Ex parte GST assessment is addressed where statutory appellate limitation prevents appellate recourse. Fresh consideration is contemplated because the demand was made ex parte, provided the taxpayer files a reply to the show-cause notice, treats the impugned order as an addendum, and makes pre-deposit of the disputed tax. The respondent must then decide the matter on merits after hearing the taxpayer. Non-compliance permits proceedings in accordance with law as though the writ petition had been dismissed in limine.

Rule 86A limits restrictions on input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger to one year and provides a statutory route for unblocking. A person whose credit is blocked must approach the Commissioner for an order under Rule 86A(2). Where registration is subsequently cancelled and a demand is determined, unblocking cannot be pursued solely by relying on issues concerning communication of the blocking reasons. The cancellation and demand orders must first be validly challenged; an unblocking request may then be made in accordance with law.

Input tax credit proportionate to consideration unpaid beyond 180 days must be added to output tax liability, and interest runs from availment until a financial or commercial credit note is received and recorded. A supplier's full waiver through such a credit note leaves no unpaid supply value and permits retention of original-invoice credit because the note does not reduce transaction value or invoice tax; beneficial Board clarifications bind departmental officers. Recorded unpaid balances and a bona fide view, later supported by clarification, do not establish fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression merely because audit detected the issue. The GST demand for credit and penalty fail, while interest for the intervening period remains payable.

Input tax credit on goods and services used to construct a resort building and its civil structures is blocked where construction is on the taxable person's own account. The retrospective definition of plant and machinery excludes land, buildings and civil structures; a resort supplying accommodation and restaurant services cannot invoke that exception. Residual credit requires specific proof that inputs are movable assets or qualifying plant and machinery, rather than a general verification request. Interest applies only to wrongly availed credit actually utilised, measured by reduction of the electronic credit ledger below the disputed credit. Failure to pay tax and interest within 30 days of the show cause notice removes penalty immunity. An appellate authority should address cited binding precedent, although fresh final-fact adjudication may cure the omission without prejudice.

Section 129 confines detention of goods to the period of transit and does not support detention after the vehicle has reached the consignee's registered premises. A promptly corrected Part-B omission in an e-way bill, supported by valid invoices and Part-A details, was treated as a minor procedural lapse that could not justify detention or penalty absent revenue loss or evidence of intent to evade tax. An adjudication order dated before the personal hearing breached audi alteram partem by rendering the hearing ineffective. The detention, tax demand and penalty were set aside, with refund of amounts collected under protest and applicable statutory interest.

Pending real-estate anti-profiteering investigations may be remanded for fresh project-level computation of input-tax-credit savings and allocation by total area where the earlier methodology is legally unsustainable. A fresh Standing Committee reference is unnecessary where the original reference remains alive and the DGAP acts under remand. The investigation-report time limit is directory, particularly where delayed records caused the delay, and notice, disclosure of the fresh report and opportunity for objections satisfy natural justice. Input-tax-credit benefit must be actually passed to homebuyers through commensurate price reduction; unpassed benefit is refundable with interest proportionate to sold area. A penalty provision does not apply where the entire contravention ended before its commencement.

Address and business-particular discrepancies in transport documents do not by themselves establish deliberate contravention or intent to evade tax. Where goods are accompanied by a tax invoice and e-way bill and no quantity or quality discrepancy exists, technical or procedural defects require independent, reliable evidence of evasion before a penalty may be sustained. Penalty proceedings cannot rest on assumptions or unsubstantiated allegations. In the absence of sufficient evidence of intent to evade tax, the penalty and the appellate order sustaining it were set aside.

GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B mismatch requires verification of its cause, reconciliation with liability records and subsequent payments, and a determination whether tax remains unpaid; a numerical difference alone cannot establish short payment. Input tax credit reversal demands require a separate statutory basis and computation. Ex parte disposal following non-appearance remains subject to a reasoned determination of material grounds. Statutory claims concerning interest and penalty waiver, service of notices, and duplicate proceedings require examination against applicable conditions and records. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for fresh determination of actual liability and statutory claims.

Expiry of an e-way bill constitutes a procedural or documentary lapse and, without independent evidence, does not by itself establish an intention to evade tax for imposing a GST penalty. Penalty requires assessment of surrounding circumstances, including whether goods were diverted, the transaction was suppressed, goods differed from declarations, or the destination was undisclosed. Where none of these factors is present, the penalty lacks a factual basis and is unsustainable.

Reassessment procedure requires the Assessing Officer to furnish recorded reasons and decide objections to reopening by a speaking order before initiating scrutiny through a notice under section 143(2). A return filed in response to a reopening notice must be processed under the regular assessment procedure, but scrutiny cannot precede determination of jurisdictional objections. Further, no action, including a notice under section 142(1), may be taken for four weeks after service of an order rejecting objections. Notices issued contrary to these requirements, and consequential action, were quashed; the reopening challenge remained open.

Duplicate PAN allocation is in issue where an assessee maintains that only one PAN was held, that no application was made for the other PAN, and that it was never used for any transaction, including the transaction underlying an assessment. The Department was required to produce original records for both PANs, including verification details and profiles, and to provide the reasons and any relevant application concerning deactivation of one PAN. The focus is on verifying the origin, use and deactivation basis of the alleged duplicate PAN before proceeding on the assessment-related transaction.

Transfer-pricing comparability under TNMM requires a FAR analysis; company size may support a turnover filter, excluding high-turnover entities when determining arm's length remuneration for software development services. Where depreciation materially differs because of asset types, technology or investment levels, a cash profit level indicator excluding depreciation may compare real margins. Provision for bad and doubtful debts remains operating expenditure unless extraordinary. Free-use testing equipment supplied by an associated enterprise does not create a taxable business perquisite where ownership remains with the enterprise, no depreciation is claimed, and use is confined to testing software for it.

Section 144B requires a personal hearing in a faceless assessment when the assessee specifically requests one; refusal breaches the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. The applicable standard operating procedure ordinarily requires at least seven days to answer a final show-cause notice, unless curtailment is necessary because of the assessment limitation date. Without reasons for a shorter period, the response opportunity is inadequate. Denial of either safeguard resulted in quashing of the assessment, consequential demand and penalty proceedings, with fresh assessment directed after granting a hearing and opportunity for further submissions.

Prima facie substance in a limitation challenge to reassessment, coupled with a high-pitched assessment, warranted unconditional protection from recovery pending appeal. The stay-rejection order failed to address the taxpayer's material contentions solely because an appeal was pending. Financial capacity could not be inferred from gross turnover without considering returned income. The rejection was set aside, recovery of the reassessment demand was stayed until appeal disposal, and the appellate authority was to determine the appeal independently and expeditiously on its merits.

Returns filed after the period stated in a reassessment notice are not non est where no statutory embargo applies; they must be recognised as returns in the reassessment proceedings. Once a return is on record in response to a notice under Section 142(1), issuance and service of notice under Section 143(2) are mandatory. Absence of that statutory notice creates a procedural defect that invalidates the reassessment assessment and prevents it from standing.

Regional Rural Banks are deemed to be co-operative societies for Income-tax Act purposes under the statutory fiction in section 22 of the Regional Rural Banks Act. That fiction remains effective because section 80P(4) does not displace it, and definitions of primary co-operative bank or primary credit society are inapplicable where the bank is not claimed to fall within those categories. Deduction under section 80P is therefore available. An assessment correctly granting that deduction is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, limiting revision under section 263.

Government securities held by a bank as stock-in-trade may be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower. A consistently and regularly adopted valuation method cannot be displaced merely because the tax department prefers another method, supporting depreciation on such securities. Brokerage expenditure was allowable after the assessing authority accepted the claim on remand. Unclaimed bank balances do not constitute remission or cessation of a trading liability merely because customers have not claimed them; the bank's legal liability continues and the balances are not taxable on that basis. The departmental appeals were dismissed.

Technical know-how consideration payable by an Indian resident to a non-resident for use in its Indian business is chargeable to tax in India under source-based taxation of fees for technical services, including under the applicable treaty. Release of funds by a foreign grant administrator after certification of contractual claims merely discharges the resident's contractual liability; it does not change the resident payer's identity or the consideration's character. The location from which funds are remitted is not determinative. Tax deduction at source is therefore required, and non-deduction results in disallowance under Section 40(a)(i).

Section 263 revision cannot be invoked solely because the Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A. Penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, so a failure to record an opinion on penalty liability does not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Revisional jurisdiction therefore cannot be used to direct initiation of penalty proceedings, including under a different penalty provision. The revision order was quashed and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

Personal-use motor cars constitute personal effects rather than capital assets where their intimate and common personal use is established. Non-claim of depreciation, disallowance of car expenses as personal, and absence of business activity support that classification; balance-sheet treatment as a fixed asset does not prevail over actual user. Accordingly, transfer of such a motor car does not generate an allowable capital loss. Authorities concerning business assets or depreciation were distinguishable.