Section 74 of the GST Act requires subjective satisfaction based on material indicating fraud, concealment or non-payment before its fraud-based assessment mechanism can be invoked. A tax-demand order must disclose the basis for invoking that provision, give reasons for the assessed tax, interest and penalty, and afford an opportunity of hearing; otherwise, it is jurisdictionally defective and non-speaking. Article 226 writ jurisdiction may remain available to correct such an order despite dismissal of a statutory appeal as time-barred. Fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee is required in accordance with law.

Corporate guarantees issued without consideration by holding companies for subsidiaries are treated as related-party supplies of services under Schedule I, supported by the subsidiary's economic benefit and the guarantee's business nexus. Rule 28(2) and Section 15(4) permit specialised valuation, but valuation should use ascertainable actual commission or charge rather than compulsorily imposing a higher deemed amount. Rule 28(2) applies prospectively from 26.10.2023 and cannot create a valuation-based tax burden for earlier guarantees, although continuing guarantees may be taxable thereafter. Circulars cannot create levies or operate inconsistently with statutory interpretation. Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or intentional suppression; bona fide disputes over corporate-guarantee taxability and valuation do not meet that threshold.

Tender-evaluation communications seeking commercial justification and supporting documents do not finally determine bidders' rights where they neither reject nor disqualify any bidder. Requests for material to assess the sustainability of quoted discounts and prevent disruption of medicine supplies require the tendering authority to evaluate the responses and documents before reaching a reasoned decision. A challenge at that interim stage is premature because no final bid decision has been made. Bidders may pursue available legal remedies after a final determination if aggrieved.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition without interfering with the impugned High Court judgment and orders. Liberty was reserved to challenge the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Mobile Squad, Gujarat State. The dismissal therefore left the High Court's determinations undisturbed while preserving the available challenge to the State Tax authority's order.

Public-interest challenges to municipal property-tax revisions cannot be used to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism where the grievance is substantially individual and the petitioner does not establish representation of affected residents. Judicial review of municipal fiscal policy is confined to constitutional or legal invalidity, perversity, arbitrariness, or a patent procedural breach; courts cannot reassess the merits of revenue measures or substitute their views for those of the competent municipal body. Property-tax revisions undertaken to support municipal statutory functions and financial autonomy remain effective where no such infirmity is established.

Unexplained jewellery under Section 69A is taxable in the financial year in which the taxpayer is found to own it; jewellery found during a search in FY 2014-15 cannot be assessed as income for AY 2013-14 without evidence of earlier ownership. A retracted Section 132(4) statement and an uncorroborated loose-sheet entry do not, without independent verification, establish an unexplained loan repayment. Repayment should also be assessed in the correct year: where the source income was offered and assessed in AY 2014-15, taxing the same repayment in AY 2013-14 would create double taxation.

Contributions received from settlors with a specific direction that they form part of a charitable trust's corpus are treated as corpus receipts rather than taxable voluntary income. Where charitable registration is restored, the trust becomes eligible to claim the exemption available for income applied or accumulated for charitable purposes, subject to applicable legal requirements. Restoration of registration removes the basis for denying charitable-tax treatment and supports the trust's entitlement to the statutory benefit for registered charitable institutions.

Interest and dividend income received by a co-operative society from co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Co-operative banks are treated primarily as co-operative societies for this purpose, and consistent co-ordinate bench decisions support eligibility for the statutory deduction. In the absence of contrary facts or a different legal position, such income remains deductible under the provision.

Penalty proceedings for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars require an independent statutory notice that clearly specifies the precise charge. Where neither the assessment order identifies the applicable limb of section 271(1)(c) nor the notice strikes out the inapplicable charge, the notice is omnibus and vague. Failure to provide this specification denies the assessee clear notice of the allegation and vitiates the penalty proceedings. Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is therefore quashed where the charge remains unspecified.

Trading-linked cash withdrawals arising from RTGS/NEFT credits could not be treated wholly as unexplained money where their origin in trading activity remained unrebutted. In the absence of an earlier trading-income estimate, income was estimated at 5% of the withdrawals and taxed at normal rates; the higher rate applied only to transactions from 1 April 2017. Cash-deposit additions remained sustainable because no source was established. Penalties were deleted because estimated income alone did not establish concealment of income particulars. Taxable income was to be recomputed using the 5% estimate while retaining the unexplained cash-deposit addition.

Bogus sales receipts could not be assessed in full as unexplained cash credits where the books were rejected and identical facts had previously justified profit estimation. Applying the accepted approach for the earlier year, income was to be computed at an 8% net-profit rate on gross receipts because no factual or legal distinction supported a departure. Only the estimated net profit was assessable, and the balance of the addition was deleted.

Common approval under Section 153D covering six assessment years does not satisfy the requirement of valid statutory approval for each relevant assessment year. Where assessments are founded on a combined approval rather than a separate valid approval, the approval is defective and the resulting assessments are invalid. The assessments were therefore quashed in favour of the assessee.

Sanction for issuing a reassessment notice under section 148 requires the approving authority's independent application of mind and objective satisfaction on the Assessing Officer's recorded reasons. A bare endorsement that the authority is satisfied with those reasons is a mechanical approval and does not meet this requirement. Where sanction is granted in that form, it is invalid; consequently, the reassessment proceedings and resulting assessment are liable to be quashed.

Penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was unsustainable where an expense addition resulted from an ad hoc estimated disallowance, which did not establish concealed income. An unsecured-loan entry disclosed in the financial statements was added because confirmation and evidence of the lender's creditworthiness were not furnished; non-acceptance of a disclosed explanation alone did not justify penalty. The penalty was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Unexplained-source addition for property payments cannot be sustained merely because earlier recorded bank withdrawals preceded the payments by a time gap. Where withdrawals are not shown to have been used for another purpose and the taxpayer also relies on business income and LIC maturity proceeds, the explanation requires consideration on the facts. Only a limited unexplained component remained assessable, while the balance addition was deleted.

Penalty for short deduction of tax at source on leave fare concession reimbursements involving overseas travel was unsustainable where the employer acted on a bona fide, previously debatable understanding that exemption applied if the designated destination was in India. That understanding was supported by an interim High Court order, although the Supreme Court later clarified that tax was deductible on such reimbursements. The short deduction was inadvertent and lacked intent to evade tax; accordingly, the penalty was deleted for both assessment years.

Reassessment after a completed scrutiny assessment cannot rely solely on investigation-wing information or a third-party opinion where the purchases, books and relevant bank account were already examined. Fresh tangible material, independent enquiry and a valid belief that income escaped assessment are required; after four years, reopening also requires failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts. An estimated purchase disallowance as unexplained expenditure requires supporting evidence. Where purchases and corresponding sales are recorded in audited books, sales remain undisputed and the expenditure source is not questioned, an ad hoc addition lacks evidentiary basis.

Substitution of an assessee's declared fair market value as on 01.04.1981 for capital-gains computation requires supporting material. Rejecting that value through a backward calculation based on sale-deed value, without a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer or evidence showing the declared value was incorrect, was unsustainable. Reduction of the claimed cost of improvement also required contrary evidence; absent such material, the declared cost had to be accepted. The capital-gains addition arising from the substituted value and reduced improvement cost was directed to be deleted.

Reassessment proceedings initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer were challenged as inconsistent with the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The issue was identified as identical to questions pending in a batch of writ petitions, and no final determination was made. Reassessment may continue; however, any adverse order must not be given effect until the next listing.

Advance-ruling applications are barred under the first proviso to Section 98(2) where the question raised has already been decided in proceedings involving the applicant. Altered contractual clauses do not establish a new question when the substantive business model remains the sale of coal with separate invoicing for alleged cargo-handling services. Prior proceedings determined that no cargo-handling service was supplied and that invoices were issued to pass input tax credit. The application was therefore inadmissible because its central question had already been decided.