Penalty under section 122(1A) of the CGST Act must be imposed consistently with the person identified in the show-cause notice. Specified penalties were proposed against the petitioner, while the separate section 122(1A) penalty was proposed against its handler/operator; nevertheless, both penalties were imposed on the petitioner. As this mixing of proposed penalties was not specifically controverted, the penalty order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner, with other issues left open.

GST valuation proceedings require the show-cause notice to identify the valuation rule on which the proposed demand rests. Where a notice invokes Rule 28(a), but the adjudicating authority finds that rule inapplicable and instead confirms the demand under Rule 27(c), the taxpayer must receive notice and an opportunity to respond to that distinct basis. Substituting the valuation rule at adjudication causes prejudice and breaches natural justice. A fresh show-cause notice is required before proceedings may be pursued on the revised valuation basis.

Cancellation of GST registration under Section 29 requires the Proper Officer's independent satisfaction, based on cogent and tangible material, that a statutory ground for cancellation exists. Nil turnover declared in GSTR-3B returns alone does not establish discontinuance of business, especially where material indicates that business continued from the registered premises. A show-cause notice founded solely on nil turnover does not disclose a circumstance warranting cancellation. The cancellation and rejection of revocation were quashed, while the authority retained liberty to verify whether the business continued and proceed in accordance with law.

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely through the portal after cancellation of registration may deny the taxpayer a proper opportunity to respond. Once registration is cancelled, the taxpayer is not required to continue checking the GST portal; an alternative mode of service is required. An assessment founded only on such portal-based notice breaches principles of natural justice and was set aside. Fresh proceedings may be initiated upon proper notice, and any recovered amount remains subject to the final outcome of those proceedings.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, without a savings clause was treated as applying to pending refund-recovery proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court pronouncement on the effect of such omission, the High Court set aside the refund-recovery orders and remanded the matters for fresh consideration under that principle. The merits of the refund-recovery claims were not decided.

Delayed statutory appeals against GST assessment orders may be pursued where the taxpayer undertakes to pay outstanding tax and interest and deposits 10% of the penalty. Upon compliance, the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits without applying limitation. If the conditions are not met, tax recovery may proceed after due notice. The permission remains conditional on these payments.

Compulsory acquisition of land and attached structures under eminent-domain powers is an expropriation, not a supply of goods or services for GST purposes. Land and buildings are immovable property and cannot be treated as goods, while a landowner does not provide any service through statutory acquisition. GST deducted from acquisition compensation therefore lacks statutory basis, is beyond the acquiring authority's power, and must be refunded with interest. Interest awarded on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act to account for the period until payment forms part of compensation and is not subject to tax deduction at source.

Portal-only service of GST show-cause notices is insufficient where there is no acknowledgement of receipt or response to the notice. Similarly, uploading a contested order-in-original solely on the Common Portal does not commence the limitation period for filing an appeal. Taxpayers affected by notices or adjudication orders served only through the portal may seek the remedies available for defective service, including protection against limitation being calculated from the portal-upload date alone.

Condonation of delay beyond the ordinarily condonable period for a GST appeal was considered appropriate where rectification proceedings were not the sole explanation and the tax levy was disputed on factual grounds requiring adjudication on merits. The delay dismissal was set aside, the appeal was restored, and merits were left open for decision after an opportunity of hearing. The approach accords with treatment of a similar factual situation involving delayed GST appellate proceedings.

Section 129(6) of the GST Acts requires detained goods to be sold or otherwise disposed of to recover an unpaid penalty after the prescribed period. Its proviso permits a shorter period where goods are perishable, hazardous or likely to depreciate. Inflammable bulk bitumen qualifies as hazardous goods, so the continuing availability of an appeal does not displace the obligation to initiate disposal where risk to the goods and conveyance warrants prompt action. Sale should proceed through public notice, with notice to the owner, within the stipulated timeframe.

GST amnesty waiver eligibility for interest and penalty depends on the disputed input tax credit being availed within the prescribed statutory period, rather than on the financial year in which the underlying debit notes were issued. Excess credit first claimed in the December 2020 return fell outside the scheme's temporal scope despite its connection with debit notes from 2018-19. Guidance or decisions concerning input tax credit mismatch reconciliation cannot extend an expressly limited statutory period. The waiver was unavailable, and the interest and penalty on the excess credit claim were sustained.

Used jute gunny bags without plastic coating remain classifiable as reusable packing bags under Heading 6305 where they are intact, identifiable and fit for repacking agricultural produce. Classification turns on the goods' condition, essential character, commercial identity and functional utility at supply; prior use or auction sale does not by itself convert them into scrap. Worn sacks and bags fall outside Heading 6309, while Heading 6310 applies only to worn-out textile materials fit solely for recovery. GST is determined by sale value per piece: 5% up to the prescribed threshold and 18% above it. Torn, worn-out or cut bags unfit for reuse require separate classification examination.

Medicated Toilet Soap is classified under tariff item 34011110, separate from other toilet soaps classified under tariff item 34011190. The revised GST notification adopts the Customs Tariff nomenclature and interpretative rules. The concessional Schedule I entry for toilet soap applies only to products under tariff item 34011190 and does not extend to Medicated Toilet Soap. Medicated Toilet Soap therefore falls under the residual Schedule II entry and attracts GST at 18% (9% CGST and 9% SGST).

Section 80-IE deduction remains available where an industrial undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business and previously used plant and machinery does not exceed the statutory limit. Eligible profits cannot be recomputed through notional allocation of related-party expenses unless material establishes an arrangement, beyond close connection alone, designed to generate more than ordinary profits. Excise-duty incentives intended to promote industrial development and employment are capital receipts, excluded both from taxable income and from eligible profits for the deduction. Working-partner remuneration cannot be disallowed twice where it has already been added back in the revised return.

TDS credit deducted by an employer cannot be denied to a salaried taxpayer solely because the employer failed to deposit the tax with the Revenue. The taxpayer remains entitled to credit where tax was deducted and cannot be made to bear the deductor's default. Denial through an intimation, consequential demand and recovery from refund was set aside to the extent of the disallowed TDS credit, with restoration of the recovered amount and applicable interest.

Where an income-tax refund is due and adjustment against an outstanding demand is proposed under section 245 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the tax department may retain only the amount proposed for adjustment or withholding. It must promptly release the balance refund, without prejudicing either party's right to challenge the legality of the outstanding demand or the proposed adjustment. The balance refund was directed to be credited within the stipulated period; failure to do so would attract interest at the rate directed by the High Court.

Limitation for penalties arising from alleged cash receipts contrary to section 269ST remains subject to differing views on when the limitation period under section 275(1)(c) begins. Under either approach, penalty proceedings under section 271DA were time-barred because the assessment orders were passed in March 2024, the six-month period ended on 30 September 2024, and the show-cause notice was issued later. The penalty orders and consequential demand notices were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals were dismissed.

Charitable payment-system infrastructure operated for public benefit remained eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12 despite transaction-based fees and surplus generation. Fee collection did not by itself establish commercial activity under the proviso to section 2(15), particularly where services were uniformly available at the same fee. No application of income for the benefit of specified persons was established under section 13(3). On identical facts to an earlier coordinate Bench ruling, exemption was sustained for both assessment years and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

Valid exercise of the concessional corporate tax option through Form No. 10-IC under section 115BAA continues to apply in subsequent assessment years. Filing the prescribed form, disclosing the option in the relevant return, and prior departmental acceptance support the continuing availability of the concessional rate. Computation at the normal rate during return processing or failure to submit supporting records at the first appellate stage does not negate substantive eligibility where statutory compliance is otherwise established.

Reassessment notices issued to deceased assessees are invalid because the legal-representative provisions permit either continuation of proceedings started during the assessee's lifetime or fresh proceedings directly against the legal representative; they do not permit a notice to be issued in the deceased person's name and later continued against an heir. Consequently, reassessment founded on such a notice is unsustainable and must be quashed. Where jurisdiction fails at the notice stage, challenges to the underlying additions need not be adjudicated and remain open.