Pending replies to show-cause notices proposing cancellation of GST registration require prompt consideration by the tax authorities. Where the request is limited to an early decision on an already filed reply, the underlying allegations supporting proposed cancellation remain undecided. The authorities were directed to consider and decide the reply expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.

Restoration of a statutory GST appeal against cancellation of registration was addressed through a High Court precedent. The writ petition was disposed of on the same terms as that precedent, reopening the appellate remedy. The appeal is to be considered on its merits rather than dismissed as time-barred.

GST registration may be cancelled for failure to furnish returns for the stipulated continuous period after an opportunity of hearing. Cancellation taking effect from a date within the period of default is not retrospective in the strict sense; however, an earlier effective date requires objective, valid reasons. A separate notice on the effective cancellation date is unnecessary where notice of the underlying non-compliances has been issued. GST appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the statutory maximum period. Writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily bypass that limitation, except in exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction or a complete breach of natural justice.

Entry 23A of Notification No. 12/2017 exempts services of providing access to a road or bridge against annuity under Heading 9967; it does not exempt road construction, design, operation and maintenance supplied as works-contract services under Heading 9954. Deferred annuity payments under a road concession agreement may therefore constitute taxable consideration where they represent the unpaid balance of project costs. Clarificatory circulars may state the applicable statutory position and guide implementation. Taxability depends on the notification and the actual nature of the supply, while an earlier advance ruling based on an erroneous understanding does not bind implementing authorities after legal clarification.

Regular bail was granted to a transporter accused of facilitating clandestine transport of goods without invoices and e-way bills under the CGST Act. No GST liability had been computed or determined against the transporter, who was neither the manufacturer nor supplier of the goods. Considering this, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and the likely duration of trial, bail was considered appropriate without addressing the merits. Release was made subject to the bond and surety conditions fixed by the trial court.

Psyllium seeds (Isabgol) supplied as raw material to processing units fall under tariff sub-heading 1211 90 13, as the tariff entry and HSN Notes specifically cover Psyllium seeds. Exemption for fresh or chilled goods depends on the condition of the seeds at the time of supply. Storage in dry, ventilated godowns, without information on storage duration, gives the seeds a dried character; they therefore cannot be treated as fresh or chilled. The specific exemption for fresh or chilled goods and the alternative exemption for goods of seed quality are unavailable. Dried Psyllium seeds are liable to GST at 5%.

Centralisation of assessment proceedings for administrative convenience and coordinated investigation was unwarranted after completion of the searched person's assessment. Transfer of the petitioner's assessment to Nashik no longer served the stated purpose of coordinating investigation within the searched group. The transfer orders were quashed, and assessment was directed to proceed in Mumbai under the appropriate charge. The merits of the assessment proceedings and all parties' rights and contentions remained open.

Condonation of delay in the Revenue's income-tax appeal depends on whether sufficient cause is shown through a bona fide and adequately explained process, rather than on the length of delay alone. Departmental scrutiny, approvals, record collection and preparation of the appeal memorandum may constitute sufficient cause where the explanation is not specifically denied or shown to be non-existent. Handwritten dates in an otherwise standard-form delay application do not by themselves establish that the explanation is stereotyped or unreliable when the application materially accounts for the delay. On these facts, the departmental procedural delay was treated as bona fide, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was directed for admission processing.

Transfer-pricing method selection between the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method and the Transactional Net Margin Method is primarily a fact-based benchmarking issue. The Tribunal's acceptance of TNMM as the most appropriate method was treated as sustainable where it was not perverse or contrary to the record. Mere disagreement over the appropriate method does not create a substantial question of law under section 260A unless the selected method contravenes prescribed rules. Differences between associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions were also considered within the benchmarking analysis. The tax appeals were dismissed because the transfer-pricing questions raised no substantial question of law.

Reopening after four years requires fresh tangible material and satisfaction of the proviso to section 147; a reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion. Audit objections led the Assessing Officer to re-examine balance-sheet documents and records already available during the original assessment, without new evidence or information indicating escaped income. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction. High Court found no substantial question of law, affirming that the Assessing Officer could not reopen the assessment solely through reappraisal of existing material beyond the four-year period.

TDS credit must be considered where tax was actually deducted from a deductee's income or payment but was not remitted by the deductor. The statutory bar on recovering such tax from the deductee operates once actual deduction is established, preventing double recovery while permitting action against the defaulting deductor. Absence of Form 16, Form 16A or Form 26AS is not conclusive where the deductor has failed to deposit or report TDS. Deductees may rely on cogent evidence, including salary slips, bank records, invoices, payment advices, ledgers, correspondence or insolvency claims. Prima facie claims require factual verification rather than mechanical rejection, with related demands kept in abeyance pending determination.

Depreciation is allowable on acquired rights to use a brand name and on an acquired marketing and distribution network where those rights form part of the opening written-down value of the relevant intangible-asset block. Section 32(1)(ii) covers trade marks, licences, franchises and other business or commercial rights of similar nature, a scope broad enough to include these acquired intangible assets. The treatment of goodwill as a comparable business or commercial right supports this interpretation. The depreciation claim was therefore sustained for the relevant assessment year.

Ind AS book entries do not independently determine taxable income, which must be computed under the Act and applicable ICDS. Notional security-deposit amortisation and deferred royalty recognition did not create taxable income where no real accrual occurred or consideration had already been taxed; related additions were deleted. EPCG duty benefits were governed by the statutory actual-cost treatment rather than Ind AS grant presentation, and the addition was deleted. ICDS IX capitalisation differences did not establish double deduction without evidence. Transferable development-right cost, leave provision and gift expenditure required verification or fresh adjudication. Weighted R&D deduction remained available where the facility was approved, despite the prescribed authority not issuing Form 3CL.

Transferable development rights received in exchange for surrendering land and building to a municipal authority have an ascertainable cost of acquisition: the cost attributable to the surrendered property. Their subsequent cash sale is therefore chargeable as capital gains, unlike self-generated development rights arising without transfer of an identified asset. Where a scrutiny notice merely identifies a refund claim for verification and does not specify limited scrutiny, the assessment may extend to the taxability of such rights. Non-taxation of similar receipts in another taxpayer's assessment does not create parity or estoppel against correct application of tax law. Capital gains must be recomputed after allowing the attributable acquisition cost.

Dividend distribution tax on dividends paid to a Netherlands-resident shareholder raises the question whether the lower India-Netherlands DTAA rate overrides the domestic rate under Section 115-O. Although High Court authority supported treaty-rate application, the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, which had advised High Courts to consider stays in matters involving the same controversy. Applying judicial discipline, the Tribunal declined to decide the treaty-rate claim pending Supreme Court adjudication. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication in line with the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

Jurisdictional objections in reassessment, including a notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee and alleged procedural non-compliance, must be addressed before merits where they could invalidate the reassessment. Section 250(6) requires the appellate authority to identify each point for determination, record its decision and provide reasons; a general reference to the assessment order does not constitute ground-wise reasoned adjudication. The authority's power to set aside a best-judgment assessment does not remove this obligation. Jurisdictional and legal grounds should be decided through a speaking order before additions are examined on merits, which arise only if the reassessment is valid.

Domestic companies with turnover below the prescribed threshold are subject to the 25% corporate tax rate fixed by the Finance Act applicable to the relevant assessment year. An incorrect reference to section 115BA in the return does not justify applying the higher 30% rate where the company otherwise qualifies for the concessional rate. The applicable statutory rate must be applied to returned income, and the benefit is not denied solely because a revised return was not filed.

Faceless reassessment jurisdiction under section 144B, read with CBDT directions extending faceless assessment to reassessments under section 147, permits both NaFAC and the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to conduct such proceedings. A reassessment completed by NaFAC before notification under section 151A remained valid because it was founded on the existing faceless-assessment mandate, the relevant limitation exclusion did not apply, and subsequent validation supported issuance of reassessment notices by officers other than NaFAC. However, where reassessment was completed ex parte and non-participation was attributed to longstanding mental illness, natural justice required a reasonable opportunity to submit evidence. The additions were remanded for fresh appellate adjudication after three effective opportunities.

Section 80P deduction for a milk co-operative is confined to profits from the specified milk-supply business. Interest on an income-tax refund derives from the statutory compensation for excess tax retention, not that business, and is ineligible. Interest from commercial-bank deposits likewise neither arises from the specified business nor qualifies as investment income from another co-operative society. Interest and dividends from investments with co-operative societies may qualify independently of the primary business, subject to entity-wise verification of each investee's co-operative status. Contributions to an approved gratuity fund remain subject to the ordinary annual contribution limit under Rule 103. Interest for delayed TDS deposit is not business expenditure, and a challenge solely to penalty initiation for under-reporting is premature.

Enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE, increased from 30% to 60% by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, applies prospectively from 1 April 2017 where no retrospective operation is expressly provided. For unexplained income falling within section 69A in Financial Year 2016-17, tax is therefore computed at the pre-amendment rate, subject to applicable surcharge and cess. Cash deposited subsequently may be telescoped against cash surrendered during survey only after verifying that the surrendered cash and available cash balance existed on the deposit date and had not been used in the interim. No separate addition survives to the verified extent of such source availability.