Section 75(7) of the UP GST and CGST Acts prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming tax or penalty beyond the amount proposed in the show-cause notice. Confirmation of a penalty exceeding the notice amount is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the adjudication order invalid. The order was set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication after the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing.

Statutory stay of recovery following payment of required appellate pre-deposits raises the issue whether recovery from the electronic cash ledger may continue and whether any amount exceeds the cumulative pre-deposit. The High Court directed the competent authority to independently verify compliance with pre-deposit requirements and determine the claim for recredit or refund. The representation must be decided by a reasoned order after granting a personal hearing, with recredit or refund of any excess recovery found due.

Sections 75(4) and 75(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse determination. Fixing the personal hearing under a show-cause notice before expiry of the deadline for filing a reply deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond to the proposed demand and seek a hearing. Such premature scheduling breaches the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, rendering the resulting adjudication and appellate orders invalid.

Construction contracts for road works provided for GST at 12% in addition for the earlier financial years, while the later agreement provided for GST according to applicable rules. The contractor sought reimbursement of GST deposited in respect of completed works, alleging that the contractual GST component had not been paid. Representations seeking reimbursement require consideration and disposal in accordance with law by the Executive Engineer within the prescribed timeframe.

Section 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act requires transfer-pricing determinations to demonstrate due consideration of the assessee's submissions and to record reasons supporting the determination. Consideration of written replies alone is insufficient where the order neither identifies the contentions considered nor provides supporting reasons. Failure to afford a personal hearing, where required, also undermines the validity of the determination. An unreasoned transfer-pricing order issued without a personal hearing cannot be sustained and must be redetermined through a reasoned order after affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law.

Real-estate anti-profiteering calculations should measure incremental GST input tax credit actually availed at project level, determine total savings against project expenditure, and allocate a uniform benefit per square foot across the project area rather than compare credit with turnover or buyer collections. Unavailed pre-GST CENVAT credit on input services cannot notionally reduce post-GST benefits because it did not reduce the earlier tax incidence. GST collected on enhanced consideration forms part of the recoverable profiteered amount, and statutory interest applies. The resulting project-specific benefit must be passed to affected recipients.

Project-level anti-profiteering computation measures additional ITC against project expenditure, allocates the resulting saving per square foot across the project and sold area, and does not use purchase value as a turnover proxy. Only tax credit actually availed is relevant to the supplier's economic benefit; unavailed pre-GST CENVAT credit cannot notionally offset post-GST ITC, including credit on input services. GST collected on price increases arising from profiteering forms part of the benefit to be passed to homebuyers, with interest payable under the statutory scheme. Writ review does not replace specialised fact-based computations absent non-consideration of material submissions or manifest legal or jurisdictional error.

Natural justice in transfer-pricing proceedings requires a personal hearing, reasoned findings, and meaningful consideration of written submissions. Although the transfer-pricing order recorded that written replies had been considered, it neither disclosed that a personal hearing was granted nor addressed the contentions raised. The cryptic and unreasoned order was set aside, with directions for a fresh reasoned determination after a personal hearing. The time for completing the assessment was extended.

Effective opportunity of personal hearing in GST adjudication requires that the hearing be scheduled after expiry of the deadline for replying to the show-cause notice. Scheduling it earlier makes the hearing illusory because the taxpayer cannot first submit the permitted response, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. Adjudication and appellate orders passed in these circumstances were quashed, with fresh proceedings to recommence from the show-cause notice stage after allowing a reply and then fixing a personal hearing.

Statutory stay of the balance GST demand applies once the prescribed cumulative appellate pre-deposits are paid under the GST enactment. The High Court did not determine whether the required deposits had actually been made or whether recovery from the Electronic Cash Ledger exceeded those deposits. It directed independent consideration of the taxpayer's representation after a personal hearing and required a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated period. Any recovery found to exceed the cumulative statutory pre-deposits must be refunded or recredited. The underlying merits of the GST demand remain open.

Section 75(7) of the GST law prohibits an adjudicating authority from confirming a tax demand or penalty exceeding the amounts proposed in the show cause notice. This statutory restriction is mandatory, and any adjudication order exceeding the proposed demand is without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Fresh GST adjudication was required where the taxpayer asserted that tax liability had already been discharged and that the final demand components overlapped with an assessment by the jurisdictional officer. The assessment was quashed and remitted for a fresh merits decision after notice, conditional on deposit of interest and penalty imposed in the earlier jurisdictional assessment. Failure to make that deposit permitted recovery in accordance with law.

Expiry of an e-way bill, without more, does not justify detention, integrated tax, or penalty under section 129 where the consignment is accompanied by tax invoices and supporting documents, physical verification reveals no discrepancy, and no tax evasion is found. Board instructions distinguish minor procedural lapses from substantive breaches. The explanation for failure to extend e-way bill validity requires consideration, and intention to evade tax remains relevant. On these facts, invoking section 129 solely for expired e-way bills was unjustified, and the resulting tax and penalty demand was set aside.

Employee recoveries for subsidised canteen meals provided under statutory obligations at factories, R&D facilities and corporate offices are treated as employer-employee contractual perquisites rather than supplies under section 7 of the CGST Act; GST is therefore not payable on those recoveries. Input tax credit on GST charged by the canteen provider is available where the facility is legally mandatory, because the proviso to section 17(5)(b) applies across that clause. Credit remains restricted to the employer-borne canteen cost, while the proportion attributable to employee meal recoveries is disallowed.

Clean-slate sale of a corporate debtor as a going concern extinguishes pre-existing liabilities and investigations, preventing reassessment from being based on an alleged earlier interest liability. Reopening cannot rest on conjecture that unpaid interest was deducted or that a liability ceased where available accounts could verify the claim and the section 148A order itself records no cessation. An order under section 148A must remain within the show-cause notice; adding an unrelated bogus-purchase allegation without notice or hearing breaches natural justice and indicates non-application of mind. On these grounds, the reassessment notice and section 148A order were quashed.

Penalty under Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable on a transfer pricing adjustment where the taxpayer used the prescribed TNMM method, disclosed its filters, comparables and operating-margin computation, and acted in good faith with due diligence. Differences over the profit level indicator and treatment of operating items were debatable interpretational issues, not evidence that the arm's length price had been computed outside the statutory framework. Mere differences of opinion on such issues do not attract penalty. The High Court sustained deletion of the penalty and dismissed the Revenue's appeal for want of a substantial question of law.

Timely furnishing of Form No. 10B within an extended return-filing deadline satisfies the audit-report requirement for charitable-trust exemption. Although filing the audit report is a substantive requirement, the prescribed timing and mode of submission are procedural where the report is available before assessment. Rejection of a condonation application does not bar the exemption because condonation is an additional remedy. Form No. 10B for the relevant assessment year must therefore be accepted and the claimed exemption granted.

Interest arising from State Government funds advanced to an assessee is not taxable in the assessee's hands where the interest belongs to the State Government, including where the same issue has been determined for an earlier assessment year. Conversely, a signature bonus received on transferring developed power projects constitutes a revenue receipt when developing and transferring such projects forms part of the taxpayer's ordinary business and involves expenditure on surveys, testing and approvals. The distinction turns on beneficial ownership of the interest and the receipt's direct connection with regular business operations.

Reassessment based on additions identical to those made in an original search assessment cannot proceed while tax appeals challenging that assessment remain pending, where the original appellate authority considered the additions on merits as well as technical grounds. The High Court found that parallel reassessment would directly affect the pending appeals. Precedent permitting reassessment after an assessment was annulled solely on a technical ground did not apply. The reopening notice and consequential reassessment orders were quashed; the merits of the additions remain to be decided in the pending tax appeals.

SEZ-unit profit deduction extends to a voluntary transfer-pricing adjustment disclosed in the return; a pending special leave petition does not displace prevailing Tribunal and jurisdictional High Court authority without a contrary Supreme Court ruling. Ad hoc expenditure disallowance linked to exempt mutual-fund dividend income is addressed through prior assessee-specific rulings. Year-end foreign-exchange loss recognised at the balance-sheet date is treated as allowable business expenditure. In ITeS benchmarking, service providers may be excluded for functional dissimilarity, unavailable segmental information, or failure of the employee-cost filter; medical transcription, billing and coding activities are functionally distinct from the tested ITeS services.