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.

Statutory limits on condonation of delay confine the First Appellate Authority's jurisdiction in GST registration-cancellation appeals. Extraordinary equitable relief available in constitutional jurisdiction cannot expand a statutory appellate authority's power or permit condonation beyond the prescribed outer limit; appeals entertained on that basis are without jurisdiction. However, where the Department has implemented the appellate orders by restoring cancelled GST registrations, it cannot seek their annulment without addressing the resulting legal and commercial consequences. Restoration renders departmental challenges ineffective, academic and infructuous, so no effective appellate relief remains available.

Transfer of an entire partnership business to a company without consideration may fall within GST supply, notwithstanding its occurrence outside the ordinary course of business. A transfer of a business undertaking as a going concern is classified as a supply of services rather than goods. The going-concern exemption applies only where the business, as a whole or independent part, satisfies that factual condition, requiring supporting evidence. If it does not qualify, the going-concern exception is unavailable and transferred stock and business assets are treated as taxable supplies of goods on cessation, at applicable rates.

Complete e-rickshaw CKD kits fall under Rule 2(a) as finished electrically operated vehicles only where every component necessary for one vehicle is supplied together as one identifiable kit and assembly requires no additional essential component. Purchase orders, invoices, packing lists and contemporaneous records must consistently identify the supply as an e-rickshaw in CKD/SKD condition, and the consignment must match those records. On satisfying all four requirements, classification is under HSN 87038040 as a three-wheeled electrically operated vehicle, attracting 5% GST; otherwise, the supply is classified and taxed as individual parts and components.

Composite supply of milling allocated wheat, fortifying the flour and packing it for Public Distribution System delivery has milling as its principal supply; fortification and packaging are ancillary. Total consideration includes cash and agreed non-cash consideration represented by retained gunny bags, bran and refractor, rather than their future disposal proceeds. Where goods used for fortification and packing remain within 25 per cent of total composite-supply value, the supply to the State Government qualifies for Serial No. 3A exemption because it relates to public distribution, a function under Article 243G. If the goods component exceeds that threshold, exemption is unavailable and the supply is taxable as food-related job work at 5 per cent.

GST exemption for educational services applies to fees charged by a statutory university for diploma and certificate programmes of one year or more where the programmes form part of a structured curriculum leading to qualifications recognised by law. Statutory authority to institute diplomas and certificates and prescribe their academic content supports recognition of long-duration qualifications. Fees for short-duration diploma or certificate courses do not qualify for exemption because they do not meet the requirement of education forming part of a curriculum leading to a legally recognised qualification.

Section 205 protects a salary recipient from direct tax recovery to the extent tax has already been deducted from salary, even where the corresponding TDS credit is not fully reflected in Form 26AS. Responsibility for depositing deducted tax and correctly reporting it lies with the employer-deductor, who may be treated as an assessee in default for non-compliance. Claimed TDS must be factually verified through supporting evidence and, where necessary, confirmation or records from the deductor. Pending rectification requests require examination after hearing the taxpayer, followed by rectification or amendment of outstanding demands where the TDS claim is established.

Additional depreciation is available for new plant and machinery installed in captive and wind power-generation facilities where the statutory conditions are met. Electricity is movable property capable of transmission, transfer, delivery and possession; it therefore constitutes an article or thing, and its generation amounts to production. Eligibility also arises where an assessee engaged in manufacturing uses the generated power in its manufacturing operations. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A correct allowance of additional depreciation satisfies neither condition and cannot support revision.

Statutory timelines for disposal of income-tax appeals prevail over administrative circulars that assign priority categories for out-of-turn disposal. Where the prescribed timeline has not been followed, pending appeals must be decided expeditiously and cannot be deferred solely because they do not fall within an administrative priority category. The appellate authority must provide a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing and dispose of the pending appeals within three months, without adjudication of their merits at this stage.

Amended section 270AA permits waiver applications for penalties imposed for under-reporting arising from misreporting of income, subject to payment of the prescribed additional income tax. The earlier exclusion of misreporting cases does not govern applications under the amended regime. Receipt of a penalty order creates a fresh statutory right to apply within one month from the end of the month of receipt, notwithstanding an earlier application under the former provision. Where the statutory conditions are fulfilled and the applicable appeal period has expired, the Assessing Officer must waive the penalty and grant immunity from specified prosecution proceedings.

Under the PMLA, property equivalent in value to unavailable proceeds of crime may be attached without a direct nexus to the offence where receipt and expenditure of tainted cash are admitted; statements recorded under Section 50 may support that conclusion if unretracted and corroborated. Holders, including non-accused persons, bear the burden of proving a legitimate source of acquisition; income-tax returns or unsupported claims do not discharge it, although capital-account withdrawals must be considered. Provisional attachment also requires a reasoned apprehension of concealment, transfer or dealing that could frustrate confiscation; property already in investigative custody or subject to a bank mortgage may not satisfy that condition. Recorded reasons and consideration of objections support a valid attachment process.

Royalty and technical-fee payments to an associated enterprise may be benchmarked by reference to a unilateral advance pricing agreement accepted by CBDT where its methodology is applicable; the payments were benchmarked at 1.9% of net sales rather than reduced to nil. Related-party manufacturing expenditure covered by section 40A(2)(b), once excluded from specified domestic transactions under section 92BA, cannot support a transfer-pricing adjustment. The manufacturing adjustment was therefore deleted, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Valid exercise of a domestic company's option under section 115BAB for its first eligible assessment year continues for later years and cannot be withdrawn. Absence of income or tax computation under that provision in the initial year neither withdraws nor cancels the option, since the provision does not require tax to have been payable in that year. Continuing validity of the option does not by itself secure the concessional corporate tax rate; the company must satisfy the statutory eligibility conditions for each relevant year. Eligibility for the later year requires verification of the conditions under section 115BAB(2).

Revision under section 263 is not sustainable where the Assessing Officer has made specific inquiries, considered supporting material, and adopted a permissible view; a brief assessment order alone does not show lack of inquiry or permit substitution of the Commissioner's view. Administrative and finance expenses remained connected with the taxpayer's continuing business and retained loans, notwithstanding transfer of stock to an LLP. Capital loss on the sale of rented investment property and cost of improvement were supported by audited accounts, construction records and loan documents. Fixed-asset adjustments reflecting transfers between branches at book cost, without change in ownership or fresh capital expenditure, also did not justify revision. The revisionary order was quashed and the original assessment restored.