A technical failure to complete Part B of an e-way bill cannot sustain a penalty under section 129 without an established intention to evade tax. Genuine commercial documents and an e-invoice generated before movement support the transaction. Under the applicable circular, the monetary limit for departmental appeals does not bar an appeal where the Commissioner considers a challenge necessary in the interest of justice or revenue. The Commissioner need not state the reasons for that opinion, which cannot be challenged.

Transportation under an expired e-way bill is treated as transportation without a valid e-way bill and may attract a GST penalty where surrounding circumstances indicate an intention to evade tax. Section 129 governs detention and penalties, while Rule 138 governs e-way bills. A penalty was justified where the bill recorded a different vehicle registration, repair slips were produced only during adjudication, the driver had not reported a breakdown and no FASTag movement was shown, although the goods matched the other documents. Fiscal penalties are civil liabilities, and intention to evade tax may be assessed from the surrounding circumstances.

For excess or unaccounted stock discovered during surveys of business premises, tax is determined under sections 73 or 74 of the GST Acts rather than through direct confiscation proceedings under section 130. Registered persons must maintain true and correct accounts under section 35, which provides for tax on unaccounted goods as though supplied. Direct confiscation and the resulting fines and penalties are unsustainable for such stock.

The omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving or sunset clause means proceedings under its export refund restriction cannot continue. A CBIC clarification treats the omission as effective retrospectively from 23 October 2017, and binding Supreme Court precedent addresses the effect of such omissions on pending proceedings. The affected export refund is to be processed.

Delay in a statutory appeal against an ex parte assessment was condoned under Article 226 after the taxpayer offered to deposit half of the assessed liability. Condonation was conditional on that deposit, and an appeal filed within one month of receipt of the order must be decided on its merits, despite expiry of the statutory limitation period.

The question whether the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 applies to proceedings pending on the date of omission was not independently adjudicated by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the special leave petition. The dismissal therefore did not determine the issue.

Writ jurisdiction and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy arise in relation to recovery proceedings for an alleged erroneous refund. The limitation issue concerns the applicable starting point for recovery. Neither the starting point nor any rule governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction where an alternative remedy is available is identified.

Deposits under Income Declaration Scheme declarations rendered void by suppression or misrepresentation cease to be treated as tax and may constitute benami property where one person provides the consideration and another holds the property for that person's direct or indirect benefit. Requests to adjust such deposits against the provider's tax liability can evidence the consideration and contemplated benefit. The 2016 benami amendments apply retrospectively to declaratory, procedural, curative and machinery provisions, including those concerning attachment, adjudication, confiscation and appeal. Provisions creating new offences or enhancing punishment apply only prospectively. Procedural issues in benami attachment include recorded reasons to believe, their incorporation in the show-cause notice, and prior approval.

Judicial precedents that cannot be traced as cited and are disclaimed by respondents cannot support a customs reassessment treating the statutory period for a speaking order as directory. Adjudicative integrity precludes reliance on fabricated or hallucinated precedential material. The fifteen-day period under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as directory on the basis of untraceable citations. The reassessment was set aside, and the notice remitted for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing and consideration of the superior customs authority's earlier classification of the same goods. The merits and jurisdictional objection remained open.

Company dissolution following striking off under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 ends the company's legal existence and its ability to institute or continue proceedings, subject to the statutory saving under Section 250. The saving for realisation of amounts due to the company does not sustain a suit seeking only declarations and injunctions concerning contractual rights, without a claim for monetary recovery. Such proceedings cannot be prosecuted unless the company is restored under Section 252. A plaint in a suit barred on this basis is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Written acknowledgment of a subsisting liability before expiry of limitation starts a fresh limitation period, and rejection of a settlement proposal does not itself negate the acknowledgment. A borrower's acknowledgment binds a personal guarantor where the guarantee expressly provides for it, even without the guarantor's own acknowledgment. A continuing guarantee can preserve liability despite resignation as director or changes to credit facilities, unless novation or release is established. Forgery allegations concerning later documents require proof in appropriate proceedings and do not defeat proceedings independently supported by admitted earlier guarantees. Non-enforcement of collateral does not automatically discharge a guarantor; applicable statutory conditions, such as release of the principal debtor or impairment of the surety's remedies, must be established.

Section 240A exempts MSME promoters only from the disqualifications under Section 29A(c) and (h); absent a notified exemption, they must satisfy separate eligibility criteria under Section 25(2)(h). Net-worth criteria must reflect the scale and complexity of the corporate debtor's business, and their relaxation is a matter for the committee of creditors. The resolution professional must verify eligibility before admitting applicants, without requiring the committee to assess every expression of interest on its merits. Recomputing a creditor's claim does not retrospectively invalidate a lawful rejection where the criterion was based on business size and value. Allegations of bias or mala fides require a clear factual foundation.

Service of a service tax adjudication order by affixation on the authority's notice board can constitute valid deemed service under Section 37-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where personal delivery at the disclosed address fails and no updated address is supplied. Continued use of the original address despite a claimed change is relevant to the validity of service. Under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal period runs from receipt of the order: two months to appeal, with a further month available for condonation. An appeal beyond that condonable period is time-barred.

Unaccounted tobacco stock discovered during a survey is subject to tax determination under sections 73 or 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act rather than direct confiscation, penalty and fine under section 130. Section 35(6), read with section 35(1), permits the proper officer to determine tax on unaccounted goods as if they had been supplied. A departmental appeal under section 112 against a rectification that merely corrects an omission in an appellate order is not maintainable when the original appellate order remains unchallenged.

An expired e-way bill is treated as no e-way bill for transport under section 129(1) of the CGST/UPGST Acts read with rule 138 of the CGST Rules. Fiscal penalties are civil liabilities and do not require mens rea unless the provision incorporates it, but the department must show an intention to evade tax under section 129, which may be inferred from surrounding circumstances. An incomplete e-way bill raises a rebuttable presumption of that intention. Penalty applied where Part-B showed a different vehicle number and the breakdown explanation lacked reliable contemporaneous support, although the goods, invoice and consignment note were otherwise in order.

The monetary limit for departmental appeals does not apply where the State Tax Commissioner considers a contest necessary in the interests of justice or revenue. That opinion cannot be challenged, and the Commissioner need not state reasons. For a technical failure to complete e-way bill Part B in an otherwise genuine transaction, penalty under section 129 requires an intention to evade tax supported by material and reasoned findings. Genuine documents accompanying the goods can rebut a presumption of evasion; a pre-movement e-invoice can disclose the transaction on the portal and auto-populate GSTR-1.

GST penalties for invoices without actual supply require collective assessment of contemporaneous records. Absence of stock at premises vacated before inspection cannot alone establish fictitious trading, while assertions of past trading do not establish genuineness. Subsequent cancellation of a supplier's registration requires verification of its status during the transactions and whether supplies were made. Books and supporting evidence must be examined, including whether the taxpayer substantiated the transactions. An ex parte penalty order is not set aside merely because the taxpayer was absent; reconsideration with an effective hearing and a reasoned order is warranted where material factual questions require further verification.

Non-consecutive invoice numbering under rule 46(b) is a technical irregularity that does not by itself make a duly documented movement of goods unlawful or untaxed. Detention and penalty under section 129(3) are not justified for a bona fide numbering lapse where transport documents are valid, the goods match their recorded quantity and description, and no tax evasion or revenue loss is established. Section 125 is the potential general penalty route for such an infraction, although the required deliberate non-compliance was absent. The transaction between registered dealers was recorded in their accounts and was revenue-neutral.

Transitional CENVAT credit under section 140(1) remains available where an undisputed balance is declared in a timely TRAN-1 and an outstanding ER-1 return is filed at the first available opportunity after departmental portal failures prevented timely filing. Such filing constitutes substantial compliance; procedural requirements cannot defeat substantive credit when compliance is impossible for reasons beyond the taxpayer's control. Section 75(7) confines adjudication to the grounds in the show-cause notice, so a fraud-based penalty cannot be imposed when the notice proposes only a non-fraud penalty. A demand under section 74(1) requires evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax; disclosed portal difficulties and unsupported allegations do not establish those grounds.

Mismatches between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A warrant verification but do not alone establish failure to meet the supplier tax payment condition. Reflection of IGST in GSTR-2A, bank evidence of payment inclusive of tax, and reconciliation can discharge the recipient's burden where no material showing supplier non-payment is produced. Verification certificates under the relevant circular are not additional eligibility conditions; its specified mismatch scenarios do not apply where IGST is reflected in GSTR-2A. Inadvertently reporting otherwise admissible IGST credit under CGST and SGST heads is a reporting error, not wrong availment. Provisions governing tax paid under an incorrect head do not prescribe an exclusive remedy for recipient credit. Where appellate relief makes a statutory pre-deposit refundable, interest runs from payment until refund, even without a specific request.