GST recovery from entities undergoing insolvency proceedings requires timely filing of departmental claims as an operational creditor. Admission of insolvency proceedings triggers a moratorium that bars recovery action, including bank attachment, while assessments and interest may extend only up to the moratorium date. Claims must be supported by assessment and recovery records. An approved resolution plan binds the Department; if liquidation begins, claims must be filed afresh with the liquidator. Officers must track proceedings, file claims and appeals within time, and prevent revenue loss.

US-led maritime blockade and sanctions are assessed as substantially restricting Iran's oil exports while enabling increased non-Iranian petroleum flows through the Strait of Hormuz and alternative routes. The conflict continues to disrupt a major global oil-and-gas transit corridor despite partial restoration of shipping flows. Regional proxy attacks on oil facilities and shipping near the Bab el-Mandeb extend the disruption, threatening Red Sea and Suez Canal routes and contributing to higher energy prices and inflationary pressure.

Rupee depreciation against the US dollar was attributed to elevated crude oil prices, rising global yields and net foreign portfolio equity outflows, which increased pressure through the import bill. Record foreign exchange reserves, active Reserve Bank market intervention and robust domestic growth provided countervailing support. Sustained costly crude oil and foreign portfolio outflows nevertheless remained the principal near-term pressures on currency stability.

Wrongful buyer rejection of a valid GST credit note may add the related GST amount to the supplier's output tax liability. Same-month rejection is rectified through Form GSTR-1A, Table 9, by amending the credit note with unchanged original particulars. Later-period rejection is rectified through the current unfiled GSTR-1, Table 9C, using the same historical credit-note details. A Table 9C amendment may create a zero-delta GSTR-1 entry while GSTR-3B continues to show the rejection-related tax addition. Buyer acceptance in IMS is required to remove the tax clawback and reconcile the returns.

Large-value GST refunds for zero-rated supplies require accurate application of the Rule 89(4) formula, including reconciliation of Net ITC with GSTR-2B and the electronic credit ledger, application of the domestic-value cap, and correct Adjusted Total Turnover. A deficiency memo treats an incomplete application as not filed, while a merit-based proposed rejection requires notice, written response and an opportunity of being heard. Objection-specific documentation should address ITC eligibility, export nexus, export-realisation evidence, turnover reconciliation, credit notes, Letter of Undertaking validity and exempt-supply classification.

Respondent taxpayers should ordinarily file a ground-wise Counter/Reply with supporting documents within one month of receiving a departmental appeal under Rule 36 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. The Reply should address the specific factual and legal challenges, link them to favourable appellate findings, and organise the relevant record. Written Submissions are distinct hearing-oriented materials and may later present detailed legal propositions and precedents. An affidavit is not automatically required, but may be relevant for additional factual material or where specifically required. Any adverse part of the Order-in-Appeal may require separate consideration of a Cross-Objection or other statutory remedy.

GST adjudicatory proceedings commence through issuance of a show-cause notice, which crystallises the liability or contravention to be decided. The notice must clearly identify the allegations, relevant transactions and period, legal provisions, evidence, quantification, and proposed consequences. Section 75 confines an adjudication order to the grounds and amounts stated in the notice and requires relevant facts and reasons for the decision. The order must consider the taxpayer's defence, evaluate evidence, record findings, and explain the quantified consequence. Search, seizure and summons remain investigative measures and do not by themselves define the subject matter of adjudication.

GSTR-2A-GSTR-3B input tax credit mismatches require reconciliation and cannot be determined solely by comparing return figures. Fresh adjudication must remain within the tax heads, grounds and amount in the show-cause notice and cannot enlarge the demand. The adjudicating authority must undertake invoice-wise and, where necessary, supplier-wise verification; examine invoices, purchase records, books and the electronic credit ledger; verify supplier compliance and taxpayer bona fides; and assess applicable credit conditions for the relevant periods. Interest and penalty must follow the fresh tax determination.

Input tax credit under GST enables a registered person to use eligible tax paid on inward supplies for discharging tax liability on outward supplies and reduces cascading taxation. Eligibility, availment and utilisation remain subject to prescribed documents, receipt of supplies, payment of tax, return filing, supplier invoice reporting, time limits, restrictions and reversal. Input tax credit is a conditional statutory entitlement rather than an inherent, constitutional or unconditional vested right. Tax paid at a preceding stage does not by itself create an enforceable claim to credit; prescribed statutory requirements must be fulfilled.

The substituted proviso to section 107(6) of the CGST Act, effective from 1 October 2025, extends the pre-deposit requirement to appeals against penalty-only orders. The right of appeal is treated as a substantive right vesting upon issuance of the show-cause notice. Accordingly, where the show-cause notice preceded 1 October 2025, subsequent proceedings or a later penalty order do not attract the amended pre-deposit condition. The expanded requirement applies prospectively to proceedings initiated on or after its effective date.

E-way bill compliance governs movement of consignments exceeding the prescribed threshold, assessed per consignment rather than by the aggregate value carried in a vehicle. Movement particulars must be generated and validated on the common portal. Intercepting officers may verify prescribed documents, devices and goods, subject to online reporting requirements and safeguards against repeated physical verification without specific tax-evasion information. Minor typographical errors in specified e-way bill particulars do not warrant confiscation, while penalty proceedings after detention or seizure are subject to prescribed notice and order timelines.

For a listed public company, the first proviso to Section 68 does not require explanation of the source of shareholders' funds, although the company must establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness. PAN and tax particulars, banking records, application and allotment documents, demat credits, shareholder confirmations and financial records can discharge that initial burden where no specific defects or independent contrary enquiry exist. Reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 requires fresh tangible material; reopening based on already disclosed balance-sheet information, an inapplicable share-premium provision, and additions unrelated to recorded reasons is invalid. The Section 68 addition and reassessment consequently cannot survive.

Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bars the institution or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor once the corporate insolvency resolution process begins. Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect over inconsistent laws. Accordingly, revisional proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act cannot continue during the moratorium, and a revisional order issued in that period is unsustainable. Such proceedings may be revived and reframed after the moratorium ends, if otherwise permitted by law.

A reassessment return filed while an advance-ruling application on the transaction's taxability remained pending is to be treated as a return under Section 139 where the pending application provides a bona fide explanation for delayed filing. Verified TDS and prepaid-tax credits cannot be limited to adjustment against an outstanding demand; any excess after payment of the finally determined tax liability must be refunded with applicable statutory interest. Precedent concerning concluded substantive computation issues in reassessment does not restrict credit for prepaid taxes.

Addition of unexplained money under Section 69A requires prior notice identifying that proposed variation and a meaningful opportunity for the assessee to explain the amount. Where the show-cause notice proposes additions under different provisions but does not notify a contemplated Section 69A addition, the assessee is deprived of an opportunity to respond to the actual basis of assessment. Such a Section 69A addition is unsustainable for breach of notice and opportunity requirements.

Reopening and reassessment based on alleged unexplained bank credits require consideration of the taxpayer's detailed explanation and supporting evidence on the source and purpose of each receipt. A principal credit claimed to arise from jewellery sales and transfers claimed to have been received from overseas relatives for construction expenses cannot be treated as undisclosed income merely on the premise that no explanation was furnished. Fresh consideration of the response and documents is required before determining taxability, with all related questions remaining open.

Rule 10B functional comparability requires examination of functions performed, products manufactured and material circumstances; a materially different functional profile supports exclusion of a comparable. Under section 260-A, factual transfer-pricing findings are not re-appreciated unless perverse, unsupported by evidence or contrary to the statutory scheme. Working-capital adjustment requires supporting material and evidence-based computation with reasonable accuracy, warranting examination by the Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer. A foreign-exchange revenue filter requires a proper, consistent and lawful basis. Transfer-pricing adjustment must be confined to the arm's-length price of relevant international transactions with associated enterprises, including transactions involving raw-material imports.

Consequential assessment orders requiring verification and a hearing must be made within the limitation period under Section 153(3), read with the second proviso to Section 153(5). Where the appellate order was received during the relevant financial year, the extended deadline for giving effect expired on 31 March 2022. An order made thereafter was time-barred and invalid. Once a fresh or consequential assessment cannot be completed within limitation, the returned income must be accepted as furnished, no further demand may be raised, and excess tax deposited must be refunded with interest.

Third-party search material relating to a person other than the searched person falls within the distinct assessment framework under Sections 153A and 153C. Where seized electronic data, statements and transaction details form the sole basis for proposed action, reassessment under Sections 148A and 148 is unavailable. Subsequent analysis or corroboration does not change the search-derived source of the material or permit use of the general reassessment mechanism. Invoking extended limitation or obtaining approval cannot cure an invalid assumption of jurisdiction. Reassessment proceedings initiated on that basis are without jurisdiction and invalid.

Tax deduction at source on payments to a non-resident under Section 195 arises only where the remittance is chargeable to tax in India. Payments to a US parent were not taxable where binding findings established that the Indian payer was an independent entity and did not create a fixed place, service, or agency permanent establishment under the India-US DTAA. Earlier determinations could not be disregarded solely because they were intended to be challenged. An application under Section 195(2) is necessary only when the payer accepts that part of a remittance is taxable but seeks determination of the taxable portion. No Section 201 default arose.