Consideration for complete assignment or surrender of proprietary, beneficial or litigative rights is capital in character, determined by the substance of the right relinquished rather than the deed's label. An intangible proprietary interest may constitute property; a bare right to sue is non-transferable under the Transfer of Property Act. The residuary income head applies only where a receipt is inherently income and does not convert a capital receipt into taxable income. Deduction against interest income requires evidence that expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively to earn that income; a lower expense amount alone does not establish the required direct nexus.

Pending statutory appeals against a demand must be decided within the stipulated period through a speaking and reasoned order after affording a hearing. Recovery of the outstanding demand remains restrained until final disposal of the appeal, providing interim protection while the appellate remedy is pending.

Transfer-pricing comparables must be selected or rejected under the statutory conditions and Rule 10B factors; fact-based determinations are generally insulated from section 260A review absent legal breach or perversity. Turnover and related-party transaction filters are sustainable when rationally tied to reliable comparability, while working-capital adjustments remain data-dependent. Foreign-exchange gains or losses qualify as operating items only on proof of direct nexus with the international transaction, requiring factual verification where unresolved. The 5% variation under section 92C(2) is a tolerance range, not a deduction, and section 92C(2A) applies retrospectively from assessment year 2002-03; affected matters require fresh determination. Cross-objections are not maintainable under section 260A.

Criminal prosecution for wilful non-production of accounts or false verification cannot rest on assessment findings displaced by appellate adjudication on merits and a fresh assessment; complaints founded on the superseded assessment lack a sustainable factual basis. Corporate vicarious liability requires arraignment of the company where directors are prosecuted for the company's alleged offence; director-only complaints are not maintainable. Civil penalty proceedings and criminal prosecution remain distinct: initiation of penalties for non-compliance or concealment does not, by itself, amount to double jeopardy or bar prosecution. The central principle is that prosecution cannot survive once the factual foundation of alleged concealment, falsity, or wilful non-compliance has been removed.

Reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion where oil and gas exploration expenses and preliminary expenses were specifically examined during the original scrutiny assessment. Replies to the Assessing Officer's queries on the proposed reassessment issues, followed by acceptance without additions, demonstrate that the matters were considered. Failure to reproduce the original queries in an appellate order does not establish non-examination. Reopening on the same material merely because a different view is later taken is therefore invalid.

Discretionary relief under Section 119(2)(b) requires a contextual assessment of special circumstances rather than application of a predetermined formula. Taxing the same interest income in two assessment years after a deductor revised Form 26AS creates genuine hardship where the taxpayer promptly pursued rectification and revision remedies. Delay substantially attributable to pending or rejected remedial proceedings should not defeat relief. Refusing condonation in those circumstances would retain tax paid twice on the same income and result in unjust enrichment of the Revenue. A revised return for the relevant assessment year may be permitted, subject to verification in accordance with law.

Bogus purchase additions involving estimation of the profit element from accommodation-entry purchases were placed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found no good ground to entertain the special leave petitions and dismissed them, leaving the High Court order confirmed. The stated subject concerns taxation of the profit component, rather than the entire value, of purchases treated as non-genuine accommodation entries.

Departmental appeals under section 112(2) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 are not maintainable where the disputed amount falls below the prescribed monetary threshold. The appeal concerning a dispute below Rs.50,000 was summarily dismissed, with no substantial ground found for interference. The monetary threshold limits departmental litigation in low-value disputes unless a basis exists to depart from that limit.

Statutory direct-cost price controls that bar recovery of overheads, administrative expenses and indirect tax costs prevent additional input tax credit from being treated as profiteering for regulated LIG and MIG supplies. Anti-profiteering computation is consequently confined to HIG supplies capable of a commensurate price reduction, without setting one recipient's excess benefit off against another's shortfall. Post-occupancy-certificate sales and unsold units fall outside taxable-supply quantification. Amounts not passed on attract compensatory interest at 18% per annum from collection until refund. A 10% penalty applies under section 171(3A), subject to waiver where the entire profiteered amount is passed on within the prescribed period.

GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025 permit the Tribunal to exercise inherent powers necessary to secure justice or prevent abuse of process, while allowing dismissal for default where an appellant fails to appear. Persistent failure to cure registry-notified defects, including non-upload of the show-cause notice, illegible order copies, incomplete court fee and missing respondent details, may demonstrate lack of interest in pursuing an appeal. After repeated opportunities to rectify such defects, no further time need be granted, and the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution without examination on merits.

Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Acts permits an appellate authority to conduct further inquiry but expressly prohibits referring the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. Verification of records or documents required for deciding an appeal must therefore be undertaken by the appellate authority itself. Its written order must identify the points for determination, record reasons and finally confirm, modify or annul the appealed order. A direction requiring the original authority to verify evidence and delete demand if appropriate is outside appellate jurisdiction, leaves the appeal undecided and impermissibly grants a further opportunity for fresh adjudication.

Cancellation of GST registration was overturned on appeal, restoring the taxpayer's registration. As the taxpayer thereafter filed GST returns regularly and continued as a registered taxpayer, the Revenue's challenge to the restoration became infructuous. No basis existed to interfere with the appellate restoration order, leaving the registration restored.

Section 107(11) of the CGST/KGST Acts confines the first appellate authority, after any necessary further inquiry, to confirming, modifying, or annulling the order under appeal and prohibits referral back to the original adjudicating authority. Where documents require verification, the appellate authority must obtain and assess them itself, determine the disputed issues, and issue a reasoned decision on merits in compliance with Section 107(12) and principles of natural justice. A direction requiring the original authority to verify evidence and then delete or reconfirm demand constitutes an impermissible remand, exceeds appellate jurisdiction, and is unsustainable.

Monetary limits for departmental GST appeals before the GSTAT apply to interest-only disputes by reference to the disputed interest amount. Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST prescribes a threshold of Rs. 20 lakh for such appeals. Where the disputed interest is below that limit and no listed exclusion applies, the departmental appeal is not maintainable. The stated interest demand fell below the prescribed threshold, so the monetary-limit policy required dismissal of the Revenue's challenge to deletion of interest.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit under Section 54(3) requires a specific show cause notice identifying the allegedly ineligible credit, including the relevant invoices, nature and basis, so that the claimant has a meaningful opportunity to respond. Refund rejection cannot rest on grounds introduced at the appellate stage that were absent from the notice. Where rejection rests on alleged wrongful availment or utilisation of credit, eligibility must first be determined through statutory proceedings under Sections 73 or 74; refund processing cannot collaterally reopen credit eligibility. These requirements preserve natural justice and confine refund adjudication to disclosed grounds and the prescribed recovery mechanism.

Maintainability based on the availability of an alternative appellate remedy must be heard first. Interim protection has been reimposed until 15 June 2026 pending completion of pleadings, which must be filed within the stipulated timelines. The application stands disposed of subject to those directions, preserving interim relief while the threshold maintainability issue is addressed.

Refund of integrated tax paid on zero-rated export of services may be claimed by an SEZ unit where the tax was discharged using input tax credit validly distributed on a proportionate basis by an Input Service Distributor. The supplier-only refund mechanism for direct supplies to an SEZ unit does not apply to, or bar, the SEZ unit's own refund claim where no supplier directly made the relevant supply to it. The declaration prescribed for direct supplies to an SEZ unit or developer is likewise inapplicable where credit was distributed through an Input Service Distributor. Refund claims in these circumstances require processing in accordance with law.

Contractual supply arrangements and indemnity clauses do not prevent criminal proceedings where allegations prima facie disclose deception, forgery, conspiracy and fraudulent GST transactions. Allegedly introducing non-existent suppliers, providing documents to establish their genuineness, and using fabricated GST invoices, e-way bills, KYC records and registrations may indicate dishonest intention from the outset and inducement to release payments, rather than mere contractual non-performance. Civil and criminal liability may coexist in such circumstances. Questions relating to proof of criminal breach of trust and alleged connivance require trial-level determination. An FIR disclosing cognizable offences is not liable to quashing under inherent jurisdiction.

Blocked input tax credit under Rule 86A cannot be utilised for the Section 107 appeal pre-deposit while a valid restriction remains in force. Section 49(4) permits use of electronic credit ledger balances only in the prescribed manner and subject to prescribed conditions and restrictions; therefore, the ordinary ability to use available credit for statutory liabilities does not create an absolute right over blocked credit. Rule 86A is provisional, requires recorded reasons, and cannot operate beyond one year. Where grounds for restriction no longer exist, unblocking may be sought under Rule 86A(2); any proposed rejection should follow reasonable opportunity and a speaking order.

Voluntary GST payments under Section 74(5) must arise from self-ascertainment of tax liability and include applicable interest and penalty. Rule 142(2) requires an acknowledgement in Form GST DRC-04 for payment through Form GST DRC-03. Payments made during inspection or investigation without prior demand, assessment, quantification, or material demonstrating self-ascertainment do not satisfy this statutory framework. Recording nil interest and penalty, or failing to issue DRC-04, further indicates that a DRC-03 payment was not voluntary. Recovery during inspection or investigation must follow the prescribed statutory process.