Section 142(5) of the CGST Act governs post-GST refund claims for service tax paid under the existing law where the service was not provided. Such claims are to be disposed of under the existing law, with any refundable amount paid in cash subject to unjust enrichment. For a claim arising from cancellation of a flat booking, the relevant-date limitation was treated as inapplicable, so the date of cancellation versus the date of tax payment did not determine entitlement. The time-bar rejection was set aside, and refund with applicable interest was directed within two months.

Equitable settlement of assigned debt resolved the assignee's claim through payment of an additional Rs. 125 crores within twelve weeks, beyond sums already paid. On payment, securities and guarantees must be released, and pending debt-recovery and insolvency proceedings are disposed of, subject to revival if payment is not made. The settlement leaves unresolved the validity of NPA classification and debt assignment, including whether compensation should be measured by debt value or acquisition value.

Statutory presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable cheque liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable. An accused may establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities through direct evidence or circumstances, shifting the burden to the complainant to prove the debt. Pre-presentation misuse complaints, stop-payment instructions, a disputed signature, inadequate proof of loan source or financial capacity, missing security documents, and consultancy dealings may cumulatively make liability improbable. Non-reply to a statutory notice or non-production of the original stop-payment instruction does not bar that defence.

GST return mismatches may justify scrutiny but cannot alone establish excess input tax credit or short payment of output tax. Gross ITC in GSTR-3B must be assessed with reversals to determine the net credit position, while differences between GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C require reconciliation with invoices, ledgers, books of account, and relevant return entries. For taxable and exempt supplies, Rules 42 and 43 require identification of exclusive and common credit before proportional reversal. Ex parte proceedings do not dispense with verification of records before confirmation of a demand.

Review of a 30-order GST appellate sample identifies disputes involving input tax credit, refunds, penalties, bill-to-ship-to transactions and Section 129. Input tax credit matters included remand for fresh, de novo adjudication and verification by the Proper Officer. Revenue penalty appeals were dismissed where the disputed amount fell below the prescribed monetary limit and no recognised exception was established. The review identifies a general, though non-universal, tendency for taxpayer appeals to be allowed, partly allowed or remanded and for Revenue appeals to be dismissed.

Mandatory pre-deposit for GST penalty-only appeals is contested where the challenged order predates 1 October 2025. Before that date, pre-deposit was calculated by reference to tax in dispute, leaving penalty-only orders without a tax-based deposit amount except in detention cases. Amendments thereafter require 10% of the penalty at first appeal and an additional 10% for Tribunal appeal. The dispute raises whether this later condition applies retrospectively and whether valid proper-officer appointment is a jurisdictional issue.

Rule 271 apportions composite income from own-grown rubber, coffee and tea that is manufactured or processed for sale. The prescribed portion is deemed taxable business income, while the balance retains its agricultural-income character. Products manufactured from raw rubber, coffee or tea procured from other cultivators generate wholly taxable business income. Business-income computation permits cultivation, manufacturing, marketing and selling expenses. Replacement planting costs for non-abandoned areas are allowable without reducing exempt replanting subsidy.

Under section 69(3) of the CGST Act, the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner may release an arrested person on bail or otherwise only for a non-cognizable, bailable offence, exercising police-station officer powers subject to criminal-procedure safeguards. Conditions may include a personal bail bond, local surety, attendance before the investigating officer, and notice before leaving the country. Written communication of conditions, contact with a nominated person, prompt release upon compliance, timely production before a Magistrate when conditions remain unmet, custody safeguards, and maintenance of a bail register support the process.

Profit and cash diverge because sales are recognised before collection while operating, financing and statutory obligations mature independently. The cash conversion cycle-inventory days plus debtor days minus creditor days-identifies how long working capital remains trapped; rapid growth magnifies the funding requirement. Liquidity discipline requires prompt invoicing and collections, inventory control, fair supplier terms, and a rolling cash forecast based on actual payment behaviour. GST, TDS, provident fund and other statutory dues should be prioritised. Borrowing and invoice discounting may bridge timing gaps but do not replace working-capital control.

Founder bottlenecks occur when routine operational decisions remain dependent on promoter approval, creating delayed cash flows, lost sales, staff attrition, reduced valuation and key-person risk. A delegation-of-authority matrix should allocate decision rights through defined monetary and functional limits, reserving irreversible and material matters for the promoter while delegating routine, reversible decisions. Written rules, exception reporting and maker-checker controls can replace routine approvals, preserve oversight and strengthen internal financial controls.

Finance, cash, legal and compliance functions require daily bank visibility, independent reconciliations, a rolling 13-week direct cash forecast, payment controls, timely account closing and review of unusual journals and related-party balances. A compliance register should identify each obligation, entity, jurisdiction, due date, responsible preparer and reviewer, supporting evidence, status and escalation route. Governance requires defined reserved matters, reliable minutes, independent challenge, escalation processes and board or owner reporting covering strategy, liquidity, financial position, key performance indicators, material risks, compliance, people, concentrations and related-party transactions.

Retrospective service-tax relief applies to services supplied by authorised persons or sub-brokers to members of recognised or registered associations in relation to forward contracts where tax was not levied between 10 September 2004 and 30 June 2012. The relief, issued under the statutory power to exempt non-levied tax retrospectively, covers the disputed periods. Service-tax demands on qualifying sub-broker services for those periods are therefore unsustainable.

Section 10A deduction computation requires every item excluded from export turnover to be excluded correspondingly from total turnover, preserving parity in the statutory formula. The deduction is undertaking-specific and must be computed before setting off losses of one eligible unit against profits of another. Transfer-pricing comparable selection requires functional, asset and risk analysis; a high-scale branded knowledge-process-outsourcing provider with significant intangibles is unsuitable for comparison with a captive contact-centre service provider, while unresolved comparable objections require factual adjudication. Capitalised software expenditure may qualify for depreciation where prior capitalisation and depreciation treatment are verified. Claimed exclusions of specified expenses require verification.

Cash deposits in a taxpayer's bank account were claimed to arise from agricultural land sale proceeds, past savings and accumulated agricultural income. Supporting affidavits from ten family members formed part of the evidentiary material. On the stated facts and circumstances, a limited addition was retained, while the balance addition was deleted.

Penalty for under-reporting attributable to misreporting under section 270A(8) cannot be sustained merely because a deduction under section 80P was claimed on interest from cooperative banks or societies. Coordinate-bench decisions supported the availability of that deduction, making the quantum disallowance a debatable legal claim. Mere assertion of a debatable claim does not by itself establish misreporting. On that basis, the section 270A(8) penalty was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Transfer-pricing analysis under Rule 10B(3) requires reasonably accurate adjustments for material differences affecting comparability. Capacity underutilisation may warrant an adjustment for excess depreciation where the depreciation-to-sales ratio reliably measures the absorption of fixed depreciation costs through production and sales; a lower ratio indicates more effective capacity use. Reducing excess depreciation recalibrates the tested party's operating-profit-to-operating-cost margin. Where the adjusted margin falls within the arm's-length range, objections to selected comparables may cease to affect the analysis.

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires the appellate authority to formulate points for determination and provide reasoned adjudication. Failure to meet these requirements, particularly where virtual-hearing communication gaps may have prevented proper representation, deprives the taxpayer of effective appellate consideration. An appellate order lacking stated points and reasoned findings should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after effective hearing opportunities are provided.

Section 69C applies only where the source of expenditure remains unexplained. Construction-related purchases recorded in audited books, supported by material explaining their source, do not constitute unexplained expenditure merely on presumption. An addition requires enquiry establishing that the expenditure was unaccounted for; unsupported assumptions without verification cannot sustain it. Accordingly, the proposed addition for unexplained expenditure is not sustainable where the recorded expenditure and its source are corroborated.

Rectification for a mistake apparent from the record is confined to patent errors and cannot displace directions justified by unverified evidence or incomplete factual examination. An affidavit relied on in a penalty matter required verification by the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A, supporting restoration for fresh adjudication. Cash-receipt material without distributor confirmations, coupled with uniform receipt patterns, also required further factual examination. An earnest-money deposit received for distributorship was not a sale receipt and therefore fell outside the cash-receipt restriction. No apparent mistake warranted rectification of the fresh-adjudication directions.

Withdrawal of a deduction under Section 80GGC in a return filed after reopening creates under-reported income where reassessed income exceeds the prior processing, notwithstanding acceptance of the later return. A withdrawal made merely to buy peace does not establish a bona fide claim supported by material facts and therefore does not fall within the statutory exclusion. Misrepresentation or suppression of facts attracts the enhanced penalty for misreporting. A penalty charge is adequately specified where the assessment records the applicable misreporting ground and the notice refers to that assessment finding. Voluntary withdrawal and a notice objection do not displace liability where those requirements are met.