Cess demand based solely on an erroneous GSTR-1 entry was unsustainable where the declared cess did not correspond with the taxable value or CGST and SGST liabilities. CGST and SGST liabilities in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B were consistent and correctly paid. In the absence of allegations or evidence of suppressed outward supplies, understated taxable value, or short payment of tax, the cess mismatch was accepted as a clerical error. A bare allegation of cess short payment could not support the demand; the appellate order, consequential interest, and penalty were quashed.

Intra-State transport of natural rubber latex from an agriculturist's premises to a taxable recipient's registered business place is exempt from e-way bill requirements when accompanied by a delivery challan under Notification No. 3/2018-State Tax. The exemption applied where the supplier established the agricultural origin of the latex and the prescribed challan accompanied the transport. An incorrect GSTIN in the challan, belonging to an unrelated person and unsupported by evidence of connection with the transaction, was treated as a genuine and condonable clerical error. Penalties imposed for transporting the latex without an e-way bill were set aside, with consequential relief.

Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST governs mismatches between input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B and reflected in GSTR-2A for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. Its verification instructions extend to pending adjudication and appellate proceedings for those periods. Where a FY 2017-18 dispute involves excess input tax credit claims and additional documentary evidence, the claim requires fresh examination under the Circular, with observance of natural justice. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for de novo consideration of the mismatch and additional evidence within the prescribed period.

Post-death GST liability of a legal representative for a discontinued proprietary business is confined to the deceased proprietor's inherited estate and its capacity to meet the charge under Section 93(1)(b). Proceedings cannot validly continue where no notice is issued to the legal heir and no inquiry identifies an inherited estate; the proceedings and appellate order were therefore without jurisdiction and set aside. Input tax credit remained available despite a GSTR-2A mismatch where supplier certificates established tax payment and showed that invoices were incorrectly reported as B2C rather than B2B supplies.

GST refund limitation for tax paid on a taxable advance runs from the tax-payment date, and the COVID-19 exclusion applies where that relevant date falls within the notified excluded period. Applying exclusion of the first day and inclusion of the last day, a payment made on 19 May 2020 permitted filing until 29 February 2024. Rectified applications submitted after deficiency memos relate back only to a timely original application. GST validly paid on a taxable advance is not a deposit outside the statutory refund mechanism, and the two-year filing period is a substantive eligibility condition. Appellate authorities must decide limitation issues with reasons after considering the taxpayer's reply.

Section 129 penalties for goods transported in contravention must correspond to the nature and extent of the established non-compliance. Where invoices and e-way bills validly cover part of a consignment, and no material shows that those documents or the underlying transaction are false, the documented goods cannot be treated as unsupported merely because excess goods are undocumented. Separate proof of dishonest intent is not essential for invoking section 129, but deliberate tax evasion for the entire consignment cannot be presumed from an excess undocumented quantity. Penalty was therefore confined to the excess undocumented shuttering plywood.

Fermentation using yeast prevents a grape-based beverage from being treated as a fruit pulp or fruit juice-based drink for classification purposes. A beverage qualifies as non-alcoholic only where its alcoholic strength does not exceed 0.5% by volume. Available analysis and a later private test report did not provide valid documentary proof of alcoholic strength, so non-alcoholic status could not be established. Consequently, no HSN classification or tax rate was determined, although the beverage was treated as fermented rather than juice-based.

Demonetisation-period cash sales already offered as income could not, merely because they occurred during demonetisation, shift the burden to establish unexplained cash credit where physical and recorded stock supported the sales and recorded purchases remained undisputed. The High Court upheld deletion of the alleged bogus-sales addition, finding no basis for the forensic allegation of backdated entries; rejection of books for gross-profit estimation did not displace relevant stock reconciliations. It also declined to interfere with the restricted excess-stock addition and deletion of the survey cash-discrepancy addition, because the concurrent factual findings showed neither perversity nor ignored relevant material. No substantial question of law arose under section 260A, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Cancellation charges paid on export supply contracts may constitute deductible business expenditure rather than speculative loss where they arise from settlement of contracts for goods dealt with in the ordinary course of business. Export commission paid to non-resident agents for customer-solicitation services performed outside India is not subject to withholding where the recipients have no business connection in India and the payment is not otherwise chargeable to tax. Foreign-exchange forward-contract losses incurred to hedge export realisations are business losses, not speculative losses. Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income requires recorded satisfaction on the taxpayer's claim and material establishing a nexus between expenditure and exempt income before applying Rule 8D.

Incorrect filing of a charitable trust's return in ITR-7 instead of ITR-5 constitutes a defective return requiring correction under the return-defect procedure. A technical defect in filing Form 10B does not, by itself, defeat the claimed charitable exemption. Exemption may be denied where the return is filed after the prescribed due date, but restoration remains available if delay is condoned under the applicable statutory power. Even where exemption is unavailable, taxable income must reflect the real audited surplus or deficit; gross receipts cannot be taxed merely because the exemption claim fails. Processing must therefore account for the corrected return, audited deficit, and any condonation decision.

Oilfield service receipts from facilities, field-development consultancy and NDR preparation fall within section 44BB where they are inextricably connected with mineral-oil prospecting, extraction or production; those receipts are therefore taxable under the presumptive regime. Income-tax refund interest earned by a US resident is business profit under Article 7 of the India-US DTAA, rather than concessional interest income, when the refunded tax debt is effectively connected with its Indian permanent establishment. Consideration for offshore equipment supplies is not taxable in India where title and risk pass abroad, payment is received abroad, and no Indian operations, business connection or relevant permanent establishment exist.

Government-financing eligibility for an educational institution exemption may account for University Grants Commission-distributed Central Government grants and notional interest on Government-granted land, alongside pervasive statutory control by the State Government. Where those components cause Government funding to exceed the prescribed share of total receipts, the institution satisfies the financing condition for exemption. A penalty for under-reporting or misreporting founded solely on denial of that exemption cannot continue once the underlying assessment addition is deleted.

Section 153C jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer of the searched person to record satisfaction and hand over seized material before proceedings against another person commence. Where notices preceded these steps, the jurisdictional condition was absent, rendering the notices and consequential assessments void ab initio and quashed. The material must also pertain to the other person and bear on determination of that person's total income; mere discovery of books, documents or assets is insufficient. A later satisfaction note cannot cure defective initiation or establish the required nexus.

IBC moratorium under section 14 prevents initiation or continuation of reassessment proceedings against a corporate debtor while the moratorium remains operative. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the Income-tax Act, so a faceless-assessment limitation period cannot create jurisdiction prohibited by the IBC. Reassessment completed during the operative moratorium is void ab initio; challenges to the underlying disallowances and additions remain open on their merits.

Transfer-pricing adjustments require a functional, asset and risk-based selection of the tested party and reliable functionally comparable data; operating PLI items must be assessed by their nexus with operations and consistently with comparables. Any adjustment must be confined to relevant associated-enterprise international transactions, requiring fresh examination. DCF valuation of CCPS may be scrutinised on valuation-date assumptions, but cannot be replaced by alternative assumptions without a cogent technical basis; the share-premium addition was deleted. ESOP expenditure recognised over vesting is deductible under section 37(1) where statutory conditions and accepted fair value are satisfied, despite no cash outflow; duplicate disallowance for subsidiary employees is impermissible. The ESOP disallowance was deleted.

Managerial support covering supply chain, human resources, strategic planning, marketing, finance and information systems falls outside the India-US DTAA definition of fees for included services. Such support is not ancillary or subsidiary to a separate trademark licence where it serves the recipient's overall business rather than licensed products. Recurring services also fail the make-available test unless they transfer enduring technical knowledge or skills enabling independent performance, rather than temporary reliance on the provider's expertise. Consequently, the consideration is not taxable as treaty fees for included services or domestic-law fees for technical services; tax-deducted-at-source credit remains available according to law.

Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer specifically examined the nature and allowability of ESOP expenditure, considered supporting material, and adopted a legally permissible view under section 37(1). A concise assessment order does not by itself establish lack of enquiry. Where two permissible views exist, an assessment is not erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue merely because the Commissioner prefers another view. Admission of an SLP without a stay or reversal does not make the High Court view unsustainable. The revisionary order was quashed.

Customs-duty recovery under Section 28 is confined to the person liable to duty and does not permit joint and several recovery from a high-sea seller who is not the statutory importer. Importer status depends on evidence of filing bills of entry, furnishing clearance documents, receiving or owning the goods, or otherwise undertaking the import. A retracted statement or an alleged licence sale, without proof linking the person to the relevant imports, is insufficient. Penalties for alleged misuse of advance licences require evidence that the person used the licence for the impugned clearance or dealt with the imported goods or clearance documentation.

Personal penalty for smuggled foreign-origin cigarettes under Section 112(b)(i) requires cogent evidence that an individual possessed or controlled the premises and consciously knew of, or was involved with, the smuggled goods. The goods' liability to confiscation or an inferred association with the premises does not by itself establish personal liability. Unsupported allegations of tenancy, absence of identification as owner or occupier in the panchnama, and uncorroborated statements linking the individual to the premises did not establish the statutory ingredients. The personal penalty was therefore set aside.

Section 114 penalty for a Customs House Agent's role in attempted export of misdeclared goods requires cogent evidence of knowing participation or a culpable act or omission. Failure to verify exporters' credentials, signatures, or authorisation documents may breach licensing obligations, but without proof of knowledge of the goods, false documentation, overvaluation, fraudulent drawback, conspiracy, or deliberate facilitation, it does not establish conscious abetment. Where the same goods, investigation, and allegations had already led to licence revocation and security forfeiture, an additional Section 114 penalty was treated as unsustainable; penalties on the firm and its partner were set aside.