Input tax credit claimed in Form GSTR-3B is not denied merely because it is absent from Form GSTR-2A, which operated as a facilitative mechanism during the relevant period; the claimant must nevertheless prove statutory credit conditions, including supplier tax payment. Section 35(6) applies only to goods not accounted for, so verified reconciliation of e-way bills with invoices and ledger entries prevents a demand based on deemed outward supplies. Interest on wrongly availed credit arises only on utilisation, determined where the electronic credit ledger balance falls below that credit; pre-notice tax payment without interest bars notice and penalty. Sales-return credit notes can reduce taxable value and output tax liability subject to statutory conditions, and non-reporting in Form GSTR-1 is a compliance lapse rather than an independent tax liability.

GST refund limitation for an unregistered flat purchaser following cancellation of a construction-linked booking must exclude the period prescribed in Notification No. 13/2022-Central Tax when computing the two-year period under section 54(1). The refund application was therefore within time. Where the developer deposited GST but refunded only the non-tax consideration, the purchaser may claim refund if the GST incidence was borne by the purchaser and the requirements of Statement 8 and Rule 89(2) are met. As the ultimate consumer, the purchaser is not barred by unjust enrichment. Refund was admissible with applicable interest after sixty days from the refund application.

GST interest remains payable despite voluntary tax payment before a show cause notice, but must be calculated month by month by identifying the tax liability, due date, actual payment date, and amount payable through the Electronic Cash Ledger under section 50 read with rule 88B. Interest calculated on the entire liability without verification of the electronic cash and credit ledgers requires fresh computation. Where omitted B2C turnover was accounted for, disclosed in the annual return, and fully paid before notice, section 73(5) applies; penalty under section 73(6) is unsustainable. The interest demand was remitted for recomputation and the penalty was set aside.

Section 129(1) treats transportation of goods in contravention of GST requirements as sufficient for detention and penalty; proof of an intention to evade tax is not required because the penalty arises from breach of a civil obligation. Expired e-way bills may therefore attract penalty even for interstate stock transfers where a claimed vehicle breakdown lacks supporting evidence and no timely extension or amendment is sought. Invoices or the stock-transfer character of the movement do not replace a valid e-way bill, and exceptions requiring a valid e-way bill do not apply after expiry. Procedural objections concerning hearing, notices, or forms do not alter the position where a full opportunity to provide explanations and evidence is available before the final fact-finding authority.

Section 129 liability for detained goods must be determined from the actual transport movement, including the route, destination and timing; a later e-way bill cannot retrospectively cure a contravention, and later invoices alone cannot establish onward movement. Conflicting interception accounts, incomplete carrier records and unavailable primary material require fresh, reasoned adjudication of the diversion defence. Acknowledged receipt of and response to FORM GST MOV-07 bars a later service objection, but does not remove the duty to consider the defence and grant statutory hearing. Payment to secure release does not conclude liability and must be adjusted or refunded following the fresh determination.

Post-interception invoices and bilties require reliable corroboration to establish that physically verified undeclared goods were covered by valid transport documents. Delayed documents were insufficient where they could not be linked to the goods, transaction parties did not acknowledge dealings or establish their identity and business credentials, and discrepancies remained unexplained; the penalty for transporting undeclared goods was therefore sustained. A transit-State defence based on asserted movement to an out-of-State destination also requires credible proof of the destination and underlying transactions. Mere passage through the transit State did not invalidate proceedings, and a precedent involving materially different facts was inapplicable.

Section 129(1) of the CGST Act imposes civil penalty for substantive contraventions of transit movement-document requirements without requiring independent proof of intent to evade tax. Authorities must nevertheless assess the taxpayer's explanation and distinguish material discrepancies from minor or technical errors. A sale during transit may occur without prior physical receipt by an intermediary, but the continuing movement must be supported by a valid e-way bill accurately stating the actual origin and destination. E-way bills that do not cover the diverted route, falsely identify the dispatch point, or have expired may constitute substantive non-compliance. Payment through DRC-03 to secure release of goods does not conclusively admit liability or waive statutory appeal rights and may be credited against any liability.

Section 129(1) of the GST Act applies where goods in transit are transported or stored contrary to the Act or Rules; proof of intent to evade tax is not a condition for detention or penalty because the provision addresses breach of a civil obligation and does not require mens rea. Transportation under e-way bills that had expired remained non-compliant where the asserted vehicle breakdown lacked supporting evidence and no extension or amendment was sought. Stock-transfer documentation and e-invoices did not cure the e-way bill lapse, while circular-based exceptions applied only to consignments accompanied by valid e-way bills. Penalties were sustained.

Penalty adjudication under section 129(3) requires a meaningful hearing under section 129(4) and a reasoned order addressing the taxpayer's explanation and consignment documents. Determining penalty the day after a notice allowed seven days to respond, using FORM GST MOV-09 containing unselected alternatives and drafting placeholders, fails those requirements. Payment through FORM GST DRC-03 to obtain release of detained goods neither cures incomplete adjudication nor waives the statutory challenge. Where FORM GST MOV-07 states an intelligible allegation, fresh adjudication should proceed within the existing notice's scope, with merits of the proposed penalty remaining open.

Accumulated Compensation Cess ITC on coal used to manufacture leather products supplied domestically is refundable only where the statutory conditions for an inverted tax structure refund are independently met. Eligibility to avail the credit, including the absence of a blocked-credit restriction, does not itself establish entitlement to a cash refund. Although Compensation Cess credit is usable only against cess liabilities, its inability to be utilised against other liabilities creates no separate refund right. Clarifications and precedents concerning zero-rated or export supplies do not support domestic-supply refund claims. The order granting refund was set aside and the original refund rejections were restored.

Request-driven road restoration performed by the PWD for a business's pipeline operations is treated as a distinct service, with work-linked charges constituting consideration rather than compensatory damages. Although routine road maintenance serves a governmental function, targeted restoration for a commercial entity is not treated as a governmental-function non-supply or public-utility exempt service. Taxable Government services supplied to registered business entities fall under reverse charge; revenue neutrality or alleged dual tax incidence does not displace that liability without proof of forward-charge payment. Electronic GST notices and orders issued through the authenticated portal remain valid without a physical DIN where the notice identifies the case and no prejudice or natural-justice breach arises.

Road restoration charges paid to a Public Works Department for repairing roads excavated for a commercial gas pipeline constitute consideration for a taxable service because the planned arrangement involved reciprocal obligations, not compensation for a wrongful act. Non-supply treatment and public-function exemptions do not apply where restoration is a targeted, fee-based service supplied to facilitate a business activity. The registered recipient remains liable under reverse charge for taxable Government services absent evidence of supplier tax payment; alleged revenue neutrality does not displace that liability. Electronic GST adjudication remains valid without a physical Document Identification Number where portal authentication establishes source and integrity and the notice adequately permits a response. The refund rejection was sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Section 311 CrPC permits a court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine witnesses and requires that power to be exercised where evidence is essential to a just decision. The provision serves truth-finding and a fair trial rather than either party's advantage, even where a party failed to produce necessary evidence earlier. Where a complainant witness and supporting documents were necessary to resolve facts in issue and their proof was indispensable, the cost condition attached to allowing their production was set aside as unnecessary.

Reassessment beyond three years requires books of account, documents or other evidence revealing income escapement; an audit objection alone is an opinion and cannot satisfy this condition or justify review of concluded scrutiny assessments. Re-examination of already disclosed material, including limited-scrutiny records, constitutes a change of opinion, rendering reassessment proceedings time-barred and without jurisdiction. Writ jurisdiction may be invoked on admitted material to challenge a reassessment notice lacking jurisdiction despite an alternative statutory remedy or completion of reassessment. Excise-duty refunds under an industrial incentive scheme for establishing a new undertaking are capital receipts, while goodwill arising on amalgamation qualifies as a depreciable business or commercial right.

Conditional release of a lien over provisionally attached fixed deposits can be granted where the outstanding revenue demand is adequately secured. A 20% deposit ordinarily supports a stay during appeal under the applicable CBDT circular; a 25% deposit, through a post-dated cheque, together with an undertaking not to transfer assets or create third-party rights, secured release of the lien. The Assessing Officer was required to lift the lien or recall the attachment and notify the bank once those conditions were met.

DFIA exemption reducing Basic Customs Duty to nil means that no tariff-rate BCD is added to the value of imported polyester viscose fabrics for IGST computation. IGST valuation includes only customs duty chargeable on the imported goods, rather than a notional tariff duty that disregards an available exemption. Zero duty debit in the Bills of Entry, together with DFIA requirements to disclose import value and quantity rather than duty debit, supports treatment of BCD as nil. A precedent concerning interest on delayed IGST payment does not govern this valuation issue.

Consequential penalties imposed on Chartered Engineers for alleged undervaluation of imported second-hand printing machinery cannot continue where the underlying demand, interest and penalties against the principal parties have been set aside as legally unsustainable. Because the Engineers' penalties rested on the same allegation of undervaluation, setting aside the foundation proceedings removed the basis for those penalties. The penalties were set aside, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Section 138B safeguards govern the use of statements recorded under customs law in adjudication. Third-party statements cannot be relied upon against a noticee where their makers were not examined in chief, as the statutory conditions for their admission have not been met. Penalty for dealing with goods liable to confiscation also requires independent evidence that the person consciously dealt with the goods and knew, or had reason to believe, that they were liable to confiscation. Mere allegations that a person was an intended recipient of seized gold do not establish the required knowledge; penalties imposed without such proof are unsustainable.

Interest paid on import duty due to ICEGATE technical glitches was refundable despite Bills of Entry being filed after the cut-off under the Customs (Waiver of Interest) 3rd Order. The Tribunal applied a High Court ruling that an advisory acknowledged glitches continuing beyond the stipulated cut-off. Because the refund denials relied solely on late filing, the rejection orders were set aside and consequential relief was granted according to law.

Provisional release of used digital multifunction print and copying machines was considered where a model-wise import cap was allegedly breached. Without an all-India centralised mechanism to monitor the cap, withholding any part of consignments lacked a valid basis where security for the full consignments had been furnished through a provisional duty bond and bank guarantee. The applicable precedent on identical imports supported release against the stipulated security, and the orders permitting provisional release were sustained.