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.

Transitional-credit-based refund claims require a merits determination by the Central Tax Authorities where prior communications do not decide the claimed entitlement. Portal availability and jurisdictional observations do not constitute an appealable refund decision. The claimed transitional credit, import-related circumstances and reversal of input tax credit require verification under applicable law. Interest arising from reversal of input tax credit cannot be sustained before the refund entitlement based on transitional credit is determined. The refund claim remains open for fresh consideration, and consequential interest action cannot continue unless that entitlement is resolved.

Cancellation of GST registration for fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts requires the proper officer to form the requisite opinion under Section 29(2)(e) after providing due opportunity. Where proposed cancellation rests on a list identifying enterprises as fake, physical verification of the business premises under Rule 25 is necessary to determine whether genuine business is carried on, particularly when the registered person provides material concerning State-authority proceedings. A show-cause notice and cancellation founded solely on such a list, without physical verification, cannot be sustained. Fresh cancellation action may proceed after verification in accordance with Rule 25.

GST registration cancelled solely for continuous non-filing of returns should be restored where no tax-evasion process is alleged. Continued cancellation prevents the taxpayer from conducting business and issuing invoices, which may hinder rather than facilitate tax recovery; final liability can be determined only after returns are filed. Registration was restored subject to filing all pending returns and paying applicable tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated period.

Service-tax liability on turnover from trading in farm products requires examination of whether that turnover is taxable. Non-filing of a response or absence from hearings does not remove the need to consider the material issue of taxability. Liability cannot be sustained without giving the taxpayer an effective opportunity to submit a response and supporting documents, followed by fresh consideration of the turnover's service-tax treatment.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, without a saving or sunset clause, ended the rule's restriction on refund of integrated tax paid on exports, including pending refund claims. A show-cause notice issued after the omission took effect could not rely on the omitted restriction. The resulting position is that the restriction under Rule 96(10) was unavailable against the exporter, and the notice and consequential order were quashed.

Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing before an adverse GST decision; a prior hearing on an unrelated input-tax-credit mismatch does not satisfy that requirement. Section 74A(8)(ii) allows payment of tax and interest within sixty days of the show-cause notice, without penalty and with proceedings concluded. Determination before that period expires curtails the statutory payment right.

Disclosure of relied-upon analytics reports is required where they form the basis of a customs classification dispute. Setting out the report's parameters, entries and core findings in a show-cause notice does not give the affected party an adequate opportunity to answer the case. Non-supply of the report and supporting documents breaches principles of natural justice and vitiates the adjudication order. Fresh adjudication must follow disclosure of all relied-upon material.

Manual filing of an appeal in FORM GST APL-01 with supporting documents is permitted where the rectification order being challenged is unavailable on the common portal under the amended appellate procedure. This enables the appeal to proceed despite the order's absence from the portal. The petitioner was allowed four weeks to file the appeal, with no limitation objection, for consideration on merits.

Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing where a show-cause notice contemplates an adverse decision. A taxpayer must be allowed to respond to the notice before the proper officer determines the matter through a reasoned order after hearing the taxpayer. An assessment made without that hearing does not comply with the mandatory statutory requirement and is unsustainable, requiring fresh adjudication in accordance with law.