Export incentives available solely because of gherkin exports have a direct nexus with the export business and are treated as operating income when determining the arm's length price. Their origin in governmental policy does not make them ancillary or non-operating profits. Comparable selection for transfer-pricing benchmarking requires functional comparability under Rule 10B: businesses growing, processing and exporting gherkins are not necessarily comparable with general food-processing entities. Transfer-pricing computation must therefore include export-linked incentives as operating income and benchmark the controlled transaction using functionally similar entities.

Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 cannot be based solely on material seized during a search of a third party where the statutory route under Section 153C applies. Use of such seized material against another person requires the Assessing Officer of the searched person to record and transmit the required satisfaction note before assessment or reassessment proceedings under Section 153C. Sections 147 and 148 remain available only where reopening is founded on independently obtained material. Absence of the required satisfaction note renders reopening on third-party seized material without jurisdiction.

For assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021, the first proviso to section 149(1) retains the limitation regime under the pre-Finance Act 2021 reassessment and search-assessment provisions, even where a third-party search occurs later. For Assessment Year 2012-13, the former six-year reassessment period had expired. The ten-year search-assessment block under Explanation 1 to section 153A includes the search assessment year and runs from the end of that year; a financial year 2021-22 search covers Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2022-23, excluding Assessment Year 2012-13. A satisfaction-date reference likewise does not extend limitation. The reassessment notice is therefore time-barred.

Information in a document seized from another person may suggest income escapement under Explanation 2(iv) to section 148, but reassessment requires a live and direct nexus between that material and the assessee's transaction. A broker's register entry recording an asking price for a larger property, made substantially before the registered purchase, did not establish that nexus where it named different persons, covered different survey numbers, and did not refer to the assessee or co-purchasers. The broker's statements also prevented the entry from being treated as conclusive proof of undisclosed consideration under the statutory presumptions. The reassessment notices were therefore unsustainable and quashed.

Reassessment proceedings and consequential notices must remain within the grounds specified in the underlying show-cause notice. Where the notice concerns high-value financial transactions, an order cannot instead rely on the source and creditworthiness of margin money or interest disallowance unless those issues were notified. Introducing new grounds without giving the assessee an opportunity to respond violates the hearing requirement and cannot sustain reassessment action.

Reassessment initiation under Section 148A(d) requires assessee-specific information creating a rational and direct nexus, or live link, between available material and the belief that taxable income escaped assessment. Allegations that a mutual fund manipulated its accounting methodology, coupled with investor dividends or short-term capital losses, do not establish an assessee's knowing participation in a sham transaction without material connecting that assessee to the alleged conduct. Precedent on synchronised securities trades does not supply the required nexus in this context. In the absence of that jurisdictional basis, reopening is invalid.

Reassessment based exclusively on material found during a third-party search must follow the special procedure under Section 153C, which requires the searched person's Assessing Officer to record satisfaction and communicate it to the other person's jurisdictional officer. General reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 cannot substitute for that procedure where no independent material indicates escaped income. Reopening founded solely on search material without the required satisfaction lacks jurisdiction; assessment or reassessment may proceed under Section 153C only when its statutory conditions are met.

Section 109(8) permits a Single Member to hear an appeal only where the disputed amount is within the prescribed limit and no question of law arises. Interpretation of the relationship between input tax credit conditions, credit transfer following merger or amalgamation, and the prescribed transfer procedure raises a legal issue concerning statutory eligibility and the manner of valid credit availment. Where the appeal asserts that the credit-transfer mechanism is mandatory, the matter requires consideration by a Judicial Member and a Technical Member sitting as a Division Bench.

Penalty under Section 129 for alleged e-way bill reuse requires cogent, positive evidence of an intention to evade tax; invoice dates, loading dates, or e-way bill extensions alone do not establish prior movement or delivery. Valid invoices and e-way bills, matching physical verification, and purchase and return records support the legitimacy of a consignment where no independent material proves earlier movement, unloading, or reloading. Omission of the GSTIN of the dispatching premises is a technical breach unless it establishes unaccounted goods or a fictitious transaction. Penalty is therefore unsustainable without proof of tax evasion.

Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible under section 29(2) only where the prescribed contingencies exist. The notice must specifically disclose the proposed retrospective effect and the grounds supporting it, enabling the registered person to respond effectively. Any cancellation order imposing retrospective effect must record reasons justifying that consequence. Cancellation without prior notice of the proposed retrospective action violates principles of natural justice and is illegal.

Fair opportunity to reconcile input tax credit reported in Form GSTR-3B with Form GSTR-2A, supported by transaction documents, was treated as necessary for adjudication on merits. The adjudication and demand orders were quashed to allow responses to the show-cause notices, subject to stipulated conditions. The petitioner may establish the genuineness of its input tax credit claims through reconciliation and supporting material despite earlier non-participation following the full-time director's cessation of association.

Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an effective opportunity of personal hearing before assessment. Where an assessment confirms show-cause proposals without the taxpayer participating because of ill health and the consultant's failure to attend, the absence of an effective hearing breaches principles of natural justice. The assessment requires setting aside and fresh adjudication after granting a meaningful personal hearing.

Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules was omitted prospectively from 8 October 2024. In the absence of a saving or sunset clause, the omitted refund restriction cannot support continuation of pending proceedings or rejection of refund claims. Refund claims rejected solely under Rule 96(10) must be processed without reliance on that omitted restriction.

Portal-based GST notice is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response requires use of other available service methods, preferably registered post, to secure effective service. An ex parte assessment founded solely on formal portal uploads, without a personal hearing, denies an effective opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice. The resulting assessment and consequential order are unsustainable because effective service and a meaningful hearing were not provided.

Section 74 demand proceedings initiated and concluded in the name of a deceased sole proprietor are without jurisdiction where the revenue authority knew both of the death and the legal heir's status. Disclosure of those facts in earlier registration-cancellation and demand proceedings prevents fresh action from being taken against the deceased person. The alleged input-tax-credit liability remains unexamined on merits. Fresh proceedings may be commenced against the legal heir, if otherwise permissible in law.

Duplicative confirmation of tax proposals concerning GSTR-1/GSTR-3B reconciliation and excess input tax credit cannot be sustained where identical proposals were already determined in an earlier order pending appeal. Complete overlap existed between the later and earlier determinations, including input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B compared with auto-populated GSTR-2A. The impugned confirmation was quashed to the extent it duplicated those proposals.

Rectification is available where the same turnover may have been included in the assessments of two separately registered units and thereby taxed more than once. Verification must examine the assessee's computation together with departmental records of both units holistically to establish whether turnover overlaps. Where overlap is established, the duplication constitutes a rectifiable mistake and turnover must be reworked so that it is taxed only once. Fresh examination is necessary to verify the alleged overlap before rectification.

Generation of three digitally signed personal-hearing notices within minutes on the same date, each carrying a different notice number and hearing schedule, raises concerns over the integrity of the State Tax portal's notice-generation process. The discrepancy was treated as a serious system lacuna capable of enabling manipulation. Scrutiny of portal functioning and the mechanism permitting inconsistent notices was required, together with a report on the process and a fresh appellate order.

Double taxation of the same turnover across separately registered units constitutes a rectifiable mistake where the assessee establishes that turnover taxed in one unit was assessed again in another. Separate registrations or assessment under different charges do not prevent the Department from examining all relevant records holistically to ensure that turnover is taxed only once. The assessment was set aside solely for verification and reworking of the alleged overlapping turnover between the units, with a fresh determination directed on that limited issue. Other disputed issues remained open to be pursued through available remedies.

Proceeds of crime must be property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Receipts under debenture subscription and consultancy agreements received before the relevant bank disbursal lacked the required nexus. The unpaid consideration under a pre-existing dairy-business sale agreement remained an independent lawful transaction. Banking transfers and later disbursals to legal entities cannot be characterised as proceeds of crime without cogent evidence of that nexus. Attachment therefore could not continue, and the properties were released.