Section 279 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires leave of the Tribunal to continue legal proceedings by or against a company in winding up, including proceedings pending when the winding-up order is made. The liquidator assumes responsibility for the company's position in such proceedings and must receive an effective opportunity to pursue pending appeals. Ex parte appellate orders made after winding up without notice to, or a hearing of, the liquidator cannot be sustained. The appeals were remitted for fresh adjudication after notice and personal hearing to the liquidator.

Uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order only under the portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separate intimation, prevented the petitioner from responding to the proceedings and breached principles of natural justice. Dismissal of the statutory appeal solely as time-barred, without considering the merits in these circumstances, was unsustainable. The limitation-based appellate order was quashed, and the appeal was to be admitted and decided afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Ex parte GST appellate orders against a company in winding up require notice to its liquidator and an advance opportunity of personal hearing. Four appellate orders concerning the company's GST liabilities were set aside because they had been made without the liquidator's participation. The appeals were remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication after notice and hearing to the liquidator. The merits of the GST demands remain open.

Detention and penalty proceedings for goods require consideration of documents produced by a person claiming ownership, including the e-way bill, e-tax invoice and bilty. Failure to assess those materials, along with the issue identified in the relevant CBIC circular, rendered the penalty order unsustainable. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter to the concerned authority for fresh consideration of the ownership documents and circular requirements in accordance with law.

Search authorisation requires the competent officer to record reasons to believe; non-supply of those reasons to the searched person does not itself invalidate the search, but the original authorisation and contemporaneous records require examination in adjudication. Alleged absence of a Document Identification Number requires factual verification and does not alone justify quashing a notice. Investigation-based GST demands may proceed without prior return scrutiny, although scrutiny remains necessary for discrepancies identified solely through return scrutiny. A consolidated notice may cover multiple financial years if liability, limitation and applicable provisions are assessed separately for each year. Penalties cannot be imposed twice f.....

Recording pre-charge evidence in a GST prosecution without a formal order summoning the accused is procedurally erroneous. The trial court must first follow the prescribed process, including the hearing requirement before taking cognizance under Section 223 of the BNSS and the applicable Supreme Court principles. Orders recording pre-charge evidence without compliance were set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed under the statutory procedure.

Writ jurisdiction against GST determinations involving fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression is generally unavailable where objections require resolution of disputed facts. Challenges concerning signatures, the form and content of show-cause notices, consideration of replies, and the hearing officer's authority require factual examination not ordinarily undertaken in writ proceedings. Form DRC-01 summaries identifying the demand and relevant taxable periods, coupled with an order that is not prima facie non-speaking and is passed by a proper officer, support recourse to the statutory appellate mechanism. A taxpayer cannot bypass the prescribed multi-tier appeal merely to avoid mandatory pre-deposit requirements.

Section 75(4) of the GST law requires the proper officer to provide a personal hearing before passing an adverse adjudication order, even where the taxable person has not requested one. Notice of a specific date, time and venue is necessary to satisfy that requirement. A hearing recorded before issue of the show-cause notice does not cure the failure to provide a post-notice opportunity. Non-compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement invalidates the adjudication and requires fresh consideration after allowing a response to the show-cause notice and conducting a properly notified hearing.

GST exemption applies to effluent and waste-treatment services supplied by a section 12AA-registered entity where those activities constitute charitable preservation of the environment. The specific nil-rate exemption prevails over the taxable entry for sewage and waste collection, treatment and disposal services, particularly where charitable status has been previously determined. Extended demand proceedings require strict proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or deliberate suppression of material facts with intent to evade tax; a failure to declare tax liability alone is insufficient. A subsequently discontinued exemption claim and later tax payment do not establish prior intent to evade. The show-cause notice was quashed because the exemption was available and the conditions for invoking the extended-demand provision were absent.

A subsequent adjudication order under section 74 for FY 2017-18 cannot be sustained where it was passed without reference to an earlier adjudication order that had culminated in an appellate order. The consequential Form GST DRC-13 recovery notice issued to the bank also fails because it depends on the invalid subsequent order. The subsequent adjudication order and recovery notice were quashed, and the writ petition was partly allowed.

GST appellate authorities must adjudicate statutory refund appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for an appellant's non-appearance. Appellate orders must also provide reasons supporting their conclusions. The High Court set aside an order dismissing a refund appeal for non-prosecution because it contained neither merits-based adjudication nor reasons. The refund appeal was remanded to the Appellate Authority for disposal in accordance with law, with all merits left open.

Statutory limitation for GST appeals under section 107 bound the appellate authority, but the High Court condoned delay where circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control prevented timely filing and refusal of merits review would cause grave injury and prejudice. The appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside. The GST appeal concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was permitted to be filed and decided on merits without limitation objection, subject to compliance with the filing period stipulated by the High Court.

Electronic service of GST notices and assessment orders through a taxpayer's web-portal profile constitutes valid and sufficient service under the CGST Act. A taxpayer remains responsible for monitoring the portal, communicating hearing dates and uploaded orders to its engaged lawyer, and responding to departmental communications. Execution of a vakalathnama does not transfer that monitoring obligation or establish denial of opportunity. Where no material demonstrates a lapse by the lawyer, non-participation caused by failure to check the portal does not justify interference with assessment orders or consequential recovery proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed.

Compounding charges under the 2024 Guidelines must be calculated by reference to actual service of the prosecution complaint where charge enhancement depends on application timing. The requirement that a complaint be served within 15 days supports a fair and prompt opportunity to seek compounding, including for pending applications. Accordingly, the 12-month period for the enhanced rate runs from service on the accused, not the complaint's filing date. Applications filed within 12 months of service attract the normal rate, without the 50% enhancement; charges must be recomputed accordingly.

Political-donation deduction claims transparently disclosed in a return do not constitute misreporting merely because the deduction is disallowed. Misreporting requires material showing false evidence, suppression of facts, or deliberate misrepresentation. Statutory immunity from under-reporting penalties applies where the substantive conditions for immunity are satisfied. Applying these principles, the penalty imposed for alleged misreporting in relation to the political-donation deduction was deleted.

Charitable status of sports-promotion activities is not lost merely because an organisation receives sponsorship, entry, or professional-entry fees. Tournament organisation may be integral to promoting women's golf where receipts are substantially applied to tournaments and player-development activities and no independent commercial activity, substantial commercial margin, or profit motive is established. Renewal of charitable registration is confined to whether charitable objects continue and activities are genuine and aligned with those objects; it is not a reassessment of each receipt's taxability. Unchanged objects and activities require cogent reasons for departure from an accepted position. Registration was directed to be granted, and the consequential refusal of donation approval could not stand.

Misreporting of income under section 270A is not established merely because a donation deduction claimed under section 80GGC was disclosed in the return and later disallowed or withdrawn in a reassessment return. Misreporting requires material indicating deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, false evidence, suppression, or misrepresentation. Where the taxpayer fulfils the substantive conditions for immunity under section 270AA(1), penalty protection applies. On these principles, the penalty imposed for misreporting was deleted and the appeal was allowed.

ITAT treated notional interest on overdue receivables from associated enterprises as unwarranted where the taxpayer was debt-free, resulting in deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment. It also treated employee stock option plan costs as allowable business expenditure rather than capital expenditure and deleted the corresponding disallowance. The appeal was partly allowed on those grounds.

Retrospective amendments to the Dispute Resolution Panel procedure and assessment-limitation provisions, effective from 1 April 2009, place the final assessment order within the applicable limitation period. Transfer pricing adjustments require consideration of a pending rectification application concerning implementation of Dispute Resolution Panel directions. Software development comparables require reliable contemporaneous information, functional similarity and clear segmental data; entities with mixed functions, absent segmental disclosure or unreliable public information are unsuitable. For IT-enabled services, comparability depends on the relevant-year operating segment and service profile, while separately reported IT-enabled service.....

Chapter X confines transfer-pricing adjustments to income arising from international transactions and does not permit enhancement of profits from independent third-party dealings. Manufacturing comparables must be functionally aligned with ready-to-cook instant-noodle production; diversified food, healthcare, personal-care, fast-food and ready-to-eat businesses without suitable segmental data may be unsuitable, whereas convenience-packaged food and instant-mix manufacturing may be comparable. AMP expenditure cannot be treated as an international transaction through the Bright Line Test, which lacks statutory mandate, without material showing an arrangement or understanding with associated enterprises to incur such expenditure on their behalf. Challenges to initiation of penalty proceedings for transfer-pricing documentation failures or under-reporting are premature.