Agricultural-land exclusion from capital gains depends on the land's recorded status, contractual description, actual use and intended use at transfer. Land described in registered instruments as industrial-purpose, recorded as uncultivated and acquired for non-agricultural use may be treated as a capital asset rather than excluded agricultural land. Reinvestment relief under Section 54B requires fulfilment of the prescribed agricultural-use conditions, including use of the transferred land for agriculture during the relevant preceding period. An unchallenged revision order cannot be collaterally contested in proceedings concerning the consequential assessment.

Deduction of cost of funds and related expenditure claimed by a co-operative society was remitted for fresh adjudication after the disallowance was considered against applicable precedent on deposits. The intimation, assessment and penalty orders were quashed because the taxpayer had not responded to notices due to the stated failure of its former tax practitioner. The taxpayer may file objections and respond to the notice issued under the Income-tax Act, while all merits-based contentions remain open for reconsideration.

Preliminary reassessment measures under Sections 148A and 148 are ordinarily not subject to writ challenge before reassessment is completed where the statutory process permits the assessee to raise factual and jurisdictional objections before the Assessing Officer and appellate authorities. Notices, preliminary orders and reassessment notices do not themselves determine tax liability or preclude objections on the applicability of Section 152(3) or approval under Section 151. Threshold intervention under Article 226 is confined to exceptional situations involving total lack of jurisdiction or a patent breach of a mandatory precondition; objections requiring examination of underlying information or search material should be pursued through the reassessment mechanism.

Consequential refund interest required computation after appellate effect orders where the claimed period exceeded the prescribed time for giving effect. The Assessing Officer was required to compute interest under Section 244A(1A), verify whether TDS credit for Assessment Year 2014-15 matched Form 26AS, and grant consequential refund interest under Section 244A(1) if a short credit or short grant was established. Further directions remained pending after verification and computation.

Reassessment notices alleging undisclosed interest on capital and partner remuneration were invalid where the partnership deeds made such payments contingent on mutual agreement rather than mandatory. The amended deed expressly provided that no interest on partners' capital was payable, and no material established actual receipt of interest or remuneration. Treating amounts as necessarily payable merely because earlier deed clauses contemplated them was erroneous. The reopening basis, also found legally unsustainable in the firm's assessments, lacked jurisdiction; the reassessment notices were quashed.

Reassessment based on an alleged incorrect loss computation after a share split is impermissible where the original scrutiny assessment examined the same share transactions, valuation, purchase and sale details, capital gain or loss, and supporting records. Complete transaction, allotment and banking evidence had been furnished, and the reopening reasons identified neither fresh tangible material nor any failure to disclose material facts. Revisiting the tax effect of a 1:10 share split on previously scrutinised transactions constitutes a change of opinion. Reassessment requires fresh tangible material indicating escaped income and, where applicable, a failure of full and true disclosure.

Actuarial-deficit contributions to approved superannuation and gratuity funds are distinguished from ordinary annual contributions because they remedy funding shortfalls between fund assets and actuarial liabilities. Rule 87 and Rule 103 annual ceilings do not restrict such deficit funding, and section 36(1)(v) permits contributions to an approved gratuity fund without an additional percentage ceiling while approval remains valid. Employee PF/ESI contributions cannot be disallowed under section 36(1)(va) unless the governing legal regime prescribes a due date; a tax-audit software entry or an unrelated provident-fund scheme deadline does not create one.

Refunds quantified following assessment of tax deducted at source obligations or pursuant to an appellate order constitute vested and crystallised entitlements carrying applicable statutory interest. Form 26B, together with the processing framework for TDS statements, applies to CPC-stage processing and adjustment before assessment and does not govern such quantified refunds. Outstanding demands, including those concerning associated TANs, do not independently permit non-payment or adjustment. A refund may be withheld or set off only under a lawfully passed order for adjustment of refunds. The taxpayer is therefore entitled to payment of the quantified refund with applicable interest unless a valid adjustment order exists.

GST exemption for fresh Psyllium (Isabgol) seeds depends on proving that the seeds retain their fresh condition at the time of supply. Seeds stored in dry, ventilated godowns, without evidence of the period from harvest through procurement to supply, are treated as dried rather than fresh; labelling as dried is unnecessary. Such supplies fall under the specific rate entry for dried goods under heading 1211 and attract GST at 5%, rather than the exemption for fresh seeds. The alternative exemption for goods of seed quality is unavailable where the seeds are classified as dried taxable goods.

Penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill at interception is not sustainable where the e-way bill is generated shortly thereafter, the transaction is genuine and fully documented, and no intent to evade tax is established. Section 129(3) was invoked for non-generation of the e-way bill under Rule 138(1), but invoices, challans, ledgers, bank records, and traceable vehicle and goods identifiers substantiated the supplies. In the absence of discrepancies in quantity, value or classification, or evidence of suppression, undervaluation, fake documentation, unaccounted goods or tax evasion, the lapse was treated as bona fide and procedural. The penalty orders were liable to be set aside.

Transport of taxable goods requires generation of an e-way bill before movement begins where the prescribed value threshold is met. Subsequent production of an e-way bill does not remedy its admitted absence at interception. The e-way bill functions as an electronic mechanism for monitoring goods in transit, and failure to generate it before transportation may support an inference of intent to evade tax, particularly in the stated circumstances of short cross-border movement of iron scrap. Detention and penalty provisions may therefore be invoked for transport without a pre-generated e-way bill.

Inter-Commissionerate transfer of Executive Assistants is impermissible where the applicable recruitment rules and transfer policy do not permit absorption in the receiving Commissionerate. The Executive Assistant Recruitment Rules, 2015 maintained separate cadres for each Cadre Controlling Authority unless the Board directed otherwise. As no distinct rule authorised transfer of Executive Assistants between Commissionerates, officers transferred in contravention of this cadre structure could be treated as deemed loan cases and repatriated to their parent zones.

Functional availability of the GST Tribunal provides the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned orders. The petitioner may file an appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days, and the amount deposited under the interim order will be adjusted towards the required pre-deposit. The appeal is to be considered on merits.

Delayed or non-deposit of GST/TDS deducted for Gram Sabha works falls within the comprehensive mechanism of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, including interest, penalties, prosecution and compounding. General penal prosecution is available only where allegations independently establish a distinct criminal offence, such as dishonest misappropriation, forgery, cheating, siphoning of funds or wrongful gain. Further, substantive offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 cannot apply retrospectively to conduct occurring before its commencement; later procedural law may govern investigation, but not criminal liability. Criminal proceedings based solely on a tax default and a subsequently enacted substantive penal provision are legally unsustainable.

GST writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised where effective statutory appellate remedies are available. A GST show-cause notice and demand order remained subject to appeal before the appellate authority and further recourse before the GST Tribunal. The portal record showed that the notice concerning mandatory personal hearing was visible to the taxpayer. All objections, including the alleged denial of a personal hearing, may be raised in the statutory appeal; the writ petition was therefore not entertained.

Assignment by sale or transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and building transfers benefits arising from immovable property, with the assignee stepping into the original lessee's position. Such assignment falls outside the scope of taxable supply under Section 7(1)(a), read with Schedule II and Schedule III, and is therefore not chargeable to GST under Section 9. Input tax credit cannot arise for payment of GST on this non-taxable transaction. Consequently, a GST show-cause notice and demand founded on taxability of the leasehold-right assignment are unsustainable.

A binding High Court precedent governing a sanctioned refund required the appellate order to be quashed after the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to that precedent. The appellate authority had proceeded on the incorrect basis that the governing ruling remained under challenge and acknowledged that the ruling had not been brought to its attention; it also took corrective action in a subsequent matter. The assessee was consequently permitted to utilise the refund amount.

Assignment by sale and transfer of long-term leasehold rights in land and buildings allotted by GIDC transfers the benefits arising from immovable property to the assignee, who steps into the lessee's position. Such assignment falls outside the scope of supply under Section 7(1)(a), read with Schedule II and Schedule III, and consequently does not attract GST under Section 9. Transfer of these leasehold rights is therefore not liable to GST.

Extended limitation for GST show-cause notices based on fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts requires the notice itself to set out specific allegations and supporting material. Mere use of expressions such as "fraud or concealment of facts", without identifying the basis for that inference, does not justify recourse to the extended period. Deficiencies in the notice cannot be cured through a counter affidavit or other pleadings. Where the ordinary limitation period has expired, a notice lacking this substantiation is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained under the extended-limitation provision.

GST/TDS non-deposit arising from payments for Gram Sabha works falls primarily within the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which provides a complete mechanism for determination of default, interest, penalty, prosecution and compounding. General penal provisions cannot be invoked unless allegations independently establish a distinct offence, such as dishonest misappropriation, forgery, cheating or wrongful gain. Substantive penal law applies prospectively: a penal provision introduced after the alleged 2017-18 default cannot create or alter the applicable offence. Proceedings based solely on Section 316(5) BNS were therefore unsustainable, while action under the GST Act remained available.