Additional input tax credit must be passed to homebuyers through commensurate reduction in flat prices under Section 171(1). Where pre-GST credit was unavailable and post-GST credit produced a measurable benefit, the benefit may be apportioned by saleable area using the developer's records; failure to prove that it was passed on constitutes profiteering. A notification prohibiting acceptance of fresh anti-profiteering examination requests prospectively does not abate complaints, investigations or proceedings already initiated. Pending challenges to anti-profiteering provisions do not require proceedings to be stayed without an operative stay order. The quantified benefit must be passed to eligible buyers with prescribed interest, while no penalty applies where the contravention predates the penalty provision's commencement.

Transitional-credit provisions do not authorise GST officers to reassess credit validly carried forward under the erstwhile service-tax or VAT regimes; disputes over its original admissibility must proceed under the saved provisions of those laws. Section 74(1) could therefore not support denial of undisputed pre-GST CENVAT credit. Krishi Kalyan Cess credit transitioned under Section 140(1) remained admissible because the linked amendments relied upon to deny it were not operationalised, and the applicable High Court ruling remained effective. VAT credit on stock-in-trade under Section 140(6) could not be denied without identified defects or contrary evidence. The resulting demand, interest and penalty could not survive.

GST notices and orders were required to be accessible under the designated "Notices/Orders" tab, while they were instead displayed under a separate "Additional Notices/Orders" tab. The portal manual and FAQs supported the expectation that the designated tab would contain such communications. As the taxpayer's non-participation resulted from a bona fide belief that no notice or assessment order had been issued, the ex parte assessment and consequential appellate order were unsustainable. Fresh adjudication may be initiated through a fresh notice issued within the prescribed period.

Statutory appellate remedy against an order-in-original and Form GST DRC-07 was preserved despite delay. The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal within two weeks after making the prescribed pre-deposit and seeking condonation of delay. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay application and, if satisfied, decide the appeal on merits under law. No merits of the tax demand or challenged proceedings were examined. Coercive recovery under the garnishee notice was restrained during the permitted period.

Uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original only in the GST Common Portal's 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab does not constitute valid service under the CGST Act and Rules. The retrospective amendment on portal functions does not permit the portal to replace prescribed formal service, and electronic communication cannot validate mere uploading where the notice or order was not duly served. Portal-only uploading may not be challenged if the taxpayer acknowledged receipt and replied; however, where it resulted in ex parte adjudication, proceedings require restoration to the show-cause-notice stage. For contested orders, the appeal limitation period does not begin from portal uploading alone.

Regular bail was considered appropriate in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit through purportedly bogus firms. The evidence was predominantly electronic and documentary material already appended to the complaint, while proposed witnesses were government officers, reducing the risk of tampering or influence. Custody exceeding seven months, absence of criminal antecedents, the maximum five-year sentence, and the need to examine allegations at trial supported release. Both petitioners were granted regular bail on bail and surety bonds, subject to conditions protecting the investigation and ensuring their presence at trial.

An adjudication order for financial year 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Assam GST Act was described as time-barred because the statutory period expired on 31 December 2023 and no corresponding State notification validly extended it; an order dated 30 April 2024 was therefore invalid. The text further states that the order did not provide the hearing required under Section 75(4) or meet the reasoned-determination requirement under Section 75(6). Consequently, the tax, interest and penalty determination lacked legal sustainability for breach of limitation, statutory procedure and natural justice.

Regular bail in alleged fraudulent input tax credit cases was considered appropriate where the prosecution relied mainly on electronic and documentary material already appended to the complaint, reducing the risk of tampering or witness influence. The notes state that the allegations required trial scrutiny, while the offences carried a maximum five-year sentence; the petitioners had substantial custody, no criminal antecedents, and social roots. Referring to Supreme Court guidance where investigation was complete and trial delay was likely, the HC granted regular bail subject to bonds, sureties, and conditions ensuring attendance and non-interference with the trial.

Uploading a GST show-cause notice or adjudication order only in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the Common Portal is not sufficient service unless the taxpayer acknowledges receipt or responds. The notes state that the retrospective amendment on Common Portal functions does not change this position because the GST Rules do not prescribe portal upload as a mode of service for such notices or orders. If no reply was filed and an ex parte order followed, proceedings must be restored to the notice stage. If an order followed a contested proceeding but was only uploaded on the portal, the limitation period for appeal does not commence.

Transitional CENVAT credit reflected as an undisputed closing balance under the erstwhile service tax regime cannot be reassessed or denied through CGST proceedings merely because its original availment is alleged to have been inadmissible. The notes explain that recovery for wrongful pre-GST CENVAT credit must proceed under the saved provisions of the erstwhile law, not under the CGST Act. They further address transition of Krishi Kalyan Cess credit through TRAN-1, noting the relevance of unoperationalised transitional explanations and applicable High Court guidance. VAT credit on stock-in-trade is described as transitionable where required particulars were furnished and no specific adverse material supports denial. Penalty based solely on TRAN-1 disclosures is also treated as unjustified.

Section 171(1) requires suppliers to pass additional input tax credit to recipients through a commensurate reduction in price. In a real-estate project, additional GST credit may be determined against available pre-GST credit using project records and apportioned by saleable area; failure to prove that the resulting benefit reached eligible homebuyers supports a finding of profiteering. A notification stopping acceptance of fresh anti-profiteering requests operates prospectively and does not, without express provision, terminate pending investigations or adjudications. The pendency of a constitutional challenge does not suspend application of the prevailing law unless a stay order covers the provision or proceedings. Applicable interest may accompany quantified benefit, while penalty depends on whether the penalty provision was in force during the contravention period.

Internal comparable pricing for captive power transfers was accepted where the same consuming units bought electricity from State distribution companies in the same market and period, resulting in deletion of transfer-pricing adjustments. Exempt-income disallowance was confined to dividend-yielding investments, and MAT adjustments required an independent determination of expenditure from the accounts. Expansion-related operating costs remained revenue expenditure unless directly attributable to acquiring or installing capital assets. Captive rail systems qualified as infrastructure facilities for section 80-IA, while common costs required expenditure-based allocation supported by a nexus. Incentives linked to capital investment and expansio.....

For a non-resident bank, overseas data-processing costs qualify as head office expenditure only where incurred outside India, constituting executive or general administration, and falling within the statutory definition; factual examination of those conditions was required. NRI desk expenditure remained disallowed. Where interest-free funds exceeded investments in exempt securities, investments were presumed funded from those sources, supporting exemption without interest disallowance. Bad-debt provision deduction must be computed before the head office expenditure deduction because it is not excluded from adjusted total income. Interest between an Indian branch and its head office or overseas branches is not taxable in India, so withholding-based disallowance does not apply; however, a deductor cannot obtain credit or refund of tax deducted absent statutory authority.

Interest earned by a co-operative credit society on investments with other co-operative banks is discussed as qualifying for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), alternatively to the claim under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The text states that section 80P(4), which excludes co-operative banks from the deduction, does not remove the investing society's entitlement where the recipient bank remains a co-operative society. It further notes reliance on jurisdictional Tribunal decisions and preference for the interpretation favourable to the assessee where non-jurisdictional High Court views conflict. The stated result is deletion of the disallowance and allowance of deduction for both assessment years.

Specific and unambiguous charges are required in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The note explains that a penalty notice must clearly identify whether the allegation concerns concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars; an Assessing Officer cannot initiate proceedings on one limb and impose penalty on the other. Where the notice lacks a definite charge or the penalty order changes the stated basis, the notice and consequential penalty are unsustainable. On the facts described, the penalty order was quashed and the merits of the penalty were not examined.

Audited financial statements were treated as the reliable basis for determining closing work-in-progress where unaudited tally-generated data showed a difference caused by adding, rather than excluding, opening work-in-progress. As the audited accounts correctly reflected the brought-forward opening balance and the relevant year's closing work-in-progress, no discrepancy remained to support an addition based solely on unaudited data. The discussion states that the addition for the alleged difference in closing work-in-progress, as well as the stock-in-trade difference, was deleted.

Recording reasons before issuing a reassessment notice and obtaining sanction based on independent application of mind are jurisdictional requirements. The note explains that undated recorded reasons and an undated sanction are invalid where the sanctioning authority merely writes "yes" or "approved" on a prescribed proforma without demonstrating consideration of the material. Such mechanical approval vitiates the reassessment proceedings. On these facts, the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed as bad in law, while other grounds became academic.

Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a settlement applicant an opportunity to address a jurisdictional Commissioner's report before relying on it to enhance customs duty liability. Non-supply of the report breached that statutory requirement and principles of natural justice, requiring the settlement order to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. Separate settlement applications arising from the same seized imported goods were intrinsically connected and required a consistent approach. The differing treatment of the Revenue report lacked a discernible basis; therefore, the related subsequent order was also quashed and remanded, with all merits left open.

Customs classification of exported scaffolding components was governed by binding High Court precedent recognising classification under the specific headings for nuts, bolts, washers, plastic caps, clamps and hand tools, rather than the general scaffolding heading. The article states that substantially identical classification disputes had already attained finality and were not disputed by Revenue. It reports that the show cause notice alleging misclassification could therefore not be sustained, was quashed, and duty drawback withheld solely because of that notice, together with the export promotional copy, was directed to be released within the stipulated period.

Refund of special additional duty was not subject to the one-year limitation inserted by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. because Section 27 of the Customs Act did not cover such duty paid on import. The article notes that imposing a limitation period from the date of duty payment through an amended exemption notification would affect the substantive refund right without statutory amendment. Following the Larger Bench ruling in Ambey Sales, the High Court found the Tribunal justified in allowing the refund claims and held that no substantial question of law arose. The revenue appeals were dismissed.