Amounts already assessed or considered in an original assessment cannot support a further addition merely by being recast as bogus construction expenditure or fictitious long-term capital loss. Where reassessment concerns an issue examined under section 143(3), fresh information or material is required to support reopening. Concurrent factual findings that the amounts were already considered, coupled with the absence of new material, do not raise a substantial question of law under section 260A. The appellate deletion of both additions therefore remains undisturbed.

Retention of seized cash under Section 132B cannot continue after completion of the searched person's assessment where no demand relating to the cash was raised and the cash was accepted as belonging to a non-searched assessee. Reassessment proceedings subsequently initiated against that non-searched assessee do not preserve the statutory charge or justify continued withholding. Release of the net seized amount, after adjustment of the stated tax liability, was directed. Whether the cash could initially have been treated as self-assessment tax remains for determination in the admitted appeal.

Land-acquisition compensation payable under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is treated as not subject to income-tax deduction. TDS deducted from such compensation is refundable to legal heirs. Non-filing of returns for the relevant assessment year and the absence of a condonation application do not by themselves defeat the refund claim, where the heirs can seek condonation and file the prescribed return. On receipt of the required application and return, the delay should be condoned, the return processed, and the TDS refunded.

Classification of a co-operative bank's deposits as unsecured loans was challenged because the assessment entry conflicted with the balance-sheet treatment. The assessment order was quashed to enable the taxpayer to receive an opportunity before the assessing authority. The merits of whether the deposits could properly be treated as unsecured loans were left open, and revenue authorities may issue notice and conduct fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Section 119(2)(b) permits condonation of delayed compliance where refusal would cause genuine hardship. A two-day delay in filing Form No. 10B for a trust's Section 11 exemption, attributed to portal-related technical difficulty or inadvertent error, warranted a liberal and justice-oriented assessment of reasonable cause and hardship. Denial would have deprived the trust of its claimed exemption and created a substantial tax liability. The delay was condoned, the rejection of the condonation application was set aside, and the return was required to be processed by treating Form No. 10B as timely filed.

Section 270AA penalty immunity is unavailable where Section 270A proceedings concern under-reporting resulting from misreporting, including failure to produce accounting records relating to the relevant income. Identification of proceedings as involving under-reporting due to misreporting may be sufficient even if the notice does not name a specific Section 270A(9) sub-category, where the assessment basis has already informed the taxpayer of the alleged default. In those circumstances, omission of the sub-category does not by itself breach natural justice, and the statutory timeline for disposing of an immunity application does not invalidate rejection outside the misreporting-immunity framework.

Service of a show-cause notice under Section 148A(1) on the correct person is a jurisdictional precondition for an order under Section 148A(3) and a reopening notice under Section 148. Initiating reassessment against a deceased assessee is invalid where the Department had already registered the legal heir. Section 159 permits proceedings against a legal representative but does not permit initiation against a deceased person followed by substitution of the legal representative. The legal heir's participation and jurisdictional objection cannot cure the foundational defect, rendering the consequential reassessment proceedings unsustainable.

Royalty treatment under a DTAA was raised in relation to payments for computer software supplied under a non-exclusive, non-transferable licence. The issue concerned whether such arrangements confer copyright rights, particularly a right to reproduce the software, or merely permit use of off-the-shelf or shrink-wrapped software. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed because similar Special Leave Petitions had been dismissed.

Special Leave Petitions concerning whether advertisement and market promotion expenditure constituted an international transaction, the use of the bright-line test, TNMM-based benchmarking and segmentation, comparability selection, and protective transfer-pricing adjustments were dismissed because Revenue did not satisfactorily explain substantial filing delays. The question of law on these transfer-pricing issues remained open, so the dismissal did not determine the substantive principles.

Penalty under sections 271D and 271E requires the concerned Assessing Officer to record satisfaction during reassessment proceedings before initiating penalty action. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition both for delay and on merits, thereby confirming the High Court's order on this requirement.

Cross-head ITC reporting discrepancies involving allocation of eligible IGST credit under CGST and SGST heads do not, by themselves, establish excess ITC availment under Section 73. Where aggregate ITC entitlement remains unexceeded, the credit's underlying eligibility is undisputed, and no revenue loss is established, the electronic credit ledger must be verified across IGST, CGST and SGST heads. If sufficient eligible IGST credit remained available and unclaimed, the principal ITC demand cannot survive; consequential interest and penalty must also be dropped.

Statutory deemed stay of recovery under Section 112(9), subject to compliance with Section 112(8), applied after full discharge of GST liability. The challenge to invoking Section 74 remained unexamined on merits while the appeal was under scrutiny. Recovery from works-contract receivables could undermine the pending appeal and cause irreparable injury. Operation of the order rejecting the first appeal on limitation, and recovery of the disputed demand, remained stayed until disposal of the Tribunal appeal.

Input tax credit differences between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for FY 2018-19 require invoice-wise verification where credit is claimed for FY 2017-18 within the extended statutory period. GSTR-2A operated as a facilitation tool, and non-reflection alone does not establish supplier tax default; reconciliation should consider prior-year GSTR-2A, suppliers' GSTR-1, ITC registers, books of account and annual returns. A personal hearing is mandatory before an adverse decision. Scrutiny notice requirements do not apply to independently initiated tax-determination proceedings. Interest and penalty depend on a sustainable principal tax liability and await fresh ITC determination.

Section 107(9) of the CGST and West Bengal GST Acts permits an appellate adjournment only on sufficient cause, with reasons recorded in writing. Its three-adjournment proviso operates as a statutory ceiling, not as an entitlement to obtain three postponements; section 107(13) reinforces expeditious appellate disposal. Exceptional medical circumstances, including a stated terminal condition, may justify one final opportunity for effective representation before the Appellate Authority. Any further adjournment remains within the Authority's discretion, and the appeal must be determined independently in accordance with law.

Contradictory auto-populated input tax credit figures and annual-return disclosures require examination by the adjudicating authority before an assessment is sustained. Where an asserted technical or clerical discrepancy creates a prima facie inconsistency in ITC records, the affected taxpayer must receive an opportunity of hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice. Fresh adjudication is required to reconcile the differing figures and issue a reasoned assessment order.

Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules requires electronic notices and orders to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate, e-signature, or other notified verification method. Portal generation and a document reference number only identify or track a communication; they do not establish authentication, officer accountability, or application of mind. Unsigned electronic notices and orders therefore cannot sustain consequential demand or recovery proceedings. Placing unauthenticated communications in an additional-notices portal category without effective service may deny the taxpayer the mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Breach of natural justice permits writ relief despite an available statutory appeal. Fresh proceedings require duly authenticated notice and an effective hearing.

GST assessment of Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel requires recognition that these petroleum products are treated as non-GST goods. Imposition of GST on invoices relating to such products creates a jurisdictional defect affecting the validity of the assessment. The assessment requires fresh determination based on the registration records, invoices, supporting documents and reply to the show-cause notice, after affording the taxpayer a personal hearing.

Condonation of delay in a statutory appeal under the limitation framework may be warranted where circumstances beyond the assessee's control prevent timely filing and refusal of merits adjudication would cause grave prejudice. A 95-day delay, calculated after the available statutory relaxation, was treated as fit for condonation, permitting a fresh appeal to be filed and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.

Detention penalty applies under Section 129(1)(a) where goods are accompanied by a tax invoice establishing the taxpayer as their deemed owner. Suspension of registration during transit does not render the consignor or consignee bogus when cancellation proceedings are subsequently dropped and registration is restored. Section 129(1)(b), applicable where the owner does not come forward, is therefore inapplicable in these circumstances. The penalty must be determined under Section 129(1)(a), resulting in treatment favourable to the assessee.

Adequate opportunity to file objections and be heard is required before factual assertions underlying GST assessment and demand are determined. Where a taxpayer has not contested proceedings and seeks to raise factual objections, fresh proceedings permitting objections and participation are warranted. Whether reassignment of proceedings requires a fresh notice remains unresolved, and the merits of the assessment remain open.