Withholding an electronic cash ledger refund during the Revenue's pending appeal requires a specific determination by the Commissioner under Section 54(11) of the CGST Act. Payment or withholding cannot be decided without initiating the statutory process, issuing a show cause notice, and providing the claimant a proper opportunity of hearing. The Commissioner must then pass a reasoned order determining whether the claimed refund should be paid or withheld while the appeal remains pending.

GST appeals must be filed within three months of communication of the order. The appellate authority may admit a delayed appeal only on sufficient cause and only during the further one-month period expressly permitted by the statute. The Limitation Act does not apply to enlarge this limited condonation power where the GST appellate scheme does not provide for such application. An appeal filed after both periods, particularly where the substantial delay remains inadequately explained, is time-barred and cannot be entertained.

GST appeal limitation does not begin merely because an order-in-original is uploaded on the common portal without valid communication to the assessee in the stated circumstances. Although the Appellate Authority remains bound by the statutory limitation under the RGST/CGST Act, delay may be condoned where the assessee could not file the appeal for reasons beyond its control and refusal of merits review would cause grave prejudice. The time-bar dismissal was set aside and the statutory appeal restored for merits determination, subject to the directed deposit of outstanding tax.

Collateral challenge to a CGST adjudication order through an interlocutory application in a pending writ petition was not maintainable because the earlier AGST notice challenge had no connection with the subsequent CGST proceedings. No interim restraint covered the adjudication, and no jurisdictional error by the Proper Officer was established; the writ challenge became infructuous and the interlocutory challenge was misconceived. Bona fide and diligent pursuit of the wrong writ remedy justified allowing recourse to the statutory appellate remedy despite expiry of limitation. Petitioners received liberty to file an appeal under the CGST Act within 30 days, to be considered on merits without limitation objection; prior interim protection was vacated.

GST show cause notices served only through the portal after cancellation of registration do not constitute effective service where the taxpayer cannot access the portal. Adjudication based on such service is liable to be set aside, with the tax authorities permitted to restart proceedings from the show cause notice stage in accordance with law. In fresh proceedings, a personal hearing must be provided where the taxpayer requests it under the statutory requirement. The discussion relies on decisions treating portal-only communication after cancellation as inconsistent with effective notice and procedural fairness.

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules restricted IGST refunds on exports in specified circumstances. The High Court's earlier ruling in M/s Hikal Limited treated the rule as ultra vires section 16 of the IGST Act and manifestly arbitrary. Its subsequent omission without a saving clause meant that proceedings based exclusively on an alleged breach of Rule 96(10) could not continue. Accordingly, a show cause notice seeking to deny or recover an IGST export refund under that rule, along with consequential proceedings, was quashed.

Duplicate GST adjudication on the same issues and assessment period is unsustainable where Central GST authorities have already issued an order and that order remains under appeal. The subsequent State GST assessment and rectification orders addressed identical issues for the identical period, thereby duplicating the earlier Central GST adjudication. The State GST orders were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

Section 74 of the CGST Act requires evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax; mere availment of ineligible self-assessed input tax credit does not meet that standard. Disclosure of ITC reconciliation in GSTR-9C and annual returns on the GST portal negates an allegation of concealed facts absent contrary evidence. Failure to reply to an audit enquiry or final audit report is likewise not suppression where the underlying data is disclosed and no statutory reply is required. A demand also cannot be sustained on a ground introduced beyond the show cause notice, as this denies the taxpayer an opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice.

Section 93 of the CGST/KGST Act limits a legal representative's liability where a deceased proprietor's business has discontinued: recovery may be made only from the deceased's estate and only after notice, inquiry and ascertainment of that estate. Continuation of proceedings without notice to the legal heir or examination of inherited assets is treated as procedurally unsustainable. Separately, Section 16(5), retrospectively effective from 1 July 2017, overrides the belated-return restriction in Section 16(4) for invoices relating to FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 where the relevant Section 39 return was filed by 30 November 2021. Eligible input tax credit is therefore available where that deadline is met.

Psyllium seeds (Isabgol) fall under tariff sub-heading 1211 90 13 because Heading 1211 specifically covers Psyllium seed and includes Plantago psyllium herbs and seeds used primarily in pharmacy. GST exemption for fresh or chilled seeds depends on the condition of goods when supplied. Storage in dry, ventilated godowns constitutes drying; without evidence that the seeds remained fresh from harvest until supply, they are treated as dried goods. Dried Psyllium seeds are taxable at 5 per cent under the entry for frozen or dried plants and plant parts, while exemptions for fresh or chilled goods and goods of seed quality do not apply.

Penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) must clearly identify whether the charge concerns concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The two limbs are independent and may require different explanations and treatment; therefore, a notice retaining both alternatives without specifying the applicable limb denies the assessee a proper opportunity to defend. Recording satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings does not cure this defect. Applying this principle, the High Court treated the defective notice as invalid, upheld deletion of the penalty, and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

Pre-reassessment procedure requires the Assessing Officer to issue a show-cause notice, consider the taxpayer's reply and form only a prima facie view that income has escaped assessment. Absence of an oral hearing at that preliminary stage does not by itself invalidate the pre-reassessment order or consequential reassessment notice where a substantive opportunity remains available during reassessment. Information concerning unsecured loans and cash deposits may be considered collectively where intrinsically connected to the alleged escaped income; the genuineness of the loan is to be examined in reassessment. The reassessment must provide a meaningful personal hearing and consider further documents and explanations, with merits left open.

Subletting charges paid to MIDC as a mandatory condition for subletting leasehold property are treated as an integral cost of earning rental income. Taxable income from house property is therefore computed on net rental income after reducing those charges. The standard deduction available for house property income under section 24(a) does not prevent deduction of such pre-receipt expenditure, because the charges are necessary to commercially exploit the leasehold property through subletting. The disallowance of the charges was deleted and the deduction was allowed.

Cash consideration receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, for transfer of immovable property falls within "specified sum" and is governed by section 269SS; the contention that section 269ST exclusively applied was rejected. However, penalty under section 271D could not be sustained for an assessment year in which no cash consideration was received. As the relevant receipts occurred in an earlier financial year, the penalty levied for AY 2017-18 was held invalid and deleted. The Tribunal also noted that part of the receipts preceded the amendment extending section 269SS to specified sums connected with immovable property transfers.

Rebate under section 87A is available against tax payable on short-term capital gains chargeable under section 111A where an individual has opted for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAC. The position follows Tribunal precedent supporting the rebate, with no contrary High Court or Supreme Court authority identified. The Revenue's challenge to the rebate was rejected, sustaining its grant for assessment year 2024-25.

Agricultural income from date sales cannot be partly treated as income from other sources merely on a mathematical estimate of probable yield based on an earlier field report concerning damaged plants. Where agricultural operations, plantation, source of produce and recorded sale proceeds are accepted, contrary material is required to reject the disclosed quantity or receipts; the addition was deleted. Agricultural expenditure also cannot be enhanced to a fixed percentage of gross receipts without evidence that specific expenses are false or inadmissible, or cogent comparable, agricultural or expert material. The ad hoc expenditure addition was deleted, with consequential interest to be recomputed.

Section 115BBE applies only to income properly brought within the deeming provisions in sections 68 to 69D; it does not independently tax income merely because it was surrendered or undisclosed during a survey. Each deeming provision has distinct foundational conditions that must be identified and satisfied. Where the assessment neither invoked a relevant deeming provision nor established that the surrendered income fell within sections 68 to 69D, the special rate cannot apply. The surrendered income was therefore taxable at the assessee's normal applicable rate.

Donor-directed corpus contributions received by an approved educational institution retain their corpus character where donors specifically earmark them, even when exemption is claimed under section 10(23C)(vi) rather than section 11. Such contributions are materially distinct from ordinary voluntary receipts available for application towards institutional objects. The absence of identically worded corpus provisions in section 10(23C)(vi) during the relevant year does not by itself recharacterise genuine corpus receipts as taxable revenue, absent material showing that the corpus designation is a facade. Accordingly, the addition for these corpus contributions was deleted.

Tax-audit obligations do not arise where turnover remains below the enhanced threshold available to taxpayers whose cash receipts and cash payments stay within prescribed limits. Financial statements, bank statements and reconciliation may establish that operational revenue was received through banking channels; differences between bank credits and reported revenue may be attributable to GST and tax deducted at source. Absence of opening or closing cash-in-hand, supported by these records and the tax audit report, can demonstrate that no disqualifying cash transactions occurred. Consequently, penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit is not sustainable where the enhanced threshold applies.

Consistency in transfer pricing assessment required deletion of a notional-interest adjustment on non-interest-bearing Non-Convertible Debentures where identical terms had been accepted at arm's length in an earlier year. The debentures provided no periodic interest and included a redemption premium linked to the holding period. Although res judicata does not apply to tax assessments, unchanged fundamental facts and arrangements require consistent treatment. The Transfer Pricing Officer could not reverse the earlier accepted position by imputing interest on both current and prior subscriptions without initiating a permissible statutory proceeding. The notional-interest adjustment was deleted.