Services rendered and completed before the GST appointed day remain subject, if taxable, to the erstwhile Service Tax regime even where work approval and billing occur after GST commenced. Post-facto approval and subsequent invoices do not alter the date of supply or bring an already completed manpower service within the WBGST Act. Payment cannot be withheld solely for non-compliance with GST formalities; the payable amount may be released after deduction of applicable pre-GST tax. Where a genuine taxability dispute and pending civil proceedings contribute to delayed payment, interest may be set at the prevailing banking rate; interest at 8% per annum was directed from bill submission until payment.

GST treats each financial year as a separate tax period for assessment, annual returns, demand limitation and recovery. A composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years improperly combines distinct periods with different due dates, limitation requirements, grounds and response obligations, and is therefore impermissible. Jurisdictional High Court precedent requiring year-wise notices remains binding on authorities notwithstanding a contrary High Court view and an in-limine dismissal of a special leave petition against that view, which does not trigger merger. The composite notice was quashed, with liberty to issue a fresh notice under the CGST Act if legally permissible.

Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a GIDC industrial plot is characterised as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a taxable GST supply. GST charged on that transfer therefore lacks legal basis, and input tax credit reversal and interest premised on the assumed levy cannot stand. The blocked-credit restriction for goods or services used in construction of immovable property does not apply where no construction activity occurred. As the underlying transaction is not taxable and the blocked-credit premise fails, allegations of wrongful credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression for section 74 proceedings, including consequential penalty, cannot be sustained. The adjudication and appellate demands were quashed, with refund of tax and interest directed.

GST audit and adjudication should not be undertaken by the same officer where the adjudication order is issued under Section 73(9). The High Court, following a co-ordinate Bench ruling, quashed an order passed by the officer who had conducted the audit. Fresh adjudication was directed from the stage of the reply to the show-cause notice, to be undertaken by a proper officer other than the audit officer after providing an adequate hearing opportunity.

Differential GST arising from the replacement of VAT by GST during an ongoing works contract is to be borne by the recipient of the works contract service. Where the contractor has discharged that additional liability and the State has received the benefit of the completed work, the contractor is entitled to reimbursement of the verified differential amount. High Court directed the respondents to determine the GST differential attributable to the tax-regime change, verify the relevant records and calculations, and reimburse the amount in accordance with law within the stipulated period.

Service of a valid show cause notice upon the person chargeable with tax is presented as indispensable to GST demand adjudication. Section 73(1) requires notice to that person, while Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1)(a) operates only as an electronic summary of the notice. The notice must specify the allegations, proposed liability and factual basis, enabling an effective response. A DRC-01 merely tabulating tax dues, particularly when accompanied by a notice addressed to another taxpayer, does not provide the required cause or opportunity of defence and cannot replace the statutory notice. Defective notice undermines consequential demand and appellate proceedings.

Input tax credit recorded under incorrect CGST and SGST heads in GSTR-3B, despite corresponding IGST credit appearing in GSTR-2A, remained subject to reversal. Eligible IGST-related credit was allowed after record verification, but the remaining CGST and SGST credit was not supported by new facts or records justifying interference. Precedents cited for the taxpayer were inapplicable because of differing factual circumstances. The Tribunal sustained reversal of the disputed credit, together with consequential interest and penalty, and confirmed dismissal of the appeal.

Section 179 cannot fasten unrecovered company tax on a director of an unlisted public company merely because shareholding is concentrated or shares were not publicly offered. Public or private status depends on the Memorandum and Articles of Association; lifting the corporate veil requires exceptional facts, which were absent. Liability also requires a finding that non-recovery was attributable to the director's gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty, assessed against the director's role in the non-recovery. Reliance on an undisclosed adverse statement while disregarding relevant material from the director breached natural justice. The order imposing the company's tax liability on the director was quashed.

Reassessment notices alleging fictitious or accommodation transactions must disclose material particulars and incriminating material that prima facie link the assessee to the alleged transactions. Screenshots of Case Related Information Detail, without the underlying dissemination reports or transaction details, do not provide a meaningful statutory opportunity to respond. The Assessing Officer must independently consider the dissemination material and address objections and supporting evidence. Supplying foundational material only during writ proceedings cannot cure the defect. Failure to meet these requirements resulted in quashing of the reassessment notice, the consequential order, and the subsequent notice, without remand.

Reassessment initiated in the name of a deceased assessee is invalid, and the resulting notice and order cannot be sustained where section 159(2)(b) applies. For extended reassessment limitation, capital gains from land may constitute income represented in the form of an asset when the sale proceeds are deposited in a bank account, because bank deposits fall within the inclusive statutory explanation. Reassessment for alleged understatement of capital gains cannot rest solely on a co-owner's valuation report. The Assessing Officer must undertake an appropriate independent valuation inquiry, examine valuation methodology, apply independent mind, and form the required belief of income escaping assessment.

Purchase additions could not be sustained where the taxpayer produced ledgers, invoices, supplier details, registration particulars, bank statements and cheque counterfoils, while undisputed crossed-cheque payments were later realised by third parties. No legal bar then restricted crossed cheques, and the taxpayer could not control their endorsement; absent further inquiry, the High Court restored the first appellate authority's deletion. Wage disallowance based solely on presumed inflation and a doubtful wage register lacked evidentiary support. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's reduced disallowance and restored deletion of both additions; the gross-profit issue remained unanswered.

Declarations under section 194C(6) need not follow the CBDT circular format, but must contain essential freight-charge and goods-carriage registration particulars to establish eligibility for non-deduction of tax on payments to small transport operators. Declarations cannot be rejected solely for format non-compliance or lack of independent verification, although identified discrepancies or omissions must be put to the payer; the ITAT remanded the matter because transporter-specific deficiencies were not identified. Physical Form 26A certificates must also be examined under the first proviso to section 201(1) to determine whether payees included freight income in their returns and paid due tax. Assessee-in-default liability and the alternative Form 26A claim were remanded for fresh consideration.

Closing-stock valuation based on net realisable value requires supporting material establishing the basis of that value. The High Court found that the assessee had not substantiated its claimed net realisable value, while the Assessing Officer adopted a realisable or market value below cost. The principle of consistency did not apply because there was no change in the valuation method. The appellate authorities' findings on the applicable valuation rate were concurrent findings of fact, raising no substantial question of law. The addition for undervaluation of closing stock was therefore sustained and the tax appeal was dismissed.

Statutory accumulation of 15 per cent of charitable income under section 11(1)(a) is distinct from further accumulation under section 11(2). Where charitable eligibility and application of income to charitable objects are satisfied, the statutory retention remains available. Accumulation beyond that limit may be claimed where Form No. 10 is furnished by the extended due date for filing the return, rather than only by the original due date. Charitable exemption should not be denied solely because Form No. 10BB was electronically furnished late if the audit report was available before return processing and substantive exemption conditions were met.

Reasonable cause under section 273B excused failures to deduct tax from rent paid to a Government-owned company and to collect tax on construction scrap. ITAT accepted the payer's bona fide belief that the Government-owned payee was a Government instrumentality not subject to tax deduction at source, treating that belief as reasonable cause; the rent-related penalty was deleted. ITAT also accepted the bona fide understanding that scrap arising from construction activities, including cutting and moulding materials, was not scrap covered by the tax-collection provisions because construction was not treated as manufacturing. The related tax-collection penalty was likewise deleted.

Uncorroborated third-party search material cannot support additions for alleged cash coal purchases where recorded sales, coal consumption, production and books remain accepted, and no abnormal input-output pattern or independent evidence is established. Estimated profit from hypothetical unrecorded coal sales was therefore deleted. Likewise, a retracted statement alleging under-invoicing of mill scale sales, coupled with CCTV-based presumptions, is insufficient where the cash is explained as recorded and no independent evidence confirms suppressed sales. The estimated-profit additions for alleged mill scale suppression were deleted for both assessment years, and the appeals succeeded.

Contemporaneous invoices, GST returns, bank statements and ledger accounts can substantiate labour and manpower expenditure where payments pass through banking channels, tax is deducted at source, and transactions appear in GST records and audited accounts. A vendor's failure to respond to a notice, particularly after being struck off, does not by itself establish that expenditure is unexplained when the supporting evidence remains unrebutted and no further enquiry is undertaken. Purchases included in closing stock and returned in the following year do not affect income where no supplier payment or expenditure claim is made and related GST input is reversed. On these facts, both additions for unexplained expenditure were deleted.

Section 144C requires a draft assessment order before a final assessment order is made against an eligible foreign company where a prejudicial variation is proposed. The draft-order procedure enables the taxpayer to accept the variation or seek directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel before finalisation. Non-compliance is a jurisdictional defect rather than a curable procedural irregularity, and vitiates the final assessment order. Applying this principle, the assessment order was set aside for failure to issue a draft order; the taxpayer's cross-objection succeeded and the Revenue's merits appeal became infructuous.

A prior Advance Pricing Agreement remains persuasive for transfer pricing benchmarking outside its covered years where the transaction and functions, assets and risks profile continue; departure requires material differences in those factors or economic circumstances. In software-distribution comparability, functional similarity takes priority over turnover, and turnover-based exclusion requires a demonstrated material effect on operating margins. Comparable companies with related-party transactions exceeding the applicable threshold cannot reliably serve as uncontrolled benchmarks without demonstrable adjustments. Under TNMM, no transfer pricing adjustment is warranted where the tested party's operating margin falls within the applicable arm's length range after the comparable set is finalised.

The first proviso to section 153C shifts the commencement of the six- and ten-year assessment block for a non-searched person from the search date to the date on which that person's jurisdictional Assessing Officer receives the seized material. Applying this legal fiction, satisfaction notes and notice issued in FY 2021-22 made AY 2022-23 the relevant year, limiting the ten-year block to AYs 2013-14 through 2022-23. AY 2012-13 therefore fell outside the permissible period, rendering its assessment invalid and resulting in dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The parties remain bound by the outcome of the pending SLP concerning the governing precedent.