to reassessment initiation and assessment based on total turnover rather than taxable income. The appeal may be restored for an independent merits decision, subject to costs for substantial delay, with all merits contentions remaining open.

Compounding of offences for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source under Sections 276B and 278B was restored where stipulated charges were not paid within the prescribed period but were subsequently deposited in full. Financial difficulties and the company's subsequent liquidation were treated as bona fide reasons for the delay. The High Court extended the payment period up to the actual date of deposit, set aside rejection of the compounding applications, and made the earlier compounding order effective until that date. Restoration remained subject to additional costs payable to the Department, which could seek withdrawal of the deposited compounding charges. A second compounding application was unnecessary.

Annual election between the Income-tax Act and the applicable tax treaty permits an assessee to select the more beneficial regime independently for each assessment year, with no identified bar on changing that option across years. Where treaty treatment under the India-Mauritius DTAA renders capital gains non-taxable in India, earlier short-term capital losses validly carried forward need not be set off against those exempt gains. Those losses may therefore continue to be carried forward. The Revenue's challenge to further carry forward of the losses failed on merits, while the reassessment challenge became infructuous.

Offshore supply profits from equipment, integrated designs and spares manufactured, delivered FOB and paid for outside India were not taxable in India where title passed abroad, no fixed-place PE was established, and the supervisory PE had no connection with the supplies. The attribution of those profits was deleted. Supervisory services exceeding the treaty duration threshold created a supervisory PE; receipts directly connected with it were taxable as net business profits under Article 7, not gross-basis fees for technical services. Offshore designs and drawings supplied solely for internal plant use transferred no right to commercially exploit intellectual property and were business income, not royalty or fees for technical services. Advance-tax interest was not chargeable for the relevant period, while return-delay interest and tax-deduction credit required verification.