GST adjudicatory proceedings commence through issuance of a show-cause notice, which crystallises the liability or contravention to be decided. The notice must clearly identify the allegations, relevant transactions and period, legal provisions, evidence, quantification, and proposed consequences. Section 75 confines an adjudication order to the grounds and amounts stated in the notice and requires relevant facts and reasons for the decision. The order must consider the taxpayer's defence, evaluate evidence, record findings, and explain the quantified consequence. Search, seizure and summons remain investigative measures and do not by themselves define the subject matter of adjudication.

GSTR-2A-GSTR-3B input tax credit mismatches require reconciliation and cannot be determined solely by comparing return figures. Fresh adjudication must remain within the tax heads, grounds and amount in the show-cause notice and cannot enlarge the demand. The adjudicating authority must undertake invoice-wise and, where necessary, supplier-wise verification; examine invoices, purchase records, books and the electronic credit ledger; verify supplier compliance and taxpayer bona fides; and assess applicable credit conditions for the relevant periods. Interest and penalty must follow the fresh tax determination.

Input tax credit under GST enables a registered person to use eligible tax paid on inward supplies for discharging tax liability on outward supplies and reduces cascading taxation. Eligibility, availment and utilisation remain subject to prescribed documents, receipt of supplies, payment of tax, return filing, supplier invoice reporting, time limits, restrictions and reversal. Input tax credit is a conditional statutory entitlement rather than an inherent, constitutional or unconditional vested right. Tax paid at a preceding stage does not by itself create an enforceable claim to credit; prescribed statutory requirements must be fulfilled.

The substituted proviso to section 107(6) of the CGST Act, effective from 1 October 2025, extends the pre-deposit requirement to appeals against penalty-only orders. The right of appeal is treated as a substantive right vesting upon issuance of the show-cause notice. Accordingly, where the show-cause notice preceded 1 October 2025, subsequent proceedings or a later penalty order do not attract the amended pre-deposit condition. The expanded requirement applies prospectively to proceedings initiated on or after its effective date.

E-way bill compliance governs movement of consignments exceeding the prescribed threshold, assessed per consignment rather than by the aggregate value carried in a vehicle. Movement particulars must be generated and validated on the common portal. Intercepting officers may verify prescribed documents, devices and goods, subject to online reporting requirements and safeguards against repeated physical verification without specific tax-evasion information. Minor typographical errors in specified e-way bill particulars do not warrant confiscation, while penalty proceedings after detention or seizure are subject to prescribed notice and order timelines.

For a listed public company, the first proviso to Section 68 does not require explanation of the source of shareholders' funds, although the company must establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. PAN and tax particulars, banking records, application and allotment documents, demat credits, shareholder confirmations and financial records can discharge that initial burden where no specific defects or independent contrary enquiry exist. Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 requires fresh tangible material; reopening based on already disclosed balance-sheet information, an inapplicable share-premium provision, and additions unrelated to recorded reasons is invalid. The Section 68 addition and reassessment consequently cannot survive.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor once the corporate insolvency resolution process begins. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent laws. Accordingly, revisional proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act cannot continue during the moratorium, and a revisional order issued in that period is unsustainable. Such proceedings may be revived and reframed after the moratorium ends, if otherwise permitted by law.

A reassessment return filed while an advance-ruling application on the transaction's taxability remained pending is to be treated as a return under Section 139 where the pending application provides a bona fide explanation for delayed filing. Verified TDS and prepaid-tax credits cannot be limited to adjustment against an outstanding demand; any excess after payment of the finally determined tax liability must be refunded with applicable statutory interest. Precedent concerning concluded substantive computation issues in reassessment does not restrict credit for prepaid taxes.

Addition of unexplained money under Section 69A requires prior notice identifying that proposed variation and a meaningful opportunity for the assessee to explain the amount. Where the show-cause notice proposes additions under different provisions but does not notify a contemplated Section 69A addition, the assessee is deprived of an opportunity to respond to the actual basis of assessment. Such a Section 69A addition is unsustainable for breach of notice and opportunity requirements.

Reopening and reassessment based on alleged unexplained bank credits require consideration of the taxpayer's detailed explanation and supporting evidence on the source and purpose of each receipt. A principal credit claimed to arise from jewellery sales and transfers claimed to have been received from overseas relatives for construction expenses cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely on the premise that no explanation was furnished. Fresh consideration of the response and documents is required before determining taxability, with all related questions remaining open.

Rule 10B functional comparability requires examination of functions performed, products manufactured and material circumstances; a materially different functional profile supports exclusion of a comparable. Under section 260-A, factual transfer-pricing findings are not re-appreciated unless perverse, unsupported by evidence or contrary to the statutory scheme. Working-capital adjustment requires supporting material and evidence-based computation with reasonable accuracy, warranting examination by the Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer. A foreign-exchange revenue filter requires a proper, consistent and lawful basis. Transfer-pricing adjustment must be confined to the arm's-length price of relevant international transactions with associated enterprises, including transactions involving raw-material imports.

Consequential assessment orders requiring verification and a hearing must be made within the limitation period under Section 153(3), read with the second proviso to Section 153(5). Where the appellate order was received during the relevant financial year, the extended deadline for giving effect expired on 31 March 2022. An order made thereafter was time-barred and invalid. Once a fresh or consequential assessment cannot be completed within limitation, the returned income must be accepted as furnished, no further demand may be raised, and excess tax deposited must be refunded with interest.

Third-party search material relating to a person other than the searched person falls within the distinct assessment framework under Sections 153A and 153C. Where seized electronic data, statements and transaction details form the sole basis for proposed action, reassessment under Sections 148A and 148 is unavailable. Subsequent analysis or corroboration does not change the search-derived source of the material or permit use of the general reassessment mechanism. Invoking extended limitation or obtaining approval cannot cure an invalid assumption of jurisdiction. Reassessment proceedings initiated on that basis are without jurisdiction and invalid.

Tax deduction at source on payments to a non-resident under Section 195 arises only where the remittance is chargeable to tax in India. Payments to a US parent were not taxable where binding findings established that the Indian payer was an independent entity and did not create a fixed place, service, or agency permanent establishment under the India-US DTAA. Earlier determinations could not be disregarded solely because they were intended to be challenged. An application under Section 195(2) is necessary only when the payer accepts that part of a remittance is taxable but seeks determination of the taxable portion. No Section 201 default arose.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires clarity on the applicable limb, but no substantive ruling was made on that issue. The Special Leave Petition challenging the penalty matter was dismissed because of a 201-day filing delay. The reasons offered for condonation were held insufficient in law, and the questions of law, including any issue concerning specification of the penalty limb, were left open.

Limitation for issuing reassessment notices under Section 149 is considered in relation to the exclusion of time under its fifth and sixth provisos. The subject also concerns the deemed date on which a reply is treated as furnished in proceedings under Section 148A, affecting the applicable reassessment-notice limitation framework.

Transport of goods in a vehicle different from that declared in the e-way bill requires updated Part-B and a valid documentary trail for the vehicle actually carrying the goods. Where no reliable contemporaneous evidence establishes breakdown of the originally declared vehicle or transfer of goods, an unexplained vehicle and weight discrepancy remains non-compliant. A later e-way bill generated by the purchaser, unavailable when the goods were intercepted, does not cure defective accompanying documentation. Detention proceedings and penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are therefore justified where the actual vehicle lacks a valid e-way bill.

Re-credit of tax or input tax credit debited from the electronic credit ledger is available only within the prescribed refund framework. Section 54, Rule 86(4A), Rule 92(1A) and the applicable circular require a refund claim and a reasoned finding that the debited amount is admissible before re-credit can be granted. Tax liability cannot be reduced through an unexplained computation; the revised amount must be correlated with self-assessed and auto-generated returns, audit reports and other record material. Both re-credit entitlement and revised liability require fresh, reasoned determination after hearing the parties.

Ex parte GST adjudication involving a mismatch between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A should permit the taxpayer to submit invoices, e-way bills and other material supporting the genuineness of transactions. A fresh opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice enables complete and reasoned adjudication, subject to deposit of part of the disputed tax demand. The taxpayer may establish transaction genuineness before a reasoned determination is made.

Effective notice and a fair opportunity of hearing are essential to GST adjudication. Service of show-cause and hearing communications solely on the registered e-mail address of an erstwhile auditor, where the assessee no longer had contact with that auditor, may not provide an effective opportunity to respond or submit supporting transaction records. Where non-response is plausibly bona fide, an ex parte adjudication cannot be sustained without affording the assessee an opportunity to file a response and participate in fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority.