Statutory pre-deposit under the erstwhile indirect tax regime is a security furnished as a condition for hearing an appeal, rather than duty. Where first appellate relief sets aside part of a demand and the Department does not challenge that relief, the appellate order becomes final to that extent. Refund of the corresponding pre-deposit cannot be refused merely because the taxpayer intends to challenge the remaining sustained demand. The refund claim attributable to the demand set aside was required to be processed and paid, while no interest claim was pursued.

The six-month application period for rectifying orders denying input tax credit was questioned as an impermissible restriction on statutory entitlement. Although the Government may prescribe a special procedure for input tax credit, that power must include conditions and safeguards protecting taxpayers. The amended provision made credit available for returns filed by the stipulated date but did not impose an application deadline. A procedure that bars relief after six months without allowing extension where sufficient cause prevented timely application curtails the accrued right to credit. The notification was considered deficient for lacking such a safeguard, with further consideration directed after impleadment of relevant governmental bodies.

Section 73 of the CGST Act requires GST assessment and demand limitation to be determined separately for each financial year, with reference to the relevant annual return. A composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years improperly combines distinct tax periods, due dates, limitation periods, allegations and response opportunities. High Court precedent is binding within its territorial jurisdiction. The composite notice was quashed, while preserving the respondents' liberty to issue fresh notices separately in accordance with Section 73, subject to any other legal impediment.

Show cause notices issued in the name of a deceased taxable person are void because tax cannot be determined against a non-existent person. Although legal representatives are liable only to the extent of the deceased's estate, that liability requires assessment against them in their representative capacity. They must receive a fresh notice and a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard before liability is determined. Proceedings initiated solely against a deceased proprietor, including adjudication and recovery, are liable to be quashed and remitted for fresh adjudication against the legal representatives without determination on merits.

Input tax credit denial to a bona fide purchaser based on a supplier's failure to deposit tax, file GSTR-3B, or reflect invoices in GSTR-2A requires proper consideration of the purchaser's reply and supporting evidence. The High Court found non-application of mind and breach of natural justice, and held that invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act for financial year 2018-19 lacked jurisdiction. The adjudication order and consequential recovery notice were quashed. Fresh adjudication was directed after considering relevant precedents, granting a personal hearing, and issuing a reasoned speaking order.

Passenger transportation follows the place of embarkation for a continuous journey. Where either the supplier or passenger is outside India, a short transit stop does not amount to a stopover or interrupt the journey; transportation embarking outside India consequently has a place of supply outside India and is not subject to GST. Where both supplier and passenger are in India, embarkation from Kolkata makes the service an intra-State supply liable to CGST and WBGST at the notified rate, with economy-class treatment subject to the input tax credit condition. Air transportation of human remains falls within funeral, burial, crematorium or mortuary services and is neither a supply of goods nor services, so remains outside GST.

Faceless assessment procedure requires necessary enquiry, verification and collection of relevant information before issuing a show cause notice, with reasoned consideration of explanations and reconciliations. Blanket notices and additions that disregard disclosed Category III AIF redemption proceeds or explained unlisted-share sale proceeds, including reliance on unrequested purchaser-source details, demonstrate arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Effective personal hearing is also required: a same-day hearing notice and an unresolved video-conference failure deny natural justice. These defects vitiated the assessment, consequential demand and penalty notices, requiring fresh proceedings, a hearing on at least five working days' notice before any adverse order, and a speaking, reasoned order.

Corporate guarantee liability becomes deductible in the previous year in which settlement fixes and crystallises the obligation. Where the settlement occurred in the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 1998-99, subsequent consent terms merely implemented and discharged the already determined liability; they did not defer the year of deduction. The resulting business-loss deduction was therefore allowable for Assessment Year 1998-99.

The proviso to Section 276CC bars prosecution for failure to furnish an income-tax return where tax payable on total income determined on regular assessment, after reducing advance tax and tax deducted at source, does not exceed the prescribed threshold. Where no tax remains due and tax deducted at source exceeds the assessed liability, delayed filing cannot sustain prosecution. On these facts, continuation of criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process and the prosecution was quashed.

Reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued within the applicable limitation period. The original six-year period expired on 31 March 2020, while the relevant extension notification covered only notices whose original limitation expired on 31 March 2021; it therefore did not extend time for a notice issued on 1 April 2021. Such notice was time-barred, requiring the consequential assessment orders to be set aside. Section 292BB addresses defects in service where an assessee participates in proceedings despite ineffective service; it cannot validate a reassessment notice issued after the statutory limitation period.

The extended period beyond six assessment years for a search assessment under the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) applies only where material available to the Assessing Officer shows escaped income represented by a stipulated asset of the required value. Alleged on-money receipts from project buyers, without a finding that those receipts were represented by such an asset, do not meet that condition. Assessments initiated beyond the six-year period on that basis were void ab initio, and the consequential reassessment orders for the relevant years were invalid.

Commission paid to non-resident agents for procuring export orders through services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India merely because it relates to an Indian exporter's business. Tax deduction at source on such payments arises only where the income is chargeable to tax in India. In the absence of material showing that the agents rendered services in India or maintained a permanent establishment or business operations in India, the commission remains outside Indian tax charge. Consequently, no tax was deductible on the foreign commission payments, and the corresponding disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source was deleted.

WhatsApp records recovered solely from a third party's mobile phone cannot support an unexplained-investment addition unless their authenticity is established and independent corroborative evidence exists. Electronic records require the prescribed certificate for admissibility, and the material must also comply with the stated requirements for extraction of electronic evidence. A search presumption arising from material found with a third party does not bind the assessee. Because the chats were unauthenticated and unsupported by other evidence, the unexplained-investment addition was deleted and the appeal was allowed.

Live broadcasting rights, characterised as a one-time transmission without an enduring benefit, are neither a scientific work nor rights in which copyright subsists. Licence fees for those rights therefore fall outside royalty treatment under the India-UK DTAA, unlike non-live repeat telecasts and highlights. A mutually agreed allocation of broadcasting fees between live and non-live rights remains valid absent material showing that the allocation is unjustified. Release fees received for permitting athletes to participate in a league, being separate from player remuneration and not arising from athletes' personal activities, fall outside the athlete-income provision of the India-UK DTAA.

Mutual current-account transactions involving repeated advances, repayments and payments made on another concern's behalf are commercial dealings rather than loans or advances for deemed-dividend purposes. Ledger evidence showing that receipts merely repaid earlier advances supports exclusion from the deemed-dividend provision. Likewise, an alleged unsecured loan cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit where records establish interest-bearing commercial entries and no fresh loan arose in the relevant year. On these findings, deletions of both additions were sustained and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because a more extensive enquiry is preferred where the Assessing Officer has examined the deduction claim, obtained the statutory audit report and employee-wise details, issued a proposed disallowance notice, and considered the response. Revision requires an erroneous assessment that is prejudicial to Revenue, not simply an allegedly inadequate enquiry. Deduction eligibility is not denied solely because a staffing employer deploys workers at client premises, where it recruits, appoints, pays, reassigns and fulfils statutory employment obligations. Client supervision and salary reimbursement alone do not displace the employer-employee relationship. On these facts, revision for fresh examination was impermissible and the assessment was restored.

Tax deducted at source that is subsequently deposited into the Government Treasury should not remain recoverable as principal TDS liability once the remittance is verified. Interest for delayed remittance continues to apply, but only up to the actual date of deposit; challans, payment dates and correlation with the demand require verification before recomputation. Renewable Energy Certificate registration charges require examination of the payment's nature, recipient, supporting invoice or demand, and statutory basis. Where the charges qualify as statutory or registration fees not subject to TDS, the related demand and interest should be deleted; otherwise, liability must be determined under the applicable law.

Year-end estimated expenditure provisions, where invoices, precise liabilities and payees remain unascertained, do not amount to credit of an ascertainable sum to an identified payee under the mercantile system. Tax-deduction obligations therefore arise only when liabilities crystallise, with tax deducted where applicable upon receipt of invoices; reversal of the provisions in the succeeding year supports that treatment. A demand for tax-deduction default cannot be sustained merely on creation of such provisions. Further, where the same non-deduction has already led to disallowance of expenditure, it cannot also support a tax-deduction default demand; consequential interest fails with the principal demand.

Companies struck off under the Companies Act continue to exist for purposes of realising dues and discharging outstanding liabilities. Statutory saving provisions preserve the enforceability of liabilities against persons managing the company; therefore, assessment or reassessment is not invalid merely because the company has been struck off. Where the first appellate authority has not examined an unexplained-credit addition on merits because of non-appearance, fresh appellate consideration is required after providing an opportunity of hearing and allowing supporting material to be produced.

Deemed-dividend treatment requires a payment by a closely held company to have the character of a loan or advance to a substantial shareholder. Where a running account shows a continuous credit balance in the shareholder's favour, payment by the company discharges its pre-existing liability rather than creating shareholder indebtedness. Repayment or withdrawal against amounts already due to the shareholder therefore does not constitute deemed dividend. The real nature of the current account and movement of funds must be assessed; a payment's classification cannot rest solely on money moving from company to shareholder. Absence of a loan agreement, interest terms or board approval does not convert repayment into a loan or advance.