Assessment orders passed without the taxpayer's replies to show-cause notices, along with appellate orders dismissing the appeals as time-barred, were identified as requiring reconsideration where the taxpayer asserted bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. A justice-oriented approach supported granting an opportunity to submit replies and supporting material, subject to costs. The assessment and appellate orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication from the stage of filing replies to the show-cause notices.

A jurisdictional High Court judgment binds tribunals and authorities within its territorial jurisdiction unless stayed, reversed or overruled by the Supreme Court. A contrary decision of another High Court and a pending special leave petition with an interim order do not permit a Tribunal to constitute a Larger Bench to reconsider the correctness or applicability of that binding precedent on refund under the CGST Act. The proper course is to defer the pending Tribunal appeal until the Supreme Court finally determines the related special leave petition; the Larger Bench constitution was therefore impermissible.

Common show-cause notices under Section 74 may cover multiple tax periods. The earlier view quashing such proceedings was displaced by a coordinate-bench ruling that permitted common notices and restored the related notices and original orders. Challenges to the order-in-original and appellate order must be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The position supports the Revenue: common notices are valid for multiple tax periods, while objections to original and appellate orders require exhaustion of the prescribed appellate remedy.

The petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment order. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal within two weeks, subject to the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay.

A writ petition concerning a garnishee notice proposing attachment beyond the demand raised in the Order-in-Original was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner could file an appeal subject to the required pre-deposit and seek condonation of delay. No coercive action under the garnishee notice could be taken during the period granted for filing the appeal.

Delay in filing a statutory appeal was condoned in view of the disputed tax liability and the pre-deposit made with the appeal, allowing the appellate remedy to be pursued on merits. As the appeal was directed to be decided on merits, the consequential bank recovery notice could not continue and was quashed. The underlying tax liability remains open for determination by the appellate authority.

Statutory appellate remedy against an order-in-original and consequential recovery action remains available where the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal with the required pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file the appeal, while coercive recovery action was restrained during that period. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Concessional IGST at 0.1% for merchant-export supplies under Notification 41/2017 requires strict compliance with prescribed conditions, including supply and movement of goods between the registered supplier and registered recipient. The Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 with the judgment concerning eligibility for the concessional rate and dismissed the special leave petition.

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order concerning condonation of a 418-day delay in filing a writ appeal against a single judge's order. The special leave petition was dismissed, leaving the High Court's judgment undisturbed.

Foreign capital inflows supported a marginal strengthening of the rupee against the US dollar despite global risk aversion arising from uncertainty surrounding negotiations affecting the Strait of Hormuz. Higher crude oil prices and weak domestic equity sentiment remained relevant pressures. Near-term currency movement was expected to depend on developments in the negotiations, weekend decisions, US employment data, the dollar index, crude oil prices, and the reported increase in foreign exchange reserves.

Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is described as requiring a meaningful pre-cognizance opportunity for a proposed accused in a private complaint, including access to complaint materials and consideration of objections before process is issued. The text distinguishes this notice from post-cognizance summons and states that later objections cannot cure a reversed sequence. Where the proposed accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction, Section 225 is presented as requiring postponement of process and inquiry into jurisdiction, publication, consequences and parallel proceedings. It also highlights strict procedural safeguards where criminal defamation concerns political criticism of official action, while leaving merits and defences open.

Multiple FIRs arising from the same occurrence or transaction require a single comprehensive investigation; additional material should be addressed through further investigation and supplementary reports rather than parallel proceedings. Applying this principle to allegations concerning homebuyer payments, non-delivery of properties and alleged fund diversion, the Delhi EOW FIR was directed to be transferred and clubbed with the Haryana FIR for investigation in accordance with law. A blanket prospective restraint on coercive action in respect of future FIRs was not considered legally permissible; any future FIR remains subject to remedies available under law.

Construction of residential complex services rendered by a builder or authorised person became taxable only from 1 July 2010; therefore, no service tax was payable for the disputed pre-taxability period and the demand was unsustainable. A demand also could not be confirmed under the statutory provision for confirmation when the show cause notice had not invoked the prerequisite demand provision, as this exceeded the notice's scope. The service-tax demand and consequential interest and penalties were set aside.

Foreign tax credit was denied solely because Form No. 67 was filed after the due date under section 139(1), and the rectification process did not provide the taxpayer a hearing. Denial on that basis was treated as unjustified in the circumstances described. The foreign tax credit claim must be reconsidered after granting the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity of hearing; the merits and quantum of the credit remain undecided.

A minor, estimated stock discrepancy detected during survey does not by itself establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Where the variation may reasonably arise from differing weighing scales, stock-recording methods, and an approximate valuation, its treatment as unexplained investment in quantum proceedings is insufficient for penalty purposes. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are separate and quasi-criminal, requiring proof beyond mere acceptance of an addition or rejection of an explanation. On these stated principles, the penalty was considered unsustainable and directed to be deleted.

Prior approval under Section 153D is a statutory safeguard against unjust, improper, illegal or arbitrary assessment and requires independent consideration of draft assessment orders, assessment records, seized material, statements, submissions and applicable law. Approvals granted for numerous cases within an extremely short period, largely on the day they were sought, without material showing prior deliberation, are described as mechanical and lacking independent application of mind. Such invalid approvals vitiate the assessment proceedings and render the resulting assessments liable to annulment.

A co-operative credit society whose membership was confined to specified employees qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) on surplus from credit facilities provided to members. Its bye-laws and records did not show nominal members, deposits from non-members, or lending to non-members; enrolment fees were received from members. As contributors and participators in the common fund were identical, the mutuality-distinguishing facts present in the revenue's cited precedent were absent. The deduction was also accepted in a later scrutiny assessment without changes in activities, membership, or bye-laws.

Interest earned by a co-operative society on deposits with a co-operative bank registered as a co-operative society qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). Where the recipient bank is registered under the applicable co-operative societies law, binding jurisdictional High Court precedent supports treating the interest as income derived from investments with another co-operative society. Decisions based on different factual settings do not alter this position. The deduction is therefore available for such deposit interest, subject to the bank's status as a registered co-operative society.

Ad hoc disallowance of professional fees is unsupported where no specific expense is shown not to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for business. Trade-incentive and brand-promotion costs incurred to promote product sales remain revenue expenditure despite any incidental enduring brand benefit. Premises-sharing and third-party letting receipts are treated as income from other sources where that classification applies; notional rent cannot be assessed without evidence of actual receipt or accrual. Building and common expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively to earn such income is deductible under the applicable provisions for income from other sources. Transfer-pricing grounds were not considered on merits because they were not pressed.

For payments chargeable to tax, Form No. 145 must be furnished in Part A where aggregate payments during the tax year do not exceed Rs. 5 lakh; in Part B where payments exceed that threshold and an Assessing Officer's certificate or order is obtained; or in Part C where payments exceed the threshold and an accountant's certificate in Form No. 146 is obtained. Non-chargeable payments require disclosure in Part D, subject to specified exemptions. Authorised dealers and eligible IFSC Units must furnish quarterly remittance statements within 15 days after the relevant quarter.