Pending IGST refund claims cannot remain unresolved for over three and a half years merely because an alert against an exporter's IEC remains pending. High Court required the competent authority to take a final administrative decision within one week and disposed of the writ petition, requiring expeditious resolution of the withheld refund claim.

Expiry of the extended six-month validity of a CGST prohibition order causes it to cease automatically, without requiring separate revocation. Goods detained solely under that order cannot remain under detention after expiry and must be released. Release of the goods does not affect the legality of the departmental investigation or the evidentiary material already collected, which remain available for the investigation.

Under the 2017 Act, a single show-cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible because limitation applies independently to each year and cannot be bypassed by clubbing years. Separate year-wise demands raised under such a notice do not cure the jurisdictional defect. A notice issued without or in excess of statutory jurisdiction may be challenged through writ jurisdiction despite an available appellate remedy where the defect is apparent on its face and requires no factual inquiry. The composite notice, consequential order-in-original and related steps were quashed, while revenue authorities remained free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Packing materials, labels, cartons and plastic containers used to market packaged tea qualify as inputs used in the course or furtherance of business and may generate refundable accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure. The refund analysis does not distinguish between principal and ancillary inputs, and identical GST rates on bulk and packaged tea do not exclude credit arising from higher-taxed packing materials. The rate-reduction circular concerning accumulation caused by GST-rate changes on the same goods does not apply where accumulation arises from packing materials, and it cannot restrict a refund otherwise available under the statute. The refund sanction was sustained and the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under an inverted duty structure extends to packing materials, labels, cartons and plastic containers used to market packaged tea. Section 54(3)(ii) treats such materials as inputs and does not distinguish between principal and ancillary inputs; comparison of bulk tea and packaged tea without considering packaging inputs is therefore incorrect. Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST addresses credit accumulation caused by a rate reduction on the same goods at different times and does not apply where bulk and packaged tea bear the same tax rate. Administrative circulars cannot add to or curtail the statutory refund entitlement.

Input tax credit denial based solely on a GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch requires transaction-level verification of reconciliations, invoices, records and supplier-tax-payment conditions; a mismatch alone does not establish ineligibility. Section 16(2)(aa) does not apply to the disputed period, while Rule 36(4) must be applied as operative during each relevant portion. Tax demands must remain within the grounds and tax heads proposed in the show-cause notice, supported by a reasoned computation and factual basis. The CBIC ITC-verification mechanism applies only from April 2019 to 8 October 2019, requiring separate examination of later periods under the applicable substantive provisions.

Reference to a Valuation Officer for a company's fixed assets immediately before expiry of the assessment period was treated as an impermissible attempt to extend the completion deadline. A valuation was unnecessary to examine an alleged bogus depreciation claim because it could be disallowed on the available material. Nor was a genuine valuation required for alleged unaccounted payments: asset-related material and explanations were already on record, later show-cause notices did not question asset valuation, and no satisfactory reason was given for earlier inaction. The reference was characterised as a colourable and illegal use of power to invoke time exclusion, and was quashed.

Fraudulent GST registrations obtained through misuse of PAN and Aadhaar particulars require effective preventive measures. The High Court granted the Commissioners responsible for central and state GST administration and the Commissioner of Police a final opportunity to devise a solution to curb registrations secured by another person using a taxpayer's identity credentials. The focus is on strengthening safeguards against identity-based GST registration fraud.

Scrutiny assessments founded on revised returns require a statutory notice tied to the operative revised return; its absence is an incurable jurisdictional defect not cured by participation, and assessments for three years were quashed. Pre-amendment annual Form 3CL quantification could not defeat or cap weighted research-and-development deductions where substantive approval existed, but eligibility required limited verification. Rule 8D disallowance required account-based satisfaction, excluded investments yielding taxable foreign dividends, and could not automatically increase book profit under the self-contained minimum alternate tax regime. Expenditure improving access to an existing factory remained revenue expenditure where no capital asset or proprietary advantage was acquired.

ITAT ordinary territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the Commissioner (Appeals). The President's procedural rule-making power does not extend to transferring a pending appeal between Benches situated in different States. Where the assessment order originated from an Assessing Officer at Chennai, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's related cross-objection. Both were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench; merits remained open.

Transfer of an assessment case under section 127 by a Joint Commissioner lacking statutory power is jurisdictionally invalid. An assessee must also be afforded an opportunity of hearing before transfer between Assessing Officers. Participation in subsequent assessment proceedings, or failure to object within thirty days, cannot cure a transfer made by an incompetent authority. Consequently, an assessment made by the transferee Assessing Officer is non est, and a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars founded on that assessment cannot survive. The assessment and consequential penalty were quashed.

Infrastructure grants expressly earmarked for stadium construction, credited to a corpus fund and applied for that purpose qualify as corpus donations exempt under section 11(1)(d). Accumulation under section 11(2) cannot be denied solely for delayed Form No. 10 filing where condonation was sought before assessment and subsequent relief applies. The statutory 15% accumulation under section 11(1)(a) is automatic and does not depend on Form No. 10. Additions made without a show-cause notice violate natural justice. A cricket association's activities do not attract the commercial-activity proviso absent evidence of trade, commerce or business. Depreciation, unspecified section 13 allegations and unsupported receipt enhancements require a factual and legal basis.

Under-reporting and misreporting of income attract distinct penalty treatment: under-reporting is penalised at 50% of the tax payable, while under-reporting resulting from misreporting attracts 200% only where specified factual circumstances establish misreporting. Omission of interest income constituted under-reporting, but non-resident status, reliance on an accountant, limited technological knowledge, and later payment of tax and interest did not establish deliberate misreporting. Departmental detection and non-response to notices alone were insufficient for the enhanced penalty. The penalty was therefore restricted to under-reporting, with recomputation. Statutory and show-cause notices, along with opportunities to respond during penalty proceedings, satisfied hearing requirements where the taxpayer did not use those opportunities.

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable where a taxpayer fully discloses a slump-sale transaction, consideration and negative net worth, but computes capital gains by treating negative net worth as nil on a bona fide legal interpretation. A claim that is ultimately unsustainable does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars merely because a quantum addition is sustained or not contested. Divergent Tribunal views and admission of a substantial question of law support the conclusion that the treatment of negative net worth was genuinely debatable. The penalty deletion was sustained and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Business dependence on regulatory affairs and compliance processes established an associated-enterprise relationship, which was sustained because the relationship had also been accepted in transfer-pricing documentation. Foreign associated-enterprise selection as the tested party was rejected where reliable foreign comparable data was not readily accessible and geographical and economic conditions differed; the assessee was retained as the tested party. Domain-specific regulatory affairs services were not treated as KPO services merely by reference to the Rule 10TA definition, and comparables from diverse R&D, engineering, IT, advertising and gaming activities were unsuitable. Fresh benchmarking and comparable selection were directed in line with the assessee's FAR profile after a hearing opportunity.

Trade and quantity discounts received by a milk resale agent constituted an explained source of income where bank statements showed that sale proceeds were deposited into a joint account with the dairy and withdrawn by the dairy on the same day. Treating those discounts as unexplained money was therefore unwarranted. Profit estimation at 70% of the total discounts, with only 30% allowed for storage and distribution expenses, lacked a proper basis. The addition relating to the discounts was deleted.

Foreign withholding tax eligible for double-taxation relief under sections 90 or 91 cannot be deducted as business expenditure merely because nil Indian tax liability prevents use of the credit. Explanation 1 to section 40(a)(ii) applies based on eligibility for relief, not actual allowance or utilisation; the claimed deduction was therefore rejected. An additional legal claim for that deduction, raised before the first appellate authority, required examination on merits where the return and Form 67 contained the relevant material. Rule 46A did not justify threshold rejection, although the claim ultimately failed.

TDS obligations on year-end expense provisions remain independent of any suo motu disallowance for non-deduction of tax. Such disallowance is intended to secure compliance with withholding requirements but does not eliminate liability for TDS default or consequential interest. General tax-audit disclosures, without vendor-wise details, credited amounts, accounting treatment, and the basis of provisions, cannot establish the nature or extent of TDS liability. Verification is required of subsequent invoice-based TDS deduction, reversal of ad hoc provisions, and entries claimed to be outside TDS requirements before determining default and consequential liability.

For foreign-marked gold, the reverse burden applies once the statutory conditions are met, requiring specific, credible and traceable evidence linking lawful acquisition to the seized articles. General business records and GST invoices that do not correspond to the seized gold, explain its foreign markings, or reconcile with relevant accounts do not discharge that burden; confiscation of the gold was therefore justified. For silver bullion, the burden does not shift without reasonable belief of smuggling, supported by a nexus beyond stock discrepancies; relief from confiscation was sustained. Cash may be confiscated as sale proceeds only on cogent evidence linking it to smuggled goods, not suspicion. Penalties were correspondingly reduced to 50 per cent.

Writ jurisdiction cannot support mandamus for release of detained gold where alleged non-compliance with Customs Act notice and seizure safeguards depends on disputed facts. Statutory requirements for notice and release of seized goods must be observed, and a mechanical pre-printed waiver alone does not establish compliance. However, a passenger's signed statement and later written acknowledgement of receiving an oral show cause notice may constitute contemporaneous material that cannot be disregarded in favour of later allegations of coercion, fabrication, or prior declaration of goods. Such evidentiary disputes require determination before the competent Customs authority or another appropriate forum. The petition for release was dismissed without deciding confiscation or penalty.