Charitable exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied solely because the prescribed audit report in Form 10B was furnished 22 days after the stipulated date, where it was available before processing of the return under Section 143(1). Section 12A(b) requires timely furnishing of the audit report, but the delay did not defeat the exemption claim when the processing authority had the report before return processing.

Reassessment notices issued more than three years after the relevant assessment year require prior approval under section 151(ii) from the specified senior authority; approval by a Principal Commissioner lacks jurisdictional competence. Competence is determined on the date the notice is issued, rather than the date approval is granted. The proviso effective from 1 April 2023 does not retrospectively exclude the reply period available under section 148A(b). Notices approved by an incompetent authority, and consequential reassessment orders, are invalid.

Penalty for undisclosed income under section 271AAB requires independent proof that the amount falls within the provision's exhaustive statutory definition. Strict construction applies because the provision is penal, and a surrender or admission in a search statement alone does not establish undisclosed income. Vague diary notings of advances, without details of parties, dates, purpose, terms, corroborative transactions, undisclosed assets, or an identified unaccounted source, represent an application or outflow of funds rather than unrecorded income. Deeming rules for unexplained income cannot be imported into section 271AAB's self-contained definition.

Conversion of compulsorily convertible debentures into compulsorily convertible preference shares through a book entry, without funds being received in the relevant previous year, does not create an unexplained sum credited for that year. Share premium recorded solely on that conversion therefore falls outside Section 68, because the provision applies to sums credited in the assessee's books during the relevant previous year.

Condonation of delay was sought by the Revenue, which attributed the delay to a peculiar procedural trajectory. The related issue concerned the legal status of a Transfer Pricing Officer report in an abated proceeding. The Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was available to a co-operative society that was not a co-operative bank, despite cancellation of its licence. The High Court upheld that entitlement and quashed reassessment notices and related departmental orders. The Supreme Court found no ground to interfere, leaving the High Court's decision and the quashing of reassessment action undisturbed.

Section 263 revision requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; revenue loss or the Commissioner's disagreement with a legally sustainable view does not suffice. Export quota-sale premium accepted for deduction under Section 80HHC was treated as outside the specified export-incentive receipts under Sections 28(iiia) to 28(iiic) and therefore subject to the exclusion under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. Although a CBDT Office Memorandum binds departmental officers, it cannot override statutory interpretation applied in judicial proceedings. As the Assessing Officer had not applied the relevant statutory criteria, the assessment satisfied both conditions for revision and the Commissioner's Section 263 action was justified.

Premium earned on a domestic transfer of export quota does not fall within the export-incentive receipts specified in Sections 28(iiia) to 28(iiic and therefore does not qualify for the Section 80HHC deduction. Departmental circulars and administrative instructions bind Revenue authorities but cannot bind constitutional courts or override statutory provisions and judicial interpretation. The CBDT Office Memorandum's treatment of export-quota premium as a specified incentive creates a legal fiction inconsistent with the statutory scheme, since such premium lacks the foreign-exchange character and other essential attributes of the enumerated receipts.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under the inverted duty structure provision is available where inputs and outward supplies are commercially distinct and input GST rates exceed the output rate. Perfumes, fragrances, chemicals and packaging materials, compared with agarbati as the output supply, create a qualifying input-output rate differential. A circular addressing the same goods taxed at different rates over time does not bar such a claim. Departmental circulars bind tax officers but remain persuasive before the Tribunal and cannot expand statutory refund restrictions.

Section 129(3) requires the proper officer to issue a penalty order within seven days of serving notice. The statutory term "shall" makes that period mandatory, particularly because fiscal provisions require strict construction. Issuing the penalty order 28 days after service of notice breaches the prescribed time limit; the order is consequently void ab initio and a nullity in law.

Show-cause notices, detention orders and appellate orders founded on factual errors or grounds outside the notice violate principles of natural justice by denying an effective opportunity to respond and are unsustainable. For goods returned by a job worker to the principal, e-way-bill consignment value is limited to the transaction value of the taxable job-work service and excludes the value of the principal's original goods. Where job-work charges and applicable tax remain below the prescribed threshold, an e-way bill is not mandatory and penalty under Section 129 does not arise.

Excess IGST paid on zero-rated export supplies due to incorrect GSTR-3B reporting remains refundable where export details and tax liability were correctly reported in GSTR-1, but the automated Customs refund process failed because of a return mismatch. A subsequent duplicate IGST payment made to obtain the automated export refund does not extinguish the earlier payment, which remains excess tax. Clerical reconciliation errors and procedural discrepancies in GSTR-3B cannot justify retention of tax beyond the amount lawfully due, as such retention is impermissible under Article 265 of the Constitution.

Works-contract services supplied to Kerala Water Authority attract GST at 18% from 1 January 2022 because the Authority, although described as a local authority under State law, does not fall within the exhaustive CGST statutory definition of a local authority. Its GST registration classification does not change that position, and the concessional rate no longer applies to supplies made to governmental authorities. Interest on differential GST is confined to the portion discharged through the Electronic Cash Ledger; no interest is payable on the portion paid through the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Section 129 permits detention, seizure, and consequential tax and penalty only where goods in transit are transported or stored in contravention of the GST Act or Rules. Proceedings cannot rest on a vague allegation that omits the specific contravention or defective transport documents, because this prevents an effective response. Reliance on undisclosed inculpatory statements without cross-examination, issuing an adjudication order before the scheduled personal hearing, and failing to address material procedural objections breach natural justice. Tax and penalty orders initiated on that basis were unsustainable and set aside with consequential relief.

Revocation of GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns requires furnishing all pending returns and paying tax, interest, penalty and late fee. Verification restricted to return filing and principal tax payment does not satisfy these statutory preconditions and leaves unpaid liabilities unaddressed. Interest and late fee remain recoverable through the prescribed recovery mechanism, while penalty liability arises under the revocation framework. Outstanding statutory dues must therefore be accounted for when restoring registration, including recovery of interest and late fee and imposition of penalty.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit under an inverted duty structure is available where higher-taxed chemicals, dyes and consumables are used for fabric processing and the output supply has not undergone a GST rate reduction. The clarification concerning identical input and output goods applies to the same goods being taxed at different rates following a rate reduction, not to processing activities using distinct higher-taxed inputs. Once refund eligibility is determined, a direction to arithmetically re-compute the refundable amount merely implements that determination. Such consequential computation does not reopen adjudication and is not a prohibited remand.

Credit-note values reversing supplies must be deducted from outward taxable turnover when calculating an inverted-duty refund under the statutory refund formula. The circular-based exclusion for identical input and output supplies does not apply where no output-rate reduction occurred and higher-taxed chemicals, dyes and consumables were used to process fabric; the refund claim remains governed by the statutory formula. Consequential re-computation by the original authority, after eligibility and parameters are conclusively determined, is a ministerial exercise and not a prohibited remand because it does not reopen merits or permit fresh adjudication.

Outsourced caterers supplying food independently to hospitals make a separately taxable food supply, not a composite healthcare supply, even where the food is consumed by in-patients. Composite-supply treatment may apply to the hospital's healthcare package but does not extend to an independent supplier. Fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax must be established before the extended-demand mechanism applies; mistaken reliance on a circular without mala fides requires ordinary-demand treatment. Where invoices contain no separately identifiable tax and no tax was collected additionally, invoice values are treated as tax-inclusive and tax is recomputed under Rule 35 after verification.

Section 107 of the CGST Act confines condonation of delay in filing an appeal to the express statutory outer limit; equitable considerations and High Court jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot enlarge the First Appellate Authority's powers. Where registrations have been restored and taxpayers have resumed business, completed implementation may make departmental appellate relief ineffective because annulment could disrupt intervening transactions and input-tax-credit consequences. The appellate remedy against cancellation remains independent of revocation under Rule 23, although it must be pursued within the prescribed limitation period.

The right of appeal vests when the lis commences, so a later amendment imposing a new pre-deposit condition does not apply to pending proceedings unless retrospective operation is expressly stated or necessarily implied. For penalty-only GST appeals arising from show-cause notices issued before the proviso to Section 112(8) took effect, the earlier law did not require a penalty pre-deposit. The pre-deposit framework for first appeals under Section 107(6) supports the same treatment. Consequently, no 10% penalty pre-deposit is payable for appeals arising from pre-amendment proceedings.