Depreciation for power undertakings is calculated on the actual cost of each individual asset, requiring separate tracking of actual cost, depreciation allowed and written down value. On disposal, destruction or discard of an asset, terminal depreciation may be available for the shortfall between written down value and moneys payable, if written off in the books. Extending the block-of-assets method to these undertakings is proposed to simplify compliance and permit an election between actual-cost and written-down-value methods.

GST audit under Section 65 and demand adjudication under Sections 73, 74 and 74A are analysed as separate functions. Audit involves investigation and recording discrepancies in Form GST ADT-02, while adjudication requires an impartial assessment of show-cause notices, replies, evidence and hearings. When the same officer performs both roles, the analysis identifies confirmation bias, pre-determination and breach of nemo judex in causa sua. Orders passed in this manner are presented as jurisdictionally defective, with writ jurisdiction available in appropriate cases involving natural justice violations or continuing recovery action.

GST adjudication must observe personal-hearing safeguards through a real opportunity to be heard before orders are passed. Section 126 protects curable minor procedural lapses from penalty and requires penalties to be fact-specific and commensurate with the breach. Section 74 penalties require positive proof of deliberate suppression; audit mismatches and pre-show-cause-notice payments alone are insufficient in the described circumstances.

Section 122 penalty notices issued before October 1, 2025 raise a function-specific proper officer question requiring examination of the statutory notifications, the later circular, and the relationship between Sections 73, 74 and 122. The objection is not treated as a patent absence of jurisdiction and may be examined in a Section 107 appeal along with natural justice, multiple-penalty and taxable-person grounds. Appeals arising from pre-October 1, 2025 show-cause notices remain governed by the earlier Section 107(6) pre-deposit framework, notwithstanding later adjudication orders.

Voluntary AEO cooperation is structured around expanding MSME participation, preparing programmes for bilateral mutual recognition, and ensuring that recognition produces border-level facilitation. The HELP approach combines handholding, expanded benefits, lower entry barriers and process simplification without reducing safety, security or validation standards. Programme comparison, legal information exchange, validation, digital AEO identification, data-sharing templates, risk treatment, border instructions and aggregated performance data are intended to support operational mutual recognition while preserving each administration's autonomy.

Section 74 requires proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression; an ITC mismatch or excess credit alone is insufficient. Suppression entails deliberate non-declaration of information required in GST filings or failure to provide information requested in writing. Where mismatch arises from supplier default and relevant facts are disclosed in returns, authorities must establish a nexus between wrongful ITC availment and the alleged culpable conduct. Pre-notice payment of ITC and interest after verification, without intent to evade, is treated as a matter for section 73 rather than section 74.

Mandatory customs pre-deposit under Section 129E is treated as a binding threshold for appeals, with the Commissioner and CESTAT lacking power to admit an appeal without compliance. High Court proceedings may be used to seek judicial consideration of waiver, reduction, or time for payment where financial distress is pleaded. Tecmax received a time-bound opportunity to make the deposit and restore its CESTAT appeal, while Sea Queen, which directly invoked writ jurisdiction claiming inability to pay, was found not to have established an exceptional case. The differing treatment raises concerns about consistent application of financial-distress and exceptional-case standards.

Classification of Styrene Butadiene Rubber Latex under the VAT schedule turns on its nature and composition as rubber, not its synthetic origin, latex form, or end uses. The unqualified term "rubber" in the specified entry encompasses SBR Latex because no express exclusion confines that entry to natural rubber. Where a commodity reasonably falls within a specific entry, it should not be placed under the residuary classification. SBR Latex is therefore covered by the specified entry for rubber and taxable at the corresponding rate rather than as unclassified goods.

Prospective operation of a notification amendment prevents its application to imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment commenced, unless retrospective effect is expressly provided. A later amendment therefore cannot be used to refuse consideration of provisional release for such goods. Provisional release must be considered under Section 110A on the legal framework applicable when the bills of lading were issued, and release may be granted subject to lawfully imposed conditions.

Refund claims for tax paid on licence fees and conservancy charges by an airport duty-free outlet could not be rejected solely as time-barred where binding Division Bench precedent in substantially similar circumstances required their processing. Revenue accepted the precedent's applicability. The High Court therefore set aside the limitation-based rejections and required processing of the claims with applicable interest.

Section 67 of the CGST Act permits searches of authorised premises, including an advocate's cabin, where the competent authority has material supporting reasons to believe. Advocate-client privilege protects professional communications according to their nature and circumstances, rather than every item in an advocate's possession; cloned data may be used only for material relevant to the investigated entity, subject to safeguards for privileged and unrelated client information. Ongoing-investigation records in sealed cover need not be disclosed where disclosure could prejudice the investigation. Search, summons and seizure do not require a prior show-cause notice or personal hearing. Administrative directions cannot curtail statutory search powers, and procedural departures invalidate a search only where a mandatory statutory requirement affecting authorisation or jurisdiction is breached.

GST search powers may extend to an advocate's cabin and electronic records within authorised premises where recorded reasons support statutory satisfaction; a pre-search hearing is not required. Advocate-client privilege protects client communications and confidentiality, but does not immunise an advocate's own conduct from investigation. Only cloned electronic data relevant to the investigation may be used, and unrelated client material must remain confidential. Sealed investigative records need not be disclosed while investigation continues because disclosure may expose its course and witness statements. Absence of a show cause notice at the investigation stage does not invalidate searches or summonses.

Dishonour of a cheque drawn on a bank that ceased to exist following its merger does not satisfy the statutory conditions for criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A cheque issued after the drawee bank's merger is invalid and incapable of being honoured because the named bank no longer exists independently. Its dishonour therefore does not constitute an offence under Section 138.

Form C concessional interstate-purchase eligibility may be restricted by excluding mining because the facility is a policy benefit rather than a vested right. Article 14 permits fiscal classifications based on an intelligible differentia rationally connected to the statutory objective, while fiscal measures carry a presumption of constitutionality and allow broad policy latitude. Mining was not shown to be similarly situated to industries retaining the concession, making industry-based differentiation reasonable. Higher operating costs and the absence of input tax credit do not independently establish constitutional invalidity. The amended provision therefore validly excludes mining from the concessional Form C facility.

Cash deposits during the demonetization period were restored for fresh consideration because the assessee did not appear to substantiate the grounds raised. After considering the facts, circumstances and those grounds, the impugned appellate order was set aside and the issue remitted to the first appellate authority for a fresh decision in the interest of justice.

Kachha arhatiya acting solely as an agent reports only commission income; sales made for principals are not its turnover. Where receipts and corresponding TDS, including tax deducted on purchases, appear in Form 26AS and the return contains no identified deficiency, TDS credit remains available despite commission-only income disclosure. GST invoices issued to buyers do not change the income-tax character of agency sales. Proportionate reversal of TDS credit under Rule 37BA is therefore not warranted, and the return should allow the claimed credit.

Section 153A applies to the searched person where seized material warrants inquiry, whereas section 153C concerns material belonging or relating to another person. Remission of a trading liability requires a benefit to the same assessee from a liability previously allowed as a deduction; a joint-venture loan that remains outstanding and is confirmed by the lender does not establish an individual taxable receipt. For completed assessments, additions require material proving undisclosed individual income. Unexplained-investment liability requires proof of the individual's unrecorded investment and an unsatisfactory source explanation. Dealings recorded by a separately assessed company cannot be attributed to its director without evidence of personal payment or investment.

Section 153A assessments are not confined to incriminating material where the period for issuing notice under section 143(2) remained open on the search date, because the assessment was not concluded. Land qualifies as a capital asset when it falls within municipal limits or when agricultural use is not established; the taxpayer bears the burden of proving exclusion as agricultural land. Recorded material may substantiate a cash-source explanation, but prior cash balances and alleged availability with another firm require reliable supporting evidence. Accordingly, the additions for land-sale gains and unsupported cash remained sustainable.

Revision under Section 263 was unsustainable where the apparent share-count mismatch arose from comparing shares issued during the relevant year with cumulative shareholding, and financial records and shareholder particulars substantiated the explanation. Verification of share capital was therefore not deficient on that basis. A direction concerning share premium also could not support revision because it was absent from the show-cause notice and introduced only in the revisionary order. Although revisionary jurisdiction may extend beyond the notice's exact terms, each ground ultimately relied upon requires full notice and opportunity to respond. The original assessment could not be disturbed on either ground.

Revision under section 263 is unsustainable where scrutiny assessment records establish that the Assessing Officer examined the taxpayer's business model, cash deposits, related expenses and e-wallet or recharge transactions. Cash deposits supported by bank records, service-provider accounts and disclosed commission income, and remitted through banking channels for recharge services, do not render the assessment erroneous merely because some agreements lack signatures. Where the Assessing Officer has applied mind to relevant material and adopted a sustainable view, the assessment is not both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests. The revisionary order was therefore set aside.