The availability of ordinary demand proceedings under section 73 is, in the author's view, relevant to the initial scope of a GST audit. For an audit initiated in late October 2026, the author considers 2023-24 and 2024-25 the appropriate initial years, with 2021-22 and 2022-23 excluded because a section 73 show-cause notice was considered unavailable. The author considers it improper to assume the applicability of section 74 and seek earlier-period data without material supporting an allegation of tax evasion. In this view, an audit may extend requests to earlier years if it reveals fraudulent intent or relevant irregularities. Taxpayers are advised to review the periods in GST ADT 01, check whether 15 working days are available to respond, cooperate with the audit and raise appropriate objections where necessary.

Post-supply discounts may be deducted from the taxable value of goods or services without an agreement entered into at or before the time of supply or linkage to specific invoices, with effect from 1 November 2026. The supplier must issue a GST credit note and comply with the applicable requirements of section 34 of the CGST Act. The recipient must reverse the input tax credit attributable to the discount, a condition that also applied earlier.

The recommended safeguards are separate business banking and payment channels, an established method of owner pay, and documentation whenever funds cross between business and personal accounts. Owners may use salary or remuneration, drawings, dividends or documented loans, as appropriate to the form of business. Personal expenditure paid by the business should be recorded as drawings or an amount receivable from the owner rather than a business expense; personally paid business expenditure should be reimbursed against supporting bills. Loans in either direction should have documented terms and any required approvals. Companies Act restrictions apply to loans and advances to directors and related parties, and dividends may be paid only from distributable profits.

The VALUE pricing approach calls for verifying the full cost of serving each product, service or customer segment, including discounts, freight, returns, support and payment delays, and identifying the value customers receive. It proposes tiered offers for different needs, discount approval limits and monitoring, and exchanging discounts for benefits such as higher volume, faster payment or longer contracts. Chartered accountancy practices can scope compliance retainers by transaction volume, number of entities, GST registrations and complexity. Engagement letters should specify charges for additional work, and fees should be reviewed annually, with early communication of adjustments linked to added services, statutory changes or inflation. Price-fixing with competitors, misleading original-price claims, hidden charges and unfair discrimination can breach competition and consumer-protection law. GST generally applies to transaction value, and discounts are excluded only when specified conditions are met.

Judicial review of concurrent disciplinary findings of professional misconduct under Article 226 is limited to recognised legal infirmity, perversity or legal unsustainability. Evidence cannot be reassessed merely because another view is possible. Failure to report relevant transactions during a concurrent audit may constitute gross negligence in the discharge of audit responsibilities. Reprimand and a monetary penalty do not warrant judicial intervention where the sanction is not disproportionate.

Interest-bearing advances against promissory notes are not excluded from the definition of loans under the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Unlicensed money lending is prohibited, and the resulting loan is unenforceable; it may therefore not constitute a legally enforceable debt for cheque dishonour proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Whether the Maharashtra statutory bar applies must be determined on the merits of the individual proceeding, and the issue may be raised before the trial court or a superior court.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to patent jurisdictional or legal errors, findings based on no evidence, disregard of material evidence, or arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion. It does not permit routine reappraisal of concurrent findings. In commercial-tax evasion proceedings under the Bihar Finance Act, deliberate discrepancies in the description and value of goods may indicate suppression of transactions to evade tax.

Clandestine manufacture and removal of TMT rods require positive evidence, with the burden on the Revenue. Private records and statements indicating short accounting of captively consumed MS ingots do not independently establish their conversion into unaccounted TMT rods or their removal. Without corroboration through electricity consumption, transport or dispatch records, or evidence identifying purchasers, conjecture is insufficient to support the excise-duty demand and associated penalties.

Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 places the burden of establishing credit admissibility on the manufacturer, while Rule 14 permits recovery only of credit incorrectly or improperly taken or utilised. Stock shortages and SAP entries reflecting reconciliation adjustments do not justify reversal without positive evidence of diversion, non-receipt or non-use, where the original availment is not alleged to be improper. An unsupported third-party statement alleging invoices without actual supply cannot sustain a demand when its maker is not made available for requested cross-examination; reliance on the untested statement breaches natural justice.

The taxable value of maintenance and repair services under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 excluded separately sold materials and spare parts; their cost was expressly excluded until 18 April 2006. CENVAT credit was permitted on duty-paid spares and accessories used as inputs for output services. Conditions in the materials exemption notification could not make separately sold goods taxable where recovery of wrongly availed credit was not sought. The extended limitation period was unavailable because returns were filed, service tax was paid on services, the relevant facts were known from an audit, and wilful suppression was not established. The service-tax demand and consequential penalty lacked legal basis.

Before works contract service became taxable on 1 June 2007, indivisible construction works contracts involving both transfer of property in goods and labour could not be split and taxed under another service category. Tax paid without liability on subcontract construction work is refundable where unjust enrichment is absent. A principal contractor's certification of service-tax payment for the relevant financial year can suffice without quarterly or project-wise particulars.

The one-year limitation for a rebate claim on exported services runs from full realisation of export proceeds, rather than the export-invoice date, under the applicable framework. The Export of Services Rules, 2005 made receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange a condition for treating services as exported. The applicable rebate notification also required receipt of payment and documentary proof. The rule governing the relevant date for goods exported from India did not apply to exported services.

Extended limitation for subsequent tax demands cannot rest solely on allegations underlying an earlier notice where the resulting demand was set aside. Fresh material establishing suppression, fraud or intent to evade tax is required for the later periods. A subsequent demand under Construction of Residential Complex Service is unsustainable without distinguishing material where the earlier demand on the same basis was set aside because the activity was a composite works contract after the taxpayer opted for the works contract composition scheme.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, completion of investigation and filing of the prosecution complaint within the prescribed period bar default bail; cognizance need not be taken within that period. Setting aside cognizance solely for failure to provide the required pre-cognizance hearing does not invalidate the complaint or interrupt judicial custody, which may continue under pre-cognizance remand powers pending fresh consideration of cognizance. Release may be sought through regular bail on merits. A fresh writ petition cannot be used to reopen the same custody issue already determined in earlier High Court proceedings, as that would seek appellate review; dismissal of a special leave petition does not displace the earlier determination.

Retail sale price-based countervailing duty (CVD) applies only where an imported package must bear, and bears, a declared retail sale price. Customs officers cannot substitute a contract price for an undeclared price because the customs framework lacks statutory machinery to determine it. Laptops marked as not intended for retail sale and supplied for free distribution to students do not require that declaration, even when sold to an intermediary; CVD is assessed on transaction value and applicable duties. Disclosure of material facts and absence of intent to evade preclude extended limitation. Confiscation is unsupported where no import prohibition is established and no breached exemption condition is identified. No short levy or suppression was established, so interest and penalty do not apply. The applicable CVD provision also did not incorporate customs provisions on interest, penalty or confiscation.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 dispenses only with the requirement of a speaking order; it does not bar a statutory challenge to the formation of opinion or the merits of reassessment. Under Section 14 of the Act and Rule 12(2) of the customs valuation rules, the officer must communicate grounds establishing reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of a declared transaction value before rejecting it. Subsequent valuation must follow the prescribed sequential methods. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data alone cannot justify enhancement without independent cogent material demonstrating comparability.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment under Section 17(5) waives the requirement of a speaking order but does not extinguish the importer's statutory right to challenge the officer's opinion or the legality of reassessment. Under Section 14 and Rule 12(2), the proper officer must have reasonable doubt about the declared transaction value and, when required, communicate the grounds in writing before applying the sequential valuation rules. Rejection and enhancement based solely on NIDB or contemporaneous import data, without disclosed particulars of comparable imports, independent cogent evidence and a reasoned basis for departing from the declared value, do not satisfy these safeguards.

Confiscation of Indian currency under section 113(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires evidence that the goods were brought to a place for the purpose of export contrary to law. Concealment of currency in a motorcycle and departure from the spot may raise suspicion or invite inquiry under another statute, but do not establish attempted smuggling. Without evidence linking the currency to intended illegal export, confiscation of the currency and the consequential confiscation of the motorcycle and imposition of a penalty cannot be sustained.

Written acceptance of customs reassessment and an enhanced value relieves the proper officer of the requirement to issue a speaking order under Section 17(5), but does not waive the importer's statutory right to challenge the reassessment. Rejection of the declared transaction value requires compliance with Section 14 and Rule 12(2), including the formation and communication of reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy. NIDB or contemporaneous-import data alone cannot justify an increased value without independent, cogent supporting material and substantiated grounds for rejecting the declared value.

Penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires proof that a domestic purchaser knew or had reason to believe that imported machinery was liable to confiscation. Knowledge that machinery was imported is not sufficient, and the buyer-beware principle does not displace the customs department's burden to prove the statutory requirements. A domestic purchase on invoices, without an exemption claim or proven involvement in the importer's alleged misdeclaration, does not support a penalty in the absence of the requisite knowledge or reason to believe.