Section 129(3) detention and penalty provisions should not be applied solely because an e-way bill has expired where invoices and transport documents are accurate. An unrebutted vehicle breakdown, coupled with no independent enquiry, does not support an adverse inference that goods were moved to evade tax. In these circumstances, expiry alone does not establish intent to evade tax, and detention, consequential tax and penalty cannot be sustained; deposited amounts are refundable in accordance with law.

Proper-officer functions under the CGST Act may be assigned by circular to Central Tax Officers already appointed under a statutory notification, including demand-related functions allocated by monetary limits. Such assignment does not constitute delegation requiring a separate notification. Challenges to the circulars and to the officer's competence on that basis were rejected. A writ challenge to a GST demand order should ordinarily not proceed where an effective statutory appeal is available, unless a recognised exception applies. Where the authority considered the defence, examined documents and granted a personal hearing, reassessment of disputed material lies with the appellate authority. The demand challenge was therefore directed to the statutory appeal, with limitation protection for filing within 30 days.

GST refund provisions for unutilised input tax credit do not restrict refund applications to suppliers making supplies to SEZ units. The relevant refund rule identifies suppliers as one category of applicants but does not exclude an SEZ unit from claiming its own refund. Reading such a restriction into the statutory scheme would impermissibly add a limiting condition. SEZ units are therefore entitled to have eligible refund claims processed under the GST refund framework, and orders rejecting the claim on that restrictive basis were set aside.

Entry 27 exempts services of extending deposits, loans or advances where consideration is represented by interest or discount, except interest in credit-card services; qualifying interest recovery is therefore exempt from GST. A taxpayer claiming that turnover reported in one State actually comprised exempt interest attributable to another State must prove that assertion through cogent documentary evidence. Form GSTR-09C and a Chartered Accountant's certificate without disclosed findings or identifiable documentary support do not discharge that burden. Failure to provide supporting evidence permits an adverse inference, leaving the disputed turnover unestablished as exempt interest and resulting in rejection of the claim.

GST exemption under Notification No. 12/2017 may apply to recovery of amounts under written-off housing loan accounts. As a statutory notification has force of law, its applicability constitutes a pure question of law capable of being raised at the appellate stage. Entry 27 covers services by way of extending loans, while entitlement to exemption for a particular recovery depends on cogent proof that it arose from a written-off housing loan in the relevant financial year. Certified banker's books are admissible as prima facie evidence, but supporting loan write-off records are required. A cross-objection is unnecessary where the respondent has received complete relief and may operate as a reply. Factual applicability remains for determination after consideration of the records.

Section 74 tax determinations based on suppression of facts require service of a statutory show cause notice and consideration of the taxpayer's representation. The notice must specify the demand, foundational facts and necessary particulars so the taxpayer can respond effectively. GST DRC forms or other communications cannot substitute for the statutory notice. Determining a demand without serving such notice denies the taxpayer knowledge of the allegations and an effective opportunity of representation, vitiating the proceedings; the first appellate order was set aside and the appeal allowed.

GST law does not require a transporter to declare or follow a particular route. Transporting goods by a longer route for logistical safety reasons, while carrying valid documents, does not establish mala fide intent to evade tax without material showing an intended diversion or other tax evasion. Route-based obligations under earlier VAT regimes do not apply under the GST Acts or Rules. Accordingly, detention of goods and penalty under section 129 were unsustainable solely because a longer route was used; the detention-penalty orders were quashed and refund of the penalty paid under protest was directed in accordance with law.

Statutory pre-deposit for a Tribunal appeal must be assessed against the disputed tax remaining after the first appellate authority reduces the tax demand. The deposit made at the first appellate stage represents a prescribed portion of the dispute, not payment of a separate liability. No further pre-deposit under section 112(8) is required where the amount already deposited equals or exceeds the aggregate prescribed percentage of the surviving disputed tax. Requiring an additional deposit in those circumstances would mechanically duplicate the pre-deposit obligation and produce an anomalous, unworkable result.

Rule 138 permits extension of an e-way bill only within eight hours after expiry and does not authorise a fresh e-way bill on the same invoice. A second bill generated after expiry may be treated as fraudulent where the claimed vehicle breakdown, repair, and subsequent goods movement lack reliable evidence. Unexplained delay, a different loading location, and modification of invoice details to generate another bill are indicators supporting an inference of intent to evade tax on a preponderance of probabilities. Such transportation may attract penalty under section 129.

Student-enrolment services supplied to overseas universities are intermediary services where the Indian representative facilitates the university's educational supply to prospective students rather than providing courses or instruction on its own account. Representative status, restricted authority, commission disclosure, and remuneration linked to enrolment and fee receipt support that classification. Until 29 March 2026, the special intermediary place-of-supply rule placed the supply in India, preventing export treatment. From 30 March 2026, omission of that rule applies the general recipient-location rule, causing the services to satisfy the export requirement.

Health insurance services supplied under MEDISEP Phase-II to Clause A beneficiaries qualify for GST exemption where the State Government pays the entire premium under the insurance scheme. The State Government is the recipient of the insurance service because it alone bears the premium liability; employees, pensioners and family members remain insured beneficiaries without changing that status. The exemption under Sl. No. 40 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not conditional on the Government being the insured person or receiving insurance benefits. Premium received for this exempt supply is not taxable, subject to continued full Government payment. The position excludes Clause B beneficiaries.

Turmeric Extract / Curcuma Elixir, sold for direct human consumption as a general wellness nutraceutical or dietary supplement, falls under Heading 2106 as a food preparation. Classification follows primary function, essential character, common parlance and consumer perception, rather than medicinal qualities of ingredients; products intended for general well-being without specific therapeutic claims or drug recognition are not medicaments. The water-based product was also outside Chapter 33 because it contained no extracted essential oil and was not aromatic or intended for perfumery, cosmetics or flavouring. GST applied at 18% until revision and 5% from 22 September 2025. MRP does not affect classification or rate unless a rate notification makes it conditional on a value threshold.

Section 260-A permits a High Court appeal only where a substantial question of law arises; it does not allow reappreciation of evidence or replacement of concurrent factual findings. Concurrent findings that road and infrastructure works qualified the assessee as a developer eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4) were based on the record, with no perversity or erroneous legal test shown. Reliance on a previously confirmed Tribunal order and dismissal of a similar appeal for another assessment year did not create a substantial question of law. The Department's appeal was dismissed.

Additional evidence before the Tribunal may be filed under Rule 18(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 through a separate paper book supported by an application explaining the reasons. The High Court upheld admission of records retrieved after loss, damage or soiling, particularly because the Assessing Officer had incorrectly recorded that no material was produced. The Tribunal's findings on unexplained cash credits and trading liabilities were based on confirmations, transaction details, tax-deduction certificates, books of account and bank records. As reasoned factual findings disclosed no perversity, no substantial question of law arose and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Article 24(2) of the India-Netherlands DTAA does not entitle an Indian permanent establishment of a Netherlands bank to domestic-company tax rates where it remains a foreign company; the section 90 Explanation treats a higher foreign-company rate as non-discriminatory. Article 7's separate-enterprise fiction requires consistent treatment: interest remitted by an Indian PE to its overseas head office or branches is taxable in India, requires withholding, and is disallowed if withholding fails; interest received from them is taxable PE business income. ATMs qualify as computers for depreciation based on functional utility. Accounting Standard 19 does not govern tax characterisation; vehicle hiring payments remain deductible revenue expenditure absent an intention to acquire ownership.

Revisionary jurisdiction applies where a reassessment accepts non-taxability of accumulated interest without necessary inquiry or application of governing provisions, rendering it erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests and permitting fresh determination. Premature conversion of zero-coupon debentures into equity shares of ascertainable value can constitute constructive receipt of accumulated interest even under cash-basis accounting. Claiming tax-deducted-at-source credit for that interest is inconsistent with denying the underlying income. The capital-gains exclusion for conversion does not exempt embedded interest from taxation; once taxed, the interest forms part of the shares' cost basis, preventing double taxation on sale.

Electronic evidence lacking valid certification, proven device control, seizure records, chain of custody, hash value or corroboration cannot support income-tax additions. Digital ledger entries representing dummy, contra, adjustment or opening balances, without proof of actual receipt, do not justify unexplained-credit additions; unauthenticated WhatsApp chats alone likewise cannot establish unexplained money. Routine leased-premises repairs and annual software upgrades are revenue expenditure, whereas multi-period licence costs require apportionment under accrual and matching principles. Post-search assessments for covered preceding years must follow the prescribed reassessment procedure; use of regular scrutiny assessment is jurisdictionally defective.

Specified-violation provisions for cancellation of trust registration apply prospectively from 1 April 2022; conduct preceding that date cannot support retrospective cancellation on that basis. Cancellation requires identification of the applicable statutory trigger and precise violation, an inquiry reaching satisfaction, and a meaningful opportunity to respond; a notice broadly combining cancellation and exemption-disallowance provisions is insufficient. Jurisdiction transferred under section 127 extends to all proceedings and permits cancellation by a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Alleged benefits to specified persons may affect exemption or tax diverted income but, unless they fall within a specified violation, do not alone justify cancellation. Retracted and uncorroborated evidence requires proper examination and cross-examination.

Section 80IA/80IB deductions were available to a new hydraulic power steering gear undertaking that operated as an integrated, independent manufacturing unit and commenced production before the statutory cut-off. Separate premises, new machinery, capital, workforce, power load, production, accounts, sales and excise records supported its independent character; subsequent machinery additions merely increased capacity. Initial-year eligibility continued through consecutive eligible years where no material facts changed. Depreciation was allowable for machinery installed and kept ready for business use, as passive use satisfies the business-use requirement where contrary evidence is absent. Deductions and depreciation were allowed for the relevant years.

Recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during assessment is required before penalty proceedings under section 271D can be initiated for cash receipt of immovable-property sale consideration. Where jurisdictionally binding precedent requires this satisfaction, a contrary Tribunal view based on law binding in another jurisdiction does not govern. When High Court interpretations diverge, the interpretation favourable to the assessee applies. On that basis, deletion of the penalty was sustained, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection became infructuous.