Pending Central Excise and Service Tax appeals filed on or after 1 July 2017, concerning pre-GST actions or omissions, are assigned to identified officers for appellate disposal in the Bengaluru Zone. The assignment covers appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Officers designated for each listed appeal must pass Orders-in-Appeal under the corresponding statutory provision. The allocation matrix identifies 500 appeals by appeal number, assessee, registration particulars, and assigned officer.

Appeals filed on or after 1 July 2017 under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, are subject to a re-assignment of appellate jurisdiction. The identified appeals are allotted to the Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur Audit Commissionerate, for passing Orders-in-Appeal under the applicable enactment.

Any person seeking blocking must lodge a complaint with the Nodal Officer of the concerned organisation; the Designated Officer cannot entertain direct complaints or requests. The organisation examines whether blocking is required on the specified statutory grounds and forwards a complete written request in the prescribed form. A committee examines the request and sample content, while identified persons or intermediaries ordinarily receive notice and an opportunity to respond. The Secretary's approval is required before the Designated Officer directs a Government agency or intermediary to block public access.

Specified Central Excise and service-tax appeals filed on or after 1 July 2017 are reassigned, entry by entry, to designated Commissioners for passing Orders-in-Appeal. Each matter is identified through its appeal number, assessee or concerned party, registration particulars and allotted officer. The allocation covers Kolkata South and Kolkata North appeal references, operates under the Central Excise and Service Tax Rules together with the GST savings framework for legacy matters, and partially modifies the appellate allocation made on 7 April 2025.

Investigation of alleged misbehaviour or incapacity of the Chairperson or Members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal follows a staged process under the Information Technology Act. A written complaint containing definite charges undergoes preliminary scrutiny by the Central Government. Where investigation is considered necessary, a three-member Committee comprising officials from the Cabinet Secretariat, the information technology department and the legal affairs department conducts the investigation, may record complainant evidence and collect relevant material, and submits findings to the President within the specified period.

Alleged bogus purchases are not fully taxable where the underlying purchases are not wholly fictitious, even if suppliers differ from those recorded in the books. Taxable income is limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases rather than the full purchase price. The addition is confined to 12.5% of the alleged purchases as the estimated embedded profit, notwithstanding repeated non-compliance during assessment and first appellate proceedings.

Chairperson and Members receive salary, allowances, leave, travel, conveyance, housing and medical benefits benchmarked to the Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent Group A officers. Pay of retired appointees is reduced by retirement benefits, while specified serving appointees retain pension and General Provident Fund coverage; others are covered by the Contributory Provident Fund. Oaths of office and secrecy, together with declarations against prejudicial financial or other interests, govern entry and continued service.

Salary and allowances of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal Chairperson and Members are made equivalent to those admissible to a Secretary to the Government of India, including associated benefits. Where the Chairperson is a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge, pay is reduced by pension, Contributory Provident Fund contributions, or other retirement benefits drawn or receivable, and service conditions follow applicable Ministry of Finance instructions. Members retired from Central or State Government service are subject to an equivalent reduction in pay for retirement benefits.

The Index of Services Production is proposed to expand beyond its initial formal-sector coverage, which relies on high-frequency administrative data and GST outward-supplies data. Education, Human Health and Residential Care, and Public Administration and Defence are proposed for inclusion. Their incorporation would increase coverage of services-sector Gross Value Added and support aggregation of sub-sectoral indices into a unified measure of short-term services-sector movements. Stakeholder views are invited on the proposed methodology.

Intelligence-led customs enforcement targeted cross-border gold smuggling through surveillance and interception of four persons travelling from a border route. Personal searches recovered foreign-origin gold biscuits concealed in specially tailored cloth waist belts. Seventy-two gold biscuits were seized under relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the four persons were arrested. Investigation continues into organised networks and wider syndicates involved in the movement and distribution of smuggled gold.

Section 10(2A) provides a residual composition levy for eligible service providers and mixed suppliers who cannot enter the conventional composition scheme. Eligibility depends on PAN-level aggregate turnover within the prescribed ceiling, collective election by all registrations under the PAN, and continuous compliance during the year. The combined 6% tax applies to turnover of supplies rather than profit, while composition taxpayers cannot collect tax separately or claim input tax credit. Inter-State outward supplies and platform-based services through specified electronic commerce operators remain restricted, and reverse-charge tax continues at regular rates.

Section 118 enables the Board to establish administrative subordination among income-tax authorities based on functional jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and assigned work. The hierarchy runs from the Central Board of Direct Taxes through principal, director, commissioner, deputy, assistant, officer, recovery and inspector levels. The amended appellate arrangement places Joint Commissioners (Appeals) and Additional Commissioners (Appeals) under Principal Chief Commissioners and Chief Commissioners. Administrative control cannot dictate a particular assessment or case disposal and must preserve the discretion of first appellate authorities.

Reasoned decision-making in GST adjudication requires quasi-judicial authorities to give cogent, clear and succinct reasons, based on relevant material and free from extraneous considerations. This safeguard of natural justice restrains arbitrary power, promotes transparency and accountability, and enables judicial review. Original adjudication and first appeals should address deficiencies in reasoning rather than shift substantive correction to later appellate review.

Registration of a right holder's notice is the condition that makes allegedly infringing imports deemed prohibited and supports the ordinary suspension of clearance. A bare complaint does not suffice. Customs may initiate an ex officio suspension on prima facie evidence or reasonable grounds, but prompt reasons must be communicated and the right holder must comply with notice and bond requirements within five days. General importer-protection and Customs indemnity bonds, together with consignment-specific security, support continued detention. Failure to join proceedings or satisfy applicable bonds and time limits requires clearance, subject to other import conditions.

Audit findings may identify discrepancies and support further action, but they do not create an enforceable tax liability. A show-cause notice initiates statutory adjudication, in which the taxpayer may contest the proposed demand through records, evidence and legal submissions. Rule 101(4) requires genuine consideration of the audit reply, though a brief response does not by itself establish complete non-consideration. The Adjudicating Authority must independently examine limitation, computation, audit scope, the legal basis of the demand, and whether a Form GST DRC-03 payment was voluntary or lawfully appropriable.

Domestic GST collections and post-settlement SGST are distinct measures and may move differently because IGST settlement and input-tax-credit utilisation affect final State receipts. Tamil Nadu's domestic collection decline therefore requires reconciliation before it is attributed to economic contraction, evasion or weakened compliance. The analysis should identify taxpayer-specific and sector-specific movements, quantify GST rate-rationalisation effects, reconcile output liability with cash and credit discharge, verify settlement schedules, and examine State-specific refunds. Aggregate revenue weakness may support risk analysis but cannot replace evidence and statutory safeguards in proceedings against individual taxpayers.

GST administration introduces Multistate Registration for normal taxpayers seeking registrations under the same PAN across multiple States or Union Territories. A Master TRN enables submission of Common Registration Information, followed by separate jurisdiction-specific TRNs with auto-populated but editable common details. GSTAT procedures cover respondents' replies and transfer appeals for identical legal questions pending before different benches, allowing qualifying taxpayers with multiple PAN-linked registrations to consolidate matters. Potential policy measures include easing blocked input tax credit and protecting genuine recipients affected by supplier defaults.

Personal guarantor insolvency resolution proceedings require resolution professionals to electronically file prescribed PGIRP forms with complete and accurate records. PGIRP-1 records the interim resolution professional's section 99 report and recommendation on admission or rejection. PGIRP-2A records rejection of an application under section 100, while PGIRP-2B records admission, publication of a public notice, and creditor claim timelines. Filing failures, incomplete records, or inaccurate information may attract regulatory action, including refusal to issue or renew an Authorisation for Assignment.

VAT and sales-tax litigation reached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition challenging a High Court order. Delay in filing was condoned. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the challenged order and dismissed the petition, with pending applications disposed of. The disposition leaves the High Court order undisturbed and identifies no substantive VAT or sales-tax principle.

Supreme Court ruling on legislative competence over intoxicating liquors addressed the division between State power under Entry 8 of List II and Parliamentary control of industries under Entry 52 of List I. Its scope did not extend to service tax on services used in job-work production. Precedent binds only on issues actually decided and cannot be applied to a distinct service-tax question that was not considered. The ruling therefore did not establish invalidity of the service-tax demand or absence of jurisdiction to levy service tax on the job-work service. Relevant precedent may also be relied on during hearing without a separate application.