GST registration revocation cannot be rejected through a non-speaking order. An order determining civil rights must record intelligible reasons, and a rejection unsupported by any accompanying order disclosing its basis is unsustainable. The revocation application therefore requires fresh determination in accordance with law.

A timely filed rectification application remains capable of decision on merits after the three-month disposal timeline expires. The requirement that the competent authority decide the application "as far as possible" within that period is directory: it requires an endeavour to comply but neither makes the authority functus officio nor removes its jurisdiction after three months. Rejection solely on the ground that the disposal period had expired was quashed, and the application was remitted for a merits-based decision within three months.

Restoration of blocked GST portal access for furnishing Form GSTR-1 requires effective consideration of the taxpayer's supporting material. The taxpayer must submit a comprehensive representation in response to the information notice, and the competent authority must decide it through a reasoned and speaking order after granting a personal hearing. Where the material establishes that the taxpayer is a bona fide registered proprietor, the GST portal must be activated within 48 hours to enable Form GSTR-1 filing. The merits of the restoration request remain subject to fresh independent determination by the competent authority.

Anticipatory bail was refused where allegations of cheating and forgery involved inducing purchases through fictitious firms and using forged invoices to evade deposit of collected tax. The accusations prima facie indicated the accused's involvement, while the investigation remained at an early stage. Custodial interrogation was considered necessary to establish the manner of the alleged offences and obtain material linking the accused to the fictitious firm. As pre-arrest bail requires extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, and none were established, the petition was dismissed without addressing the trial merits.

Proof of service and acknowledgment of statutory summons are necessary to support an allegation of deliberate or wilful non-compliance during an investigation. Mere issuance of summons, without material establishing that the person concerned received and acknowledged them, does not establish intentional disobedience or evasion of appearance. On those facts, declining cognizance of the complaint was treated as free from jurisdictional error. Fresh summons may be issued where legally permissible, provided they are duly served and proof of service is maintained. No conclusion follows on the merits of the investigation or on any underlying liability or offence.

GST on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling, including online gaming and fantasy sports played with stakes, remains payable under the GST framework. The Supreme Court sustained the levy and the validity of the relevant provisions, Rule 31A, Rules 31B and 31C; the 2023 amendments and Rules 31B and 31C operate clarificatorily and retrospectively. Pending show-cause proceedings must be decided on that basis, with casino valuation recomputed under Rule 31C. Following an undertaking to adjudicate accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the petition without pressing reliefs.

GST adjudication involving penalty or other adverse liability requires an opportunity of personal hearing. A show-cause notice stating that personal hearing is inapplicable, followed by an adjudication order without a hearing, breaches the statutory hearing requirement and principles of natural justice; a hearing in an unrelated earlier matter does not cure that defect. Section 74A(8)(ii) allows payment of tax and applicable interest within 60 days of the show-cause notice without penalty, with proceedings deemed concluded. Adjudication before expiry of that payment period contravenes the provision. Orders issued in breach of either requirement are unsustainable.

Service-tax liability on turnover from trading in farm products requires examination of whether that turnover is exigible to service tax before liability can be sustained. Where the adjudicating order proceeded on the basis that no response was filed and no personal hearing was attended, reconsideration is required after allowing the taxpayer to respond and submit relevant material. The service-tax order was quashed and the proceedings restored for fresh consideration, with the taxpayer's response to be considered without rejection solely for delay. The writ petition was partly allowed.

Cancellation of GST registration based solely on a list identifying an enterprise as fake requires prior physical verification of its registered business premises, particularly where the registrant has responded to the show-cause notice with documents relating to State Authority proceedings. Treating the enterprise as non-operational without that verification was improper. The show-cause notice and cancellation order were quashed, while preserving the proper officer's ability to verify the premises under the GST Rules and take further action in accordance with law.

Effective opportunity of hearing in GST adjudication was denied where electronic notices were sent to e-mail credentials registered with an erstwhile auditor, leaving the taxpayer without effective knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court treated the explanation of loss of contact with the auditor as plausible and bona fide, and found that the resulting inability to respond justified intervention against the ex parte adjudication. The adjudication order and summary were quashed, with fresh consideration directed after a 10% deposit of the tax demand and filing of a response and supporting documents. The authority must issue a reasoned order after affording an opportunity to respond.

Re-credit of excess tax to an electronic credit ledger requires examination of the taxpayer's entitlement under the applicable refund framework and CBIC circulars. Relief cannot be granted without recorded reasons; the direction permitting re-credit was therefore set aside and remanded for a fresh speaking order. Recomputation of GST liability also requires a disclosed and reasoned basis, with reference to self-assessed and auto-generated returns and audit reports on record. The unexplained reduction of assessed liability was set aside and remanded for fresh determination after hearing both sides.

Valid e-way bill compliance requires Part B to identify the vehicle actually transporting goods. Where a vehicle breaks down and goods are transferred, the movement must be supported by contemporaneous evidence and the e-way bill must be updated or freshly generated before transit. A later e-way bill issued by the purchaser does not cure a vehicle mismatch where the driver holds the supplier's invoice and no contemporaneous material establishes purchaser-led transport. Such discrepancies are not merely technical and can support an inference of intent to evade tax. Penalty proceedings under Section 129 for transport without a valid e-way bill were confirmed.

Tax withholding under Section 195 arises only where a payment to a non-resident is chargeable to tax in India. Where consistent Tribunal findings, upheld by the High Court for earlier years, establish that the recipient has no permanent establishment in India and its relevant income is not taxable, the Assessing Officer cannot take a contrary position on identical facts. Section 195(2) applies only when the payer accepts that part of a remittance is taxable but requires determination of the taxable portion or deductible tax. It does not require an application where the entire payment is not chargeable. Consequently, no tax deduction obligation or Section 201 default arises for such payments, and the Section 201 order was quashed.

Third-party search material forming the foundation for assessment of a person other than the searched person requires use of the special assessment procedure under section 153C. Its overriding clause displaces general reassessment under sections 147 and 148, even where the Revenue subsequently analyses or corroborates the seized material and treats it as information indicating escaped income. Because the alleged transactions, taxpayer identification and inference of unaccounted income originated in seized material, the section 148A(d) order and consequential section 148 notice lacked jurisdiction and were quashed.

Consequential assessment orders giving effect to appellate directions that require verification and an opportunity to the assessee must be completed within the limitation period applicable under section 153(3), as extended by TOLA where relevant. Where the appellate order was received during FY 2019-20, the consequential order had to be made by 31 March 2022. An order issued after that date is time-barred and cannot support a demand notice. In the absence of a valid fresh assessment, the returned income must be accepted, and amounts deposited against the invalid demand are refundable with interest.

Transfer-pricing adjustments were properly confined to international transactions involving import of raw materials from associated enterprises, as the arm's-length price mechanism applies to those transactions; the restriction was upheld. Functional differences in products, manufacturing activities and raw materials justified exclusion of a proposed comparable, and the High Court declined to reappraise that factual finding under section 260-A. Working-capital adjustment was remitted for verification because supporting particulars had not initially been furnished, with no final determination of entitlement or amount. The foreign-exchange revenue filter was also remitted for reconsideration under a consistent approach after giving the assessee an opportunity. Revenue appeals were dismissed.

Show-cause notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond are required before an assessment can make an addition as unexplained money. Where proposed variations notified to the taxpayer differed from the unexplained-money addition ultimately made, and no notice addressed that proposition, the taxpayer was denied an opportunity of hearing in breach of natural justice. The assessment order and consequential penalty notices were quashed, while preserving the revenue's right to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Return filed in response to a reassessment notice may be treated as a regular return where delayed filing was bona fide because an advance-ruling application on the taxability of the sole transaction remained pending. Credit of tax deducted at source and other prepaid taxes must be allowed against the assessed demand; once such adjustment is permissible, excess prepaid tax cannot be denied as a refund without statutory basis. Fresh assessment must verify the prepaid-tax credits, grant any resulting refund with applicable interest, and may entail fresh penalty proceedings where warranted.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, read with its overriding provision, prohibits the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor during the insolvency moratorium. Income-tax revisional proceedings initiated or continued during that period cannot be sustained. A revisional order passed after commencement of the moratorium was set aside without examination of the proposed revision on merits. The proceedings may be revived and reframed after the moratorium ceases, if permitted by law, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing; all merits issues remain open.

GST reimbursement for ongoing contracts awarded before GST was introduced could not be denied merely because tender rates were stated to include applicable taxes at the time of bidding. Tender conditions did not cover a tax that did not exist when the work order was issued, and a conflicting pre-bid clarification could not override those conditions. Government measures for ongoing works contemplated compensation for the net additional GST burden through a supplementary agreement. Rejection after referral for chartered-accountant verification, while similarly placed contractors received reimbursement, was arbitrary and inconsistent with equal treatment. Reimbursement was due to the extent verified by the respondents' chartered accountant.