For the disputed period, a year-wise GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch alone could not sustain denial of input tax credit where omitted prior-year credit was claimed within the statutory time and could be verified invoice-wise. GSTR-2A operated as a facilitative statement, and no independent ineligibility of the reflected credit was alleged. A reasoned appellate order must address material grounds, state the points for determination, and provide reasons even where the appellant does not appear. Certification requirements for supplier-side invoice mismatches did not apply where the discrepancy arose solely from comparing current-year GSTR-3B with current-year GSTR-2A, without any supplier reporting default. The disputed ITC demand, related interest, and penalty were quashed.

For refund under Rule 89(4), turnover of zero-rated supplies includes invoices issued during the relevant period for goods cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking. A later actual-export date in the shipping bill does not remove those invoices from the relevant period's zero-rated turnover, provided the exporter establishes that the goods were actually exported. Refund of accumulated input tax credit remains admissible on that basis.

Pure questions of law arising from facts already on record may be raised as additional grounds where necessary to determine tax liability. Amendments to Section 129 affecting the amount payable for release do not remove the proper officer's detention power; reliance on the pre-amended release provision is erroneous but does not itself make detention proceedings void from inception. Goods returned after job work may move without tax where the e-way bill and delivery challan identify job work and contain prescribed particulars. Absence of IGST, without a charging provision or taxable supply, does not by itself establish a contravention supporting detention.

Section 74(1) penalties for reverse-charge tax and input tax credit defaults require fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts causing the tax or credit lapse. Non-disclosure of supplies in returns, payment after audit verification, and accounting entries do not, without more, establish or disprove those conditions. Proper-officer satisfaction must rest on foundational facts rather than mechanical reliance on return discrepancies. Explanations for delayed reverse-charge payments and input tax credit not reversed on written-off vendor liabilities remain material to whether there was an intention to evade tax.

Reasoned quasi-judicial orders must consider material documentary evidence and disclose reasons for accepting or rejecting it. The GST exemption claim for rail transportation of hatching eggs was rejected on the basis that supporting evidence had not been furnished, despite acknowledged written submissions showing that relevant documents were filed before the First Appellate Authority. Non-consideration of that material and the absence of reasons for rejecting it rendered the appellate order unsustainable. The order was set aside and remitted for a fresh, reasoned determination after considering the explanations and supporting documents; exemption eligibility remained undecided on merits.

Pre-substitution Entry 52B required ground clearance to be understood through vehicle type-approval standards, which measured it in the fully laden condition because the entry prescribed neither a definition nor a measurement method. The later unladen-ground-clearance requirement expanded the higher-cess vehicle class and operated prospectively from 26 July 2023. For earlier supplies, statutory test certificates showing below-threshold laden clearance prevailed over unsupported online specifications; Revenue bore the burden of proving higher-rate classification. Dealers nevertheless had to self-assess tax on independent outward supplies. Because Revenue did not segregate or prove liability for post-amendment supplies, the differential cess demand and consequential interest and penalty were set aside.

GST adjudication under Section 73 requires a statutory show-cause notice; Form GST DRC-01 under Rule 142(1) must accompany, not replace, that notice. A final audit report or demand summary lacking the grounds of demand does not cure this substantive defect under Section 160. Section 75(4) also requires a personal hearing before an adverse decision, notwithstanding delayed submission of a reply. An appellate authority cannot sustain a demand on new reverse-charge or forward-charge grounds without notice and opportunity. Reverse charge on office-meal expenses requires proof of the applicable charging provision, taxable supply, value and liable person; outdoor catering is not a notified service under Section 9(3).

GST appellate jurisdiction requires Division Bench consideration where an alleged documentary discrepancy during inter-State movement of goods raises statutory interpretation rather than only factual verification. The issues include documents required to accompany goods, conditions for detention and penalty proceedings, and the legal effect of a Circular relied upon at first appeal. Because these matters concern the scope and application of GST requirements, they constitute a question of law, requiring a hearing on merits by a Bench comprising Judicial and Technical Members.

Pure-service exemption for municipal sanitation manpower depends not merely on designations such as Sweeper or Paryavaran Mitra, but on contractual scope, actual deployment, supporting records, supply to the specified recipient, and a connection with qualifying municipal functions. Recipient views, contractual GST clauses, and past tax practice do not determine taxability. The manpower outsourcing arrangement lacked contractual and factual segregation of a separately identifiable qualifying supply and was therefore not exempt. Non-exempt outsourcing is taxable under the applicable service classification; the intra-State supply attracted 18% GST, subject to classification and rate-notification verification.

Notice under section 143(2) is mandatory for reassessment under sections 147 and 143(3), as it enables the assessee to substantiate the return with evidence. Section 292BB deems service only where a notice has actually been issued; it cannot cure complete non-issuance, and participation in proceedings cannot confer jurisdiction to assess without the notice. Treating an earlier return as the return in response to a section 148 notice does not remove the requirement. Nor can an information-gathering letter under section 142(1) substitute for the mandatory scrutiny notice. Complete non-issuance vitiates the reassessment proceedings.

Reassessment beyond four years after a completed scrutiny assessment requires recorded reasons based on tangible material with a live link to escaped income and a failure of full and true disclosure of material facts. A post-assessment investigation concerning alleged share overvaluation, underlying assets, use of sale proceeds and capital-gains deduction supplied a prima facie basis for reopening. Change of opinion applies only where the original proceeding consciously formed an opinion; an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment, and no prior view on the relevant valuation or deduction issues was formed under Section 143(3). The reassessment notices were therefore valid.

Higher depreciation is available for dumpers and tippers used under composite mining contracts where they transport excavated overburden and minerals owned by mine operators as part of contracted transportation services. CBDT clarification distinguishes vehicles deployed in the taxpayer's own goods-transport business on hire from those used in a non-hiring business. Where excavation and transportation are inseparable contractual obligations, the transport use constitutes hired service rather than merely incidental internal use. This treatment does not extend to occasional hiring, transportation ancillary to another business, or distinguishable leasing arrangements.

Concealment penalties under section 271(1)(c) were deleted where taxable income was computed at an estimated profit rate after the unexplained-expenditure addition had been removed. The Tribunal treated the penalty as resting solely on estimated income and found no basis to sustain it. Penalties linked to additions for income from house property were also deleted, following coordinate-bench decisions and High Court precedent that accepted the assessee's legal position for the relevant assessment years.

Electrical installations integral to manufacturing plant and machinery qualify for additional depreciation where they are indispensable and functionally inseparable from that plant. Applying an earlier ruling on materially identical facts, the Tribunal treated transformers, transformer-connectivity panel boards, safety detectors and yarn-conditioning machines as plant and machinery rather than separate electrical assets. The claimed additional depreciation was directed to be allowed, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Consumer-side electricity rates actually paid by cement units to independent distribution companies constituted valid internal comparable uncontrolled prices for captive power transfers under the specified domestic transaction regime. The arm's-length-price framework does not require exclusive use of generator-to-distribution-company rates; comparability under section 92C and Rule 10B remains transaction-specific. Although captive generators and distribution licensees have functional differences, those differences do not preclude comparison unless they materially affect it. Generator-side procurement rates were unsuitable because they reflected a different supply-chain stage, were not available to consuming units, and lacked comparability adjustments. The transfer-pricing adjustments were therefore deleted and that deletion sustained.

Peak-credit computation for merged undisclosed bank accounts must neutralise same-day transfers between those accounts, since they merely shift the same funds and cannot increase the highest adjusted balance. The resulting addition requires recomputation after excluding transfer effects, rather than calculating the peak from balances distorted by internal deposits. An undisclosed rental-income addition previously deleted in the first appellate round cannot be revived by the Assessing Officer during a set-aside assessment; it remains deleted. Quantification disputes are substantive appellate matters, not apparent errors capable of rectification, rendering a related rectification proceeding consequential.

Section 270A distinguishes ordinary under-reporting from under-reporting resulting from misreporting; a notice expressly alleging the latter need not identify a further sub-category. Claiming the full SEZ export-profit deduction where only half is eligible, coupled with inconsistent Forms 56F and correction only after scrutiny, can negate a bona fide explanation and constitute misreporting. Under-reporting under normal provisions is assessed by comparing assessed income with income processed on the return, so unchanged deemed income under section 115JC does not eliminate penalty exposure. Processing under section 143(1)(a) remains mandatory under the amended regime despite a scrutiny notice. Penalty may apply despite no revenue loss or demonstrated intent to evade tax, with required faceless approval.

Cash loans accepted from a spouse may attract penalty where the taxpayer cannot establish reasonable cause for using cash despite available banking channels. A family arrangement did not justify the cash acceptance because each taxpayer remains independently liable under the Income-tax Act. Subsequent repayment through cheque did not cure the contravention, which occurs when the loan or deposit is accepted in cash. The penalty was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Statutory presumption of smuggling for seized gold arises only on a reasonable belief supported by material rationally connected to smuggling; suspicion, absent documents, and domestic courier transport alone do not suffice. Inconclusive foreign origin, lack of foreign markings, an explanation of domestic melting, and unverified recipient or laboratory details may prevent the presumption from operating. Confiscation requires proof of illegal importation or a lawfully raised presumption; recovery at an airport cargo complex does not itself meet the requirements for concealment in imported packages or unauthorised removal from a customs area. Penal liability also requires a specific act or omission and knowledge or reason to believe that the gold was smuggled.

Statutory exclusion of appellate jurisdiction over orders concerning goods imported as passenger baggage applies to gold carried into India by an international passenger. Gold retains its character as passenger baggage even when recovered from clothing rather than luggage. Concealment or non-declaration may affect confiscation and penalty, but cannot create appellate jurisdiction where the subject matter is statutorily excluded. Challenges concerning confiscation and penalty for such gold must proceed through the statutory revisional remedy rather than appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, with merits remaining open.