Tax deducted at source from salary cannot be recovered again from an employee-deductee where the employee establishes that the employer deducted it, even if Form 26AS does not reflect deposit or correct reporting. Although TDS credit is linked to payment to the Central Government, direct recovery is barred to the extent tax was actually deducted; the defaulting employer-deductor may be treated as an assessee in default. The competent authority must verify reliable evidence of deduction, obtain or summon employer records where necessary, and rectify or amend the resulting tax demand when the claimed deduction is established.

Proceedings under section 153A were based on an approval under section 153D described as vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions under Article 136 and declined to interfere with the High Court order concerning the validity of those proceedings. The High Court order therefore remained undisturbed.

Validity of an order under section 148A(3) and a same-day reassessment notice under section 148 arose alongside assessment proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 263 that followed the reopening notice. The dispute also concerned an addition under section 56(2)(x), based on sale consideration below the stamp duty valuation in the sale deeds. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with no interference under Article 136.

Reassessment concerning capital gains from the sale of shares raised the question whether reopening was founded on a change of opinion. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving the impugned judgment undisturbed. The disposal did not set out any separate reasoning on the substantive reassessment issue.

Educational-service exemption under Entry No. 66(a) covers fees charged by an educational institution to its students for diploma and certificate programmes that form part of a curriculum leading to a qualification recognised by law. Statutory power to institute, regulate and prescribe approved courses, curricula and syllabi supports recognition of qualifications awarded through those programmes. The exemption applies to diploma and certificate programmes of one year or more; short-duration programmes or participation certificates remain outside its scope.

Composite supply of milling, micronutrient fortification and packaging of Government-supplied food grains for Public Distribution System delivery is eligible for GST exemption where the services are naturally bundled and the goods component does not exceed 25% of total supply value. Milling is the principal supply, while fortification and packaging are ancillary. Public Distribution System distribution constitutes a function entrusted to a Panchayat. The goods-value condition must be assessed on the facts and agreed consideration, including non-cash consideration. If the goods component exceeds 25%, the exemption does not apply and GST is chargeable at 5% on total consideration.

Complete e-rickshaw kits supplied in completely knocked-down condition may be classified as finished electrically operated three-wheeled vehicles under tariff item 87038040 by applying Rule 2(a) where they retain the essential character of the completed article. Classification requires a single identifiable kit containing all components, assembly without an additional essential component, consistent CKD/SKD descriptions across commercial records, and a consignment matching those records. When these cumulative conditions are met, the composite kit attracts 5% GST as an electrically operated vehicle; otherwise, it is classified as individual parts at their applicable rates.

Transfer of an entire business undertaking between distinct registered persons, even without consideration, falls within the scope of supply under GST. When the undertaking is transferred as a whole, it is characterised as a supply of services because it is neither goods, money nor securities. Nil-rate treatment for transfer of a going concern, whether as a whole or as an independent part, applies only where the business demonstrably qualifies as a going concern. If that condition is not met, stock, fixed assets and other business assets are deemed supplies of goods immediately before cessation of taxable person status and are taxable at the applicable rates.

Section 107 confines condonation of delay in GST appeals to its expressly prescribed further period; the First Appellate Authority has no inherent or equitable power to extend that outer limit, and fact-specific constitutional relief cannot enlarge statutory appellate jurisdiction. Where the Department restored cancelled registrations by implementing the challenged orders, subsequent commercial and legal developments made its appeals seeking annulment ineffective and infructuous. The inability to file a revocation application under Rule 23 because the common portal no longer permitted it did not extinguish the independent appellate remedy against registration cancellation under Section 107.

Statutory limitation on appeals restricts the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to the expressly prescribed outer limit. Equitable relief granted by a High Court under Article 226 cannot enlarge that statutory jurisdiction; equity cannot override an express limitation. Separately, where the Department has implemented restoration orders by reinstating GST registrations and taxpayers have resumed compliant business operations, a subsequent departmental challenge becomes infructuous. Setting aside the orders would unsettle restored registrations and intervening genuine transactions without providing effective relief.

Input tax credit under Section 16(2)(c) requires proof that the supplier actually paid tax to the Government; bona fide purchase and payment to the supplier do not satisfy this condition. The claimant bears the evidential burden, and a GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch alone neither proves supplier default nor establishes payment. Verification may require supplier certificates, returns, accountant certificates, or other reliable evidence. For inter-State supplies lacking an e-way bill, contemporaneous transport, freight, receipt, or stock records must establish goods movement and receipt. Interest on wrongly availed credit applies only to credit also utilised, calculated under Rule 88B(3); statutory penalty applies independently of fraud or intent to evade.

Withdrawal of a pre-GST refund claim before final adjudication renders that claim non est and does not, by itself, make accumulated CENVAT credit ineligible. Where credit was validly carried forward through TRAN-1 and no condition requires compliance with Notification No. 27/2012-C.E. (N.T.) for such carry-forward, the credit need not be reversed. Consequential interest cannot be demanded merely because the earlier refund claim was withdrawn.

Electronic withdrawal of a GST appeal may be sought through GSTAT Form APL-5W under Rule 113A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017, using the GSTAT e-filing portal. Where the Department requests withdrawal because the amount involved falls below the prescribed monetary limit, the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn.

Detention penalties under the CGST framework require a meaningful opportunity to object and be heard before an order is made. A penalty demand cannot exceed the amount quantified in the show-cause notice, as clerical error does not create an exception to that limit. Failure to upload Form GST MOV-09 and make consequential electronic-liability entries is a technical procedural lapse and does not alone invalidate an order. Goods may move in batches or lots under delivery challans referring to earlier invoices where Rule 55(5) conditions are met. Item-wise invoicing, delivery-challan wording, or e-way bill discrepancies do not by themselves establish tax evasion or justify detention penalty.

Under the pre-1 January 2022 Section 129 framework, the linkage in Section 129(6) to Section 130 made intent to evade tax material to detention-related penalties. Non-generation of an e-way bill, without evidence of evasion, may not by itself support a penalty where e-invoices, tax returns and physical verification establish a genuine, traceable transaction. Section 75(4) requires a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision; a final order issued fifty-seven minutes after a show-cause notice may deny natural justice and constitute a jurisdictional defect. Subsequent amendments severing the Section 129-Section 130 linkage do not govern earlier transactions.

Anticipatory bail in GST input tax credit fraud investigations depends on a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation, not merely on the gravity of a cognizable, non-bailable economic offence. Arrest requires recorded reasons to believe, while investigative necessity depends on the individual's role, cooperation, evidence already available, risks of absconding or tampering, and whether less restrictive measures suffice. Searches yielding documentary and electronic material, continued cooperation, and bail granted to a similarly placed co-accused may support protection, though parity is not decisive. Bail conditions can secure cooperation and prevent interference with investigation.

Under the unamended section 129, its link through section 129(6) to section 130 made intent to evade tax necessary before imposing a detention penalty. Transport of traceable motorcycles without an e-way bill did not establish that intent where the e-invoice contained engine and chassis particulars, physical verification found no discrepancy, returns disclosed the transaction, and no finding of evasion existed. The penalty was therefore unsustainable, although lawful procedural action for the documentation lapse remained open. Section 75(4) also required a meaningful hearing; an order issued fifty-seven minutes after the show-cause notice breached natural justice. The penalty orders were set aside and the deposit was refundable with applicable interest.

Custodial interrogation in alleged fraudulent GST input tax credit cases requires a specific, individualised showing of necessity. The seriousness or non-bailable character of an economic offence and statutory arrest powers alone do not justify arrest. Necessity must be assessed against the accused's role and cooperation, outstanding material, risks of absconding or evidence tampering, and whether less restrictive measures can meet investigative needs. Where documentary and electronic material has been seized and is already held by the Department, a bare assertion of necessity is insufficient. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to surrender, attendance, continued cooperation, and safeguards against absconding or tampering.

GST detention penalty proceedings require consideration of objections, a statutorily required personal hearing, and reasoned decision-making; an order issued on the notice date without these safeguards breaches natural justice. Section 75(7) bars confirmation of a penalty above the amount proposed in the show-cause notice, with any correction requiring timely disclosure. Failure to upload a Form GST MOV-09 order on the common portal does not alone invalidate proceedings. Under Rule 55(5), goods supplied under complete prior invoices may be transported in batches using a delivery challan; item-wise invoicing or absence of the original invoice does not itself establish tax evasion or justify detention penalty.

Input tax credit requires the recipient to establish that the supplier has paid tax to the Government; payment to the supplier alone is insufficient. A GSTR-2A shortfall does not itself establish non-payment, but the recipient must provide prescribed supplier certification or other evidence of tax payment. For inter-State purchases, an e-way bill is primary evidence of goods movement, and its absence requires reliable contemporaneous transport, freight, receipt, or stock evidence. Interest applies only to credit wrongly availed and utilised and must be computed from the electronic credit ledger under Rule 88B(3). Statutory penalty for ineligible credit under Section 73 does not require fraud or intent to evade; re-availment remains possible if suppliers later pay tax.