Penalty proceedings and consequential orders under Section 271DA were time-barred under the unamended Section 275(1)(c). Two coordinate-bench approaches identified either the Assessing Officer's reference or the Joint Commissioner's Section 274 notice as the point at which proceedings begin. On either approach, where assessment orders were passed in March 2024, the applicable six-month limitation period expired on 30 September 2024. A show-cause notice issued on 12 December 2024 was therefore beyond limitation, rendering the penalty orders and related demand notices unsustainable.

Closing stock accepted for a preceding accounting year must ordinarily be carried forward as opening stock for the succeeding year. Revaluation of that opening stock requires a legally sustainable basis, particularly where the books of account remain unrejected and no material supports a different valuation. Interest on an outstanding credit cannot be disallowed merely by treating the credit as false when the prior-year credit balance itself is undisputed. The principles support deletion of additions based on contrary stock valuation and unsupported interest disallowance.

Reassessment under Explanation 2(iv) to section 148 requires seized material to have a prima facie nexus with the assessee and the alleged income escapement. An unsigned, illegible and uncorroborated loose paper did not identify the assessee or purchaser, concerned an unrelated person, and pre-dated the assessee's land purchase by nearly two years. No material connected the assessee to the entities or broker mentioned in that paper. The assumed transaction value rested on hypothesis rather than a live link between the seized material and the assessee; consequently, the reassessment notice was invalid and quashed.

Settlement Commission orders under the Customs Act formed the basis for dismissal of an income-tax appeal after a High Court judgment had affirmed the settlement order. The Supreme Court had issued notice and stayed operation of that judgment in related proceedings. The respondent-assessee was required to place the Supreme Court's final order on record within four weeks after final disposal of the related special leave petition.

Tribunal reasoning founded on the mistaken premise that the assessee pursued the Dispute Resolution Panel route, rather than the appellate route before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was treated as perverse because it rested on a materially incorrect factual foundation. The findings could not be sustained, and all issues-including limitation and assessment-related contentions-remain open for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Section 245 of the Income-tax Act permits retention of a refund only up to the amount proposed for adjustment against an outstanding demand. The balance refund must be released immediately, without prejudicing either party's right to contest the legal sustainability of the proposed adjustment. Withholding the entire determined refund where the proposed adjustment is smaller exceeds the permissible scope of retention under the provision.

Tax deducted at source from an employee's salary must be credited to the employee even where the employer-deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount with the tax authorities. The employer's remittance default cannot be attributed to the employee or used to deny legitimate TDS credit during processing under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, a demand created by disallowing that credit, and recovery of that demand by adjustment against the employee's refund, lack legal basis. Amounts so recovered are refundable with applicable interest.

Section 80-IE eligibility is not defeated merely because an undertaking is acquired from an associated concern while under construction, provided it is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction and previously used plant and machinery does not exceed the permitted limit. Re-computation of eligible profits under section 80-IA(10) requires cogent evidence that closely connected parties arranged their business to generate more than ordinary profits; close connection, survey statements, and turnover-based expense allocation alone are insufficient. No further disallowance of working-partner remuneration arises where it has already been added back. An area-based central excise incentive intended to promote industrial development and employment is a capital receipt, excluded from total income and eligible profits under section 80-IE.

Faceless assessments remain subject to writ review where authenticated taxpayer replies are ignored and procedural safeguards deny a meaningful hearing, notwithstanding a statutory appeal filed to preserve limitation. Hash-value acknowledgements authenticate responses, and disregarding replies to information and show-cause notices breaches principles of natural justice. A show-cause period effectively limited to two working days rather than the prescribed seven days, coupled with failure to reschedule a notified failed video-conference hearing, invalidates the assessment. Fresh assessment should recommence from the show-cause stage after considering replies and providing further opportunity and an effective personal hearing before any adverse determination.

Interest on tax refund was considered in the context of settlement under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme and the finality of unchallenged appellate directions. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, disposed of pending applications, and declined to interfere with the High Court's order. The appellate directions therefore remained undisturbed in relation to the refund-interest dispute and the scheme settlement.

Medicated toilet soap in bars, cakes, moulded pieces or shapes is classified separately under tariff item 34011110. The concessional entry for toilet soap other than industrial soap does not extend to medicated toilet soap, because the tariff distinguishes it from other toilet-use soaps and it has a therapeutic purpose. Medicated toilet soap therefore falls within the residual entry for soaps other than toilet soap under Schedule II and attracts GST at 18%, rather than the concessional 5% rate under Schedule I.

Used intact and reusable jute gunny bags retain their essential character, commercial identity and utility as packing sacks despite prior use. Sale in bundles or by auction does not determine classification. Bags that remain structurally intact and suitable for reuse as packing material fall under Customs Tariff Heading 6305, rather than headings covering worn, torn, fragmented or unusable textile waste fit only for material recovery. Such bags attract GST at 5% where the sale value does not exceed Rs. 2,500 per piece and 18% where it exceeds that threshold.

Input tax credit denial was disputed where the recipient's receipt of goods was undisputed but the supplier allegedly failed to pay tax. Verification was sought on whether recovery proceedings, including issuance of a show-cause notice, had been initiated against the supplier and on the status of those proceedings. The cross-objection was directed to be registered, and it was listed with the appeal for hearing.

Section 112(1) permits an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal only against an order passed under Section 107 or Section 108. Where the First Appellate Authority has not passed or rejected an order in APL-02 when the Tribunal appeal is filed, no appealable order exists. An appeal instituted before an order under Section 107 or Section 108 comes into existence is therefore not maintainable.

Section 128A limits waiver of interest and penalty to demands covered by the specified notice, statement or order for the period from 1 July 2017 to 31 March 2020, subject to cumulative statutory conditions. Eligibility depends on the period in which disputed input tax credit was actually availed and became subject to proceedings under Section 73. Input tax credit first claimed in GSTR-3B for December 2020 falls outside the prescribed period, even if the underlying debit notes relate to financial year 2018-19. The origin of debit notes does not change the tax period of the demand, and the statutory waiver period cannot be extended through interpretation or procedure.

Early-hearing applications concerned GST appeals involving claimed statutory refunds denied by Revenue. The applicants asserted that the refund denials lacked legal basis. The applications were considered to establish grounds for expedited listing, and were granted. The connected appeals were directed to be listed together for hearing after three weeks.

Section 129(6) requires detained goods to be sold or otherwise disposed of to recover an unpaid penalty after the prescribed payment period. That period may be shortened where goods are perishable, hazardous or susceptible to depreciation. Inflammable bulk bitumen qualifies as hazardous goods, requiring prompt initiation of sale proceedings. Public notice must be issued and notice served on the goods' owner within the stipulated period, enabling the owner to pursue the available appellate remedy.

Condonation of delay in a statutory GST appeal was considered where filing occurred 163 days after the order-in-original, including 43 days beyond the ordinarily condonable period under section 107(4). Pending rectification proceedings, family circumstances, the disputed levy, and the need for factual adjudication supported condonation. The appeal was restored for merits adjudication, with all substantive contentions left open.

Effective service of a show cause notice under Section 74 requires more than uploading it on the common portal. Where receipt is not acknowledged and no reply is filed, portal upload alone does not provide the assessee an effective opportunity to respond and be heard. An ex parte adjudication based solely on such upload cannot be sustained. The proceedings require consequential restoration so that the assessee receives the opportunity contemplated by the applicable service principle.

GST is not chargeable on compensation for compulsory acquisition of land and structures because GST applies to supplies of goods or services, while land and buildings attached to land are immovable property. Statutory acquisition under eminent domain is an involuntary expropriation, not a voluntary supply by the landowner or a rendering of services. In the absence of a statutory basis for treating acquisition compensation as consideration for a taxable supply, deduction of GST from that compensation lacks legal authority. The deducted GST must be refunded with interest and costs.