Internal comparables derived from audited segmental accounts should be preferred to external comparables under the Transactional Net Margin Method when they are available and suitable for determining the arm's length price. Reliability depends on sales being allocated using actual invoice-level data, common expenses being apportioned on a rational basis, and the allocation methodology being supported by chartered accountant certification. Where these conditions are satisfied and the supporting factual findings are not perverse, internal comparables support deletion of an upward transfer-pricing adjustment.

Transfer-pricing comparables may be screened through a rational turnover filter where differences in scale materially affect pricing. Selection must consider functions, assets, risks and material turnover differences. A software-product developer that owns intellectual property or develops and markets products is functionally distinct from a captive software-development service provider and should be excluded from its comparable set. Where the transfer-pricing officer has completed the comparability analysis, directions excluding specified entities require effect to be given to those exclusions only; they do not require a fresh arm's-length-price or comparability exercise.

Reassessment proceedings based on discrepancies between Risk Management Strategy portal figures and earlier assessment and payee records require disclosure of information necessary for reconciliation at the inquiry stage under Sections 148A(1) and 148A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where the relevant details were not supplied and the inquiry remained limited, the matter must return to the notice stage, allowing an additional response and personal hearing before a fresh order. The correctness and legality of initiating reassessment proceedings remain open.

Statutory limitation governing GST detention penalties requires the proper officer to issue a penalty notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass the penalty order within seven days after service of that notice. The mandatory wording, fiscal nature of the law and coercive consequences of detention and penalty require strict compliance. Where undisputed record dates establish that the order was made substantially beyond the prescribed period, a limitation objection may be raised without being treated as an impermissible new ground. The delayed penalty order is time-barred, illegal and without jurisdiction.

Revisionary proceedings under the Karnataka State GST Act remain within the three-year limitation period after excluding the pandemic-related period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022, which applies to judicial, quasi-judicial and departmental proceedings. Penalty for movement of goods was restored because the goods were unloaded at a location not covered by the available tax invoice and e-way bill. Required delivery documents were generated only after interception, and the asserted technical glitch was unsupported by evidence. These circumstances established a wilful attempt to evade tax rather than a minor procedural lapse, leaving the statutory penalty operative.

Section 129(3) mandates issuance of a penalty order within seven days of service of notice. In fiscal matters, this statutory timeline requires strict compliance. Failure to issue the order within that period, including a delay of 445 days after notice, vitiates the detention and penalty proceedings. Such a penalty order is void ab initio and a nullity, and an appellate order affirming it cannot stand.

Unaccounted or excess goods discovered during a GST survey must be dealt with through tax determination provisions, rather than confiscation proceedings, where prescribed accounts have not been maintained. Tax on such goods is to be determined under the applicable demand provisions. A fine imposed through confiscation proceedings cannot survive independently once the underlying confiscation proceedings and associated penalty have been set aside. Accordingly, restoration of the fine alone is not maintainable after the foundational proceedings fail.

The prescribed monetary threshold of Rs. 20 lakh under the Uttar Pradesh GST framework restricts departmental appeals involving lower disputed tax amounts. Such an appeal is not maintainable for admission unless the Revenue establishes a recognised exception to the threshold. General approval or authorisation by the Commissioner does not, by itself, demonstrate compliance with an exception where the record lacks a specific and reasoned exercise of residual power under section 112(3). The statutory right of appeal remains subject to the binding monetary-limit framework governing departmental litigation.

Departmental GST appeals are subject to prescribed monetary limits under the statutory litigation-management framework. In penalty-only disputes, the relevant amount is the penalty imposed. A departmental appeal below the applicable threshold is not maintainable unless the Revenue pleads and establishes a recognised exception. Commissioner approval or authorisation alone does not satisfy that requirement. Where reliance is placed on a residual exception, the Revenue must produce material demonstrating a specific recorded exercise of discretion. Failure to meet the threshold condition cannot be cured by examining the merits of the underlying dispute.

Departmental GST appeals are subject to the Rs. 20,00,000 monetary threshold prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh GST litigation policy authorised by section 120. Where tax is disputed, the aggregate tax demand determines threshold applicability; a Rs. 1,90,080 demand falls below it. Revenue may proceed only by specifically substantiating a prescribed exception. Commissioner approval under section 112(3), without a recorded, case-specific and reasoned exercise of residual discretion, does not establish such an exception. Compliance is a threshold condition for admission and maintainability, so a below-threshold departmental challenge cannot be examined on merits; the underlying tax dispute remains undecided.

The amended Rule 89(5) GST refund formula, including input tax credit on input services, is treated as curative and applicable to timely refund or rectification applications for earlier tax periods, despite a contrary departmental circular. Supplementary or differential refund claims remain maintainable where substantive eligibility and quantum require verification; neither Section 54 nor Rule 89 bars them merely because an original claim was processed. A later notification cannot, through an administrative circular, deny refund of otherwise eligible input tax credit accumulated before its effective date. The notified exclusion from limitation computation keeps the claims timely, and eligible differential refunds remain subject to arithmetical verification.

Anti-profiteering calculations under the CGST framework require the benefit of net available input tax credit to be passed to recipients through commensurate price reductions. Unutilised input tax credit that has been reversed is excluded when determining the additional credit benefit and any amount required to be returned. Amounts not passed on must be returned to eligible recipients with interest at 18% from collection until repayment. The penalty provision for anti-profiteering applies only from its commencement and cannot be imposed for conduct occurring before that date. Liability for the earlier period is therefore limited to restitution of the net credit benefit and statutory interest.

Section 171 of the CGST Act requires suppliers to pass a GST-rate reduction to recipients through a commensurate price reduction. For cinema tickets, retaining tax-inclusive prices after the GST rate fell from 18% to 12% by increasing base prices prevented the tax benefit from reaching customers. Film-specific demand, weekends, holidays and ticket-price ranges do not displace that statutory obligation. In the absence of cogent evidence supporting higher base prices or challenging the calculation methodology, the supplier's pricing treatment amounted to anti-profiteering for the investigated period.

Section 171(1) requires suppliers to pass on GST rate reductions through commensurate price reductions. For cinema admissions, a State-prescribed maximum fare does not prevent a lower price and cannot justify retaining the former cum-tax price by increasing the base price; this retains the tax benefit and results in unjust enrichment. Where recipients are unidentifiable, the profiteered amount, with applicable interest, is deposited equally in Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds. Cost elements unrelated to the GST rate reduction do not determine pass-through. A penalty provision effective from 1 January 2020 does not apply retrospectively to earlier profiteering.

Section 171 of the CGST Act applies only where a GST-rate reduction or input tax credit creates an actual benefit that must be passed on through a commensurate price reduction. For a housing project commenced after GST implementation, no pre-GST sales or CENVAT-credit baseline existed for comparison. Alleged excess GST collection from affordable-apartment buyers, despite GST being deposited at the applicable rate and a lower amount being charged, does not represent a benefit from a rate reduction or input tax credit. It is therefore outside the anti-profiteering computation, and the quantified profiteering amount is unsustainable.

Pre-1 October 2021 GST classification of cinematographic-film copyright licensing turns on the essential character of the supply, not its electronic or physical delivery mode. A passive audio-visual film lacks the statutory attributes of manipulability or user interactivity required for information technology software; licensing rights to broadcast and show original films therefore falls within intellectual-property rights in goods other than information technology software, attracting the lower rate. The acknowledged classification overlap for theatrical-rights licensing is regularised on an as-is-where-is basis throughout the exploitation chain, including producer-to-distributor licensing. Article 226 intervention remains available for jurisdictional errors or pure legal questions without disputed facts.

Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 ceased to govern pending export refund claims upon its omission because no savings or sunset clause preserved its operation. A prospective recommendation to omit the rule could not independently sustain its application after omission. Consequently, pending refund proceedings remained outside Rule 96(10), and the existing refund direction was unaffected.

Reversal of the sole precedent supporting a writ order removes the legal basis for that relief. Where substantive challenges to a show-cause notice were not adjudicated because relief rested exclusively on the reversed precedent, those grounds remain for determination by the Single Judge. The writ order therefore cannot continue solely on its former basis.

Discretionary bail in a prosecution alleging fraudulent invoice issuance and wrongful availment and passing of input tax credit was considered appropriate after investigation had concluded, the charge sheet had been filed, and the accused had spent time in judicial custody. The allegations involved a network of entities issuing invoices without underlying supplies and generating inadmissible input tax credit. Release on bail was consequently considered warranted on the stated facts and circumstances.

Coercive steps to compel discharge of alleged GST liability cannot be taken during a continuing inspection or search pending further consideration. Interim protection applies where the investigation and allegations of pressure to pay require adherence to applicable investigation guidelines. Normal business activities may continue during the inspection or search until the returnable date, while the writ petition remains pending.