The Deputy Commissioner of the Large Taxpayers Unit, as assigned by the Joint Commissioner (ST), is designated as the proper officer for appellate-review functions. The designated officer may call for and examine records of subordinate decisions or orders under the Tamil Nadu, Central, Integrated and Compensation to States GST enactments to assess their legality or propriety, and may file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within six months of communication.

Standing to maintain income-tax proceedings for a deceased assessee requires the claimant to establish, through cogent material, that the claimant represents or has intermeddled with the deceased's estate. Section 159(3), read with the definitions of assessee and legal representative, treats a qualifying legal representative as an assessee. Failure to prove that representative capacity prevents maintenance of the appeal; the lawful representative may seek revival according to law.

Fees for technical services under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA require more than managerial, technical or consultancy characterisation. The services must satisfy an additional treaty gateway, including making available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes that enable the recipient to apply the technology independently. Advice, operational assistance, recurring support, training or business benefits do not alone establish transfer of technical capability. Where the DTAA is more beneficial than the broader domestic definition, the treaty limitation governs, subject to treaty-residence and documentation requirements.

For Table 6A reporting of export services, Rule 34(2) of the CGST Rules requires use of the GAAP-compliant spot rate prevailing on the date of supply. RBI daily reference rates cannot be used for current transactions because their publication was discontinued in July 2018. Current spot rates may be obtained from the FBIL portal or an authorised dealer bank.

Foreign tax credit for foreign employment income taxed in India and Malaysia remains available where foreign taxes paid and treaty entitlement are otherwise established. Delayed filing of the prescribed foreign tax credit form and supporting proof does not, by itself, extinguish double taxation relief. The filing deadline operates as a technical procedural requirement and cannot defeat a substantiated entitlement to credit under the applicable tax treaty.

Substance over form prevents transactions of an individual's proprietary business from being attributed to a partnership firm solely because the firm's PAN was incorrectly mapped to the business bank accounts during KYC updating. Bank confirmations, GST records, returns, financial statements and purchase records may establish the actual proprietor and the firm's lack of involvement. Such erroneously reported transactions cannot be assessed as the firm's income or turnover.

Contingent liabilities disclosed in an audit report cannot be adjusted during return processing where the amount was neither debited to the profit and loss account nor claimed in computing total income. The adjustment mechanism for audit-report expenditure not considered in total income applies only where an expenditure exists; a performance guarantee disclosed solely as a contingent liability does not meet that condition. Verification of the return, audit report and computation already on record does not involve admission of additional evidence, so the procedure governing additional evidence is not engaged. The processing adjustment is therefore unsustainable and its deletion remains effective.

Reassessment initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year requires sanction under Section 151(ii) from the specified higher authorities: the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner does not satisfy this jurisdictional precondition for issuing a Section 148 notice. Consequently, a notice issued on such unauthorised approval is without jurisdiction, and the resulting reassessment and consequential disallowance of deduction cannot survive.

Suppressed sales represent gross trading receipts, not taxable income in their entirety, because they include the cost of goods as well as profit. Matching purchase data across two software systems established only invoice-backed recorded purchases and did not rule out unbilled cash purchases; barcoding independently controlled inventory. In the absence of supplier evidence, payment trails, audit logs, undisclosed cash, excess stock, or assets supporting a 100% margin or higher profit rate, only the gross-profit element in the unrecorded turnover was taxable. Additions of the full suppressed-sales value were deleted, while income offered on a gross-profit basis was accepted.

Section 144C(13) requires a final assessment conforming to Dispute Resolution Panel directions to be completed within the statutory period. The COVID-19 exclusion of limitation applied only to proceedings instituted by litigants before judicial or quasi-judicial forums; it did not extend the Department's deadline to complete assessments under the Income-tax Act. Consequently, an assessment completed after that deadline remained time-barred, and the earlier quashing of the assessment disclosed no mistake apparent from the record warranting recall.

Under the pre-restriction statutory formulation, a resident individual taxable under section 115BAC(1A) and within the prescribed total-income ceiling is analysed as eligible for section 87A rebate against income-tax on total income, including tax on qualifying short-term capital gains under section 111A. Section 111A fixes the special-rate computation but contains no express rebate exclusion. The explicit exclusion for specified long-term gains in section 112A(6) supports this distinction. Later limiting language in section 87A must be applied according to the statutory period concerned.

Extended limitation under section 149(1)(b) may operate where books, documents or evidence reveal escaped income meeting the prescribed monetary threshold and represented as an asset, qualifying expenditure, or entries in books of account. These categories operate disjunctively; qualifying book entries may therefore provide an independent jurisdictional basis without resolving whether cash entries are assets. Handwritten and digital records may be treated as books where possession, control, corroboration, and attribution establish their nexus with the taxpayer.

Favourable testing by an accredited laboratory required release of the detained goods despite the department's pending appeal. Earlier directions for representative sampling and laboratory testing had attained finality because no appeal was filed against them. A proposed referral test could not justify continued withholding of the goods or negate those directions. The High Court required release within 48 hours and issuance of a detention certificate for the entire detention period until release.

Under the former reassessment framework, the time or extended time allowed for responding to a Section 148A(b) show-cause notice is excluded when computing limitation for the consequential notice. If the period remaining immediately after that exclusion does not exceed seven days, the sixth proviso supplies a seven-day residual period. The Section 148A(d) order and reassessment notice form a linked statutory sequence and must be completed within the resulting limitation period.

For restaurant services supplied through e-commerce operators, the operator pays GST under section 9(5), including where the restaurant is unregistered. Tax must be discharged entirely in cash, without using input tax credit. The operator need not collect tax at source or file GSTR-8 for these supplies, but tax collection at source continues for supplies not notified under section 9(5). Operators issue restaurant-service invoices and report the supplies in GST returns; registered restaurants include the value in aggregate turnover and make specified return disclosures.

Mandatory representative sampling of seized ganja requires records to identify source packets, show sampling from each packet or prior homogenisation, and document prescribed sample quantities. Standing Order No. 1/89 also requires sampling in the presence of witnesses and the person from whom the substance was recovered. Material non-compliance may justify an adverse inference against the prosecution and support release on bail where seizure records do not establish representative sampling.

Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 made the challenged order appealable through the statutory appellate route, leading to non-entertainment of the writ petitions. The writ petitions were dismissed, while petitioners remained free to raise all questions in appeal. The appellate authority is to consider and decide those questions expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ganja under the NDPS Act comprises only flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves unless accompanied by such tops. Where seized material includes leaves, seeds and stalks without separate quantification of qualifying tops or prima facie proof that excluded components were accompanied by them, commercial quantity under Section 20(c) remains doubtful. Mixing material from two separately seized bags before drawing samples also prevents the forensic sample from reliably representing each bag's contents. These deficiencies can support bail by creating prima facie doubt about commercial quantity and the reliability of sampling.

Section 44 of the PMLA removes committal to the Special Court but does not exclude the criminal complaint procedure incorporated through Sections 46 and 65. Section 71 gives priority to the PMLA only where an actual inconsistency exists. Where the BNSS governs cognizance, the first proviso to Section 223(1) requires a meaningful hearing for the proposed accused before cognizance. The safeguard is distinct from exemptions from complainant examination, is mandatory and substantive, and permits submissions on legal sufficiency and prima facie material without converting the stage into a merits trial.

Where a GST order followed non-response to a show-cause notice and personal hearing, with the statutory appeal stated to be time-barred, the suggested remedies are urgent pursuit of pending rectification and an Article 226 writ challenge. Proposed grounds include alleged vague and duplicated demands, patent non-application of mind, and treatment of duplication as an arithmetical error. The discussion also cites propositions on excluding rectification pendency from appeal limitation and restricting recovery during rectification.