Delay in filing a corrected return to add the prefix "M/s." to an assessee-firm's name may be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) where the original return was timely and the correction is purely clerical. No change to the PAN, the firm's constitution, returned income, tax liability, or substantive claims arises from such correction, and no prejudice is caused to the Revenue. The condonation power should advance substantial justice where genuine hardship would otherwise result and should not be denied on a hyper-technical procedural ground. The corrected return should be treated as validly filed and processed according to law.

Revision under Section 264 remains maintainable after the limitation period for the available appellate remedy has expired, provided no appeal or delay-condonation application is pending. Section 264(4) bars revisional jurisdiction only where an appeal lies and remains capable of being filed within the subsisting appeal period, or where a required waiver of appeal has not been given. The revisional authority cannot decline jurisdiction solely because an appellate remedy was originally available. Any merits observations made while incorrectly treating the revision as non-maintainable should not influence fresh consideration on merits.

Look Out Circulars issued to protect India's economic interests may be judicially reviewed for legality, relevance of material and manifest arbitrariness, but courts cannot substitute their assessment for the competent authority's subjective satisfaction or reassess the qualitative or quantitative sufficiency of supporting inputs. Greater restraint applies in fiscal and economic matters unless the material is nonexistent, wholly speculative or manifestly untenable. Allegations concerning trade-based money laundering, hawala-linked transactions, over-invoiced exports, fraudulent export incentives, bogus purchases, fake invoices and fraudulent input tax credit constituted relevant and substantial material. The Look Out Circular therefore remained sustainable, and the order invalidating it was set aside.

Residential waste-management activities comprising cleaning common areas and collecting, segregating and storing garbage are classifiable under SAC 999423 as general waste collection services from residential locations, rather than under a residuary service category. Exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) requires a composite supply of goods and services. Bins, cleaning tools, consumables and welfare equipment used by the supplier at its own cost, without transfer of ownership or possession to the recipient, are not goods supplied to the recipient. The arrangement therefore remains a taxable service and does not qualify for the exemption.

Burial-ground upkeep involving sweeping, cleaning and garbage collection is classified under SAC 999424 as general waste collection services, rather than a residuary service category. GST exemption under Serial No. 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) requires a composite supply of goods and services. Cleaning bins, tools, consumables and welfare items used by the supplier solely to perform the service do not constitute a supply of goods where their ownership or possession is not transferred to the recipient. The activity therefore remains a service supply and does not qualify for the claimed exemption.

Revocation of GST registration cancellation requires an effective opportunity to address material relied upon by the proper officer. Although Section 29 permits cancellation and Section 30 permits a registered taxpayer to seek revocation, a field visit report not supplied with the original show-cause notice must be furnished before rejecting revocation for failure to respond to a subsequent notice. The revocation application requires reconsideration after disclosure of the field visit report and, if necessary, a further inspection.

Section 93(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires assessment proceedings involving a deceased sole proprietor to be pursued against the legal representative under the prescribed statutory procedure. Death before issuance of the assessment order makes assessment-related and appellate orders against the deceased proprietor unsustainable where the authorities fail to address that requirement. Participation by the legal representative in hearings and statutory appeals does not remove the need to proceed in accordance with Section 93(1)(b). The appellate order was set aside, with fresh consideration required after affording the legal representative a hearing.

Best-judgment assessment for non-furnishing of a return is deemed withdrawn under section 62(2) when the registered person subsequently furnishes a valid return within the prescribed period. Interest and late-fee liability nevertheless continues. Where the relevant return was filed after assessment with applicable late fee, additional late fee and interest, and that filing was undisputed, the assessment order stood deemed withdrawn and was set aside.

Assessment proceedings cannot validly continue against a deceased proprietor. An assessment issued after death is non est because it is directed at a person incapable of being proceeded against, and the required opportunity of personal hearing is not met. Although Section 93 permits recovery of tax dues from the deceased person's business or estate, fresh assessment proceedings must be initiated against the appropriate legal representative or person carrying on the business after notice and hearing. Any recovery remains limited to the deceased proprietor's estate, and a consequential rejection of the statutory appeal is invalid.

Ex parte dismissal of a statutory appeal for non-appearance warranted restoration where the petitioner substantiated the inability to attend through the Chartered Accountant's bereavement and subsequent hospitalisation. Factual claims concerning input tax credit required adjudication on merits; the appellate order was therefore set aside and the appeal restored, with all merits kept open. The consequential garnishee notice could not continue after the appellate dismissal was set aside and was also quashed.

Written grounds of arrest satisfy Article 22(1) when they adequately identify the arrestee's alleged role, wrongful input tax credit, relevant period, dummy suppliers and fraudulent-credit particulars, even if receipt is refused. The Commissioner's recorded reasons to believe need not also be supplied. Differences in arrest timings do not invalidate an arrest absent proven prejudice, particularly where prompt production before the Magistrate occurs; unproved CCTV material cannot support writ findings. Judicial remand is valid where counsel represents the arrestee, arrest intimation reaches a family member, and the Magistrate records satisfaction on arrest justification and compliance with statutory safeguards. The challenge to arrest and remand fails without addressing the underlying tax-evasion merits.

Portal-only upload of a show-cause notice or demand order, without acknowledgment or response, does not constitute effective service for ex parte consequences or commencement of appellate limitation. Where an assessee replied to the show-cause notice, that reply established service and participation, so restoration to the notice stage was unavailable; however, portal-only service of the demand order did not start the appeal period, and a statutory appeal could be filed within four weeks without limitation objection. Where no reply or acknowledgment of the portal-uploaded notice existed, the ex parte demand required restoration to the show-cause-notice stage, allowing a reply and personal hearing before fresh adjudication.

Bail pending investigation may be granted in allegations of fraudulent input tax credit availment through fictitious entities and forged invoices where material investigation concerning the accused is complete and further custodial detention is unnecessary. Relevant considerations include the accused's registered connection with the firm, awareness of its operations, parity with co-accused granted bail, continued custody, and personal circumstances, including care of a minor child and the spouse's custody. These factors may outweigh the need for further detention despite the nature and gravity of the allegations.

A tax-demand order issued after the taxpayer allegedly remained unaware of the show-cause notice because the business had closed was remitted for fresh adjudication. No merits determination was made. The claimed earlier tax recovery requires verification, and the taxpayer may submit a reply with supporting documents after paying any unrecovered balance of the disputed tax. Fresh consideration is therefore conditional on compliance with the stipulated payment and reply requirements.

Assessment orders issued after unanswered portal-based DRC-01 show-cause notices may be set aside where the assessee seeks a meaningful opportunity to submit a reply, supporting documents and merits before the assessing authority. Fresh consideration is conditional on making the stipulated deposit in instalments and filing the required response. The assessing authority must then issue notice and determine the matter afresh on merits.

Statutory GST appellate remedy under Section 107 remained available against an ex parte adjudication order, but documented medical exigencies and the substantial tax, interest and penalty created a prima facie basis for protective intervention. The petitioner was permitted to file the statutory appeal subject to the prescribed pre-deposit and payment of costs. The appellate authority must entertain and determine the appeal independently and expeditiously. The merits of the input tax credit demand and the validity of the ex parte adjudication remain for determination in the appellate proceedings.

Portal-only service of a GST show-cause notice after cancellation of registration does not constitute effective service where it does not reasonably communicate the notice to the taxable person. Section 169 of the CGST Act permits multiple service modes and does not make portal communication exclusive in those circumstances. Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing before an adverse decision, giving effect to audi alteram partem. An adjudication order issued without valid service and an effective hearing is unsustainable; the taxable person may submit a reply and receive fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

The appellate pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) is determined by the provision in force when adjudicatory proceedings commence through issuance of the show-cause notice. For proceedings initiated in 2020, appeals remain governed by Section 107(6) as it then stood. The substituted proviso effective from 01.10.2025 does not apply to those proposed appeals, notwithstanding that they may be filed after the substitution took effect.

Pre-arrest bail protection is ancillary to the substantive application and cannot continue or be granted after that application is dismissed as not maintainable; mere summons under the CGST Act does not make a person an accused. The protective direction against arrest was therefore invalid. An arrest authorisation under Section 69 of the CGST Act, based on the Commissioner's reasons to believe, must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested before arrest. Communication enables anticipatory bail and judicial review of the authorisation and reasons, and may be made electronically without obstructing investigation.

Interest on refund of sums deposited during investigation and remaining unutilised in a personal ledger account is disputed between treating the sums as revenue deposits or as statutory refund claims. One view treats the deposit and unutilised balance as an advance towards duty, excluding the refund and interest framework under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and supporting interest from the deposit date. The opposing view applies Section 11B to the refund and Section 11BB to interest, precluding interest from the deposit date outside that framework. The unresolved questions were referred to a third Member.