Cross-objections in High Court appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act are maintainable through Section 260A(7), which incorporates compatible CPC appeal procedures. Order XLI Rule 22 permits a respondent to challenge an adverse part of the Tribunal's order by cross-objection, while Order XLII Rule 1 extends that procedure to second appeals, to which a Section 260A appeal is analogous. This procedural right does not expand the limited jurisdiction under Section 260A: the cross-objection must concern an adverse finding and raise a substantial question of law.

Suppression of material subsequent assessment orders may bar relief in income-tax appeals under section 260A. Orders passed after Tribunal-directed verification had determined tax and interest liability under sections 201(1) and 201(1A), pre-dated the appeals, and were neither disclosed in the appeal memoranda nor challenged. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, their finality and the withholding of material facts left the appellants disentitled to appellate relief.

Excess tax deposited at the first appellate stage may be adjusted towards the Tribunal pre-deposit where it meets the cumulative requirement for the surviving tax dispute. The additional pre-deposit requirement applies to the tax remaining in dispute after excluding a separately remanded demand, and requires a total deposit of 20% when read with the first appellate pre-deposit. "In addition to" establishes the aggregate amount payable, not a requirement for a fresh payment through a separate challan. Pre-deposit remains an adjustable component of disputed tax, including amounts paid through FORM GST DRC-03, avoiding an unnecessary refund-and-redeposit cycle.

Entitlement to input tax credit not reflected in FORM GSTR-2A requires interpretation of the recipient-payment condition, Rule 36(4), and relevant departmental circulars. The issue extends beyond verification of returns or supporting documents because the provisions' scope and interrelation directly affect credit eligibility. It therefore raises a question of law under Section 109(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requiring consideration by a Division Bench comprising a Judicial Member and a Technical Member.

Request-specific road restoration performed by a government authority for a business entity's commercial pipeline project constitutes a taxable supply for consideration, with GST payable by the recipient under reverse charge. Targeted restoration differs from routine public road maintenance and does not qualify as a sovereign public-function activity, non-supply, or exemption linked to constitutional local-government functions. Refund sanctions in other jurisdictions do not create binding precedent or res judicata, and an unsupported assertion that tax was already paid does not displace reverse-charge liability. Electronic GST portal records can establish the authenticity of refund proceedings despite the absence of a physical DIN, where the notice adequately discloses the grounds and causes no prejudice.

Request-specific road restoration undertaken by a government authority for a business entity's commercial pipeline activity constitutes a taxable supply when separately quantified charges are paid in direct exchange for the restoration service. Such charges differ from compensatory damages because they involve reciprocal performance. The service does not receive non-supply treatment as a public-welfare function under Articles 243G or 243W and is not covered by the general governmental-function exemption. Under reverse charge, the business recipient bears GST liability where forward-charge payment is unproven. Refund orders for separate State registrations do not govern independent adjudication, while authenticated electronic notices remain valid despite the absence of a physical DIN where adequate notice and response are established.

Customised road-restoration services performed by a government authority at a business entity's request, following road excavation for pipeline operations, constitute a taxable supply for consideration rather than compensatory damages. Targeted commercial restoration differs from general public-road maintenance and does not qualify as a non-supply governmental function or a public-function exemption. The business recipient bears GST under reverse charge. Refund orders from other jurisdictions do not establish binding precedent or res judicata, and unproven forward-charge payment does not displace reverse-charge liability. Electronically authenticated GST proceedings remain valid where the notice identifies the grounds, the recipient can respond, and no prejudice arises from the absence of a physical DIN.

Targeted restoration of public roads at a business entity's request is treated as a taxable supply for consideration rather than compensatory damages or a sovereign public-road function. Recipient liability therefore arises under the applicable reverse-charge mechanism, while exclusions and exemptions are construed strictly. Refund sanctions by tax officers in other State jurisdictions are administrative determinations, not binding precedents or res judicata. Electronic GST-portal proceedings remain valid where notices identify the factual and legal basis of the claim and the taxpayer suffers no prejudice; absence of a physical Document Identification Number alone does not compromise authenticity or natural justice. These principles support denial of refund where reverse-charge tax remains unpaid.

Customised road-restoration work undertaken by a government authority at a business entity's request, following road cutting for a commercial pipeline project, constitutes a taxable supply for consideration rather than compensatory damages. Routine public-road functions do not extend non-supply or sovereign-function exemptions to request-driven repairs supplied to business entities. The recipient business entity bears GST under the reverse-charge mechanism for taxable services received from government or local authorities, absent transaction-specific proof that tax was paid under forward charge, and cannot claim refund merely by alleging double taxation. Refund sanctions in other jurisdictions neither create res judicata nor govern separate GST determinations. Authenticated portal-based notices and orders can satisfy natural justice despite no physical DIN where adequate particulars and opportunity to respond exist.

Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act authorises monetary-limit instructions for departmental appeals. For Tribunal appeals, the applicable instruction requires aggregation of disputed tax alone, excluding interest and penalty where tax is disputed, and sets a threshold of Rs. 20,00,000. Commissioner authorisation under Section 112(3) does not override that policy. An appeal below the threshold requires a specifically pleaded and supported recognised exception; reliance on interests of justice or revenue requires a case-specific, reasoned opinion of the Commissioner. Without such material, the departmental appeal is not maintainable and cannot proceed to merits adjudication.

Departmental GST appeals before GSTAT are subject to the prescribed monetary-limit policy under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act. Where only penalty is disputed and the amount falls below the applicable threshold, the appeal requires a specifically pleaded and supported exception. Statutory authorisation to file an appeal does not independently satisfy that requirement. A recurring legal issue, another specified exception, or a reasoned case-specific exercise of residual power must be established to depart from the policy. In the absence of such material, the departmental appeal is not maintainable.

Bill-to/Ship-to supplies are legally permissible where an original supplier dispatches goods directly to the ultimate consignee on an intermediate buyer's direction, provided the transactions are genuine, documented, accounted for and taxed. Valid e-invoices should identify the Bill-to and Ship-to parties, while e-way bills must correspond to the movement and may be generated by the person causing it, including the applicable consignor or consignee. Where those requirements are met before interception, detention and penalty cannot rest solely on the original supplier's failure to generate an e-way bill.

Section 171(1) of the CGST Act requires GST rate-reduction benefits to be passed on through commensurate price reductions, without requiring proof of wilful retention. Invoice-wise comparison of pre- and post-reduction base prices may establish non-passing-on where the supplier provides no cogent, transaction-specific evidence that costs or other factors offset the benefit. Enquiries may cover supplies beyond those identified in a complaint and continue despite its withdrawal; customised or lump-sum supplies are not automatically exempt. Registration changes or demerger do not alone preclude examination. Identifiable recipients receive the benefit, while unidentifiable amounts are deposited with interest in Consumer Welfare Funds. Penalty under Section 171(3A) applies prospectively, not to earlier contraventions.

Marketing, promotion, business-support and IT-enabled services supplied independently to a foreign recipient for cost-plus consideration in foreign exchange qualify as export services rather than intermediary services where the supplier acts on its own account. Intermediary status requires at least three parties, two distinct supplies, and arranging or facilitating the main supply in a broker-like or agent-like role; principal-to-principal subcontracting does not suffice. Absence of authority to bind the foreign recipient, direct dealings with third parties, or commission linked to enrolment supports independent supply and refund eligibility. Appellate annulment cannot be coupled with directions for reconsideration by the original adjudicating authority, as this constitutes a prohibited remand; reconsideration must remain with the First Appellate Authority.

Additional post-GST input tax credit was assessed against post-GST construction-input cost escalation for supplies of flats. Construction-cost escalation exceeded the incremental credit benefit, producing negative net savings. On that calculation, no amount was available to be passed to buyers through commensurate price reductions. The revised assessment determined nil profiteering, so a contravention of the anti-profiteering requirement under Section 171 of the CGST Act was not established.

Section 171 of the CGST Act requires suppliers to pass GST rate reductions and input-tax-credit benefits to recipients through commensurate price reductions, including where retail MRP is government-regulated but the supplier controls the transfer price. Government ownership, subsidised or complimentary character, and sourcing through PPP plants do not exclude supplies from this obligation. A transfer-price-based, invoice-wise computation may be adopted through a fair and reasonable case-specific methodology; unsubstantiated cost increases cannot justify retaining tax benefits. Interest under Rule 133(3)(c) applies only from its effective date, while penalty under Section 171(3A) applies to continuing contraventions after that provision became effective. Amounts found profiteered are allocated to Consumer Welfare Funds.

SEZ units undertaking their own zero-rated exports without payment of integrated tax may seek refund of eligible unutilised input tax credit distributed through an input service distributor, subject to statutory conditions, credit-ledger availability and Rule 89(4) computation. The supplier-specific second proviso to Rule 89(1), applicable to direct supplies to SEZ units, does not remove this separate entitlement where credit has been validly distributed. Any proposed exclusion for duplicate supplier refunds requires documentary identification of the relevant supplier, invoices, credit and sanctioned refund, with disclosure and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Refund quantum remains subject to verification.

The retrospectively substituted proviso to Section 50(1) confines interest on delayed GST payment to tax discharged through the electronic cash ledger, subject to stated exceptions. Interest paid on liabilities discharged through the electronic credit ledger may therefore be refundable after verification and quantification. Refund limitation must be computed after excluding the statutory period prescribed for refund applications. A fresh limitation objection cannot determine the claim without prior notice and an effective opportunity to address the relevant date, filing date, computation and applicable exclusions. Refund eligibility must be assessed under the retrospective interest provision and the recalculated limitation period.

Interest under Section 50(1) on delayed GST payment accrues only until tax paid through Form GST PMT-06 is credited to the Government account; a later debit from the Electronic Cash Ledger is merely an accounting appropriation. Tax already deposited through DRC-03 before determination cannot be recovered again under Section 73(1). Interest paid for a separate tax shortfall cannot be adjusted against interest on delayed monthly tax payments without establishing earlier Government-account credit. Penalty immunity under Section 73(8) applies only where tax and applicable interest are paid within 30 days of the show-cause notice; otherwise, statutory penalty may apply without proof of fraud or deliberate default.

Ex parte assessment under Section 73 should be reopened where the taxpayer can substantiate an input tax credit claim through portal records and supporting documents, despite earlier non-utilisation of opportunities. The absence of any stated discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A supported allowing a fresh reply before the assessing officer. Reconsideration is subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount, after which the assessment must be undertaken afresh.