Omission of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, without a saving or sunset clause, ends the export-refund restriction for pending proceedings concerning integrated tax paid on exported goods and services. Applying the principle that an omitted provision cannot be kept alive without express preservation, communications founded on the former restriction cannot sustain denial of such refunds.

Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act are addressed in relation to regular bail for allegations of fraudulent invoices, wrongful input tax credit, falsified records and shell entities. Arrest requires recorded reasons to believe tax evasion or the specified conditions under section 132. The absence of those reasons in the arrest authorisation and memo, together with omission of the applicable tax-evasion threshold relevant to conviction, is treated as indicating suspicion rather than concrete material. These deficiencies support release on regular bail, subject to furnishing a bond and sureties.

Rule 86A permits restriction on debit of input tax credit in an electronic credit ledger only when its prescribed conditions are met, including recorded reasons to believe and reasons in writing. The High Court found that the authorities could not establish compliance with these mandatory requirements before blocking the ledger. As the statutory period had expired and the ledger had been reactivated, the writ petition was disposed of exceptionally upon acceptance of an unconditional apology. The High Court warned that any future non-compliant blocking of credit would expose the authorities to appropriate compensation liability.

GST cannot be collected on a penalty imposed on an employee for stock shortage merely because an employment relationship exists. Paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act applies to agreements connected with a supply of services. A stock-shortage penalty arising from the employer-employee relationship is not, without more, consideration for a supply of services. Accordingly, that provision does not authorise GST on such recovery. The de novo enquiry concerning the collection was sustained, while the intra-court appeal was dismissed.

Consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are maintainable under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST and SGST enactments, which do not prohibit clubbing tax periods in one notice. Quashing such a notice and consequential orders solely because multiple years were combined is unsustainable. An appellate authority must also provide an effective hearing on the merits where the appellant seeks condonation of delay and admission of the appeal for that purpose. Restricting the hearing to delay and deciding the appeal without a merits hearing breaches principles of natural justice. The appellate order was set aside and remitted for a merits hearing.

Writ jurisdiction challenging GST registration cancellation is ordinarily unavailable where the taxpayer failed to pursue the statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period and shows no exceptional circumstances. A delayed writ petition should not be entertained merely because the appellate remedy has lapsed. The petition was dismissed on that basis, while preserving the taxpayer's ability to file the final return and seek fresh GST registration in accordance with law.

Fresh adjudication of a service-tax demand was required after relevant work contracts and agreements were placed on record and the Department accepted reconsideration on the entire material. The claimed exemption had not been examined on its merits. The demand order and consequential penalties were set aside, with remand for reconsideration of the available and any further relevant documents after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Parallel GST proceedings on identical issues for the same assessment period cannot be sustained where Central GST authorities have already issued an order and the related appeal is pending before the appellate authority. The State GST assessment and rectification orders addressed the same issues already adjudicated under Central GST. Consequently, the subsequent State GST proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Section 73(9) does not permit the Proper Officer to determine tax liability before the statutory due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year has expired. An assessment made before that deadline is premature and beyond the Proper Officer's authority. The premature assessment order was set aside, with fresh assessment proceedings to be undertaken in accordance with law after proper notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Inadvertent payment of GST under the IGST head, where CGST and SGST were actually payable and no IGST liability existed, is treated as a clerical error rather than a payment made under a misconception that the supply was inter-State. Section 77(2) therefore does not apply. Where the full GST liability has effectively been discharged, interest and penalty are not payable. The amount remitted as IGST may be appropriated against the CGST and SGST liability; where procedurally required, refund and transfer of the amount may be sought.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 264 extends to relief omitted from a return where a charitable trust later identifies an error causing over-assessment. Voluntary disclosure of income as taxable does not bar reconsideration if the trust disclosed the capital gains and relevant particulars without suppressing material; the revisional authority must examine entitlement under law. For charitable-trust capital gains, reinvestment of net sale consideration in a bank fixed deposit for six months or more is treated as acquisition of another capital asset under Instruction No. 883. Conditions under public-trust law cannot be imported to deny this standalone exemption.

Reassessment founded on additions and disallowances in later assessment years lacks a subsisting basis where appellate orders for those years delete or decide in the assessee's favour every issue relied upon for reopening. Although later assessment orders may initially constitute material for reopening, the reasons to believe that income escaped assessment cease once their foundation is removed. The reassessment notice and rejection of objections were quashed, while other challenges remained open and proceedings could revive if the Revenue succeeds in pending appeals on a foundational issue.

Reassessment requires recorded material to have a rational connection and live nexus with the belief that income escaped assessment; suspicion based on statements or survey material unrelated to the taxpayer or investment transaction is insufficient. Allegations concerning an investor's representative, without transaction-specific material, could not support reopening for purportedly non-genuine share capital and share premium. For employees' provident fund and insurance contributions, the law prevailing when notice was issued allowed deduction where payment was made by the return-filing due date. A later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively validate the recorded reason. The reassessment notice was quashed because neither ground established a sustainable reason to believe.

Demand and penalty-initiation notices cannot rest on an order expressly issued as a draft assessment order. Where proposed disallowances remain proposals, no demand or penalty notice is issued, and the taxpayer retains the right to accept variations or object before final assessment, the payable sum has not been finally determined. Such a defect is not a mere uploading error curable through Section 292B, especially without a subsequent corrective or clarificatory order. Draft assessment procedure is also unavailable where the Transfer Pricing Officer makes no variation to returned income from international transactions; the taxpayer is then not an eligible assessee under Section 144C. The draft order and consequential notices were set aside.

Signed approval by the prescribed authority is a jurisdictional precondition to issuing a reassessment notice and safeguards against arbitrary reopening. The approving authority must record satisfaction, after considering the recorded reasons and supporting material, through a manual or digital signature. A DIN, electronic transmission, or printed officer name and designation may establish authenticity but cannot replace the required signature. A curative provision introduced after the relevant approval cannot validate the defect. An unsigned approval therefore cannot confer reassessment jurisdiction, rendering consequential reassessment action unsustainable.

Transfer-pricing adjustment for intra-group management, sales and support services was deleted after the Tribunal applied a co-ordinate Bench decision to the material facts. The adjustment had determined the arm's length price of those services at nil. The appeal was allowed on this issue, while the remaining grounds were left open.

COVID-19 adjustments in transfer-pricing benchmarking require proof of exceptional pandemic expenditure, its non-operating character, and a materially different impact on comparables; pandemic timing alone is insufficient. TNMM also requires consistent treatment of operating and non-operating items for the tested party and comparables, including foreign-exchange effects from revenue transactions and depreciation on business assets. Internal CUP for software support services requires transaction-level comparability of contractual scope, functions, assets, risks, personnel, volume, duration and market conditions, with reliable adjustments for material differences. Transfer-pricing adjustments were remanded for fresh verification and benchmarking. A final assessment following timely draft assessment and DRP directions remains within the separate DRP-related limitation period.

Retrospective insertion of section 144C(13A) places the final assessment order within the prescribed limitation period, rejecting the time-bar challenge. Cost-to-cost recovery of withholding tax paid for associated enterprises' restricted stock units is non-operating because it is unrelated to the assessee's ITeS services, and must be excluded from its operating margin. Voice-based call-centre, general IT/BPO, technical-helpdesk and intellectual-property consultancy providers are functionally incomparable with diversified technical ITeS services, while knowledge-processing services may remain comparable. Delayed associated-enterprise receivables, though international transactions, require combined benchmarking with the underlying ITeS transaction; once a working-capital adjustment is granted under TNMM, separate notional interest is unwarranted.

Rule 10B(3) permits reasonably accurate comparability adjustments under TNMM to neutralise material differences affecting profitability; it does not require mathematical precision or publicly available identical capacity-utilisation data for comparables. Extraordinary COVID-19-related underutilisation of a captive service provider's manpower and infrastructure can create abnormal idle costs because fixed employee and infrastructure costs are spread over reduced activity. Where the taxpayer substantiates those costs and their computation, and they are not shown to be non-genuine, non-business-related or incorrect, the costs should be neutralised in determining the arm's length margin. The resulting adjusted margin may establish that the international transaction is at arm's length.

Transfer-pricing comparability for sourcing support services requires consistent application of the related-party transaction filter and exclusion of entities that fail it. Government-owned undertakings may not be suitable comparables where their ownership and control distinguish them from the tested party. A commission-based enterprise is not comparable with a cost-plus service provider because commission income depends on orders materialising, while cost-plus remuneration provides a mark-up on costs irrespective of sales. Project-management, infrastructure, engineering, architectural, and sector-specific consultancy services may also be functionally dissimilar to sourcing support services, requiring reassessment of the comparable set.