ITC differences between FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-2A for 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2021 require verification of supplier tax payment and compliance with rule 36(4) credit ceilings. Unmatched credit is capped at 20 per cent, 10 per cent, or 5 per cent of eligible reported credit for the respective operative periods. Credit beyond the applicable ceiling is inadmissible despite prescribed verification certificates. Cumulative adjustment applies for specified periods in 2020 and 2021. From 1 January 2022, ITC requires supplier reporting and communication in FORM GSTR-2B.

Administrative jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals-South) and the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Enforcement-South) extends to Kushavati District as well as South Goa District under the Goa VAT and GST frameworks. Both officers shall exercise powers and discharge duties over all subjects previously allotted to them in both districts, with effect from 1 April 2026.

Clause 4.13 of the Export and Import Policy does not provide an efficacious alternative remedy where no policy interpretation or classification question arises and the challenge concerns a circular's authority and validity. The DEPB notification granted credit for woven gents jackets, with or without lining, without the disputed value cap. A clarificatory circular imposing that cap substantively curtailed the notified entitlement and operated as an amendment. Such curtailment requires statutory authority and compliance with the prescribed amendment and notification procedure. DEPB applications for those jackets must therefore be assessed under the prevailing rules without the cap.

Rule 57R(8) barred simultaneous Modvat credit and depreciation on the specified duty component of capital goods. Where a revised income-tax assessment excludes the credit amount from the fixed-asset value, adds back excess depreciation to income, and taxes it, no double fiscal benefit remains; capital-goods credit is therefore not deniable. Where disputed credit is paid before a show-cause notice, penalties under Rules 57U(6) and 173Q and interest under Rule 57U(8) are inapplicable, eliminating consequential penal and interest liability.

For interest on wrongly availed IGST credit, the relevant balance is the combined input tax credit available under the IGST, CGST and SGST heads of the electronic credit ledger. No interest arises where that combined balance never falls below the wrongly availed amount between availment and reversal, even if the separate IGST balance falls below it. If the aggregate balance falls below that amount, utilisation and interest are limited to the shortfall. Compensation cess credit is excluded because it can be used only for compensation cess.

Aggressors injured while victims exercise private defence of person or property do not thereby acquire a corresponding right of private defence. Where the accused are established as aggressors, the occurrence takes place on land possessed by the injured person, and the defence version is inconsistent and rejected on evidence, the prosecution's failure to explain the aggressors' injuries does not invalidate the prosecution case. No right of private defence arose for the appellants, and their convictions with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code were sustained.

Recipients of deemed export supplies may avail input tax credit while claiming refund, provided the equivalent claim is debited from the electronic credit ledger. Their undertaking must confine the claim to invoices reported in Statement 5B, limit it to input tax credit availed in the valid return, and confirm that the supplier has not claimed refund. Supplier claims continue to require the recipient's undertaking not to claim refund or avail input tax credit.

Head office input tax credit for third-party common services may be distributed through the optional Input Service Distributor mechanism or through tax invoices to concerned branch offices, subject to attribution or actual provision. Use of the Input Service Distributor mechanism requires registration. Where a branch office has full input tax credit, the invoiced value of head-office services is deemed open market value; if no invoice is issued for a particular service, a nil value may be so deemed.

Criminal review jurisdiction is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record; applications framed as clarifications, modifications, or directions cannot be used to secure a rehearing. In criminal appeals, Articles 136 and 142 permit consequential directions, including retrial before a court outside the State, where necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. The transfer procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not curtail that appellate power when the matter is already before the Supreme Court. Observations concerning prosecution conduct, investigation, and defects in the earlier trial do not determine guilt; the retrial court must independently assess the evidence on its merits.

Registered manufacturers of specified goods must disclose filling and packing machines through FORM SRM-I, with machine particulars, capacity and electricity-consumption details supported by a Chartered Engineer's certificate. Each disclosed machine receives a unique ID. Additional machines and removed machines must be reported within twenty-four hours through the prescribed forms, while production-capacity declarations made to other bodies must also be uploaded. Manufacturers must maintain daily input, waste, electricity, generator-set, production and clearance records, and submit a monthly statement consolidating inputs and production data.

COVID-19 extension of limitation applied only to the prescribed statutory period for filing an insolvency appeal and did not extend the additional period available for condonation of delay. Where an appellant knew of the impugned order but neither filed the appeal nor sought a certified copy within the prescribed period, the conditions for invoking the extension were not satisfied. The appeal was consequently barred by limitation.

Money-laundering allegations concerning state public-service examinations identify two alleged streams of proceeds of crime: corporate social responsibility funding allegedly routed to an institution controlled by the former commission chairman in return for favouring selected candidates, and money allegedly collected from candidates and families for advance access to examination papers and secured selection. The alleged CSR payment was projected as legitimate institutional funding, while candidate-related collections were allegedly possessed, used, transferred, or projected as legitimate transactions.

GST refund eligibility for accumulated input tax credit under section 54(3), for tax periods from January 2022 onward, is confined to eligible invoices reflected in FORM GSTR-2B for the relevant or earlier tax periods. Refund applicants must undertake electronic repayment with interest if section 16(2)(c) requirements are later unmet. Exporters who paid integrated tax after missing export or payment-realisation timelines may, after actual export or realisation, claim eligible unutilised credit and integrated tax refund, but not refund of interest.

Criminal review under Article 137 and Order XL is not a rehearing and requires a demonstrated miscarriage of justice, including an error apparent on the face of the record. The rarest of rare sentencing framework requires an individualised assessment of each convict's role; inconsequential alleged errors do not justify reopening differentiated death sentences. A prior minority preference for life imprisonment does not alone establish a basis to review a majority-confirmed death sentence. For liability under TADA, intention to strike terror must be established from the evidence as a whole; natural and probable consequences do not conclusively prove that specific criminal intent.

Criminal review under Article 137 and Order XL Rule 1 is an exceptional remedy confined to correcting manifest or patent error, glaring omission, or miscarriage of justice; it cannot serve as a rehearing or an appeal in disguise. Finality may be disturbed only on substantial and compelling grounds. In capital sentencing, the rarest of rare assessment depends on the offence's nature, gravity, and societal impact. A prior acquittal or life sentence, or a dissent favouring acquittal or life imprisonment, does not independently constitute a mitigating circumstance or ground to review a death sentence. Capital-sentence finality remains unless a grave review error is independently established.

Supplies of agricultural farm produce in packages containing more than 25 kilograms or 25 litres are excluded from the expression "pre-packaged and labelled" under the Punjab GST exemption framework, notwithstanding the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and rules made under it. The proviso applies from 15 July 2024, so supplies exceeding either stated package quantity threshold are not regarded as within that expression.

A goods transport agency may opt to pay GST itself on services supplied during a financial year. For the financial year 2023-24, the option was required to be exercised on or before 31 May 2023. A GTA commencing business or crossing the GST registration threshold may exercise the option by furnishing a declaration in Annexure V within 45 days of applying for registration or one month from obtaining registration, whichever is later.

Annual return filing exemption applies to registered persons whose aggregate turnover for financial year 2023-24 does not exceed two crore rupees. Such persons are exempt from filing the annual return for that financial year under the Punjab Goods and Services Tax framework. The exemption operates with effect from 10 July 2024.

Holding shares in a subsidiary by its holding company, per se, does not constitute a supply of services and is not liable to GST. Securities, including shares, are neither goods nor services, and their purchase, sale, or holding alone is not a supply. A classification entry concerning holding-company services does not independently establish taxability; an identifiable supply satisfying the statutory requirements must exist.

GSTAT appeal filing through an advocate's or authorised representative's own login raises whether an appeal lodged for a taxpayer will also be displayed in that taxpayer's GSTAT dashboard or login. The issue concerns the linkage between representative-filed appeals and taxpayer-facing portal visibility, without specifying the governing portal procedure or resulting dashboard treatment.