Addition for alleged bogus purchases cannot be sustained as unexplained expenditure where purchases are recorded, supported by documentary material, and the books of account have neither been rejected nor found incorrect or incomplete. Section 69C applies only where the source of expenditure remains unexplained; an allegation that a supplier provided accommodation entries does not by itself satisfy that condition. Accepted sales and turnover within the presumptive-taxation regime under section 44AD further supported deletion of the addition. Consequently, taxation under section 115BBE did not apply.

Compensation received for withdrawing a legal challenge and surrendering contractual pre-emptive rights over shareholding is capital in character where the rights enabled shareholders to acquire shares before transfer and their relinquishment impaired a capital asset and source of income. Although consideration for a non-compete covenant is taxable under Section 28(va) of the Income-tax Act, consideration for other negative covenants or surrender of rights to acquire or operate an asset remains capital. Payment by an acquiring entity does not alter its character. The contractual transfer restriction is not an impermissible absolute restraint under the Companies Act. The receipt is not taxable as business income or income from other sources.

Reassessment notices issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year under the pre-amendment regime required sanction from the Joint Commissioner. Extension of time for obtaining sanction did not alter the applicability of the prescribed approval provision. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner, who was designated for notices issued beyond the four-year period, did not meet the statutory requirement. Where legislation assigns satisfaction and sanction to a specified authority, that authority alone must exercise the power. Absence of valid sanction rendered the reassessment notice invalid, with the consequential objection-disposal, assessment, demand and related proceedings liable to be quashed.

The twelve-month period for enhanced compounding charges under the 2024 and 2022 Compounding Guidelines runs from actual service of the prosecution complaint, not its filing date. The 2024 Guidelines apply to pending compounding applications, and their requirement that the complaint be served promptly supports a fair calculation of time-based differential charges. Computing the period from filing would be inappropriate where the accused had neither been served nor made aware of the complaint. Consequently, a compounding application filed within twelve months of service attracts normal charges rather than the fifty per cent enhanced rate.

Electronic upload of hearing notices and assessment orders on a taxpayer's designated web portal constitutes valid service. Statutory appeals against assessment orders are available under the prescribed appellate mechanism, and a writ challenge based on alleged lack of hearing is not maintainable where portal communications were duly uploaded. Taxpayers must monitor portal communications and instruct authorised representatives accordingly; executing a vakalatnama does not transfer that responsibility or, without more, establish a representative's lapse.

Statutory appeal against an assessment order under Section 74(9) is subject to the prescribed limitation and the limited further period under Section 107(4), beyond which the Appellate Authority cannot condone delay. Where a writ petition was instituted within the original appeal period, the taxpayer may be afforded the statutory appellate remedy despite expiry of the condonable period during writ proceedings. The appeal may be filed by the stipulated date and must be decided on merits, with a hearing and a speaking, reasoned order, rather than rejected as time-barred.

Revocation of cancelled GST registration may be sought where the taxpayer undertakes to submit pending returns and pay outstanding tax dues. The prescribed process requires filing a revocation application, furnishing proposed returns and depositing the applicable dues, after which the registering authority must consider the application. Cancellation of registration can prevent continuation of business, making an opportunity to restore registration practically significant. The validity of the cancellation order remains undecided and is not resolved through the revocation process directions.

Ineffective service of GST notices and an adjudication order may justify writ relief despite the statutory appeal limitation under Section 107. Mere uploading on the common portal, without acknowledged receipt or any response, does not by itself establish sufficient service where the assessee lacked an effective opportunity to contest the demand. Refusal of merits adjudication in those circumstances causes prejudice. The limitation-based appellate dismissal was set aside, delay was condoned, and the assessee could file an appeal within the stipulated period for merits adjudication without a limitation objection.

Assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 must be confined to the relevant tax period. Separate notices and assessment orders are required for distinct tax periods, because a composite order spanning multiple financial years can impair a registered person's access to statutory benefits and effective appellate remedies. Consequently, a single assessment order imposing penalty across more than one tax period is impermissible and unsustainable.

Time spent prosecuting a rectification application after an adjudication order must be excluded when computing the limitation period for a GST appeal. Where exclusion of that period places the appeal within the prescribed period, dismissal on the ground that it exceeded the maximum appellate limitation is unsustainable. The limitation calculation must therefore account for the period genuinely consumed in rectification proceedings before determining whether the statutory appeal is time-barred.

Dismissal of a statutory GST appeal for delay beyond the Appellate Authority's statutory condonation power was set aside. The appeal was remanded for adjudication on merits, requiring a speaking and reasoned decision after hearing the petitioner. Relevant documents must be supplied before further proceedings so that the merits can be properly considered.

Section 107(11) and (12) of the CGST Act requires the Appellate Authority to inquire as necessary and issue a reasoned written order confirming, modifying or annulling the challenged order. These requirements mandate adjudication on merits, including identification of points for determination, the decision and supporting reasons. An appeal cannot therefore be dismissed solely for non-prosecution because the appellant is absent. A non-speaking dismissal that does not address the merits fails to meet the statutory appellate requirements.

Subsequent GST adjudication and bank recovery for FY 2017-18 cannot proceed independently after the original adjudication has been appealed and the appellate authority has determined liability. An order under Section 74(9) for the same tax period was unsustainable because it neither referred to nor accounted for the original order and its appellate culmination. The consequential Form GST DRC-13 notice issued to the bank could not survive independently. The subsequent adjudication order and bank-recovery notice were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Charitable treatment and disposal of industrial waste by an entity registered under section 12AA falls within preservation of environment and qualifies for the nil-rate exemption for charitable activities under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). This specific charitable exemption applies notwithstanding the general GST entry for sewage and waste treatment services. Fraud-based GST recovery under section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A bona fide exemption claim based on registered charitable status and established environmental activities does not, without deliberate non-disclosure or evasion intent, meet that threshold; a demand founded on those allegations is unsustainable.

Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing before an adverse tax determination, whether or not the taxpayer requests one. Effective compliance requires prior notification of the specific date, time and venue of the hearing. Recording that an opportunity was afforded is insufficient where the record does not establish such notice, particularly when the recorded hearing occurred before issuance of the show-cause notice. Adjudication under Section 74(9) is therefore unsustainable for breach of the mandatory hearing requirement, requiring fresh adjudication after the taxpayer files a response and receives a duly notified personal hearing.

GST registration cancelled solely for continuous non-filing of returns may be restored where no allegation of a tax-evasion scheme exists. Continued cancellation prevents business operations and invoice issuance, which can obstruct assessment and recovery of tax liabilities. Restoration was made conditional on filing all pending returns for the default period and paying the resulting tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated time. Compliance requires restoration of registration, enabling the taxpayer to resume operations while securing statutory dues.

Statutory appellate remedies govern challenges to tax determinations under Section 74 when objections concerning signatures, show-cause notices, hearing officers, taxable periods, or consideration of replies require resolution of disputed facts. Demand summaries identifying taxable periods and adjudication by a proper officer support use of the prescribed appellate process, including its pre-deposit safeguards. Withdrawal of an earlier challenge to show-cause notices, while retaining liberty to reply and participate in adjudication, does not permit bypass of that process. Fact-dependent objections must therefore be pursued before the statutory appellate forum rather than through writ proceedings.

Section 75(7) confines tax, interest and penalty determinations to the amount and grounds specified in the show-cause notice. A demand quantified above the notice amount travels beyond that statutory limit, rendering the determination jurisdictionally invalid. Where the original demand suffers from this jurisdictional defect, an available Tribunal remedy need not be pursued where the appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on limitation without examining merits. Fresh adjudication requires notice and a proper opportunity of hearing.

Pre-cognizance procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requires the prescribed process, including an opportunity of hearing for the accused, before cognizance is taken. Cognizance requires judicial application of mind and is not a ministerial act. In complaints under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, pre-charge evidence cannot be recorded without a formal cognizance or summoning order and compliance with these fair-trial safeguards. Pre-charge evidence orders made without that procedure were set aside.

GST demand proceedings founded on search and investigation need not be preceded by return scrutiny under Section 61 or FORM GST ASMT-10, which apply where discrepancies arise from scrutiny of returns. Search authorisation requires pre-existing reasons to believe; the existence of FORM GST INS-01 alone is insufficient, while non-supply of recorded reasons does not prove their absence. A single notice may cover multiple financial years under the respective demand provisions, provided liability, limitation and statutory conditions are assessed year-wise. Multiple penalty provisions may be invoked, but the same act or omission cannot attract double penalty. Disputed suppression, fraud and tax quantification require adjudicatory factual examination.