Uploading a show cause notice solely under the portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, without separately informing the taxpayer, denied a meaningful opportunity to respond before adjudication. This breached principles of natural justice because the taxpayer remained unaware of the notice and could not present a defence. The show cause notice and resulting adjudication order were quashed. Fresh adjudication may be initiated only after issuing a fresh notice and affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

GST adjudication based on a show-cause notice uploaded only in the portal's "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation, denied the assessee an effective opportunity to reply. Such portal-only service, where it leaves the assessee unaware of the proceedings, violates principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice, adjudication order and consequential notices were quashed, with fresh adjudication permitted after issuance of a fresh notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Bail conditions requiring a security bond equal to alleged tax and penalty dues are addressed as potentially onerous and incapable of enforcement where an accused stands on the same footing as co-accused subject to an identical condition. Declared family assets may provide adequate security for the alleged dues. The prescribed approach is that the bond equivalent to the full alleged tax and penalty amount need not be insisted upon when assets disclosed by the appellant's mother are accepted as security.

Bail conditions requiring a security bond equivalent to alleged tax and penalty liability may be modified where the accused stands on the same footing as a co-accused whose condition was found onerous and vague. Disclosed family assets, supported by affidavit, may constitute security instead of the stipulated bond. The impugned security-bond requirement was not to be enforced, and the declared family assets were treated as security for the alleged dues.

Reasonable cause under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 can shield an assessee from penalty under Section 78 for non-payment of service tax where contemporaneous departmental communications supported a bona fide belief that consultancy services provided to Government institutions were non-taxable. Interpretational uncertainty, the Department's initial view, and the absence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression with intent to evade, or deliberate default support reasonable cause. Service tax for the normal limitation period and applicable interest remained payable, but the Section 78 penalty was set aside.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, effective from 8 October 2024, applies to all pending proceedings and extends its benefit to affected assessees. The Supreme Court upheld this position, settling challenges concerning the deleted provision. Pending matters involving notices, orders-in-original, consequential refund claims and remittances must therefore be processed in accordance with the omission and applicable law. Challenges pending before High Courts are to be placed before the appropriate roster courts for orders consistent with the settled position.

Input tax credit claims for construction intended to be leased or licensed require consideration of the principle that such construction is not undertaken on the taxable person's own account. Assessment findings rejecting a leasing-based claim without applying the Supreme Court ruling in Safari Retreats required fresh consideration; the assessment and consequential DRC-07 orders were set aside without deciding ITC entitlement on merits. Recovery by debiting electronic cash or credit ledgers also required prior electronic intimation in Form GST DRC-01D and seven days to pay under Rule 142B. Non-compliant recoveries were to be re-credited or refunded after the underlying assessments were set aside.

Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, inserted retrospectively, grants input tax credit to taxpayers who furnished returns by its prescribed cut-off date, notwithstanding the time limit in Section 16(4). A circular cannot restrict that statutory entitlement. A notification requiring a rectification application within a specified period does not govern a taxpayer who had already filed an appeal against the assessment order before the amendment. Denial of March 2020 input tax credit and consequential demands therefore require reconsideration under Section 16(5), subject to other eligibility conditions.

Section 171 permits GST rate-reduction benefits to be passed through electronic gift vouchers where e-wallet credits carry monetary value, are unconditional, have no expiry or usage restrictions, and are traceable to identified customers, invoices and supplies. System-generated labels such as "Offers and cashback" do not negate the documented link to the benefit. Benefits not traceable to identifiable recipients remain unpassed; after accounting for cancelled or returned supplies, the residual amount must be deposited in the Central Consumer Welfare Fund with applicable interest. The anti-profiteering penalty provision does not apply to conduct occurring before it came into force, so no penalty is leviable for that earlier period.

GST treatment of school-affiliation, annual registration and late-registration charges turns on whether services directly relate to admission to or conduct of examinations. Affiliation and related administrative charges are treated as independent taxable supplies, with the examination-services exemption construed strictly; affiliation regularisation remains limited to its specified period. A consolidated show cause notice may cover multiple tax periods absent prejudice or jurisdictional defect. GST Council-based circulars on affiliation remain binding on departmental authorities. Amounts collected without separately charging GST require cum-tax valuation. Extended limitation requires affirmative proof of fraud, wilful misstatement or delibe.....

Finality of tax liability was central to the closure of criminal prosecution. The liability dispute had not become final when the Trial Court closed the prosecution; the tax demand was determined, accepted and complied with only afterwards. Closure on the premise that the liability had already been fully satisfied therefore failed to account for material subsequent developments. The closure order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, without any view on the merits of the criminal prosecution.

Work Contract Tax actually paid during the relevant previous year is deductible for an assessee consistently following the cash system of accounting, even where the statutory liability relates to earlier financial years. Once the books and accounting method are accepted, mercantile principles cannot be selectively applied to deny the deduction without material showing a mercantile method, manipulation, or accounting defects warranting intervention. Interest paid solely for delayed payment of Work Contract Tax is compensatory rather than penal in nature. As it compensates the State for delayed use of funds and relates to statutory business liability, the interest is allowable as a business deduction.

Expenditure on an abandoned towel-manufacturing expansion within an existing textile business was deductible as revenue expenditure because no completed capital asset or enduring advantage arose. Its initial classification as capital work-in-progress did not determine its character, which depended on its purpose and business context. The matching principle could not restrict a statutory deduction or compel spreading of expenditure; it applies only where the taxpayer elects to spread costs and the relevant conditions are met. The write-off was allowable in the relevant year, and the disallowance was deleted.

Buy-back of a company's own shares followed by mandatory extinguishment does not entail receipt of "property" for section 56(2)(x), because the shares cannot be held, enjoyed or transferred by the company as an asset. Interest-free advances do not justify interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) where interest-free own funds exceed those advances and no specific borrowing is traceable to them; proportionate disallowance from a mixed pool of funds is unwarranted. Principal loans and inter-corporate deposits written off in an organised money-lending business qualify as bad debts where actual write-off occurs. A lending licence, tax-audit description and the proportion of interest income are not determinative of that business character.

Section 194H applies only where the recipient earns commission or brokerage while acting in a representative capacity for the payer. An online ticketing platform that dealt independently with customers, controlled platform data, bore operational risks, remained liable for platform claims and remitted a fixed ticket amount irrespective of collections operated on a principal-to-principal basis. Its retained convenience fee for digital booking services was therefore not commission paid or constructively paid by the cinema operator, and no tax-deduction obligation arose. Interest for failure to deduct tax was consequential to the primary obligation and was deleted. A separate unchallenged demand remained unaffected.

Diamond grading and certification charges for examining diamonds and issuing reports of their physical characteristics do not constitute fees for technical services merely because the provider uses specialised knowledge, equipment or qualified personnel. Where the service neither imparts managerial, technical or consultancy advice nor enables the recipient to perform diamond grading independently, the treaty "make available" condition is not met. Payments not chargeable to tax in India do not trigger withholding obligations on payments to non-residents. Accordingly, the demand for failure to deduct tax and consequential interest was deleted, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Unreconciled jewellery found during a search may constitute undisclosed income where it cannot be matched with wealth-tax returns, valuation reports or contemporaneous records and is admitted as unrecorded income in a statement under section 132(4). A claim of acquisition in earlier years requires material establishing its source and period of acquisition. For income disclosed during search, the concessional 10% penalty rate under section 271AAB(1)(a) applies where the asset and income are specifically identified, tax is paid, and the income is included in a revised return before assessment completion. Omission from the original return does not automatically require the residuary 30% rate when substantive conditions for concessional treatment are met.

Revisionary jurisdiction requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. Tax was not required to be deducted on a back-to-back reimbursement of debenture interest paid through a fellow subsidiary because the intermediary did not receive income by way of interest; the revisionary authority neither disproved the supporting explanation nor established prejudice. Revision based on reconciled profit figures and ICDS adjustments was also unsustainable because the relevant details had been furnished and further verification was unnecessary. The revisionary order was quashed, the original assessment was restored, and the appeal was allowed.

Independent satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is required before reassessment can be initiated; a Board instruction cannot substitute for a reasoned belief that income escaped assessment. Where interest income was disclosed in a return, even if the return was treated as invalid, and no material shows that related expenses were wrongly claimed or disallowable, the available material may justify examination of net profit only. It does not support treating the entire interest income as escaped. Reassessment reasons reflecting only perfunctory compliance with directions therefore lack the required basis, rendering the notice and consequential assessment invalid.

Third-party seized loose sheets can support an on-money addition only when corroborated or demonstrably connected to the assessee's business. Where flat-level particulars, cash receipts, the developer's role and offered profit established that connection, the Tribunal sustained the finding and quantification of on-money receipts, rejecting unsupported claims of duplicate entries, prior assessment and booking cancellations. As unaccounted real-estate receipts are business receipts, only their embedded profit is taxable; lacking a basis for a higher rate, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate to 8 percent. No further telescoping was available because unaccounted expenditure had already been accepted as met from those receipts. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings was not appealable and the challenge was premature.