Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) requires assessment of whether the arm's length price was determined under Section 92C and whether the taxpayer acted in good faith and with due diligence. Use of the transactional net margin method, coupled with disclosure of filters, comparables and operating-margin computations in a transfer-pricing study, supports compliance where no finding establishes a departure from the statutory framework or lack of good faith. Methodological differences over the profit-level indicator or treatment of operating items, without false or inaccurate particulars, do not sustain a transfer-pricing penalty.

Reassessment proceedings cannot rest solely on unverified Insight portal information where the notice and order disclose no transaction or material linking the alleged escaped income to the assessee. Reuse of the same alleged amount in proceedings against multiple ceramic dealers, without supplying or independently verifying the underlying material, did not establish the required nexus or application of mind. A roving and fishing inquiry cannot justify reassessment. The High Court quashed the reassessment notice and the order treating issuance of notice as a fit case.

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Explanation 2(a) applies where an order is passed without inquiries or verification that should have been undertaken. Where the Assessing Officer called for and examined books of account, bank statements, lender details, confirmations, balance sheets and returns concerning unsecured loans, the absence of detailed discussion in the assessment order does not by itself establish lack of inquiry or non-application of mind. Revision is not sustainable merely because further inquiry or a different view is preferred.

Clean-slate going-concern sales in liquidation extinguish prior liabilities and investigations, preventing reassessment from being founded on those historical liabilities. Reopening for alleged cessation of interest liability requires a factual basis: where interest was not claimed as a deduction and the liability has not ceased, the alleged escapement of income lacks support. Reassessment proceedings must also remain confined to grounds stated in the show cause notice; introducing bogus-purchase allegations only in the subsequent order denies an opportunity to respond, breaches natural justice, and indicates non-application of mind. These principles support invalidation of the reassessment.

Statutorily mandated subsidised canteen facilities provided under an employer-employee arrangement do not constitute a taxable supply when employee deductions represent meal charges under the employer's canteen policy. The employment-perquisite exclusion applies where canteen provision is compulsory under applicable factory or employment legislation, so GST does not apply to employee recoveries. Input tax credit for canteen services remains available where provision of the facility is legally obligatory, but only for the cost borne by the employer. Credit attributable to the portion recovered from employees is blocked.

Expired e-way bills, without evidence of tax evasion or discrepancies in the goods, did not justify detention, tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Section 129 addresses contraventions during transportation, while Rule 138(10) prescribes e-way bill validity. The consignment was supported by invoices, lorry receipt, e-way bills and a test certificate, and physical verification found no discrepancy. The sole defect arose from expiry caused by an incorrect destination entry. The distinction between substantive contraventions and minor procedural lapses supported setting aside the integrated tax and penalty.

Overlapping GST demands concerning blocked input tax credit, commission income and reverse-charge freight require fresh determination where the taxpayer asserts that substantially identical liabilities were earlier confirmed and discharged. The impugned assessment was quashed and remitted for adjudication on merits after deposit of the interest and penalty imposed under the earlier assessment, with notice to the taxpayer.

Section 75(7) of the UP GST and CGST Acts prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming tax or penalty beyond the amount proposed in the show-cause notice. Confirmation of a penalty exceeding the notice amount is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the adjudication order invalid. The order was set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication after the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing.

Statutory stay of recovery following payment of required appellate pre-deposits raises the issue whether recovery from the electronic cash ledger may continue and whether any amount exceeds the cumulative pre-deposit. The High Court directed the competent authority to independently verify compliance with pre-deposit requirements and determine the claim for recredit or refund. The representation must be decided by a reasoned order after granting a personal hearing, with recredit or refund of any excess recovery found due.

Sections 75(4) and 75(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse determination. Fixing the personal hearing under a show-cause notice before expiry of the deadline for filing a reply deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond to the proposed demand and seek a hearing. Such premature scheduling breaches the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting adjudication and appellate orders invalid.

Construction contracts for road works provided for GST at 12% in addition for the earlier financial years, while the later agreement provided for GST according to applicable rules. The contractor sought reimbursement of GST deposited in respect of completed works, alleging that the contractual GST component had not been paid. Representations seeking reimbursement require consideration and disposal in accordance with law by the Executive Engineer within the prescribed timeframe.

Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act requires transfer-pricing determinations to demonstrate due consideration of the assessee's submissions and to record reasons supporting the determination. Consideration of written replies alone is insufficient where the order neither identifies the contentions considered nor provides supporting reasons. Failure to afford a personal hearing, where required, also undermines the validity of the determination. An unreasoned transfer-pricing order issued without a personal hearing cannot be sustained and must be redetermined through a reasoned order after affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law.

Real-estate anti-profiteering calculations should measure incremental GST input tax credit actually availed at project level, determine total savings against project expenditure, and allocate a uniform benefit per square foot across the project area rather than compare credit with turnover or buyer collections. Unavailed pre-GST CENVAT credit on input services cannot notionally reduce post-GST benefits because it did not reduce the earlier tax incidence. GST collected on enhanced consideration forms part of the recoverable profiteered amount, and statutory interest applies. The resulting project-specific benefit must be passed to affected recipients.

Project-level anti-profiteering computation measures additional ITC against project expenditure, allocates the resulting saving per square foot across the project and sold area, and does not use purchase value as a turnover proxy. Only tax credit actually availed is relevant to the supplier's economic benefit; unavailed pre-GST CENVAT credit cannot notionally offset post-GST ITC, including credit on input services. GST collected on price increases arising from profiteering forms part of the benefit to be passed to homebuyers, with interest payable under the statutory scheme. Writ review does not replace specialised fact-based computations absent non-consideration of material submissions or manifest legal or jurisdictional error.

Natural justice in transfer-pricing proceedings requires a personal hearing, reasoned findings, and meaningful consideration of written submissions. Although the transfer-pricing order recorded that written replies had been considered, it neither disclosed that a personal hearing was granted nor addressed the contentions raised. The cryptic and unreasoned order was set aside, with directions for a fresh reasoned determination after a personal hearing. The time for completing the assessment was extended.

Effective opportunity of personal hearing in GST adjudication requires that the hearing be scheduled after expiry of the deadline for replying to the show-cause notice. Scheduling it earlier makes the hearing illusory because the taxpayer cannot first submit the permitted response, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. Adjudication and appellate orders passed in these circumstances were quashed, with fresh proceedings to recommence from the show-cause notice stage after allowing a reply and then fixing a personal hearing.

Statutory stay of the balance GST demand applies once the prescribed cumulative appellate pre-deposits are paid under the GST enactment. The High Court did not determine whether the required deposits had actually been made or whether recovery from the Electronic Cash Ledger exceeded those deposits. It directed independent consideration of the taxpayer's representation after a personal hearing and required a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period. Any recovery found to exceed the cumulative statutory pre-deposits must be refunded or recredited. The underlying merits of the GST demand remain open.

Section 75(7) of the GST law prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming a tax demand or penalty exceeding the amounts proposed in the show cause notice. This statutory restriction is mandatory, and any adjudication order exceeding the proposed demand is without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Fresh GST adjudication was required where the taxpayer asserted that tax liability had already been discharged and that the final demand components overlapped with an assessment by the jurisdictional officer. The assessment was quashed and remitted for a fresh merits decision after notice, conditional on deposit of interest and penalty imposed in the earlier jurisdictional assessment. Failure to make that deposit permitted recovery in accordance with law.

Expiry of an e-way bill, without more, does not justify detention, integrated tax, or penalty under section 129 where the consignment is accompanied by tax invoices and supporting documents, physical verification reveals no discrepancy, and no tax evasion is found. Board instructions distinguish minor procedural lapses from substantive breaches. The explanation for failure to extend e-way bill validity requires consideration, and intention to evade tax remains relevant. On these facts, invoking section 129 solely for expired e-way bills was unjustified, and the resulting tax and penalty demand was set aside.