Condonation of delay in a GST appeal against retrospective cancellation of registration was granted to restore the appellate remedy. Following Ritik Acharya, whose applicability was not disputed, the High Court considered merits-based adjudication appropriate. The appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits.

Intra-firm stock transfers between premises of the same registered person, without distinct entities or consideration, do not constitute supply and do not create tax liability. Consequently, detention penalty under section 129, which is quantified by reference to tax payable on the goods, is not leviable where no tax is payable. Absence of an e-way bill alone does not establish that such movement is non-genuine where there is no allegation or material of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression or non-genuineness. A document-related breach during movement otherwise than for supply may instead attract the specific penalty provision for e-way bill contraventions.

Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act requires a proper officer to pass a penalty order within seven days of serving a detention notice for goods in transit. The use of "shall" is treated as mandatory because the provision governs coercive detention and seizure powers, even though no express consequence is specified for delay. A penalty order issued forty-seven days after notice was treated as beyond the prescribed limitation and without jurisdiction. The resulting penalty and appellate orders were set aside, with consequential release of the bank guarantee.

Section 171(1) requires GST rate reductions to produce a commensurate reduction in the price payable by cinema-ticket recipients; charging GST at the reduced rate alone is insufficient where the operator increases the pre-tax base price and retains the same cum-tax fare. Regulatory permissions concerning maximum or proposed ticket fares do not displace this independent anti-profiteering obligation, particularly without competent approval of enhanced rates. Profiteering may be quantified by retaining the pre-rate-reduction base price, applying the reduced GST rate to determine the commensurate price, and comparing it with actual ticket sales. Where recipients cannot be identified, the determined amount with applicable interest is deposited in the Consumer Welfare Funds; no penalty applied for the investigation period.

Section 171(1) requires GST rate-reduction benefits on cinema admission tickets to be passed to recipients through a commensurate reduction in cum-tax ticket prices. Retaining the same ticket price by increasing the pre-tax base price does not satisfy this obligation. Directions permitting collection of proposed cinema fares and representations to licensing authorities do not create an exception to the anti-profiteering requirement, particularly where approval is unsubstantiated or relates to later periods. Profiteering may be quantified by retaining the pre-reduction base price, applying the reduced GST rate to determine the commensurate price, and calculating excess collections from actual ticket sales, while excluding correctly accounted transactions at other rates.

PTFE braided gland packing manufactured from PTFE fibre yarn for industrial stuffing-box sealing is classified as an article of plastic under HSN 39209949, rather than as a textile article for technical use under HSN 5911. Plastic monofilament exceeding the specified cross-sectional dimension is excluded from Section XI and falls within Chapter 39; braiding and industrial use do not alter that result. Clear statutory tariff headings, Section and Chapter Notes, and HSN Explanatory Notes prevail over industry practice and trade parlance. The product falls within the residual PTFE sub-heading under heading 3920 and attracts GST at 18%.

Section 10B requires separate computation of export profits for each eligible software-export undertaking only to quantify the deduction. That separate computation does not alter the undertaking's profit or loss for computing combined income, nor does it displace the normal rules for inter-source and inter-head set-off and carry forward of losses. Losses of a Section 10B-eligible undertaking may therefore be set off against profits of other undertakings, with any unabsorbed balance carried forward in accordance with law. The contrary denial of set-off was set aside.

Contributions to an electricity board for augmenting a transmission network may constitute revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) where the board retains ownership, maintenance responsibility and the right to use the service line for other consumers. No tangible asset, ownership right or enduring capital asset arises for the contributor in those circumstances. The expenditure is incurred to improve the profitability of the existing business apparatus and does not render an assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue merely because it was allowed as revenue expenditure.

Reassessment initiated beyond four years requires failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to the recorded escapement of income. Explanation 3 to section 147 permits assessment of other escaped income discovered during valid reassessment proceedings, but does not expand the jurisdictional basis for reopening or sustain proceedings when no addition is made on either recorded ground. Where the recorded reasons yield no addition and the requisite failure of disclosure is not established, the reopening lacks jurisdiction. The reassessment was quashed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Carry-forward of business losses requires the loss to be determined from a return filed under section 139(3) and quantified in assessment. Failure to file valid returns for intervening assessment years prevents determination and notification of the unabsorbed loss available for further carry-forward. Consequently, an earlier business loss cannot be set off in later years where intervening returns were not filed. The disallowance of the claimed set-off was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed because no substantial question of law arose.

Section 263 revision requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Where the Assessing Officer has called for and considered details on unsecured loans and trade payables, revision cannot rest merely on audit objections or an assumption that further inquiry would produce an addition under section 68. Explanation 2 creates a deeming framework for insufficient inquiry but does not remove the twin statutory requirements. In the stated circumstances, the assessment was made after inquiry, no revenue prejudice was identified, and the revisional order was quashed.

Section 194N places the obligation to deduct tax at source on the banking company making a cash payment, not on the customer withdrawing cash. Failure to deduct attracts the statutory consequence under section 271C against the person responsible for deduction. A bank cannot impose a lien on a customer's current account for an alleged TDS liability without statutory authority or a direction from the income-tax authorities. The lien was directed to be released and account operations permitted after the customer furnished income-tax returns for the relevant three consecutive years, without limiting lawful action by tax authorities.

Digital advertising and sales-promotion expenditure on media space, SMS broadcasts, search-engine optimisation, campaign content, marketing videos and social-media strategy is revenue expenditure where it comprises recurring promotional measures, creates no business asset and only improves product promotion through a digital platform. The enduring-benefit test does not make such expenditure capital without an asset or capital-field advantage. Payments for website and mobile-app search services are likewise revenue expenditure where they improve product searches, correct search terms and facilitate sales without creating a capital asset or enduring capital advantage. Disallowances of both categories were deleted; the Revenue's appeals failed and supportive cross-objections became infructuous.

Third-party search assessments under section 153C require the seized material to be handed over to the other person's Assessing Officer before the statutory cut-off. Where handover occurs after 1 April 2021, section 153C is unavailable and proceedings may be pursued only under reassessment provisions; the resulting notice and assessment lack jurisdiction. Penalty for cash acceptance contrary to section 269SS, when unrelated to assessment, is subject to the limitation period beginning with the Assessing Officer's recommendation to initiate penalty proceedings. A penalty order issued after that period is time-barred and liable to be quashed.

Interest expenditure on borrowings used to make interest-bearing unsecured advances is deductible against taxable interest income under section 57 where the nexus is established. The Assessing Officer's findings showed that the advances to private parties were funded through interest-bearing loans from banks and non-banking financial companies. As the borrowing cost was directly connected with earning the interest income assessed under income from other sources, the disallowance was deleted for the relevant assessment years.

Penalty for cash receipts under section 271DA requires proof that the assessee received cash in breach of section 269ST. Where the underlying quantum addition was deleted because the alleged transaction involved other parties and not the assessee, no factual basis remained for a consequential penalty; deletion of the penalty was therefore upheld. The presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C apply against the person from whose possession or control seized material is found. A WhatsApp screenshot recovered from another entity's premises, without the assessee's name or admission of cash receipt, could not support a presumption against the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Section 54F permits exemption based on investment in a residential house through purchase, construction, or a combination of both. The cost of the new asset can include bona fide expenditure incurred after purchase for reconstruction, alteration, renovation and improvements that make the house fit for residence. Habitability of the purchased house and reconstruction expenditure exceeding its purchase cost do not independently restrict the exemption, as no statutory ceiling applies to construction quality or amenities. Expenditure on independent comfort items remains excluded. Where reconstruction expenditure is genuine and not linked to excluded items, the aggregate purchase and reconstruction cost qualifies for the Section 54F exemption.

Interest earned by a co-operative credit society on deposits of surplus profits may qualify as business income attributable to providing credit facilities to members where the deposits are mandated or permitted by the statute governing the society. This differs from interest on members' surplus receipts, which may be taxable as income from other sources. The deduction claim requires verification of the relevant deposit details and reconsideration in line with the applicable High Court principles. Expenditure disallowance for alleged tax-deduction failures and taxability of miscellaneous interest also require fresh examination where the society asserts non-service of a show-cause notice and seeks to furnish supporting particulars, ensuring an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Reassessment against a dissolved partnership firm after its business succession is void where the Department had accepted that the firm ceased to exist and the successor proprietor disclosed and was assessed on the same business transactions and bank accounts. Assessing the erstwhile firm in these circumstances would duplicate taxation of the same business income. Jurisdiction for reassessment also requires recorded reasons identifying the relevant bank account or transaction and foundational material showing income escaped assessment; vague reasons do not meet that standard. A notice issued to a non-existent entity after succession renders the consequential assessment and estimated addition unsustainable.

Commission payments to agents were allowable as business expenditure where they were intrinsically linked to commission income earned from pharmaceutical companies for facilitating marketing and sales. The disallowance based on an assumption that payments related to direct sales to Government hospitals lacked factual support. Recipient details, tax deduction at source, banking-channel payments and recipients' income-tax returns established the identity of recipients, genuineness of payments and business purpose. With no evidence of fictitious payments, non-existent recipients or diversion back to the assessee, the expenditure satisfied the wholly and exclusively business-purpose test and the disallowance was deleted.