Refund of unutilised input tax credit under an inverted duty structure remains available where higher-taxed packing materials used to make sulphur marketable in customised packets cause credit accumulation, even though the principal goods at input and output stages are identical. Statutory refund conditions do not exclude such claims based on identity of the principal goods. CBIC circulars issued for uniform implementation cannot add restrictions or curtail the statutory entitlement. The Tribunal upheld the taxpayer's refund and directed release of the sanctioned amount, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Transporting separately identifiable higher-value copper scrap under transit documents describing aluminium scrap constitutes more than a classification dispute or clerical error and supports an inference of intent to evade tax. Tax and penalty under section 129 may follow where the discrepancy conceals higher-value goods, particularly alongside repeated document irregularities. An invoice and e-way bill generated only after interception are post-detection measures; without statutory authority, they cannot validate the original transit-document breach or rebut the inference of tax evasion.

Pre-movement e-way bill compliance requires the e-way bill to be generated before goods begin moving, with the tax invoice and e-way bill carried by the person in charge. Generating those documents only after interception does not cure transportation undertaken without them. Their absence at interception creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, which may be displaced only by a reasonable explanation. The explanation did not rebut that presumption, and the detention-related penalty under section 129 was sustained.

Non-generation of an e-invoice bearing IRN/QR Code before movement of goods is a procedural breach, but it does not by itself warrant detention penalty under Section 129. Where the tax invoice, e-way bill and lorry receipt identify the parties, goods, value and tax liability, and a later e-invoice matches the transaction, the lapse does not conclusively establish intent to evade tax absent fictitious documents, mismatched goods, value suppression or concealed supply. On these facts, the Section 129 penalty was unsustainable, the appellate order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted subject to statutory procedure.

Kitchen exhaust hoods exceeding a 120 cm maximum horizontal side and incorporating factory-fitted Capture Jet fans are classified under CTH 8414 80 90 as "Other", rather than as fans under CTH 8414 59 90. Heading 8414 separately identifies fans and ventilating or recycling hoods incorporating a fan. An integral fan does not change a structurally complex hood assembly's essential character where its components and market identity remain those of a hood. The specific hood entry under CTH 8414 60 00 applies only where the maximum horizontal side does not exceed 120 cm.

Defence end-use customs exemption applies on a functional, end-use basis to missile-warning-system components with a demonstrable nexus to military aircraft; tariff classification is not determinative. The specified imaging lens, sensor front-end and coupling unit qualify in principle as aircraft sub-assemblies and, alternatively, accessories because they are engineered exclusively for a missile-warning system fitted in military helicopters; specified weapon exclusions do not apply. Private defence suppliers may use the exemption, but Condition 17 requires a prescribed Ministry of Defence certificate issued by an officer not below Joint Secretary rank at import. An Indian Air Force end-use certificate alone is insufficient. Each consignment remains subject to mandatory certification and Customs verification.

Section 74(1) may be invoked for delayed GST payment only where the show cause notice discloses foundational facts permitting an inference of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax. Mere mechanical reproduction of those statutory expressions does not satisfy that condition. Because the notice contained no such factual basis, recourse to section 74(1) was unwarranted; the Tribunal sustained the setting aside of the proceedings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

GST cross-empowerment permits Central and State officers to undertake intelligence-based enforcement action. A notification under section 6(1) is intended to prescribe conditions for that authority rather than operate as a precondition; its absence therefore does not make cross-empowerment inoperative or restrict its exercise. Protection against duplicate proceedings and the treatment of overlapping inquiries remain subject to applicable Supreme Court conclusions and guidelines. The writ-court orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal under those principles.

Section 67(7) of the CGST Act prevents continued retention of seized articles beyond six months unless an order extends the seizure. Where no extension order existed, the seized mobile phones and bank debit cards could no longer remain under seizure. The investigating officer was directed to return the articles immediately upon production of a certified order copy and acknowledgement.

Cash does not fall within the category of articles that may be seized during a search under section 67 of the CGST Act. Retention of seized cash until refund is illegal, and refund does not extinguish entitlement to accrued interest; the interest must be calculated and paid. Following issuance of a demand-cum-show-cause notice, seized mobile phones, pen drives and a bank card are liable to be released forthwith upon production of a certified copy of the order.

Self-assessed GST liability is discharged only when amounts credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger are debited and appropriated towards the relevant liability through the return. Mere deposit in the ledger before the return due date does not constitute payment or prevent interest under Section 50(1); interest accrues until actual debit, notwithstanding unsubstantiated technical difficulties. Recovery of the resulting interest after issuance of notice and consideration of objections does not breach principles of natural justice. The challenge to the interest demand and recovery proceedings was dismissed.

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.