Registration under section 12AB requires fair consideration of lease documentation, rent expenditure and the genuineness of charitable activities. Where a rent agreement supports payments for land taken from members and the balance sheet records ownership of the building rather than the land, doubts over supporting evidence should not lead to rejection without an opportunity to provide further particulars. The registration application must be reconsidered after granting one final opportunity to substantiate the claim.

Reassessment initiation remains valid where the taxpayer received a show-cause notice, an opportunity to respond, and a reasoned disposal of objections. Personal hearing is not an absolute requirement at the preliminary stage if the taxpayer retains a substantive opportunity to contest allegations and submit evidence during reassessment. Information on unexplained cash credit and cash deposits may be considered together when intrinsically connected to alleged income escapement. Only a prima facie opinion is required to initiate reassessment; examination of the loan's identity, creditworthiness and genuineness is reserved for reassessment. A proper personal hearing and consideration of taxpayer material must be provided during reassessment, with merits remaining open.

Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) require a statutory notice that identifies the specific charge: concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. These are independent grounds, and retaining both alternatives in a general notice denies the assessee a meaningful opportunity to respond. The defect is jurisdictional rather than a curable procedural irregularity, so a penalty founded on an unspecified charge cannot be sustained. Requirements concerning recording satisfaction in the assessment order and referring to statutory Explanations are distinct from the requirement to specify the applicable penalty limb in the notice.

Section 68 cannot be used to treat a receipt admittedly received in an earlier financial year as unexplained cash credit in a later assessment year. Where an advance was received in financial year 2006-07, its addition in assessment year 2016-17 fell outside the statutory framework, even if the later disclosure of the related land-sale transaction was structured to seek set-off of capital gains against capital losses. Any suspected tax avoidance required legally appropriate action by the Assessing Officer; it could not justify assessing the earlier receipt as unexplained cash credit in the later year.

Fresh-seed exemption for psyllium seeds under the Heading 1211 entry depends on the condition of the goods at the supplier's point of supply, not on processing before procurement from farmers. Storage in dry, ventilated godowns imparts a dried character under the clarification on fresh and dried products, so the seeds are not eligible for the exemption applicable to fresh seeds. Psyllium seeds are instead treated as dried goods under Heading 1211 and attract GST at 5%. The alternative exemption for goods of seed quality does not apply where the specific Heading 1211 fresh-goods entry governs the supply.

GST recovery from a deceased proprietor's legal representative is permissible under Section 93(1)(b) only through proceedings directed at that representative and only against the inherited estate, limited to its capacity to meet the liability. Where the business has discontinued, registration is cancelled, and no notice, proceedings, or inquiry identifies the inherited estate, recovery lacks a statutory basis. Retrospective Section 16(5) overrides the Section 16(4) time limit for input tax credit relating to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21 where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021, validating eligible credit within that extended deadline.

Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, supported by pleadings and evidence of intent to evade tax. Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed input tax credit does not establish suppression where statutory filings disclose the relevant reconciliation and no evidence shows knowledge of ineligibility or evasive intent. Failure to respond to an audit enquiry or final audit report is likewise insufficient without supporting evidence. A demand cannot be sustained on an audit non-response ground introduced only at the appellate stage, as this breaches natural justice and falls outside the show cause notice.

Uploading show-cause notices solely in the portal's additional-notices window, where the recipient could not access them or respond, does not satisfy statutory service requirements. Such inaccessible communication denies a meaningful opportunity of hearing and breaches principles of natural justice. The assessment was set aside to the extent affected by invalid service, with an opportunity to submit a reply before fresh assessment proceedings.

Duplicate GST adjudication for identical issues and the same assessment period cannot continue where Central GST authorities had already issued the earlier order and that order remained pending in appeal. Subsequent State GST assessment and rectification proceedings on those issues were unsustainable because they duplicated the prior Central GST adjudication. The State GST orders were quashed in favour of the assessee.

GST adjudication under Sections 73 and 75 requires an effective opportunity to reply before a personal hearing where adverse consequences are contemplated. Scheduling the hearing before the expiry of the reply period denies that opportunity and violates principles of natural justice. Further, uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order solely in the GST portal's "Additional Notices and Orders" tab does not constitute valid communication for Section 73 proceedings. Non-compliance with either the statutory hearing process or valid communication requirements invalidates the adjudication; the matter requires fresh determination after permitting a reply and scheduling a proper hearing.

Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 imposed restrictions on IGST refund claims beyond those contemplated by Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rendering it ultra vires and manifestly arbitrary. Its omission without a saving clause makes the rule unavailable for pending matters that have not attained finality. Consequently, recovery or denial-of-refund proceedings based on Rule 96(10) cannot continue, and the earlier binding decision on the issue applies to similarly situated taxpayers.

GST show-cause notice service solely through the portal is ineffective where registration was cancelled before the notice was issued, because the taxpayer cannot be expected to monitor the portal thereafter. Section 169 permits multiple service modes but requires effective communication. Adjudication imposing tax and penalty also requires a personal hearing under Section 75(4) when requested. The tax and penalty order was quashed, with Revenue permitted to restart proceedings from the show-cause-notice stage and provide a hearing if sought.

Challenges concerning input tax credit restrictions under Section 17(5)(c) and (d) stand governed by the Supreme Court's resolution of their constitutional validity. Application of the functionality test and assessment of whether the impugned circular operates consistently with that ruling require factual determination by the Adjudicating Authority. Taxpayers may therefore pursue the relevant claims before that authority in accordance with law. Where proceedings were pursued bona fide before an incorrect forum, exclusion of that period may be sought under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

GST registration cancelled for continuous non-filing of returns may be restored where the taxpayer clears all intimated statutory dues, penalties and fines within the prescribed period. The applicable approach permits revocation of cancellation to enable discharge of outstanding GST liabilities and resumption of compliance. Restoration is conditional upon timely payment of the amounts due.

Statutory GST appellate remedy remained the appropriate route because the State GST show-cause notice had been overtaken by subsequent Central GST adjudication proceedings. The interlocutory challenge to the Central GST adjudication order was unrelated to the original writ challenge, and no jurisdictional error or restraint on initiation of those proceedings was established. The show-cause notice challenge was therefore infructuous and the interlocutory challenge misconceived. Petitioners who had pursued writ proceedings on mistaken legal advice while interim protection operated were permitted to file a statutory appeal within 30 days, to be considered on merits without limitation objection.

Input tax credit mismatch demands require invoice-related verification and satisfaction of the statutory conditions for credit before confirmation. Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST prescribes that the proper officer obtain relevant invoice details and undertake this verification. Ex parte assessment and appellate orders issued without that procedure or an adequate hearing warranted fresh consideration. The tax demand and entitlement to input tax credit remained undecided, with the adjudicating authority required to reconsider the matter after receiving a comprehensive representation and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

GST appeal limitation may not be triggered merely by uploading an order-in-original on the common portal where the taxpayer specifically asserts non-service and lacks acknowledged receipt or participation. Although the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation under Section 107 and cannot itself condone delay, merits adjudication may be required where delay arose from circumstances beyond the taxpayer's control. The appeal was restored for adjudication on merits after the delay was condoned, subject to compliance with the stipulated pre-deposit requirement.

Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an appeal to be filed within three months of communication of the adjudication order, with condonation available only for a further one month upon sufficient cause. The Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that expressly limited period. Consequently, an appeal filed approximately two years after the original order cannot be entertained, particularly where the delay is not properly explained, and dismissal as time-barred stands upheld.

Transfer of a taxpayer's GST audit file from the Audit Wing to the Anti-Evasion Wing within the same Commissionerate is an administrative exercise. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contains no statutory prohibition on such transfer, so transfer alone does not warrant writ interference. Non-production of requested financial documents during audit was also recorded. Objections concerning the statutory period for completion of the audit may be raised before the Adjudicating Authority. The transfer therefore remains unaffected in writ jurisdiction.

GST registration restoration and time to pay late fee may be sought through a representation to the jurisdictional Superintendent where financial hardship and loss of portal access are asserted. The Superintendent has discretion to consider exceptional circumstances, so no mandatory direction for restoration or deferred payment follows. A request may be submitted within four weeks and must be considered and decided within one month of submission.