Doctrine of merger did not apply where a statutory appeal against GST registration cancellation was summarily dismissed as time-barred; the original cancellation order therefore remained open to challenge under Articles 226 and 227. HC held that dismissal on limitation did not bar writ relief. On the registrant's bona fide explanation for failing to answer the show-cause notice, HC adopted a justice-oriented approach, quashed the cancellation, and directed restoration conditional on timely filing of returns and payment of outstanding tax, interest and penalty. Relief was confined to the peculiar facts and declared non-precedential.

Input tax credit remains conditional on actual payment of the tax charged by the supplier to the Government. The statutory conditions for credit operate conjointly; a recipient who avails credit without ensuring that the supplier paid the corresponding tax cannot retain it, and the credit is recoverable according to law. Supplier insolvency and an approved insolvency resolution plan do not waive or displace this statutory tax-payment condition. The writ petition challenging recovery of the credit was dismissed.

Retrospective section 16(5) permits input tax credit for specified financial years where claimed through GSTR-3B filed by the prescribed deadline, overriding the earlier limitation in section 16(4). GSTR-3B functions as the section 39 return for this purpose. Credit is availed when claimed and credited to the Electronic Credit Ledger; later utilisation does not constitute delayed availment. Discrepancies in GSTR-9 or GSTR-9C cannot by themselves extinguish credit already claimed through GSTR-3B. A demand founded solely on limitation cannot be sustained on new substantive grounds absent from the show-cause notice and original adjudication. Interest and penalty dependent exclusively on an invalid credit denial lack an independent basis.

Blocked input tax credit must be assessed against the specific statutory exclusion applicable to each supply; the blocked-credit provision cannot operate as a generic residuary ground. Claimants must prove eligibility, any exception, and invoice-to-asset and business-use nexus through contemporaneous records, while assets claimed as plant and machinery must meet the statutory definition. Credits for gifts, food and catering, and unsupported expenditure were disallowed. A lawfully leviable cess separately charged must be included in taxable value. Interest on inadmissible credit applies only where wrongly availed credit is utilised, from utilisation until reversal or payment. Penalty depends on the prescribed statutory conditions and is limited to tax legally sustained, subject to recomputation.

An e-way bill showing a wholly different vehicle number generated differing views on whether a penalty for tax-evasion intent could arise. The Judicial Member considered correct Part B vehicle particulars mandatory, treated post-interception correction as ineffective, and found that the circumstances created a rebuttable presumption of evasion that remained unrebutted. The Technical Member treated invoices and commercial records showing the correct vehicle as evidence of a genuine transaction, concluding that a mismatch alone, absent a finding of evasion intent, could not support penalty. The point of difference was referred to another Member; the departmental appeal remains undecided.

Cash and transfer entries from a subsequent financial year were included in the Assessment Year 2022-23 assessment, despite the relevant year being Financial Year 2021-22. The High Court treated the unresolved revisional challenge to those entries as material and held that its inadequate consideration vitiated both the assessment and revisional orders. Those orders were set aside, and the assessing authority must make a fresh determination within two months in accordance with law. The merits of the unexplained cash-deposit addition remain open.

Government securities held to maturity by a bank are treated as stock-in-trade and may be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower. Resulting revaluation loss is deductible. Bad debts actually written off in respect of non-rural advances remain deductible despite a provision for bad and doubtful debts relating to rural advances. The proviso to section 36(1)(vii) prevents double deduction for rural advances but does not restrict deductions for actual write-offs of non-rural debts.

Section 72(c) of the Black Money Act creates a conclusive, self-executing fiction: undeclared foreign assets acquired before the Act commenced are deemed acquired in the previous year when a Section 10 notice is issued. Assessment must follow in the immediately succeeding assessment year. Where no declaration was made, Section 72(b) does not apply. A first notice in FY 2018-19 therefore permits assessment only for AY 2019-20, rendering assessment for AY 2018-19 without jurisdiction and invalidating consequential proceedings.

Section 153C proceedings cannot be initiated where the deemed date of search falls after 1 April 2021. Under the proviso to section 153C(1), that date is when the searched person's Assessing Officer records satisfaction and forwards seized material to the assessee's Assessing Officer. Where forwarding occurred after that date, section 153C(3) rendered the provision inapplicable, resulting in quashing of the notice and consequential assessment; other grounds became academic.

Section 270A penalty for misreporting income was deleted where failure to file the original return was unintentional and resulted from severe personal and professional hardship. Salary income had already been subjected to tax deduction at source and was available in departmental records. The assessee disclosed that income in response to reassessment proceedings, and the reassessment accepted the returned income. These facts established reasonable cause and supported immunity from penalty despite non-filing of the original return.

Salary earned by a Vietnam tax resident for employment exercised and services rendered in Vietnam qualifies for exemption in India under Article 16(1) of the India-Vietnam DTAA, read with section 90. Taxability depends on where employment is exercised and services are performed, rather than on the continued use of an Indian payroll, payment into an Indian bank account, or tax deducted at source. On that basis, remuneration for Vietnam-based employment does not accrue or arise in India under the domestic salary-tax provisions, and the claimed treaty exemption applies.

Prospective operation of exemption notifications prevents a later amendment from governing imports where the bills of lading pre-date its commencement, unless the amendment expressly provides otherwise. Imported second-hand digital multifunction print and copying machines therefore could not be denied consideration for provisional release by applying the subsequent amendment retrospectively. Provisional release must be considered under applicable customs law and may be granted subject to lawful conditions and compliance, without affecting the pending adjudication proceedings.

Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, timely payment and withdrawal of pending litigation are substantive conditions for a discharge certificate, while notifying the designated committee of withdrawal is procedural. Where payment was made within time and withdrawal was sought while the Scheme operated, delayed court listing during the COVID-19 period cannot defeat relief. Portal closure or delayed proof of withdrawal does not justify refusal of the certificate or revival of the demand. The declaration must be processed manually and the discharge certificate issued once the substantive conditions are met.

DGFT regularisation of EPCG imports after payment of duty and interest rendered confiscation of the imported goods and penalty for non-fulfilment of export obligation unsustainable. The Tribunal allowed relief from confiscation and penalty while leaving the unchallenged duty and interest liability intact. Duty foregone on capital goods imported under an EPCG licence must be computed using the assessable value declared in the Bill of Entry, rather than the value stated in the licence.

GST show cause notices initiate, rather than conclusively determine, tax liability. Statutory adjudication must consider the registered person's reply; recording the reply as unsatisfactory does not preclude independent examination of whether it received adequate consideration. Objections concerning audit findings, limitation, tax computation and treatment of deposits fall for determination by the Adjudicating Authority. Writ intervention should not ordinarily pre-empt that statutory process, and substantive objections remain available during adjudication.

Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act may impose a penalty on any person, including an unregistered or non-taxable person, rather than only a taxable person. It applies only where a specified contravention under Section 122(1) is established and it is independently proved that the person retained the transaction's benefit and that the transaction occurred at that person's instance. As a penal provision, it operates prospectively for underlying acts or transactions occurring from 1 January 2021, rather than by reference to the show-cause notice date. Statutory appeals remain available for fact-specific findings despite writ determination of recurring legal questions.

Hookah service in designated smoking areas is absolutely prohibited: the post-2017 replacement of "no other service" with "no service" bars every form of service, including self-service or purported rental models. Preparing, supplying, operating, or maintaining hookah for consideration remains a service because its use requires apparatus and technical assistance; patrons lack the unrestricted possession and control required for a rental. Food-safety law does not cover tobacco products, and municipal law provides no separate hookah-licensing power. Police may enforce smoking-in-public-place and tobacco-sale restrictions through statutory search, seizure, confiscation, and penalty powers.

Input tax credit on expenses attributable to the fresh issue component of an initial public offering is available where the net proceeds are used in furtherance of the company's business. Services used to raise capital for expansion, capital expenditure, working capital, repayment of borrowings and other business purposes have a substantial nexus with business operations and do not fall within blocked credits. In contrast, credit is unavailable for expenses attributable to an offer for sale by existing shareholders because those proceeds accrue to the shareholders rather than the company.

Reassessment founded on a share transaction wrongly mapped to an assessee's PAN is unsustainable where the underlying information concerns another person. Initiating proceedings without verification merely to avoid limitation constitutes a colourable exercise of reassessment power. The reassessment order and consequential notice were quashed, and costs were awarded in the proceedings.

Separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed trade receivables from associated enterprises is not warranted where the taxpayer is completely debt-free and bears no interest cost on borrowings, because delayed collection creates no additional financing burden. Debt-free status requires verification from financial statements and other relevant records. If verified, the adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is deleted. This approach applies across the assessment years concerned.