Opportunity to produce documents in GST adjudication - Fresh adjudication on production of relevant documents - Reconsideration of GST demand where the assessee could not place all relevant documents before the adjudicating authority - HELD THAT: - Having regard to the grounds urged, the inability to produce relevant material before the adjudicating authority, and the reasons in the precedent referred to, the Court considered fresh adjudication after affording sufficient opportunity to be app... ... ...

Delayed challenge to GST assessment order - Interference with the GST assessment order challenged after delay on the plea that cancellation of registration prevented access to the GST common portal HELD THAT: - The petitioner did not explain why the assessment order could not have been challenged before cancellation of registration. Further, no material showed that the assessed liability was being recovered through subsequent proceedings. The stated circumstances therefore afforded no basis f... ... ...

Effect of omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause - Rejection of an IGST refund claim under omitted Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT: - The omission of Rule 96(10), without a saving or sunset clause, brought pending proceedings under that rule to an end. The recommendation that the omission operate prospectively was advisory and did not bind the rule-making authority. See M/S GOODLUCK INDIA LIMITED & ANR. [2026 (8) TMI 1280 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] following the Constitution Benc... ... ...

Mandatory personal hearing for adverse tax determination - Validity of an adverse tax and penalty order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing HELD THAT: - Where an adverse decision is contemplated, the statutory requirement of hearing is obligatory notwithstanding that the assessee had not opted for a personal hearing. [Paras 5, 6] The impugned order was quashed, with liberty to the Department to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearin... ... ...

Writ jurisdiction against CGST penalty order - alternative appellate remedy - Failure to establish denial of natural justice - Exercise of writ jurisdiction against a common CGST penalty order where the challenges concerning natural justice, limitation, competence of the initiating officer and statutory penalty liability required factual and legal examination - HELD THAT: - No specific denial of hearing or non-consideration of a submission or document was shown. The challenges raised required... ... ...

Assessment against deceased person - Fresh assessment involving legal representative - Validity of an assessment made against a deceased proprietor of a proprietary concern - HELD THAT: - Assessment proceedings can be initiated only against a living person. As the proprietor had died before the assessment was made, the assessment had no legal efficacy. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 12] The assessment was declared invalid and set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh assessment proceedings after notice to ... ... ...

Writ jurisdiction - alternative statutory remedy under GST lawm- Maintainability of a writ petition against a GST demand founded on the alleged reclassification of animal nutrition products from feed supplements to medicaments, despite the statutory appellate remedy HELD THAT: - The objections concerning the alleged variance between the show cause notice and the adjudication order, classification under the relevant tariff headings and notifications, and denial of hearing or cross-examination ... ... ...

Alternative statutory remedy and exceptional writ jurisdiction - Authorisation of proper officer for physical verification of conveyance Physical verification by authorised proper officer - Rule 138B compliance - Compliance with Rule 138B in the physical verification of the conveyance carrying scrap goods - HELD THAT: - Rule 138B permits physical verification by a proper officer authorised by the Commissioner. On examination of the record, the Court found that the physical verification had be... ... ...

Limitation for notices and orders under Section 74 of the CGST Act - Forms GST DRC-01 and DRC-07 as electronic summaries - Alternative statutory remedy in GST adjudication Limitation for issuance of show cause notice - Form GST DRC-01 as summary of notice - Effect of the later dates on Forms GST DRC-01 upon limitation for issuance of substantive show cause notices under Section 74(2) - HELD THAT: - Section 74(2) concerns issuance of the substantive notice under Section 74(1), whereas Rule 142... ... ...

Monetary-limit compliance governs departmental GST appeals even where the Commissioner authorises an application under Section 112(3). Appeals below the prescribed threshold require the Revenue to specifically plead and establish a recognised exception under the applicable litigation-control framework. A bare assertion of the Commissioner's permission does not prove a residual exception without material demonstrating a case-specific recorded opinion. Maintainability must be determined before the underlying tax merits are considered. Where no recognised exception is established, a below-threshold departmental appeal is liable to dismissal at the admission stage, leaving the substantive tax dispute undecided.

GST interest on delayed GSTR-3B liabilities remains payable on the cash component until the Electronic Cash Ledger is debited, even where sufficient funds were deposited and continuously available earlier. A ledger credit evidences deposit with the Government but does not discharge an identified tax liability; debit is required for payment. The proviso excluding continuously available cash-ledger balances from interest computation operates prospectively and does not apply to earlier periods. A show-cause notice causes no defect where the taxpayer received the demand computation, responded fully, and suffered no prejudice. Failure to provide a requested personal hearing breached statutory requirements, but remand was unnecessary absent surviving substantive prejudice. Interest demands remain subject to reconciliation and credit without double recovery.

Laminated HDPE woven geomembrane used for waterproof pond lining, including Biofloc applications, is classified under tariff sub-heading 59111000 as a textile fabric for technical use. HDPE tapes and strips below 5 mm fall within Section XI, and their weaving produces textile fabric; lamination with plastic on both sides does not displace classification where the material serves a technical purpose under Chapter Note 8 to Chapter 59. The product attracted GST at 12 per cent up to 21 September 2025 and 5 per cent from 22 September 2025, following its placement under the relevant GST rate entries for tariff heading 5911.

Outdoor playground equipment, including qualifying spare parts, is classified under tariff item 95069990 as sports goods and taxable at 5%. Outdoor gym equipment and its qualifying spare parts are classified under tariff item 95069190 as equipment for general physical exercise and taxable at 18%. Parts solely or principally used with Chapter 95 articles generally follow the equipment classification. Ball and roller bearings remain separately classifiable under Heading 8482 because that specific tariff entry prevails over the general parts classification; their applicable tariff entry depends on their specifications, and they are taxable at 18%.

Tax payable is material to prosecution for failure to furnish a return under Section 276CC because the statutory exception depends on the assessee's tax liability. Where no assessment or other tax determination exists, the complaint does not allege tax payable, and a refund claim remains unaddressed, prosecution is misconceived. Wilful failure is also essential: the statutory presumption of culpable mental state may be rebutted through evidence showing no intent to evade tax. Evidence that property was jointly acquired, loan-financed, and that sale consideration was received by the spouse rebutted wilfulness. The convictions and sentences were set aside, and the assessee was acquitted.

Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.

Filing a first appeal against a disputed tax demand does not automatically stay recovery. A stay requires valid reasons and a specific stay petition; where no petition was filed before recovery, the taxpayer cannot claim a stay as of right or obtain refund merely because the appeal remained pending. Refund of the amount already recovered was therefore declined. However, substantial recovery already made may justify protection against further coercive recovery until disposal of the first appeal.

Gains from share and securities sales retained their capital-gains character because no factual distinction from later assessment years justified recharacterisation as business income. Import-purchase payments to a Japanese non-resident associated enterprise remained free from withholding-tax disallowance, as identical later-year determinations governed the issue. Rule 8D could not support an additional section 14A administrative-expenditure disallowance unless the Assessing Officer examined the accounts, recorded dissatisfaction with the taxpayer's own disallowance, and identified expenditure related to exempt income. Formulaic application without these steps required deletion of the additional disallowance. The Revenue's appeal failed, while the taxpayer's appeal succeeded on section 14A.

Customer-referral commission, calculated as a fixed percentage of sales to referred customers, does not constitute fees for technical services under the India-Netherlands tax treaty or the Act where no technical or consultancy service, design, technology, or know-how is provided or made available for independent future use. Such commission is business income and is not taxable in India under the treaty in the absence of a permanent establishment. Beneficial treaty treatment must be given effect, and withholding-tax credit relating to interest on income-tax refunds must be granted in accordance with law.

Cash-payment disallowance under section 40A(3) requires verified foundational facts: payments exceeding the prescribed limit to a particular payee on a particular day, supported by examination of books, vouchers and potential Rule 6DD exceptions. Assumptions about abnormal profit rates cannot replace those statutory conditions, so unsupported disallowances cannot be sustained. Where a civil contractor's books are unverifiable and unreliable, the first appellate authority's co-terminous powers permit rejection of books under section 145(3) and estimation of business income. Treating a potential profit result as independently making section 40A(3) inapplicable is legally unsound, but does not invalidate a properly supported book rejection and income estimation.

Berry ratio is unsuitable as a profit level indicator for a jewellery manufacturer that bears material, inventory, price and manufacturing risks, because value-added expenses exclude material costs, capital deployment and risks; total cost is the more reliable base. Sales transfer-pricing adjustments based on that ratio were deleted. Notional interest on associated-enterprise receivables requires parity analysis against unrelated customers: where identical 180-day, interest-free credit terms applied, the adjustment was deleted. For a later year, verification was required and any interest confined to delays beyond 180 days at six-month LIBOR plus verified bank spread. Transfer-pricing adjustments could not be included in book profit contrary to binding directions.