Writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative appeal to the Tribunal where an appellate order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 involves an apparent procedural error and denial of an opportunity to be heard. Deciding an appeal ex parte before the deadline for written submissions violates natural justice and may justify setting aside the order and providing a fresh hearing and decision. The assessment merits remain open for that decision.

Transfer-pricing comparables for software and IT-enabled services must be functionally comparable, taking account of business models, outsourcing and differences between higher-end and routine services. Companies with abnormal profits attributable to extraordinary circumstances, including a merger and consolidated results, must be excluded where their inclusion would distort the mean profit level indicator. These exclusions prevent functionally dissimilar companies or distorted results from forming the basis of the arm's length price benchmark.

Reassessment beyond three years and aggregation of bogus-purchase expenditure across previous years are the tax issues.

Reassessment for assessment year 2014-15 raises the issue of whether a notice under Section 148 may be issued after expiry of the six-year limitation period under the old reassessment regime.

Examination-related printing and supply of materials constitute a composite supply of services where educational institutions own and provide the content, printing is the predominant element, and paper is ancillary. Classification follows the principal supply under heading 9989. Services supplied to qualifying educational institutions in relation to examinations are exempt from GST, including question-paper and admit-card printing, post-examination scanning and result processing, and printing of marksheets and certificates connected with completing examinations and obtaining recognised qualifications.

GST exemptions for government-related project services require supply to specified government or local authorities and a connection to entrusted functions; the training exemption requires supply to a specified government administration. A government-controlled society is not the Government merely because a programme is government funded. Incubation and capacity building in the project constitute a composite supply with incubation as the principal supply; project consultancy and related services attract GST at 18% without the claimed exemptions. Challenge fund grants, soft loans and other enterprise-support funds form part of taxable value on the available contractual evidence. Pure-agent disbursements may be excluded when Rule 33 requirements, including authorisation, recovery at actual cost and separate invoicing, are met. Services supplied by a recognised Technology Business Incubator qualify for a nil rate from the effective date of recognition, subject to the entry's conditions; earlier supplies remain unaffected.

Kraft paper bags with a base width below 40 cm are not exempt from GST and are classified under HSN 48194000. The specific reduced-rate entry for paper sacks and bags applies over the broader entry for goods under heading 4819, attracting GST at 5%. Input tax credit is available on inputs and input services used to manufacture the bags, since their supply is taxable, subject to the conditions prescribed under the applicable GST laws.

For the relevant period, input tax credit requires an invoice, receipt of services, actual payment of tax to the government and filing of a return; the later invoice-reflection requirement does not apply. The claimant bears the burden of proving eligibility. A certificate under the administrative circular is a verification measure, not an independent eligibility condition, and its discrepancy mechanism does not apply where the invoiced integrated tax is reflected in GSTR-2A. Eligible integrated-tax credit on an inter-State supply by a special economic zone unit is not wrongly availed merely because it is inadvertently recorded under central and state tax heads. Wrong-head payment provisions concern tax paid on a transaction, not credit claimed by the recipient.

Undisputed transitional credit remains available where a departmental portal failure prevents diligent, timely filing of a required return and the return is filed at the first available opportunity. Section 140 requires returns for the six months preceding the appointed date, while Rule 117 governs the transitional declaration. Substantial compliance and the principle that law does not compel the impossible inform this result. A fraud-based penalty cannot replace the non-fraud penalty proposed in the notice; section 75(7) bars confirmation of a demand on grounds not specified in the notice. Section 74 requires foundational facts supporting fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax; disclosed filing difficulty and perceived wilfulness alone are insufficient. Consequential relief extends to associated interest and penalty.

Non-consecutive tax invoice numbering is a technical irregularity where valid documents accompany interstate goods, the quantity and description match, and no unaccounted transaction or tax evasion is alleged. Rule 46 requires consecutive invoice numbers, but such a lapse alone does not justify detention or a penalty under section 129. Section 125 addresses general penalties for technical infractions, but its imposition requires deliberate noncompliance. A general penalty is not established without that requirement.

Findings of fictitious transactions require collective evaluation of the available evidence and an effective hearing where material facts remain unresolved after ex parte proceedings. Closure of premises following claimed discontinuance of business, subsequent cancellation of a supplier's registration, or absence of a particular document is not conclusive by itself. The taxpayer's burden of substantiating transactions must be examined, and the taxpayer must have an opportunity to respond and produce supporting records before an adverse finding.

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.