RMS-based processing of duty drawback claims applies after filing of the corresponding Export General Manifest. Shipping bills are risk-assessed and either facilitated for automatic entry into the scroll-in queue or routed to the proper Customs officer for verification and processing. Facilitated cases are shown in designated drawback reports and flagged in the temporary drawback scroll, with recall available for further scrutiny. Required drawback documents may be uploaded through e-Sanchit at shipping bill filing using applicable document codes.

BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2019 ex-gratia compensation is treated as retrenchment compensation eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) where its substantive character satisfies that requirement, even if the exemption was not claimed in the original return. Delays in challenging section 143(1) intimations may be condoned where employees relied on incorrect professional advice, lacked awareness of the exemption, and comparable delays have received consistent relief. Individual claims require verification, followed by grant of the applicable exemption and consequential refund and interest in accordance with law.

Additional or penal interest arising from a transaction between Y and M/s ABC Ltd. that falls within the specified exemption entry is not subject to GST because it is covered by that entry. The value of the mobile supply by X to Y remains Rs. 40,000 for GST levy purposes.

Online processing for AEO T2 and AEO T3 certification requires applicants, after physically submitting documents to the jurisdictional AEO Cell, to register on the AEO portal and upload completed application annexures. Applicants can monitor processing in real time and upload additional documents to cure deficiencies. Existing AEO T1 status holders applying for AEO T2 may use existing login credentials. Portal registration became mandatory for AEO T2 and AEO T3 certification from 1 August 2021, while applications filed before 7 July 2021 may remain under manual processing unless migration is requested.

Tax exemption under Schedule III read with section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 applies to specified income of the District Legal Service Authority, Panchkula, for the tax year 2026-27. Covered income includes institutional and government grants, court-ordered receipts, recruitment application fees, and bank-deposit interest. The Authority must not undertake commercial activity, must file its income-tax return as prescribed, and must maintain unchanged activities and specified income; non-compliance leads to withdrawal of exemption and proceedings.

Corrigendum revises lines 7 to 9 of Order No. F.16(21)Tax/Juris(GST)/CCT/2017/3196 dated 1 July 2017. The corrected reference retains two notifications dated 30 June 2015 and additionally includes two notifications dated 31 March 2011.

Specified income of the District Legal Service Authority, Panchkula is exempt under section 10(46) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, preserved through repeal-saving provisions of the Income-tax Act, 2025. Exempt income includes statutory grants, government grants or donations, court-ordered amounts, recruitment application fees and bank-deposit interest. The Authority must not undertake commercial activity, must maintain unchanged activities and income nature, and must file returns as required. Non-compliance may result in penal action and withdrawal of exemption.

GST taxpayer administration in Rajasthan is allocated between Central Tax and State Tax authorities to maintain a single interface for registered persons. Six previously unallocated taxpayers are assigned to either the Centre or the State according to the specified turnover categories. Taxpayers may verify their assigned authority through designated websites and report discrepancies or missing details to either authority for rectification by the State Level Committee.

GST registration cancellation appeals dismissed solely as time-barred may be restored where a genuine explanation establishes that non-compliance and delay arose from lack of awareness of online requirements and reliance on advisers who failed to act. Cancellation that brings business operations to a standstill supports consideration of the appellate remedy on merits. The appellate authority must entertain and decide the appeal in accordance with law, subject to payment of applicable late fee, penalty and other statutory deposits.

Fresh GST proceedings under Section 74 may be initiated within two years from communication of an earlier writ order that quashed a prior notice while expressly permitting fresh action, provided fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax exists. Section 75(3), read with that binding direction, preserves the period for consequential adjudication; an earlier dropped Section 73 notice does not bar the fresh proceedings. However, a show cause notice containing unnecessary accusations that the taxpayer misled the Court demonstrates prejudgment and breaches the requirement of neutral adjudication. Such a notice must be set aside, with any fresh action undertaken by a different officer.

Jurisdiction over a GST waiver application arising from a combined demand order was not defeated merely because part of the operations concerned another State. Sections 79 and 128A refer to the relevant proper officer, but neither the recovery provision nor the GST Rules prescribe a basis for identifying that officer in this situation. Rule 164 contemplates a single waiver application in Form GST SPL-01 or GST SPL-02 rather than multiple applications. Where one officer issued a combined demand order covering Chennai and Maharashtra operations, no statutory basis existed to refuse jurisdiction over the Maharashtra waiver claim. The rejection of that limited claim was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after reasonable opportunity.

Duplicate assessment orders arising from the same GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 return mismatch cannot coexist where both concern the same assessment period and identical tax liability. The later order was quashed because it duplicated the earlier assessment, notwithstanding the absence of an SGST-CGST bifurcation. The earlier assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration to provide a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits. That remand was conditional on payment of the entire tax demand within the stipulated period.

Section 128A permits waiver of interest and penalty where proceedings under Section 73 determine unpaid or short-paid self-assessed tax; direct recovery under Section 79 without Section 73 proceedings does not support a waiver application. Circular No. 238 cannot narrow that statutory scope. Rule 164 limits voidness of an approved waiver in Form GST SPL-05 or GST SPL-06 to specified failures to make additional payment; authorities lack power to issue void orders outside those circumstances. Rule 164 creates mandatory filing and disposal timelines. Failure to decide within the prescribed period may result in deemed approval, subject to fulfilment of Section 128A, whereas late applications or late payment cannot be cured through substantial compliance.

GST recovery for a deceased proprietor's dues cannot be pursued against a private limited company that is legally distinct from the proprietary concern; Form GST DRC-13 notices attaching the company's bank account were therefore quashed. Adjudication against the deceased proprietor's family members required examination of the statutory conditions governing liability on a taxable person's death under Section 93(1)(a) and 93(1)(b) of the CGST/KGST Act. Because those material circumstances were not considered, the adjudication orders were quashed and remitted for fresh consideration after the family members may respond to the show-cause notices on all available grounds.

Discrepancies between export turnover reported in Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 require a registered taxable person to receive an opportunity to produce documents establishing the nature of the transactions and substantiating export turnover. Where non-participation in GST adjudication is explained and applicable Board Circulars contemplate such documentary verification, an ex parte determination may require fresh consideration. The appellate rejection based on inability to condone delay beyond 120 days and the adjudication order were quashed, with the proceedings restored for reconsideration after production of supporting documents and issuance of a reasoned order.

For limitation purposes, a dealer's declared date of communication of an adjudication order must be treated as the actual communication date unless the Revenue rebuts it with cogent material. Treating the order date itself as the communication date, despite an unrebutted assertion of later receipt, cannot justify dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred. The appellate order was quashed, and the appeal was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

The eighteen-month period for an Interim Board to dispose of a pending settlement application runs from its first allotment to, and action by, an Interim Board. An administrative transfer to another Interim Board does not restart or extend that limitation, because repeated transfers would undermine the statutory time-bound settlement framework. Exercise of the power to call for a report indicates that the application had already been allotted to and was within the first Interim Board's jurisdiction. The limitation period is mandatory; settlement and consequential rectification orders made after its expiry are time-barred and void. Questions concerning abatement and its consequences remain open.

Reassessment under the amended scheme may be initiated where portal information links transactions to an assessee's PAN, provided the material is relevant and the assessing authority applies its mind to objections. Detailed reasons to believe are not required at the initiation stage. A GST communication does not bar an independent income-tax enquiry where identity theft has not been conclusively established. Reassessment may therefore continue, while the identity-theft defence remains open for examination. Although the assessee must substantiate that plea with evidence, the Revenue must first establish through positive primary evidence that the disputed transactions were undertaken by the assessee rather than another person.

Discounted Cash Flow valuation of shares issued by a newly incorporated company was recognised as a valid method for section 56(2)(viib) purposes, even before its later notification under Rule 11UA. Recognition by valuation professionals was distinguished from legislative notification, and the Net Asset Value method was considered unsuitable for a newly incorporated company. Although the valuation rule used mandatory language, the Assessing Officer was required to identify defects in the valuation report or methodology and could not replace projected returns with an independent estimate. Procedural valuation rules could not defeat substantive rights without a substantial legal breach. The share-premium addition was deleted and that deletion was affirmed.

Internal CUP was treated as the most appropriate method for determining the arm's length price of project-office transactions under a turnkey power-project contract. Where the Indian project office bore the contract's risks and rewards, all revenue was attributed to India, and the unrelated customer regarded the head office and project office as one entity, the contract with that customer satisfied the comparability requirements for an internal CUP. CUP was preferred over TNMM as a more direct and suitable method, while the proposed TNMM comparables were rejected. The transfer-pricing adjustment was consequently not sustained, and the appeals were dismissed for lack of a substantial question of law.