Peak Credit Theory requires merged undisclosed bank accounts to account for corresponding debit and credit entries arising from inter-account transfers together. Contra entries merely move funds between accounts and cannot be treated as fresh deposits that inflate the taxable peak balance. A remand for recomputation on this basis restricts the unexplained-bank-deposit addition to the correctly calculated merged peak. An addition for rental income that was deleted in an earlier round and left undisturbed cannot be reintroduced in set-aside proceedings, because the remand does not revive issues that have attained finality.

Consumer-side electricity tariffs actually paid by receiving cement units to independent distribution companies may constitute valid internal comparable uncontrolled prices for captive-power transfers. Selection under the CUP method requires transaction-specific comparability and the most appropriate method. Functional and risk differences between captive generators and distribution licensees do not preclude use of consumer tariffs where those tariffs are contemporaneous prices available to the receiving units from independent suppliers. Generator-side procurement rates reflect a different supply-chain stage and cannot replace consumer-side rates without showing availability to the receiving units. Accordingly, transfer-pricing adjustments based on generator-side rates are unsustainable.

Functional integration of electrical installations with manufacturing plant and machinery supports eligibility for additional depreciation. Transformers, transformer-connectivity panel boards, metal and spark detectors, and yarn-conditioning machinery qualify as integral assets where they are indispensable to manufacturing and functionally inseparable from the plant. Allowance of regular depreciation applicable to plant and machinery on the same assets reinforces that classification. Consistent treatment of materially identical facts supports the additional depreciation claim.

Foreign tax credit under section 90 and an applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement remains available where foreign income is disclosed and documentary evidence establishes payment of foreign taxes. Belated filing of Form No. 67 is a procedural lapse that does not, by itself, defeat the credit claim when substantive eligibility conditions are fulfilled. Accordingly, foreign tax credit should not be denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the prescribed time.

Concealment penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable merely because taxable income is computed by applying an estimated profit rate after deletion of an unexplained-expenditure addition. Estimated assessment, without a clear finding that the taxpayer concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, does not meet the statutory conditions for penalty. The same principle applies to penalty linked to income from house property where the required concealment conditions are not established. Penalty must rest on proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars, rather than the fact of an addition or estimation alone.

Higher depreciation under section 32(1) and Appendix I applies to motor lorries used in the business of running them on hire. Dumpers and tippers deployed to excavate, load, transport and dump minerals and overburden under integrated composite mining contracts satisfy that condition where the materials belong to mine owners and transportation is performed under contractual obligations. CBDT circulars distinguish a business of transporting goods on hire from a non-hiring business, and the treatment does not extend to merely occasional hiring or vehicles used only ancillary to another principal business. Such dumpers and tippers qualify for depreciation at 30%.

Reassessment under Section 147 requires recorded reasons based on fresh tangible material with a rational nexus to a belief that income escaped assessment; conclusive proof is unnecessary at the notice stage. Where reopening occurs after four years from a completed assessment, the proviso additionally requires a prima facie basis for failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts. A mere change of opinion cannot justify reassessment and requires that an opinion was consciously formed during the original assessment. Investigation findings on share overvaluation, property acquisition, capital-gains adjustments and deductions may constitute fresh material where no prior opinion is evident, including under Section 143(1).

Complete non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) cannot be cured by Section 292BB, which addresses only defective, delayed, or improper service of a notice actually issued. An assessee's participation in reassessment proceedings does not confer jurisdiction to complete a reassessment without that notice. Treating an earlier return as the return furnished in response to a notice under Section 148 does not remove the requirement to issue notice under Section 143(2). A letter under Section 142(1) cannot substitute for the mandatory scrutiny notice. Reassessments completed without notice under Section 143(2) are therefore invalid.

Manpower supply without any supply of goods constitutes pure services for GST purposes. Exemption for pure services connected with functions entrusted to municipalities requires satisfaction of every condition, including supply to the prescribed recipient and an established nexus with a municipal function. Personnel labels such as "Sweeper" or "Paryavaran Mitra", contractual GST clauses, and a recipient's non-levy request do not determine eligibility. Where the contract and supporting material do not identify a separable sanitation-related supply satisfying those conditions, the municipal-function exemption is unavailable. The non-exempt manpower outsourcing service is taxable under its applicable classification at 18% for intra-State supply.

Interpretation of statutory requirements governing documents accompanying movement of goods, detention and penalty proceedings, and the legal effect of an applicable circular raises a question of law under section 109(8) of the CGST Act. These issues are not confined to factual verification of documents carried with a conveyance and require consideration by a Division Bench comprising a Judicial Member and a Technical Member.

Section 73 permits direct adjudication of unpaid or short-paid tax on credible material without prior scrutiny under section 61 or audit under section 65; Audit-wing designation does not restrict an officer assigned proper-officer functions. A GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B mismatch is rebuttable evidence, not proof of a separate taxable supply. Where reconciled GSTR-7 records and tax-payment patterns establish that a GSTR-1 entry duplicates an already-taxed supply, no additional tax liability arises. A demand cannot rely on an unnotified suspicion, as section 75(7) confines adjudication to notice grounds. Consequential interest and penalty fail where the underlying tax liability is not established.

GST demand adjudication under Section 73 requires a substantive show-cause notice specifying the proposed liability; Form GST DRC-01 is only a statutory summary and cannot replace that notice. An adverse order also requires a personal hearing under Section 75(4), irrespective of delay in filing a reply. First appellate review cannot sustain a demand on new factual or legal grounds not contained in the original charge, without notice and an opportunity to respond. Reverse-charge liability for office-meal expenses requires an identified statutory basis, notified supplies where Section 9(3) applies, and proof of the taxable supply, value, and liable person. Absence of DIN or RFN in electronically communicated proceedings does not itself invalidate communications where the applicable requirements do not govern them.

Pre-26 July 2023 supplies falling under compensation-cess Entry 52B required ground clearance to be assessed in the laden condition, using the applicable vehicle type-approval standard where the entry did not define the measurement. The later substitution expressly introducing unladen ground clearance enlarged the cess scope and applied prospectively. Statutory type-approval certificates showing laden clearance below the prescribed threshold prevailed over unsupported website or commercial-portal material; the Revenue bore the burden to establish classification under the higher-rate entry. Each registered dealer nevertheless remained independently responsible for self-assessment, and a manufacturer's applied rate was not a complete defence. As no differential cess was established, corresponding interest and penalty did not arise.

Quasi-judicial GST determinations must give reasons and address material evidence, including written submissions, transport documents, returns and turnover records. Rejecting an exemption claim on the basis that no evidence was furnished despite contrary material on record reflects a lack of application of mind and breaches natural justice. Rail transportation of agricultural produce is exempt under the identified GST notification. Hatching eggs documented as fresh shell eggs without further processing may fall within that category, subject to applicable eligibility conditions. An exemption claim is not precluded solely because it was not raised initially where eligibility is established, requiring a merits-based examination of the taxpayer's explanations and evidence.

Penalty for delayed reverse-charge tax payment and non-reversal of input tax credit requires proof of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Mere non-disclosure in returns or payment following audit verification does not, by itself, establish those aggravated elements. Where tax and interest are paid before the show-cause notice, records are available and undisputed, explanations are bona fide, and relevant exemption treatment has not been verified, Section 74(1) cannot be invoked mechanically. These circumstances establish reasonable cause; the penalty was therefore set aside.

Pure questions of law arising from facts already on record may be raised in appellate proceedings where necessary to determine tax liability. Applying the earlier version of Section 129(1)(a) affects the demand mechanism but does not, by itself, remove the proper officer's power to detain goods for a breach of the Act or Rules. Inter-State movement of inputs or capital goods for job work is governed by the Section 143 framework. Where the e-way bill and delivery challan meet prescribed requirements, absence of IGST alone cannot justify detention under Section 129 without a taxable supply or other statutory contravention.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit for zero-rated export supplies may include the value of invoices issued during the relevant period for goods cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, even where shipping bills show export in a later period. Invoice issuance before or at removal determines the relevant supply turnover for refund calculation, while export is completed when goods leave India. Eligibility remains conditional on proof that the goods were actually exported.

Sections 107(11) and 107(12) require appellate orders to identify points for determination, decide them and give reasons; non-appearance does not excuse failure to address a pleaded input tax credit reconciliation. CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST is limited to specified supplier-reporting mismatches for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 and does not govern a later-year GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A comparison where earlier-year reflected credit was claimed within time. Omitted credit may be claimed within the applicable deadline if invoice-wise reconciliation and returns substantiate it. The later invoice-reflection condition does not apply retrospectively. A mismatch alone cannot support credit denial without reconciliation verification.

Section 74 applies only where unpaid or short-paid tax results from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression intended to evade tax. Delayed GST return filing alone does not meet those conditions where filed returns correctly disclose turnover, rate and liability, and tax and interest are paid before Section 74 proceedings begin. If Section 74 proceedings are unsustainable, any ordinary-demand determination under Section 73 must be made by the proper officer under Section 75(2) within statutory limits; an appellate authority cannot directly modify the penalty under Section 73. Fraud-based proceedings therefore fail, while any Section 73 liability requires lawful determination by the proper officer.

GST refund claims for excess tax paid must be filed within two years from the relevant date under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Where a claim does not fall within a specified category, the relevant date is the date of tax payment, not the later discovery of an incorrect tax rate. Statutory authorities have no express power to condone delay or entertain a belated refund claim. The disbursal provisions, including the requirement that tax incidence was not passed on, apply only after refund eligibility is established and do not override limitation. Claims alleging tax collection without authority of law may require recourse to writ jurisdiction.