Receipts from services inextricably connected with mineral oil prospecting, extraction or production, including field development consultancy and NDR preparation, fall within the mining or like projects exclusion and are taxable under the presumptive regime in section 44BB rather than as fees for technical services or royalty. Interest on an income-tax refund arising from taxes paid on core business conducted through an Indian permanent establishment is taxable as business profits under Article 7 at the maximum marginal rate, rather than at the Article 11 treaty rate, because the debt claim is effectively connected with that establishment. Offshore supply income is not taxable in India under section 44BB where cementing units and batch mixers are completed and inspected outside India and directly imported by the Indian purchaser, title and risk pass and payment is made outside India, and no related Indian business connection or permanent establishment is established.

Filing ITR-7 instead of the prescribed ITR-5 creates a defective return under section 139(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where processing does not show that the defect was identified or a rectification opportunity provided, the correct form must be accepted. Late filing of Form 10B is a technical defect that does not by itself defeat exemption. Returns covered by sections 139(4A) and 139(4C) must meet the section 139(1) due date; exemption for a late return can be restored only upon condonation under section 119(2)(b). Even without exemption, income computation under section 143(1) must consider expenditure and the declared deficit rather than tax gross receipts in full.

Best-judgment profit estimates following rejection of books under Section 145(3) must be reasonable and based on relevant material, such as past results or comparable cases, rather than arbitrary assumptions. Incomplete purchaser details can justify verification concerns and estimation of income, but do not support an arbitrary profit rate. Information about substantial cash deposits may provide a basis for reopening an assessment under Sections 147 and 148 to verify the nature and source of the deposits.

Contract cancellation charges for unfulfilled export supply contracts, where directly connected with ordinary business, qualify as business expenditure rather than speculative loss. Commission paid to non-resident agents for soliciting export customers outside India is not subject to tax deduction where the agents have no Indian business connection, the payment is not fees for technical services and the sum is not chargeable to tax in India; it is therefore not disallowable for non-deduction. Losses on forward foreign-exchange contracts used to hedge export receivables and incidental to export business are business losses, not speculative losses. Rule 8D requires recorded satisfaction on the correctness of the exempt-income expenditure claim; interest disallowance is unsustainable where neither satisfaction nor material connecting the interest to exempt income exists.

Cash sales already recorded and offered as income cannot be added again as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 solely because they occurred during demonetisation, where purchases and physical stock remain undisputed and the sales explanation is accepted. Reconciliation of physical and book stock, including previously omitted jewellery, reduced the excess-stock addition under Section 69B; the unaccounted-sale component was telescoped against the excess-stock investment. The survey cash difference was reconciled through cash purchases disallowed under Section 40A(3) and partners' withdrawals, both subsequently recorded in the books, leading to deletion of the cash addition. The concurrent factual findings were not shown to be perverse and raised no substantial question of law under Section 260A.

The fermented grape beverage with added sugar is distinguished from ordinary fruit juice by the use of yeast and fermentation and does not qualify as a fruit pulp or fruit juice based drink under HSN 2202 9920. A beverage is non-alcoholic only if its alcohol content does not exceed 0.5% by volume. An earlier test recorded 2% alcohol, while a later private laboratory report was not accepted as valid proof. The available evidence did not establish the precise classification or applicable tax rate.

Penalty under Section 129 is confined to undocumented excess goods when the remaining goods are covered by a valid tax invoice and e-way bill and there is no cogent evidence that the documents are false or the transaction fictitious. The discovery of excess goods does not by itself make the entire consignment undocumented. Section 129 permits detention and penalty for goods transported in contravention of statutory requirements, but the penalty must correspond to the nature and extent of the established contravention. Separate proof of dishonest intention is not indispensable, but deliberate tax evasion concerning documented goods cannot be presumed without an adequate factual foundation.

GST refund limitation excludes 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 under Notification 13/2022-Central Tax. Where the relevant tax payment date fell within that period, the full two-year limit ran from 1 March 2022 to 29 February 2024, making an application filed on the last day timely. An application rectified in good faith after a deficiency memo relates back to a timely original filing but cannot cure a late original claim. GST paid on a taxable advance remains subject to the refund framework even if the corresponding supply does not materialise; it cannot be reclassified as a deposit to avoid limitation. The statutory time limit is a substantive eligibility condition that procedural circulars cannot relax. Non-consideration of a show-cause reply vitiates rejection, but appellate authorities must decide disputed points with reasons. A challenge to limitation calculations on admitted facts introduces no new charge if limitation was raised in the notice.

When a deceased sole proprietor's business has discontinued, Section 93(1)(b) limits the legal representative's GST liability to the inherited estate and the extent to which it can meet the charge. Recovery requires notice to the legal representative and identification of the estate; proceedings without those steps lack jurisdiction. Input tax credit remains available despite a GSTR-2A mismatch caused by suppliers reporting business-to-business invoices as business-to-consumer transactions, where purchases are genuine, supplier tax payment is established by unrebutted certificates and the credit is otherwise valid.

Input tax credit discrepancies between FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-2A arising from incorrect supplier reporting must be evaluated under the applicable circular using relevant documentary evidence. Its instructions apply to pending adjudication or appellate proceedings concerning FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19. The FY 2017-18 proceedings remained pending when the circular was issued, after the original adjudication and first appellate orders; the evidence had not been assessed under its prescribed framework.

Input tax credit mismatches for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 are covered by the instructions in Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST where adjudication or appellate proceedings remain pending. For the FY 2017-18 mismatch between FORM GSTR-3B and FORM GSTR-2A, additional supplier-return records require fresh consideration under the Circular, observing the principles of natural justice. Both sides agreed to fresh consideration and verification of the additional records.

Intra-State movement of rubber latex from an agriculturist's premises to the registered business premises of a taxable person is exempt from the e-way bill requirement regardless of value, provided the goods are accompanied by a delivery challan prescribed under Rule 55 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. An incorrect GSTIN belonging to an unrelated person in an otherwise proper challan was treated as a condonable clerical error where no material connected its holder to the transaction; the exemption remained available.

Differential cess and consequential interest and penalty are unsustainable when based solely on an apparent clerical error in GSTR-1 without evidence of actual short payment. The taxable value and CGST and SGST liabilities in GSTR-1 matched GSTR-3B, while cess was declared and paid through input tax credit in GSTR-3B. The GSTR-1 cess figure did not correspond with the taxable value or CGST and SGST amounts, and there was no evidence of suppressed outward supplies, suppressed taxable value or short payment of CGST or SGST.

Transitional input tax credit is available for eligible capital goods whose commercial use begins after the transition to GST, where substantive eligibility is established through invoices and purchase disclosures. Under the earlier VAT regime, the period for applying in Form 25 ran from commercial use rather than purchase. Failure to obtain Form 25B before the transition is a procedural impediment that does not extinguish otherwise eligible credit, which may be claimed through TRAN-1. Claimed carry-forward credit is not admissible where the final VAT return records no closing credit and no basis establishes the claimed balance.

Section 129(1) penalty proceedings require the show-cause notice to identify the provisions of the Act or Rules allegedly contravened, giving the recipient an opportunity to answer the precise allegations. A statutory breach omitted from the notice cannot later sustain the demand. Section 143(1) permits a principal to send inputs or capital goods to a job worker without payment of tax. Delayed generation of a job-work e-way bill after interception does not change an established job-work movement into a taxable supply. Where no tax is payable on the goods, the tax-linked penalty under section 129(1) is not leviable.

Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act requires a personal hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated; notices and written replies do not replace that right. An appellate review that merely adopts departmental figures without independently examining relevant records does not cure the breach. A return mismatch alone cannot sustain a demand based on alleged excess input tax credit. Section 155 places the burden of proving credit on the claimant, and the relevant books, invoices, returns and reverse-charge records require verification. Section 44 and Rule 80 do not provide for online alteration of a filed annual return; a bona fide error requires factual verification. Section 113(1) permits fresh adjudication after consideration of additional evidence.

Delayed filing of the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts a late fee under Section 47. A separate general penalty under Section 125 is not warranted for the same delay because that provision applies only where no other penalty is provided for the contravention. The specific late-fee mechanism covers the filing default, so the late fee remains payable but the separate general penalty is invalid.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against an assessment order despite delay in challenging it. The appellate authority was directed not to raise limitation in relation to the appeal.

Under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service alongside other prescribed modes. Where repeated non-response follows portal uploads, officers must make a genuine effort to use other prescribed modes, preferably registered post. Sole reliance on portal uploads in those circumstances denies a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard. An ex parte GST assessment made without effective service and a meaningful hearing violates natural justice.

GST portal upload is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response to assessment notices requires the officer to explore other prescribed modes under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due. Portal upload alone in these circumstances does not afford a meaningful opportunity to reply or be heard and breaches natural justice. Safeguards for fresh adjudication include an opportunity to submit objections and clear notice of a personal hearing. A bank-account attachment cannot survive the setting aside of the underlying assessment.