Exceptional circumstances causing loss of a GST statutory appeal may justify writ jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the appellate authority's statutory limit and preserve merits adjudication. Where the order was uploaded in a portal tab not ordinarily used for notices or orders, the appeal was dismissed solely as time-barred, and the prescribed pre-deposit had been made, the delay was condoned and the appeal restored for decision on merits. As restoration entitled the assessee to contest the demand, coercive recovery through a garnishee notice was not warranted; the notice was quashed. The underlying tax, interest and penalty dispute remains before the appellate authority.

A writ petition challenging a GST demand should not ordinarily be entertained where an effective statutory appeal is available under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appellate remedy remained available within the prescribed period, including the permissible condonable period. In the absence of grounds warranting departure from the alternate-remedy requirement, the taxpayer must pursue the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority.

GST assessment orders lacking the assessing officer's signature are inherently invalid and cannot be cured through the CGST Act's provisions on procedural defects or service. Absence of a Document Identification Number also invalidates the order. Although portal upload is a recognised mode of service, delayed challenges to patently irregular assessment orders may be entertained in light of practical difficulties in the online GST regime, subject to deposit of 30% of disputed tax. The defective assessment requires fresh determination after an opportunity of hearing, with substantive issues preserved for the assessing authority.

Dismissal of a GST appeal for non-appearance may be set aside where the assessee establishes bona fide reasons and sufficient cause for failing to attend. Although the Appellate Authority recorded findings on merits while dismissing the appeal against an adjudication order, the asserted inability to appear and request for an opportunity to contest warranted fresh consideration. The appellate order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration in accordance with law.

A writ challenge to a service-tax adjudication order should not ordinarily be entertained where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and no jurisdictional error is established. The petitioner neither responded to the show-cause notice nor attended the personal hearing, and submitted a reply only after adjudication. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the appellate remedy under the Finance Act, 1994. Time spent bona fide in the writ proceedings was directed to be excluded for limitation, and interim protection was temporarily continued to permit recourse to appeal.

Section 34 review does not permit substitution of a plausible contractual interpretation merely because another view is possible; contractual reimbursement of GST paid on gas-transmission charges may therefore stand independently of statutory GST exigibility. However, reliance on GST deposit receipts whose admissibility remained undecided, without supporting returns, transaction records, or accounts, does not prove payment attributable to the relevant supplies and may render the finding perverse. Waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right, while estoppel requires representation, reliance, and alteration of position. Prior invoice payments required to maintain supply do not alone establish either defence or extinguish recurring claims. These evidentiary and contractual-bar defects render the arbitral award liable to be set aside.

A show-cause notice alleging inward supplies from bogus taxpayers provides a basis to reject a jurisdictional challenge to an assessment order based on the asserted absence of allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Where the statutory framework provides an appellate remedy against the assessment order, the challenge should be pursued through that mechanism rather than by writ intervention. The jurisdictional objection was therefore not accepted, and the assessee was required to file a statutory appeal.

Full statutory pre-deposit and proof of deposit are procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Where the appellant cures a pre-deposit shortfall before the appellate authority passes its order, rejection without an adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiency is inconsistent with principles of natural justice. The appeal should therefore be heard on merits after the shortfall is made good, rather than rejected solely for the earlier pre-deposit deficiency.

Statutory appellate remedy remained available despite expiry of the prescribed limitation period where permission to institute the appeal was granted subject to a stipulated deposit. The appellate authority was required to consider the appeal on merits and not reject it as time-barred, provided the deposit condition was met. The petitioner could therefore challenge the demand order through the statutory appellate mechanism on that condition.

Maintainability of a writ petition challenging an input tax credit penalty order was addressed through reference to the High Court's direction relegating the challenge to the statutory appellate remedy. The High Court also protected limitation by directing exclusion of the time spent in writ proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, leaving that approach undisturbed.

Motor vehicle tax arises only where a vehicle is used or kept for use in a public place. A public place requires a right of public access; a steel plant's guarded central dispatch yard, inaccessible without authorisation, does not meet that requirement. Rule 12A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules cannot expand the charging provision by imposing tax on vehicles confined to non-public premises merely because no stoppage intimation was filed. Accordingly, vehicles exclusively used or kept within such restricted premises are not liable to motor vehicle tax for that period.

Order XLI Rule 5 CPC requires a reasoned stay of execution based on sufficient cause, substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance. In money-decree appeals, deposit is ordinarily prudent but is not an inflexible condition because security may be provided through property, a bond, or an appropriate undertaking. An unconditional stay may be justified only exceptionally, including where the decree appears perverse, patently illegal, or facially untenable. Relevant circumstances may include defective service, ex parte proceedings, unsupported infringement findings, and damages awarded without pleadings or notice. The Section 36 Arbitration Act analogy does not govern appellate stay powers under the CPC.

The Supreme Court dismissed the miscellaneous applications and clarified that its prior order is confined to the peculiar facts of the matter. The clarification ensures that the prior order does not affect other matters arising under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 or the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Pre-cognizance hearing is mandatory before cognizance of a money-laundering prosecution complaint filed after the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 commenced. The absence of that hearing renders cognizance unsustainable and requires the process to recommence after the accused receives an opportunity to be heard. Inherent and supervisory jurisdiction may remain available despite a revisional remedy where personal liberty or fundamental rights are exceptionally affected. Arrest and pre-cognizance remands remain valid where the prescribed production and arrest procedure was followed. Remand beyond the statutory limit does not by itself require immediate release without demonstrated prejudice; bail must be considered under the applicable money-laundering framework.

A scrutiny notice remains valid despite non-compliance with the prescribed CBDT format where it is authenticated, substantially conforms to the Income-tax Act, the assessee received it, participated without timely objection, and suffered no prejudice or confusion. Technical defects are therefore curable under the provisions governing notice authentication and procedural irregularities. Cash deposits made during demonetisation require verification under applicable CBDT instructions, including comparison of sales and deposits, stock and debtor records, banking patterns, possible fictitious or back-dated sales, and the reliability of books. The assessee must establish the source and genuineness of deposits, with adequate opportunity to be heard.

Borrowed service charges received from an Indian group entity are examined under the India-Singapore tax treaty's provisions on fees for technical or included services, royalty and business profits. Article 12(4)(b) requires technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to be made available so that the recipient can apply the technology. As the services did not make technical knowledge or skill available to the Indian entity, the charges are not fees for technical or included services or royalty. They are characterised as business income under Article 7, consistently with earlier decisions and an accepted mutual-agreement resolution where the services remained unchanged.

Foreign tax credit for German taxes could not be denied where the return for assessment year 2020-21 was filed within the extended due date and Form 67 was furnished before processing under section 143(1). Section 90 read with Article 23 of the India-Germany Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entitled the taxpayer to credit for German taxes paid on income also taxed in India. In these circumstances, the procedural filing requirement under Rule 128 did not justify denial of the claimed foreign tax credit.

Late fee under section 234E could not be levied through processing of a quarterly TDS statement under section 200A for financial year 2012-13, because the enabling amendment authorising such computation took effect only from 1 June 2015. For pre-amendment periods, an intimation under section 200A lacked statutory authority to impose the fee. Applying the coordinate-bench approach for identical periods, the levy was invalid and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Interest paid to members on interest-bearing maintenance security deposits is deductible under Section 57(iii) against bank interest earned from deploying those deposits. The deposits were placed in bank fixed deposits while the association was contractually required to pay interest to members, establishing a direct nexus between the interest income and expenditure. The expenditure was wholly and exclusively incurred to earn the bank interest. Section 40(ba) did not apply to a registered society and concerns computation of business income rather than income from other sources. Accordingly, the interest expenditure may be set off against the bank interest income and the addition is deleted.

Section 153D prior approval for a search assessment must reflect the Joint or Additional Commissioner's independent and meaningful consideration of assessment records, seized material and proposed additions. Consolidated approval for multiple assessment years, inconsistent dates, failure to consider subsequent assessee replies, and a bare endorsement of "Approved" indicate mechanical approval without due application of mind. Such defective approval vitiates the statutory safeguard and invalidates the resulting search assessment.