Actuarial-deficit contributions to approved superannuation and gratuity funds are distinguished from ordinary annual contributions because they remedy funding shortfalls between fund assets and actuarial liabilities. Rule 87 and Rule 103 annual ceilings do not restrict such deficit funding, and section 36(1)(v) permits contributions to an approved gratuity fund without an additional percentage ceiling while approval remains valid. Employee PF/ESI contributions cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) unless the governing legal regime prescribes a due date; a tax-audit software entry or an unrelated provident-fund scheme deadline does not create one.

Refunds quantified following assessment of tax deducted at source obligations or pursuant to an appellate order constitute vested and crystallised entitlements carrying applicable statutory interest. Form 26B, together with the processing framework for TDS statements, applies to CPC-stage processing and adjustment before assessment and does not govern such quantified refunds. Outstanding demands, including those concerning associated TANs, do not independently permit non-payment or adjustment. A refund may be withheld or set off only under a lawfully passed order for adjustment of refunds. The taxpayer is therefore entitled to payment of the quantified refund with applicable interest unless a valid adjustment order exists.

GST exemption for fresh Psyllium (Isabgol) seeds depends on proving that the seeds retain their fresh condition at the time of supply. Seeds stored in dry, ventilated godowns, without evidence of the period from harvest through procurement to supply, are treated as dried rather than fresh; labelling as dried is unnecessary. Such supplies fall under the specific rate entry for dried goods under heading 1211 and attract GST at 5%, rather than the exemption for fresh seeds. The alternative exemption for goods of seed quality is unavailable where the seeds are classified as dried taxable goods.

Penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill at interception is not sustainable where the e-way bill is generated shortly thereafter, the transaction is genuine and fully documented, and no intent to evade tax is established. Section 129(3) was invoked for non-generation of the e-way bill under Rule 138(1), but invoices, challans, ledgers, bank records, and traceable vehicle and goods identifiers substantiated the supplies. In the absence of discrepancies in quantity, value or classification, or evidence of suppression, undervaluation, fake documentation, unaccounted goods or tax evasion, the lapse was treated as bona fide and procedural. The penalty orders were liable to be set aside.

Transport of taxable goods requires generation of an e-way bill before movement begins where the prescribed value threshold is met. Subsequent production of an e-way bill does not remedy its admitted absence at interception. The e-way bill functions as an electronic mechanism for monitoring goods in transit, and failure to generate it before transportation may support an inference of intent to evade tax, particularly in the stated circumstances of short cross-border movement of iron scrap. Detention and penalty provisions may therefore be invoked for transport without a pre-generated e-way bill.

Inter-Commissionerate transfer of Executive Assistants is impermissible where the applicable recruitment rules and transfer policy do not permit absorption in the receiving Commissionerate. The Executive Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015 maintained separate cadres for each Cadre Controlling Authority unless the Board directed otherwise. As no distinct rule authorised transfer of Executive Assistants between Commissionerates, officers transferred in contravention of this cadre structure could be treated as deemed loan cases and repatriated to their parent zones.

Functional availability of the GST Tribunal provides the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned orders. The petitioner may file an appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days, and the amount deposited under the interim order will be adjusted towards the required pre-deposit. The appeal is to be considered on merits.

Delayed or non-deposit of GST/TDS deducted for Gram Sabha works falls within the comprehensive mechanism of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, including interest, penalties, prosecution and compounding. General penal prosecution is available only where allegations independently establish a distinct criminal offence, such as dishonest misappropriation, forgery, cheating, siphoning of funds or wrongful gain. Further, substantive offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 cannot apply retrospectively to conduct occurring before its commencement; later procedural law may govern investigation, but not criminal liability. Criminal proceedings based solely on a tax default and a subsequently enacted substantive penal provision are legally unsustainable.

GST writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised where effective statutory appellate remedies are available. A GST show-cause notice and demand order remained subject to appeal before the appellate authority and further recourse before the GST Tribunal. The portal record showed that the notice concerning mandatory personal hearing was visible to the taxpayer. All objections, including the alleged denial of a personal hearing, may be raised in the statutory appeal; the writ petition was therefore not entertained.

Assignment by sale or transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and building transfers benefits arising from immovable property, with the assignee stepping into the original lessee's position. Such assignment falls outside the scope of taxable supply under Section 7(1)(a), read with Schedule II and Schedule III, and is therefore not chargeable to GST under Section 9. Input tax credit cannot arise for payment of GST on this non-taxable transaction. Consequently, a GST show-cause notice and demand founded on taxability of the leasehold-right assignment are unsustainable.

A binding High Court precedent governing a sanctioned refund required the appellate order to be quashed after the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to that precedent. The appellate authority had proceeded on the incorrect basis that the governing ruling remained under challenge and acknowledged that the ruling had not been brought to its attention; it also took corrective action in a subsequent matter. The assessee was consequently permitted to utilise the refund amount.

Assignment by sale and transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and buildings allotted by GIDC transfers the benefits arising from immovable property to the assignee, who steps into the lessee's position. Such assignment falls outside the scope of supply under Section 7(1)(a), read with Schedule II and Schedule III, and consequently does not attract GST under Section 9. Transfer of these leasehold rights is therefore not liable to GST.

Extended limitation for GST show-cause notices based on fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts requires the notice itself to set out specific allegations and supporting material. Mere use of expressions such as "fraud or concealment of facts", without identifying the basis for that inference, does not justify recourse to the extended period. Deficiencies in the notice cannot be cured through a counter affidavit or other pleadings. Where the ordinary limitation period has expired, a notice lacking this substantiation is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained under the extended-limitation provision.

GST/TDS non-deposit arising from payments for Gram Sabha works falls primarily within the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provides a complete mechanism for determination of default, interest, penalty, prosecution and compounding. General penal provisions cannot be invoked unless allegations independently establish a distinct offence, such as dishonest misappropriation, forgery, cheating or wrongful gain. Substantive penal law applies prospectively: a penal provision introduced after the alleged 2017-18 default cannot create or alter the applicable offence. Proceedings based solely on Section 316(5) BNS were therefore unsustainable, while action under the GST Act remained available.

Extended limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act for fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts requires the show-cause notice itself to disclose specific allegations and the factual basis supporting that inference. A bare reference to "fraud or concealment of facts" does not establish a valid basis for invoking the extended period, and deficiencies in the notice cannot be cured through a counter affidavit. Where the ordinary limitation period has expired, including applicable exclusion of time, an unsupported invocation of extended limitation renders the notice unsustainable. Further proceedings based on such a notice cannot continue.

Assignment by sale or transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and building to a third-party assignee constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property. The assignee replaces the original allottee as lessee. Such assignment falls outside taxable supply under section 7(1)(a), clause 5(b) of Schedule II and clause 5 of Schedule III of the GST law, and is therefore not liable to GST. On this basis, the GST order concerning the assignment was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Assignment of long-term leasehold rights in land and building to a third-party assignee transfers benefits arising from immovable property. Where the assignee replaces the original allottee as lessee, the transaction falls outside the scope of supply and is not liable to GST. Applying the binding ruling on comparable assignments, upheld by dismissal of the SLP, the High Court quashed the show cause notice and assessment order levying GST and allowed the writ petition.

Executive Assistants are not entitled to inter-Commissionerate transfer where each Cadre Controlling Authority maintains a separate cadre and the applicable Recruitment Rules provide no absorption by transfer into another Commissionerate. The transfer policy therefore applies to this cadre, and appointment in the transferee Commissionerate cannot be secured through inter-Commissionerate transfer. Transfers treated as deemed loan arrangements may consequently result in repatriation. A request for relaxation on medical grounds may be made by representation for consideration on its merits.

Rule 138(1) requires prescribed information to be furnished and an e-way bill generated before taxable goods begin moving. Transport without an e-way bill at interception was treated as establishing intent to evade tax, because later online generation could not cure the failure of statutory monitoring or prevent potential account manipulation. A manually issued invoice was not regarded as an equivalent safeguard. The appellate authority's contrary reliance on precedent was distinguished, and the original tax and penalty order under the detention provisions was restored.

Transportation of motorcycles without an e-way bill at interception was treated as a procedural lapse where the e-way bill was generated shortly thereafter and the transaction was fully traceable through invoices, challans, accounts, bank records, and vehicle identification details. No discrepancy in quantity, value or classification, nor evidence of suppression, undervaluation, fake documents, unaccounted goods or intent to evade tax, was identified. The penalty was therefore set aside, and the deposited amount was refundable in accordance with law, subject to verification and statutory requirements.