Input tax credit disallowance for mismatches cannot be sustained where the show-cause notice omits the particulars needed for an effective response. Producing a mismatch chart only after adjudication, when it was unavailable to the adjudicating authority, denies the taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to address the proposed disallowance. Failure to provide sufficient personal-hearing opportunity during first appellate proceedings further breaches principles of natural justice. The input tax credit claim requires fresh adjudication after complete mismatch particulars are supplied and adequate opportunity is granted to explain the claim.

Writ challenge to GST summons seeking information and documents was premature where the petitioner had supplied relevant records by representation. No coercive recovery, threat of arrest, or adverse order had arisen from the summons. Judicial interference was therefore unwarranted at that stage in the absence of those circumstances during the GST proceedings.

Assignment and transfer for consideration of leasehold rights in industrial plots allotted by GIDC constitute transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and are not subject to GST. The jurisdictional High Court's ruling on that characterisation remained binding on the Tribunal absent a stay or recall. The department's stated intention to seek review did not diminish the ruling's binding effect. Accordingly, GST was not leviable on the assignments, and the departmental appeals were dismissed.

Under the Explanation to Rule 110(4) of the CGST Rules, an appeal is filed only upon issuance of the final acknowledgement. A mandatory pre-deposit made after provisional acknowledgement, but within the time allowed to rectify a defect and before final acknowledgement, satisfies the pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8). The timing objection is therefore treated as cured, enabling registration and admission of the appeal for consideration on merits.

Judicial review of the quantum of a FERA penalty permits interference on proportionality grounds only where the sanction is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the court's conscience. A Tribunal cannot reduce a penalty without demonstrating and giving reasons that this high threshold is met; its reduction was therefore unsustainable. FERA penalty adjudication follows proof of breach of a statutory civil obligation, without requiring mens rea. Absence of criminal intent or monetary gain does not legally justify a reduced penalty. The appellate outcome restored the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the Tribunal's reduction.

Separate offshore-supply, domestic-supply and domestic-service contracts in a transmission project need not be treated as artificial splitting merely because project safeguards, acceptance testing and performance obligations apply. Where goods are supplied on CIF terms and title passes outside India, offshore-supply receipts are not taxable in India. An Indian associate conducting an independent business does not create a fixed-place or dependent-agent permanent establishment without legal, economic or other dependence. The presumptive computation provision for turnkey power projects does not extend to receipts from mere offshore supply under a separate contract.

Income Declaration Scheme declarations provide personal immunity only to declarants, but an accepted, tax-paid declaration may evidence the true source of share-capital and share-premium credits in another taxpayer's books where it specifically covers the credits and remains unrebutted; taxing that same income again risks double taxation. Before the source-of-source proviso applied, the taxpayer's burden for such credits was limited to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, although apparent routing of its own advances through intermediaries required verification of commercial rationale. A banking trail alone does not exclude prior cash funding, requiring examination of relevant admissions. A search statement directly linking accommoda.....

Business set-up is distinct from commercial commencement: once a division is established and ready to perform its functions, expenditure cannot be denied solely because commercial operations have not begun. Contemporaneous evidence recording completion of the first phase and commencement of production supports the division's operational status; subsequent financial distress or action against assets cannot retrospectively alter that status. Appellate authorities must consider written submissions and material evidence, including annual reports, and provide reasoned findings rather than merely adopting assessment reasoning. Expenditure of a newly established division cannot be categorised wholesale as capital; deductibility of each item remains subject to applicable statutory conditions.

Mandatory reversal of GST input tax credit attributable to unsold units on project completion converts the extinguished credit into an irrecoverable project cost, deductible as business expenditure when final project-wise allocation crystallises. The reversal is not a voluntary write-off or correction of an earlier error, even where no fresh cash payment arises, because GST on inputs has been paid and the related credit becomes unrecoverable. The deduction for credit attributable to unsold completed units is allowable in AY 2022-23. A related post-completion provision requires examination in AY 2023-24 and may be allowed in only one assessment year to prevent double deduction.

Fixed place permanent establishment requires evidence that the foreign enterprise has a right to use or control the Indian subsidiary's premises for its business; group-wide Form 10-K and website material do not establish that condition. A subsidiary relationship alone is insufficient. Dependent agency permanent establishment also requires authority to conclude contracts or habitual order securing for the foreign enterprise. Independent principal-to-principal dealings, the subsidiary's separate manufacturing operations, and a licence arrangement confined to royalty-bearing products did not satisfy those conditions. Neither form of permanent establishment arose, so no Indian profits were attributable to the disputed offshore supplies and the attribution was deleted.

Electronic upload of DRP directions on the ITBA module constitutes receipt of those directions in a faceless assessment. The final assessment must therefore be completed within the period prescribed under section 144C(13), calculated from that upload date. Where the final assessment is completed after the prescribed period, it is time-barred and liable to be set aside. Other assessment grounds remain open where invalidity is determined solely by limitation.

Gifted unlisted shares taxed on receipt under section 56(2)(x) retain their character as assets acquired by gift for determining the holding period. The previous owner's holding period is included, so a subsequent transfer may produce long-term capital gains. However, section 49(4) separately fixes the donee's cost at the value previously taxed under section 56(2)(x); it does not carry over the prior owner's cost. Consequently, indexation of that deemed cost begins only in the financial year in which it was taxed, not in an earlier ownership period.

Compulsory-acquisition compensation under the National Highways Act that remained unpaid on 31 December 2014 and was received in FY 2015-16 qualified for exemption under section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act. The exemption applied notwithstanding the absence of a specific corresponding exemption in the Income-tax Act, resulting in deletion of the long-term capital-gains addition. Interest received for delayed payment of that compensation was separately taxable as income from other sources under binding jurisdictional High Court precedent. The capital-gains addition was deleted, while the addition for delayed-payment interest was sustained.

In faceless assessments involving a reference to the Valuation Officer, limitation is computed by reference to the Assessment Unit's receipt of the report through the prescribed channel, not merely the assessee's emailed copy. Exclusion of the reference period and the statutory extension of the remaining period can preserve the assessment's timeliness. For property acquired below stamp duty value, once the statutory valuation process is invoked, assessment must conform to the Valuation Officer's estimate rather than revert to stamp duty value. Methodology objections, comparable sales, independent valuation evidence and a subsequent sale require consideration in a fresh valuation, although later sale evidence is corroborative rather than determinative.

Section 124's first proviso permits oral notice at the concerned person's request and requires a genuine, effective opportunity to know and answer the allegations rather than service of a prescribed written form. Where an importer expressly waived a formal show-cause notice, participated in customs adjudication, and raised no contemporaneous objection, the absence of a separate written notice did not constitute a jurisdictional defect permitting recourse to writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appeal. The importer was relegated to the appellate remedy, with merits left open. No separate provisional-release direction was issued because detention was under consideration in another writ proceeding and interim relief could be sought before the appellate forum.

Customs detention regulations prohibit recovery of rent or demurrage on goods detained or seized by Customs. Following reassessment and payment of duty, imported Low Alloy Steel Scrap remained entitled to physical release; delays caused by Customs authorities, a shipping line, or a custodian could not be imposed on the importer. The High Court required the shipping line and custodian to issue delivery orders and release the goods without detention charges, container detention charges, ground rent, or demurrage for the certified detention period, while leaving their inter se claims to be resolved according to law.

Writ jurisdiction was not invoked against repeated GST summons that only sought information and documents, where the recipient had already submitted a representation with relevant copies. In the absence of evidence of coercive recovery or a threat of arrest, the summons did not establish a basis for judicial interference. The writ petition was treated as premature and rejected.

GST appellate procedure requires a hearing before disposal, including where limitation, signatory authority or pre-deposit is disputed. Delay may be condoned on sufficient cause within the further statutory period; no separate affidavit is prescribed. A company's authorised signatory may validate an appeal under a general power of attorney, and deficient proof of authority is curable. In interest-only appeals, alternative computations do not constitute an admitted liability, and statutory pre-deposit is confined to tax in dispute. Interest on differential GST runs from invoice-based tax liability despite customer non-reimbursement; cum-tax valuation applies only where the stated value includes tax. Interest demands for delayed GSTR-3B payments must account for documented interest already paid through reasoned adjudication.

GST appeals should not be rejected solely for non-appearance where sufficient cause exists and the substantive input tax credit dispute remains unexamined. A mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B does not, by itself, establish wrongful ITC availment; compliance must be verified against invoices, books of account, supplier details, payment records and other transaction evidence. For FY 2017-18 pending proceedings, the applicable verification mechanism should be applied. A subsequently issued CA/CMA certificate may be considered as corroborative evidence if verifiable from contemporaneous records. Fresh determination should address the mismatch, certificate, ledgers and reconciliation before sustaining tax, interest or penalty.

Judicial declarations invalidating the reverse-charge IGST levy on imported ocean freight operate retrospectively unless expressly limited, rendering the levy void from inception. Taxpayers who were not parties to the invalidating proceedings may rely on that declaration for refunds, except where their own unsuccessful challenge to the levy has attained finality. A departmental representative may challenge only grounds authorised by the Commissioner. Utilisation of IGST credit does not by itself create double benefit or unjust enrichment where unutilised CGST and SGST credits of equivalent value can be debited. Refunds are therefore supportable, with statutory interest for delay.