Reassessment notices issued more than three years after the relevant assessment year required prior approval from the senior authorities specified under Section 151(ii) in the reassessment framework effective from 1 April 2021. Approval by a Principal Commissioner was insufficient for a notice issued after that period. The later proviso excluding time allowed under Section 148A(b), effective from 1 April 2023, did not retrospectively cure the applicable approval requirement. Absence of approval from the competent specified authority created a jurisdictional defect, rendering the reassessment void.

Reassessment notices issued more than three years after the relevant assessment year require prior approval from the senior authorities specified in Section 151(ii); approval by a Principal Commissioner is insufficient and deprives the proceedings of jurisdiction. The period for responding under Section 148A(b) cannot be retrospectively excluded from the three-year calculation under a later proviso without express legislative intent. Jurisdictional objections may be admitted as additional grounds where they arise on the existing record and require no new facts. Business disruption, illness and financial hardship can establish sufficient cause for delay.

Post-delivery cancellation of an e-way bill and issuance of a replacement invoice without a fresh e-way bill may create a GST compliance concern, even where no further vehicle movement occurs. Where the original e-way bill was valid during actual movement and the e-invoice or IRN was cancelled within the prescribed period for a genuine correction, complete cancellation, invoice, e-way bill, delivery, and correction records should be retained.

Section 78 assigns investigation of offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 exclusively to police officers not below the rank of Inspector. Operating notwithstanding anything inconsistent in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it establishes Inspector rank as the minimum statutory threshold for a police officer empowered to investigate every offence under the Act. This rank restriction governs investigation of any offence created under the Act.

Compensation, penalties and confiscation under the Information Technology Act, 2000 do not exclude liability under other applicable laws. An award of compensation, imposition of a penalty, or confiscation does not prevent additional compensation, penalties, or punishment under any other law in force, preserving the cumulative operation of legal consequences under separate applicable laws.

Computers, computer systems, storage media, tape drives and related accessories connected with a completed or ongoing statutory contravention are liable to confiscation. Where the person having possession, power or control of the property is not responsible for the contravention, the court may decline confiscation and issue another authorised order against the responsible person.

Extra-territorial application extends the Information Technology Act, 2000 to offences and contraventions committed outside India by any person, irrespective of nationality. Application is conditional on the offending act or conduct involving a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.

Fraudulent publication of electronic signature certificates is criminalised where a person knowingly creates, publishes, or otherwise makes an electronic signature certificate available for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose. The offence is punishable with imprisonment, fine, or both.

Section 73 prohibits knowingly publishing or making an electronic signature Certificate available where the named Certifying Authority did not issue it, the named subscriber did not accept it, or it has been revoked or suspended. Publication solely to verify an electronic signature created before suspension or revocation is permitted. Contravention is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both.

Confidentiality and privacy protection imposes a monetary penalty of up to five lakh rupees where a person, while exercising powers under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or its rules or regulations, obtains access to electronic records, information, documents, or other material and discloses it to another person without the concerned person's consent.

Misrepresentation or suppression of material facts to the Controller or a Certifying Authority for obtaining a licence or electronic signature Certificate is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both.

Section 70 permits the appropriate Government to notify a computer resource affecting Critical Information Infrastructure as a protected system. Access may be granted only to persons authorised by written order. Securing or attempting to secure access contrary to these requirements is punishable with imprisonment extending to ten years and fine. The Central Government must prescribe information security practices and procedures for protected systems.

Section 69 authorises interception, monitoring, or decryption of information through computer resources where necessary or expedient for specified public interests or offence investigation. Directions require recorded written reasons and remain subject to prescribed procedures and safeguards. Subscribers, intermediaries, and persons in charge of computer resources must provide access, technical assistance, or stored information when required. Failure to assist attracts imprisonment and fine.

Controller may direct a Certifying Authority or its employee to take specified measures or discontinue activities necessary to secure compliance with information technology law, rules, or regulations. Intentional or knowing non-compliance with such direction constitutes an offence and attracts a monetary penalty up to the prescribed limit.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises publishing, transmitting, or causing the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The prohibition applies to material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt likely readers, viewers, or listeners. It prescribes imprisonment and fine for a first conviction, with enhanced penalties for repeat convictions.

Section 66 criminalises dishonest or fraudulent performance of an act covered by section 43. The offence is punishable by imprisonment extending to three years, a fine extending to five lakh rupees, or both. The terms "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" have the meanings assigned under the Indian Penal Code.

Knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying, altering, or causing alteration of computer source code required by law to be maintained constitutes an offence. The prohibition covers source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system, or computer network. Computer source code includes programme listings, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of a computer resource. The offence is punishable with imprisonment, fine, or both.

Unpaid penalty or compensation under the Information Technology Act, 2000 is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The relevant licence or electronic signature certificate remains suspended until payment of the penalty.

Section 63 permits compounding of contraventions before or after adjudication proceedings, subject to conditions and a sum not exceeding the maximum imposable penalty. Compounding is barred for the same or similar contravention committed within three years of an earlier compounded contravention, while a later contravention is treated as a first contravention. Once compounded, no proceeding or further proceeding may continue for that contravention.

An aggrieved person may appeal a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court within sixty days of its communication, on a question of fact or law arising from the order. Where sufficient cause prevented timely filing, the High Court may permit filing during a further period not exceeding sixty days.