GST show cause notices initiate, rather than conclusively determine, tax liability. Statutory adjudication must consider the registered person's reply; recording the reply as unsatisfactory does not preclude independent examination of whether it received adequate consideration. Objections concerning audit findings, limitation, tax computation and treatment of deposits fall for determination by the Adjudicating Authority. Writ intervention should not ordinarily pre-empt that statutory process, and substantive objections remain available during adjudication.

Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act may impose a penalty on any person, including an unregistered or non-taxable person, rather than only a taxable person. It applies only where a specified contravention under Section 122(1) is established and it is independently proved that the person retained the transaction's benefit and that the transaction occurred at that person's instance. As a penal provision, it operates prospectively for underlying acts or transactions occurring from 1 January 2021, rather than by reference to the show-cause notice date. Statutory appeals remain available for fact-specific findings despite writ determination of recurring legal questions.

Hookah service in designated smoking areas is absolutely prohibited: the post-2017 replacement of "no other service" with "no service" bars every form of service, including self-service or purported rental models. Preparing, supplying, operating, or maintaining hookah for consideration remains a service because its use requires apparatus and technical assistance; patrons lack the unrestricted possession and control required for a rental. Food-safety law does not cover tobacco products, and municipal law provides no separate hookah-licensing power. Police may enforce smoking-in-public-place and tobacco-sale restrictions through statutory search, seizure, confiscation, and penalty powers.

Input tax credit on expenses attributable to the fresh issue component of an initial public offering is available where the net proceeds are used in furtherance of the company's business. Services used to raise capital for expansion, capital expenditure, working capital, repayment of borrowings and other business purposes have a substantial nexus with business operations and do not fall within blocked credits. In contrast, credit is unavailable for expenses attributable to an offer for sale by existing shareholders because those proceeds accrue to the shareholders rather than the company.

Reassessment founded on a share transaction wrongly mapped to an assessee's PAN is unsustainable where the underlying information concerns another person. Initiating proceedings without verification merely to avoid limitation constitutes a colourable exercise of reassessment power. The reassessment order and consequential notice were quashed, and costs were awarded in the proceedings.

Separate transfer-pricing adjustment for notional interest on delayed trade receivables from associated enterprises is not warranted where the taxpayer is completely debt-free and bears no interest cost on borrowings, because delayed collection creates no additional financing burden. Debt-free status requires verification from financial statements and other relevant records. If verified, the adjustment for interest on outstanding receivables is deleted. This approach applies across the assessment years concerned.

Third-party search material triggering reopening is governed, under the pre-amendment framework, by the search-assessment mechanism rather than ordinary reassessment. Material handover to the receiving Assessing Officer is treated as the third-party search date for computing the ten-year assessment block; consequently, the notice for AY 2013-14 was time-barred. Extended reassessment limitation also cannot be invoked by aggregating alleged expenditure from separate furniture and interior-work orders unless it relates to the same event or occasion. Distinct orders, payment dates and time periods constituted separate events, making the extended period unavailable. Reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were therefore quashed as barred by limitation.

The search-penalty framework under section 271AAB(1) requires a finding that surrendered income meets the statutory definition of undisclosed income; surrender during search alone is insufficient. The notice and penalty order must specify the applicable statutory default or clause, because an admission in a search statement does not automatically attract the provision. Where the assessment order is appealed, search-penalty proceedings must be completed within six months of receipt of the appellate order; an order issued after that period is barred by limitation.

Transfer-pricing benchmarking must separately assess support services rendered on a cost-plus, limited-risk basis and subcontract receipts from a full-risk entrepreneurial segment where separate agreements, functional profiles and risks apply. Their common character as BPO services does not justify aggregation, particularly where separate audited accounts are furnished. The Tribunal rejected aggregation on those grounds. Applying the jurisdictional High Court ruling, the Tribunal also deleted notional interest on delayed receivables because the assessee was debt-free and the Revenue did not distinguish the precedent. The appeal was allowed.

Additional evidence supporting unexplained creditor balances and sales rebates requires verification before the related tax claims are resolved. Agricultural-income exemption and expenditure claims depend on disclosure of agricultural activity, land particulars, sale evidence, agricultural use, and supporting vouchers. Share application money claimed as refunded requires confirmation whether shares were allotted before any reduction is treated as short-term capital gain. Estimated agricultural expenditure should account for assertions that plantation costs were incurred in earlier years and current expenses were limited to maintenance.

Transfer-pricing tolerance under Rule 10CA(7) can apply where an internal comparable produces a single value, since its arithmetical mean remains that value. Where the variation falls within the notified tolerance, the declared price is treated as arm's length. Corporate-guarantee commission may be determined at 0.5% where identical facts and unchanged circumstances support reliance on an earlier determination. Notional interest on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables depends on verifying a uniform policy of not charging interest to third-party export customers; if substantiated by evidence, no interest adjustment should arise.

Where CBDT pecuniary-jurisdiction instructions allocate an assessee's case to an ITO, a scrutiny notice issued by an ACIT without a prior transfer order is beyond that officer's jurisdiction. An assessment founded on that notice is invalid and may be quashed without examination of the merits. The same jurisdictional principle applies where a reassessment notice is issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction over the assessee. Proper allocation and transfer of jurisdiction are therefore essential to the validity of income-tax assessment proceedings.

Customs exemption provisions for apparatus that project or draw circuit patterns can cover photovoltaic-module machinery that strings, arranges, interconnects and protects semiconductor cells in a predetermined electrical configuration; the wording does not restrict drawing to photolithographic exposure or microscopic circuitry. Multilayered solar PV backsheets containing a PVF layer may qualify as sheets with a tedlar base where trade and legislative usage treat tedlar as describing PVF material, without trademark-proprietor authorisation. A differential IGST rate claim on fully declared imports does not itself establish misdeclaration absent concealment, suppression, fictitious documentation, or goods differing from the declaration. Finally cleared goods not secured for production may be unavailable for confiscation, and penalties depend on confiscability.

LCD devices imported for use in manufacturing electricity meters are specifically classifiable under CTI 90138010, rather than as indicator panels under CTH 85312000 or meter parts under CTI 90309010. HSN notes for indicator panels do not cover such goods, and their intended use in meters does not displace an express tariff entry for LCD devices. Accordingly, reclassification as meter parts and associated differential duty and interest cannot stand. Because classification remained disputed until the Supreme Court resolved it, extended-period recovery, redemption fine, and penalties against the importer and Customs Broker are unsustainable.

Stayed disciplinary punishment pending appeal does not, by itself, make an applicant unfit or improper for insolvency professional registration. Where an order removing the applicant from the professional register is kept in abeyance, the applicant remains registered and entitled to perform professional duties; mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot justify refusal of enrolment-cum-registration. The rejection requires fresh consideration without reliance on the pending appeal, while remaining subject to its final outcome.

Failure to pay under a one-time settlement does not create a fresh default for corporate insolvency purposes; a failed settlement restores the original loan position rather than rescheduling it. The recovery-certificate date may therefore govern default, while debt acknowledgments can preserve limitation and prevent the statutory insolvency bar from applying. Incorrect default-date particulars in Form I and other defects that affect neither jurisdiction nor merits may be rectified, including through additional documents. A corporate debtor's asserted viability does not preclude admission without credible evidence of solvency or viability where financial debt and default above the statutory threshold are undisputed. An admission order is reasoned where it records material, contentions, and grounds for admission.

Property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached where property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity is unavailable because it has vanished or been laundered. The phrase "or the value of any such property" operates as an independent limb of the definition of proceeds of crime, permitting attachment of substitute assets of equivalent value. Such assets may include property acquired before the alleged criminal activity and need not have a direct nexus with that activity. Restricting attachment only to directly traceable proceeds would render the equivalent-value limb ineffective and undermine the statutory objective.

Reverse-charge service tax on foreign-bank charges in export transactions depends on who received the banking service. Where the exporter lacked privity with the foreign bank and export proceeds were routed through an Indian bank, the Indian bank was identified as the service recipient liable under reverse charge. A demand that combined banking charges and overseas commissions without segregation was unsustainable. Audit based on the exporter's records, absence of evidence of mala fide intent, and availability of input tax credit supported revenue neutrality; fraud or suppression could not justify the extended limitation period or equal penalty. The service-tax demand and penalties were set aside.

Retrospective amendment to the definition of wealth-tax assets extends the agricultural-land exclusion to land classified as agricultural in revenue records and used for agricultural purposes. Where agricultural activity is undisputed, the amended exclusion governs the relevant assessment year, including AY 2008-09. Such land falls outside taxable wealth, and tax demand recovered in respect of it may be claimed by refund.

Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 creates a rebuttable presumption that a postal communication was served when properly dispatched. Where an order-in-appeal was dispatched shortly after issue, an assertion of non-receipt requires credible supporting material to displace that presumption. Failure to pursue the appellate process or make enquiries about the order for nearly two years undermines an explanation for delayed filing. The 820-day delay was treated as inordinate and unexplained, so condonation was refused.