Alternative statutory remedy under the GST appellate framework - violation of principles of natural justice - Maintainability of the writ petition challenging penalty proceedings and the appellate order when an appeal to the GST Tribunal was available - HELD THAT: - Interim order. Notice issued; the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal before the GSTAT without pre-deposit, subject to the outcome of the petition.... ... ...

Coercive recovery during an ongoing GST inspection or search, where payment is alleged to have been obtained through pressure, may be subject to interim safeguards. Normal business operations may continue pending further consideration, while tax authorities refrain from coercive steps to discharge the alleged liability. Investigation guidelines remain applicable throughout the inspection or search, providing the framework for conduct of the inquiry and protection against pressured payment pending notice.

Anti-profiteering under section 171 of the CGST Act requires a benefit arising from a GST rate reduction or additional input tax credit to be passed to recipients through a commensurate price reduction. For affordable apartments launched and booked after GST commenced, the agreed price already reflected applicable GST rates and no pre-GST CENVAT credit was available for comparison with post-GST input tax credit. Differential GST realisation from purchasers does not constitute a saving or profiteering benefit under section 171. A profiteering computation founded on alleged excess GST recovery was therefore rejected, as recovery of excess GST falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction; the excess amount was to be refunded in accordance with law.

GST rate reductions on cinema admission tickets must be passed to consumers through a commensurate price reduction, even where State rules prescribe maximum ticket prices. A maximum-price cap does not prevent lower pricing. Retaining cum-tax ticket prices while increasing the base price, without cogent justification and without challenging the computation, constituted failure to pass on the tax benefit; cost and market factors were immaterial. Where ticket recipients cannot be identified, the profiteered amount, with interest, is payable in equal shares to the Central and State Consumer Welfare Funds. An anti-profiteering penalty cannot be imposed retrospectively where the penalty provision entered into force after the investigated period.

Section 171 of the CGST Act requires suppliers to pass any GST-rate reduction to recipients through a commensurate reduction in prices. For cinema admission tickets, increased base prices and general commercial pricing considerations do not displace that obligation. A supplier must provide cogent evidence that the tax benefit reached viewers; failure to challenge the DGAP methodology or substantiate price increases supports a finding of non-passing. Non-reduction of first- and second-class ticket prices after the rate cut constituted contravention, requiring deposit of the profiteered amount with interest in consumer welfare funds; no penalty was imposed.

Anti-profiteering computation for construction services must account for GST input tax credit that remained unutilised and was subsequently reversed. The additional credit benefit attributable to eligible homebuyers requires a commensurate reduction in price and must be passed on, including applicable GST, with 18% interest from collection of the excess amount until repayment. Penalty for failure to pass on the benefit does not apply to the relevant period because the penalty provision came into force only after that period ended.

Curative and clarificatory amendment to the Rule 89(5) refund formula applies retrospectively to refund or rectification applications filed within the statutory period, including differential claims for pre-amendment periods under an inverted duty structure. An administrative circular treating the amendment as prospective cannot override the statutory refund entitlement. Supplementary refund claims are maintainable despite earlier adjudication of refunds for the same tax periods, provided the differential amount is otherwise admissible and claimed within the prescribed period. Eligible differential refunds remain subject to arithmetical verification.

Unaccounted bricks and coal found during survey are to be taxed by treating the goods as supplied and applying assessment provisions, rather than through confiscation proceedings and penalty for excess stock. Where the entire confiscation order, including penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation, has been quashed and that finding remains unchallenged, no separate basis survives to maintain or restore the fine. Revenue appeals limited to restoration of the fine were therefore dismissed.

Departmental GST appeals below the prescribed monetary limit require the Revenue to identify and establish a specified exception to the binding litigation-management policy. A bare assertion that the Commissioner approved an appeal does not establish a case-specific, reasoned exercise of residual discretion or satisfy conditions governing the right of appeal. Maintainability must be determined before tax merits. Without an established exception, an appeal below the threshold is not maintainable and the underlying tax merits are not examined.

Mandatory seven-day period for passing a detention penalty order after service of notice under section 129(3) is binding because of the term "shall". A penalty order issued after that period violates the statutory time limit and vitiates the detention penalty proceedings. Such an order is void from inception and a nullity; an appellate order affirming it must also be set aside, with consequential relief.

COVID-19 limitation exclusion applies to judicial, quasi-judicial and departmental proceedings, and must be excluded when calculating the period for exercising revisional powers where the statutory period overlaps that exclusion. For transport compliance, an e-way bill and tax invoice must cover the actual movement and destination of goods. Documents issued after detention do not cure the absence of destination-specific documentation at interception, particularly where no evidence supports a claimed technical glitch. Such undocumented third-party unloading may be treated as a wilful contravention intended to evade tax and may attract penalty under Section 129(1).

Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act imposes a mandatory seven-day period, measured from service of notice, for issuing a detention-penalty order concerning a transit-document discrepancy. The term "shall" requires strict compliance because the provision authorises coercive detention and seizure; the absence of an express consequence for delay does not make the limit directory. An order passed after the prescribed period is illegal and without jurisdiction, with consequential setting aside of the penalty and appellate orders and release of the bank guarantee.

Transfer-pricing comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method may apply a turnover ceiling where it rests on a rational and logical basis, despite no prescribed turnover filter. Comparable entities must be closely aligned in functions, assets and risks because enterprise size and significant turnover differences can affect pricing. A software-product developer that owns intellectual property or develops and markets products is functionally distinct from a captive software-development service provider developing solely for its associated enterprise. Where the final comparable set has been determined, remand may be confined to reconsideration of identified exclusions rather than requiring a wholly fresh arm's-length-price exercise.

Internal comparables under the transactional net margin method should generally be preferred to external comparables where audited segmental accounts reliably distinguish associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions. Segmental financials extracted from audited accounts may support arm's length price determination where a chartered accountant certifies both their mathematical accuracy and allocation on a generally accepted rational basis. A claim that segmental data were not maintained is unsustainable when the relevant segmental figures are demonstrably derived from audited accounts.

Section 152(3) preserves the pre-amendment reassessment regime for searches initiated from 1 April 2021 to 1 September 2024. Where information concerning an assessee arose from a third-party search within that transitional period, the former framework, including the relevant Explanation to section 148, remained applicable despite its omission. A direct reassessment notice under section 148 could therefore be issued without a prior notice under section 148A(b). The jurisdictional objection failed; the assessee could pursue the statutory appeal on the additions but could not reopen that jurisdictional issue.

Questions of law proposed in an appeal from a Tribunal's miscellaneous-application order must arise from that order, rather than from an unaltered finding in the original appellate order. Where the miscellaneous order only modified the terms of remand and left intact the finding that an accepted sale-and-purchase software transaction subject to arm's length price determination did not give rise to a dependent agent permanent establishment issue, challenges to that finding fell outside the appeal's scope. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while its right to challenge the original Tribunal order in accordance with law remained open.

Writ jurisdiction remained available despite a statutory appellate remedy because the disputed GST classification involved an apparent jurisdictional error of law without factual dispute; the non-functionality of the Tribunal when the petitions were filed also supported intervention. Licensing of copyright in cinematographic films by the original holder was classified as intellectual-property rights in goods other than information technology software: a passive audiovisual film lacks the computer-based manipulation or interactivity required for software, and its delivery method does not alter the supply's character. Pre-1 October 2021 GST regularisation at 12% on an "as is where is" basis extended to producer-to-distributor theatrical-rights licensing and could not be confined to downstream transactions, rendering the contrary classification and demands erroneous.

Selection of the most appropriate method for product replacement services supplied at nil sale price depends on the taxpayer's functional profile. Where the taxpayer acts only as a service provider and custodian of imported spares, without setting resale prices, selecting customers, or bearing attendant risks, TNMM applies rather than RPM for arm's-length price recomputation. Comparable selection for benchmarking those services is governed by settled transfer-pricing principles and does not raise a substantial question of law. The erstwhile five per cent tolerance range must be considered when recomputing the arm's-length price in accordance with applicable judicial principles.

Transfer-pricing studies for software development services cannot be rejected merely because comparability filters require modification when the taxpayer's functions, assets, risks, contractual terms, tested-party selection, databases and search keywords remain undisputed. Modified filters should instead be applied to the identified database, with the accept/reject matrix reviewed and functionally unsuitable comparables excluded before determining the arm's-length price. Interest on delayed associated-enterprise receivables is a separate international transaction where it is not aggregated with transactional net margin method margins after a working-capital adjustment; receivables and payables cannot be set off. The software-development arm's-length price and consequential delayed-receivables adjustment were restored for fresh consideration.

Transfer-pricing treatment of compulsorily convertible debentures turns on their legal status until actual conversion or redemption. Ind AS presentation of a component as equity within a compound financial instrument does not by itself change outstanding debentures from debt; interest remains allowable where reclassification is solely for financial-reporting purposes, subject to verification of conversion or redemption. Notional interest on delayed associated-enterprise receivables should not be imputed where comparable non-associated customers receive the same no-interest treatment and the taxpayer applies that practice consistently. The relevant principle is commercial uniformity across comparable transactions.