Delay in filing a statutory appeal against GST registration cancellation was condoned where the appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely as time-barred without examining tax computation. The remedial approach applied in analogous registration-cancellation matters supported an effective opportunity for merits adjudication. The revived appeal must allow the petitioner to challenge every component of tax computation before the appellate authority, with a hearing afforded to both sides.

Clause 42.1 of the contracts requires reimbursement of Central and State taxes paid by the contractor upon proof of payment. GSTR-3B records established payment of CGST and SGST. The absence of Part II of Schedule A does not defeat reimbursement where the omission is attributable to the department that drafted the agreement. Denial despite payment proof is arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 requirements of fairness in governmental contractual dealings. Reimbursement of CGST and SGST is payable with interest at 12% per annum from the respective tax-payment dates.

Retrospective GST registration cancellation under Rule 21(a) requires prior notice that retrospective effect is proposed. A notice alleging non-conduct of business at the declared premises, without proposing retrospective cancellation, cannot support cancellation from 2 July 2017. The earlier cancellation for the same period had been revoked, and penalty adjudication accepted the genuineness of input tax credit under Section 16. The cancellation was set aside, registration revived, and fresh adjudication directed after the petitioner's response.

Private contractual allocation of GST liability does not bar statutory recovery from a person liable under the CGST Act. Suppliers receiving assignment consideration inclusive of GST and undertaking to remit it remain contractually liable to reimburse the payer for unpaid GST and consequential interest. Statutory authorities may nevertheless pursue the payer under section 16(2), subject to the pending statutory appeal. A civil money claim cannot extend to statutory authorities where they were added late and no amended prayer or contractual basis supports relief against them.

Ex parte GST assessments based on show-cause notices uploaded only to the GST portal may not provide effective service where repeated portal notices receive no response. Although portal upload is a recognised mode of service, the proper officer must explore other available modes, preferably registered post, to ensure an effective opportunity to respond. Confirming show-cause proposals without effective service and a meaningful personal hearing reduces the process to an ineffective formality; ex parte assessments made in those circumstances cannot be sustained.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit was sought in relation to zero-rated supplies, including a claim involving cumulative cess credit and supplies made without payment of integrated tax. The special leave petition challenging rejection of the refund claim was dismissed because it was filed after substantial delay without a cogent explanation. Dismissal was also based on merits, with a special leave petition against the common impugned order having already been dismissed.

Contractual GST-refund claims founded on a specific tax-reimbursement clause fall outside an arbitration agreement where the arbitration clause does not extend to that dispute. The existence of an arbitration agreement cannot, on that basis, justify refusing writ jurisdiction on the ground of an alternative arbitral remedy. Competing interpretations of the tax-reimbursement clause and entitlement to the GST refund remain for determination by the High Court within judicial review.

Criminal conspiracy and cheating allegations may warrant continuation of prosecution where exclusion of family members from a family tree, use of partition documents to obtain compensation, and distribution of that compensation disclose a prima facie offence. An untested statement concerning the genuineness of a partition deed cannot conclusively resolve that issue at the quashing stage; genuineness must be determined at trial. Pendency of civil partition proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution or justify quashing where the same facts also disclose criminal offences.

Article 226 writ jurisdiction is discretionary and may be refused where quashing administrative action would cause greater societal harm. In an intra-court writ appeal, a plausible discretionary decision should not be displaced merely because another view is possible; interference requires perversity or material legal error. Cancellation of the industrial plot allotment was treated as bona fide because it served an educational institution's establishment and expansion, no malice was shown, alternate land was offered, and compensation was sought alternatively. The cancellation remained effective, subject to refund with interest and exclusive educational use of the plot.

Steel plates, coils, angles, channels, joists and beams used to fabricate machinery, furnaces and other capital goods qualify for CENVAT credit where their use is established by a detailed chartered engineer's certificate. Excavators do not qualify for CENVAT credit. Recovery of excavator credit is nevertheless barred by limitation where the credit was disclosed in RG23C and ER-1 records and no suppression supports invocation of the extended period. Accordingly, the structural-item credit demand fails on merits, while recovery of the excavator credit cannot proceed under the extended limitation period.

Fixed facility charges for specialised storage tanks, when included in the assessable value of supplied gases and subjected to central excise duty under the applicable Board circular, cannot additionally be treated as consideration for Supply of Tangible Goods Service. Although the tanks were supplied without transfer of effective possession and control, the charges had already borne excise duty as part of the gas value. Applying the departmental circular and the earlier determination concerning the same transactions, service tax, interest and penalties on those charges were unsustainable.

Banking investments classified as held to maturity require premium paid, including premium previously disallowed, to be amortised and deducted over their residual maturity period. Available-for-sale securities require mark-to-market valuation at the reporting date; the resulting loss is deductible. Where profit on sale of those securities has been taxed, the associated premium included in cost should not be disallowed. Deductibility of a leave-encashment provision under Section 43B(f) remains subject to the pending Supreme Court determination and requires fresh adjudication consistently with that determination.

Consideration from standard software sales and pure cross-charges for third-party software does not constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of the India-USA tax treaty where no taxable income element arises. Third-party hardware supplied to an Indian subsidiary on a cost-to-cost basis without mark-up is a reimbursement, not consideration giving rise to capital gains under the Act or Article 13 of the treaty. Software receipts and hardware reimbursements of this nature are therefore excluded from taxable income in India.

Reassessment initiated under section 148 for AY 2013-14 was time-barred because the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for extended action under the substituted reassessment regime. The initiating notice and consequential reassessment were therefore void ab initio. Separately, undisputed repayment of an unsecured loan, supported by bank records before reassessment proceedings, prevented the credit from being treated as unexplained cash credit and removed the basis for disallowing related interest. The reassessment and the loan-related adjustments were unsustainable.

Rectification is limited to errors apparent from the record and cannot resolve a debatable legal question. Whether MAT credit includes surcharge and education cess was subject to differing Tribunal views, including views favouring inclusion, so it could not be treated as an apparent mistake. Reduction of MAT credit through rectification was therefore invalid, and the credit allowed in the original scrutiny assessment remained available.

Timely electronic filing of Form 10B under Section 12A(b) is treated as a directory requirement, with delayed filing regarded as a curable procedural defect. In light of Circular No. 10/2019 and the debatable nature of the requirement, delay in uploading the audit report may be condoned. Exemption under Section 11 should not be denied during summary processing of a return under Section 143(1) solely because Form 10B was uploaded after the prescribed due date.

Documentary and banking evidence establishing creditor identity, financial capacity and transaction genuineness discharges the primary burden for unsecured loans; uncorroborated third-party reports, untested statements and unserved summons cannot sustain cash-credit additions without a live nexus, rebuttal evidence or cross-examination. The loan additions and consequential interest disallowances were therefore deleted. A bilateral English instrument lacking customary negotiable Hundi characteristics, where funds moved through banking channels, does not attract section 69D; the related addition was deleted. Business-loss carry-forward remains subject to verification of statutory eligibility, with eligible losses to be allowed.

In unabated assessments under sections 153A and 153C, additions concerning unsecured loans must rest on incriminating material found during the search and directly related to the proposed addition. Post-search enquiries, lender-related information and a standalone statement recorded during search do not supply that foundation. Seized records that merely reflect loans already recorded in regular books and disclosed in the original return are not incriminating. A notation suggesting repayment cannot establish cash repayment without corroborative evidence or lender enquiry. Accordingly, unsecured-loan additions cannot be sustained solely through post-search challenges to lender genuineness or cash-credit evidence.

Section 124(3) limits challenges to territorial jurisdiction but does not bar objections that an officer lacked inherent statutory authority to initiate reassessment. Statutory jurisdiction cannot be created by participation, acquiescence, or waiver; proceedings initiated without such authority are void. Section 151A and the faceless reassessment scheme require automated allocation and issuance of reassessment notices through the Faceless Assessing Officer, excluding concurrent jurisdiction of a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. An order under Section 148A(d), notice under Section 148, and consequential assessment initiated outside that mandatory mechanism lack jurisdiction and are invalid.

Unexplained bullion claimed to have arisen from melted old jewellery remains unsubstantiated where post-search affidavits and subsequent jeweller confirmations do not identify the jewellery, specify the melting date, or provide contemporaneous records such as weighing slips and melting charges. CBDT jewellery limits applicable during search do not extend to bullion, particularly where the benefit has already been granted for jewellery found with family members. The bullion addition was therefore sustained as unexplained money under the Income-tax Act.