GST reimbursement under Notification No. 5050-F(Y) is governed by a temporal distinction between pre-GST and post-GST contracts. Paragraph 3(iv) applies only to contracts predating 1 July 2017, while paragraph 4 governs contracts executed after that date and qualifying ongoing projects. A post-GST reimbursement claim cannot be rejected by applying paragraph 3(iv); it must be considered under paragraph 4. Factual entitlement to reimbursement and the amount payable in an individual claim remain unaddressed.

GST adjudication challenges should ordinarily proceed through the statutory appeal where no patent jurisdictional defect is shown; evidentiary disputes concerning fraudulent input tax credit and supplier-related allegations require appellate factual assessment, and pre-deposit alone does not justify writ intervention. The bar on parallel proceedings applies only where Central and State GST actions concern the same liability or contravention and seek identical demand or relief; overlapping periods or input tax credit claims are insufficient. A consolidated notice covering multiple financial years under the fraud provision is not inherently without jurisdiction, while limitation, statutory conditions, and period-wise quantification remain open in appeal.

Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a statutory appellate remedy against an Order-in-Original. A jurisdictional objection under Section 6(2)(b), including whether State GST and DGGI proceedings overlap, requires examination of disputed facts concerning the transactions, their factual foundation and the nature of the proceedings. Such objections, together with challenges to the demand and evidentiary findings, fall for consideration by the appellate authority. The statutory appeal must therefore be pursued, with the jurisdictional objection and all merits issues remaining open before that authority.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars parallel central and state GST proceedings only where they concern the identical liability or contravention. Commonality of the assessee, financial year, supplier, or similar tax exposure is insufficient. Alleged fraudulent input tax credit based on invoices unsupported by actual supply may constitute a distinct contravention where it was not previously adjudicated; different GSTINs under a common trade name are relevant but not conclusive. Objections involving evidence, receipt of goods, fraud, suppression, and tax, interest or penalty should be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy rather than writ jurisdiction, absent exceptional circumstances.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars parallel Central and State GST proceedings only where they seek to adjudicate the identical liability or contravention; shared assessee, tax period, input tax credit, or transactional background does not suffice. Allegations of fraudulent credit based on invoices without actual goods supply remain distinct unless that precise infraction was already adjudicated in State proceedings, so the Central proceedings were not barred. Writ review remains available despite a statutory appeal, but disputes over replies, relied-upon material, genuineness, goods receipt, fraud, suppression, and duplicate liability ordinarily require examination of the adjudication record in appeal absent exceptional circumstances. The writ petition was dismissed, with merits left open in appeal.

Availability of a statutory appeal against an Order-in-Original required the writ challenge to be pursued before the appellate authority. The objection that parallel Central and State GST proceedings concerned the same subject matter required factual examination of their scope, allegations, transactions, liabilities and evidentiary foundations. That inquiry, together with challenges to the demand and evidentiary findings, was left for appellate consideration. The writ petition was dismissed, while all contentions on jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and the demand remained open in appeal.

Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal materially constrains Article 226 writ jurisdiction in GST adjudication. Once show-cause proceedings culminate in an Order-in-Original, disputes over overlapping State and Central input tax credit proceedings, factual and evidentiary material, and a multi-year notice should ordinarily be examined on appeal. A statutory pre-deposit obligation and the earlier filing of a writ during pending notice proceedings do not alone justify bypassing that remedy. Absent patent jurisdictional infirmity, appellate review remains available on all permissible grounds; the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to appeal.

GST reimbursement under the contractual tax-transition notification must be assessed under paragraph 4 for post-GST contracts and ongoing projects with estimates approved before 1 July 2017, applying GST rates. Paragraph 3(iv), confined to pre-GST contracts, cannot govern or defeat claims concerning contracts executed after that date. The reimbursement claim requires reconsideration under paragraph 4 following a personal hearing and a reasoned decision; coercive action remains restrained pending that determination.

GST registration cancellation based on alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ineligible input tax credit cannot rest on grounds omitted from the show-cause notice. Repeated cancellation proceedings founded on allegations previously dropped by the same officer indicate non-application of mind. The cancellation notice and order were quashed without determination on the merits. Fresh proceedings may be initiated only through a new show-cause notice, with an opportunity of hearing and compliance with law.

GST-related tax fraud allegations based on non-response and non-payment of Central or State GST must be addressed under the CGST Act where proceedings under that special enactment have already commenced. Sections 4 and 5 of the BNSS preserve the investigative and procedural framework prescribed by special statutes, preventing recourse to general criminal law for offences governed by such statutes. On this basis, BNS prosecution for the alleged GST defaults, including the charge-sheet and cognizance order against the taxpayer, was set aside.

GST assessment and rectification orders are subject to the statutory appellate mechanism, requiring exhaustion of that alternative remedy before a writ challenge is directly entertained. Where a GST demand and rejection of a rectification application were challenged without first filing an appeal, the writ petition was dismissed on that ground. Liberty was granted to file the statutory appeal within 30 days; if filed within that period, it must be entertained without a limitation objection and decided on merits. All substantive contentions remain open in the appellate proceedings.

Leasing by a Town Panchayat of weekly-market entrance-fee collection rights to tender contractors is undertaken in its capacity as a public authority where it directly relates to the statutory function of markets and fairs. The phrase "in relation to" covers integral, incidental and ancillary arrangements needed to discharge that function. Contractors' collection under Panchayat-prescribed fees, receipts and conditions does not change the activity's statutory character or make it independently commercial. The leasing is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services and therefore falls outside GST under the applicable notification.

Bovine semen sorting, a laboratory process separating X-bearing and Y-bearing sperm cells, is a value-addition, testing and separation service performed on biological material. It neither constitutes nor directly supports livestock rearing, feeding, breeding management or animal husbandry, and is not an intermediate production process by way of job work relating to rearing of animals. In the absence of a specific scientific and technical service entry, it falls within SAC 998349 as other technical and scientific services, attracting GST at 18% without exemption.

Input tax credit on land-survey charges incurred to identify alternate land for afforestation obligations is unavailable where the land is surrendered to the Forest Department, written off, and generates no independent economic benefit or taxable outward supply. The survey services are not used in the course or furtherance of business, so the Section 16(1) requirement is not met. Surveys connected with golf-course development concern immovable property developed on own account, while surveys for surrendered land relate to written-off land; the related credit is treated as blocked under Section 17(5), including Section 17(5)(h). Land transactions are outside the scope of supply under Schedule III.

CBDT Circular No. 13/2023 specifically governs condonation applications by co-operative societies that filed delayed returns while claiming deduction under section 80P for covered assessment years, displacing the general framework in Circular No. 09/2015 for refunds and loss carry-forwards. Reliance solely on the general circular without considering the specific circular reflects non-application of mind. COVID-19 restrictions and delayed statutory audit reports routed through the State Audit Department may constitute genuine hardship under Circular No. 13/2023. Condonation relief under section 119(2)(b) should be applied liberally rather than defeated on a hyper-technical basis, enabling consideration of a qualifying section 80P claim on merits.

Reassessment of the existence of a permanent establishment cannot revisit an issue already examined during scrutiny merely because the assessment order did not expressly record a finding. Where subscription arrangements and the agent relationship were disclosed and considered, reopening would improperly cure the Assessing Officer's failure to record a conclusion, undermining assessment finality. Reopening after four years from a scrutiny assessment also requires failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. As that jurisdictional condition was absent and the notice was issued beyond the statutory six-year period, the reassessment notice was quashed without deciding whether a permanent establishment existed in India.

Succession of a firm by a company satisfies section 47(xiii) where all assets and liabilities immediately before succession vest in the company and partners receive only company shares. Pre-succession capital withdrawals, asset sales and changes in partners' profit-sharing ratios do not, absent a statutory restriction, disqualify the succession or make it a taxable transfer. Search-assessment proceedings require incriminating material: routine board resolutions, no-objection certificates, legal notes, valuation reports and firm-constitution records generated in ordinary business are not incriminating. In their absence, assessment under section 153A is not maintainable, and the departmental appeal was dismissed.

Section 10(23FB) exemption is available to a venture capital fund registered as a trust where it operates separately auditable contributory schemes; each scheme need not obtain separate SEBI registration, although its private placement memorandum must be submitted. For the associated-company test, trustees' shares count only when held personally, not when held fiduciary on the Fund's behalf, so fiduciary holdings do not count toward the 15% threshold. A valid, uncancelled SEBI registration establishes the fund's statutory status; absent regulatory action over VCF Regulation breaches, the Income-tax Department cannot independently rely on alleged breaches to deny exemption. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the exemption sustained.

Section 270A penalties for under-reporting or misreporting are inapplicable where an Advance Pricing Agreement governs a modified return, the royalty transaction is fully disclosed, and the revised arm's-length royalty rate is reflected in total income. A CSR expenditure deduction claim should not attract penalty where supported by binding Tribunal precedent, particularly if the underlying addition is deleted. Likewise, an education cess claim made under then-prevailing High Court precedent should not be penalised merely because a later retrospective amendment requires its withdrawal. These principles preserve the APA framework and protect bona fide, disclosed claims subsequently displaced by legal change.

Transfer-pricing analysis of spare replacement services depends on the entity's actual functions rather than its formal designation. A business that merely supplies and holds spares under an associated enterprise's directions, without control over customers or resale prices, is characterised as a captive service provider rather than a trader. That functional characterisation supports use of the transactional net margin method with appropriate comparables to determine arm's length price, instead of the resale price method. The discussion addresses the distinction between TNMM and RPM where resale functions and pricing control are absent.