Retrospective cancellation of GST registration does not, for statutory-audit purposes, preclude examination of records and compliance for the full notified period where registration existed during that period. Audit is record-based and does not itself determine tax liability, validate returns, or assume taxable supplies after cancellation. Although cancellation preserves pre-cancellation liabilities and obligations, audit authority arises from the statutory audit framework. Separate material non-disclosure of a known pending audit notice in cancellation proceedings defeats the clean-hands requirement and independently bars discretionary writ relief.

GST audit jurisdiction extends to records, returns, input tax credits, refunds and compliance during a period when registration existed, even if registration is later cancelled retrospectively. Retrospective cancellation does not erase the historical fact of registration or place underlying conduct beyond audit; audit authority arises from the statutory audit definition, audit provision and prescribed procedure, rather than the cancellation provision. Audit does not validate returns treated as void or determine tax liability, which remains subject to applicable statutory mechanisms. Material non-disclosure of a pending audit notice in earlier writ proceedings seeking retrospective cancellation can independently bar discretionary writ relief. The writ petition was dismissed, the audit notice remained effective for its stated period, and interim protection was vacated.

Further investigation after expiry of the statutory period, without any remaining recovery or discovery, does not by itself support continued custody in alleged fraudulent input tax credit matters. Where the offence carries a limited maximum sentence and is triable by a Magistrate, risks of interference with evidence, witnesses, or investigation should be assessed under the triple test and addressed through bail conditions. Continued incarceration pending a potentially lengthy trial may amount to pre-trial punishment, contrary to the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. Conditions may require cooperation with investigation, attendance at trial, and non-tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily restrains writ jurisdiction over GST demands, even where breach of natural justice is alleged. Claims of non-service of personal-hearing notices, inadequate virtual-hearing opportunity, or failure to consider explanations do not automatically displace the appellate remedy. Where resolution depends on disputed records concerning registered email addresses, dispatch and communication of notices, hearing particulars, and submitted explanations, the appellate authority is the appropriate forum to examine them. The taxpayer may pursue the statutory appeal with all procedural and merits contentions left open.

Section 17(2) requires input tax credit reversal only to the extent credit on common goods or services supports both taxable and exempt supplies; no reversal arises for wholly exempt traded cattle feed where no credit was availed on its purchase. GSTR-9 may correct figures reported in periodic returns, but a difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 attributed to clerical error requires verification. Credit availability, any reversal, and resulting tax liability require determination after examining records and the reconciliation explanation with an opportunity of hearing.

E-way bill values in job work movements cannot, without independent evidence, be treated as a job worker's taxable turnover. E-way bills record goods movement, and their generation by a person involved in the transaction is not determinative where consignor and consignee particulars are correctly declared. Goods sent by a principal for processing and returned thereafter do not establish a taxable supply by the job worker, who paid tax on job work charges. A mismatch between e-way bill data and GST returns, absent proof of supply or tax evasion, could not sustain the demand. The Tribunal therefore set aside the demand, interest and penalty.

Form GSTR-1 rectification permits correction of B2B supplies mistakenly reported as B2C where invoices and outward-supply statements identify registered recipients. Re-reporting those supplies with March 2020 supplies can duplicate outward supplies, artificially inflate turnover and tax liability, and create an apparent short payment despite tax having been discharged through the corresponding Form GSTR-3B returns. Section 39(9) permits rectification within its outer time limit where the error did not arise from departmental scrutiny, audit, inspection, or enforcement activity; it does not require errors from a financial year to be corrected only in a succeeding financial year. The inflated GSTR-1-based demand was therefore quashed.

Board circulars cannot curtail statutory penalties applicable to fake-invoice transactions. False GST records, invoices issued without actual supply, contradictory admissions, cancelled registrations, and vehicle details inconsistent with goods transport may support penalties for creating fake documents and furnishing false returns with intent to evade tax. A taxpayer's statement under statutory summons may be relied upon without corroboration where it was not obtained by duress or coercion. Taxpayers claiming input tax credit must prove actual receipt of goods and suppliers' tax payment; additional documents cannot be relied on at the appellate stage without compliance with Rule 112. Penalties for unsupported input tax credit and false documents were restored, with bank-balance appropriation and attachment maintained.

Section 76 requires every person collecting an amount as tax to remit it to the Government, irrespective of registered status, composition scheme, exempt supplies, or the passing of input tax credit. Tax invoices and bank records evidencing consideration inclusive of tax establish actual collection for this purpose. Input tax credit is available only within statutory time limits; GSTR-3B returns filed after the prescribed deadline cannot validly be used to utilise time-barred credit. Debits through the electronic credit ledger for such credit are irregular and liable to disallowance, with consequential tax demand, interest, and equivalent penalty.

Portal downtime preventing IRN generation at dispatch did not justify a goods-detention penalty where the commercial invoice, e-way bill and delivery note accurately disclosed the goods, value and tax particulars, and the IRN was generated later. Transportation under a delivery note operated as a safeguard where an invoice could not be issued on removal. Section 129 was treated as addressing clandestine movement and deliberate non-disclosure, not a technical reporting lapse without intent to evade tax; the penalty was therefore set aside. Payment through DRC-03 to secure release of detained goods and vehicle, made under economic duress, did not estop a substantive challenge. The amount paid was refundable with statutory interest after verification.

Mandatory transit-documentation rules require invoices and e-way bills that correspond to goods physically carried at the time of movement. Invoices supplied only after detention, particularly without matching e-way bills, do not cure a movement unsupported by compliant records. Where no authentic, pre-existing ownership records identify the goods at interception, the transporter may be treated as a person other than the owner for penalty purposes. Undocumented garments may be valued using product quality, fabric specifications and prevailing wholesale-market averages where matching invoices are unavailable and buyers cannot be traced; such valuation must rest on objective and rational market indicators.

GST detention penalties can be sustained where invoices, e-way bills and transport documents do not correspond with goods physically verified in transit. Documentary existence alone does not establish coverage of the transported goods; supplier-wise and aggregate weight discrepancies require reconciliation with contemporaneous electronic and transport records. Unsupported challenges to weighment, including those lacking timely objection, independent reweighment or technical evidence, do not negate such discrepancies. Cancellation and regeneration of e-way bills for the same invoice also require explanation. Cumulative material discrepancies established intention to evade tax, resulting in restoration of the original tax and penalty order.

Supply, erection, testing and commissioning of fire-protection equipment constitute a composite supply where naturally bundled. Once permanently installed and not removable without substantial dismantling, the system is immovable property; transfer of goods with its installation constitutes a works contract, treated as a supply of services under Heading 9954. Excavation and backfilling do not qualify the contract for the predominantly earthwork rate where earthwork is not predominant. Classification or concessional IGST treatment under omitted entries or a rescinded notification is unavailable.

Recovery of professional fees for GST refund representation depended on proof of direct engagement, authority and acknowledgement of the agreed fee. A power of attorney, appearances before the GST authority and correspondence established the representative's authority and the company's fee obligation. The claimed condition that fees became payable only on receipt of the refund lacked contractual support, and non-joinder of chartered accountants did not defeat the claim. The agreed fee was recoverable, with pendente lite and future interest fixed at 6% per annum from suit filing until realisation.

Foreign sales commission paid to non-resident agents for services performed entirely outside India is not chargeable to tax in India where the agents undertake no activity in India, maintain no business connection or establishment there, and receive the commission abroad. As tax deduction at source applies only to income chargeable in India, remittances in those circumstances do not attract withholding. Chartered Accountant certificates and supporting records may establish the absence of an Indian income nexus or establishment.

Consequential assessments made under a subsisting revision order are tested against that order's directions and the action taken to implement them; an alleged defect in the original assessment alone does not invalidate the consequential assessment. For unabated search assessments, additions require incriminating material, which may comprise seized accounting data and corroborative statements rather than only the warrant or panchanama. Cash land advances remain unexplained credits where taxpayers do not establish payer identity, source, confirmations, or underlying transaction records; book entries and audited disclosures are insufficient against seized evidence of unaccounted cash. Telescoping against income offered by another group entity requires a proven factual nexus and assurance against double relief.

Tax deductions and transfer-pricing treatment turn on statutory conditions rather than administrative quantification or unsupported adjustments. Expenditure incurred at an approved in-house R&D facility qualified for weighted deduction despite incomplete Form 3CL quantification; delegated rules could not restrict the statutory measure of eligible expenditure. For exempt-income disallowance, objective satisfaction from the accounts is required before applying Rule 8D, and interest-free funds exceeding investments preclude interest disallowance. Pre-amendment CSR expenditure remained deductible, whereas CSR spending subject to the later statutory Explanation was not deductible as business expenditure, although eligible donations could qualify.....

Interest paid for delayed remittance of TDS is not expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business under section 37(1), notwithstanding its compensatory character. A compulsory-acquisition capital-gains exemption requires examination of acquisition documents, compensation and statutory conditions, rather than rejection solely because it was omitted from the return. Transfer-pricing applicability and arm's length pricing of captive-power supplies require separate analysis. Section 14A and Rule 8D disallowance depends on the expenditure actually considered and cannot be resolved merely through the own-funds presumption. Project-monitoring and supervision costs may remain revenue expenditure despite capitalisation in accounts. Book-profit adjustments under section 115JB must be independently calculated without importing Rule 8D.

Compulsory conversion of debentures and the absence of cash redemption may affect comparable selection or adjustments, but do not by themselves justify treating an express pre-conversion coupon as having a nil arm's-length price. Recharacterisation requires facts showing that economic substance differs from legal form, or that reliable pricing is unavailable; no uncontrolled transaction supported a nil return under the Other Method. The nil-ALP adjustment was deleted, without establishing any universal arm's-length coupon rate. The related interest disallowance was also set aside for lack of an independent finding on business nexus or use of funds. Interest-limitation and statutory-interest computations require consequential verification, recomputation, and identification of the charging provision.

Arm's length pricing for intra-group support services cannot be fixed at nil merely because adequate benefit from the expenditure is not established. Where existing benchmarking is rejected, the price must be determined through the most appropriate prescribed method and objective comparables; agreements, invoices, allocation workings and personnel material require cumulative assessment. Closely linked transactions benchmarked under TNMM cannot be selectively separated without proper basis. Evidence of actual operational support and business nexus supports deduction where no capital, personal or prohibited purpose is shown. The transfer-pricing adjustment and alternate disallowance were deleted. Interest under section 234C must be computed on tax due on returned income and recomputed accordingly.