Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause ended its refund restriction for pending proceedings concerning integrated tax paid on exports. Proceedings under an omitted rule can continue only where a saving provision or statutory legal fiction preserves them. The GST Council's advisory recommendation for prospective omission did not bind the rule-making authority. The Supreme Court treated the omission as applicable to all pending refund proceedings, dismissed challenges to that application, and dismissed challenges to the rule's validity as infructuous.

GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming and betting, including the retrospective valuation framework for online gaming and casino transactions, stood governed by Supreme Court findings that had already addressed every substantive challenge and prayer raised. No issue remained for independent consideration. The writ petition was dismissed in terms of that judgment and the interim order was vacated. Petitioners could submit replies to the show cause notice within the stipulated period, with the competent authority required to adjudicate in accordance with law and the Supreme Court findings.

GST on actionable claims connected with online gaming, fantasy sports, betting, gambling and casino transactions is addressed alongside the statutory valuation framework and the retrospective operation of the 2023 amendments. The challenge to the levy was dismissed in line with a Supreme Court judgment. The interim order was vacated, and the notice recipient was given eight weeks to respond to the show cause notice, followed by twelve weeks for adjudication.

Service of a GST show-cause notice solely by uploading it on the Common Portal is insufficient unless the recipient acknowledges receipt or files a reply. Ex parte adjudication initiated on that basis must be restored to the show-cause-notice stage. Where a contested GST order is served only through the portal, the appellate limitation period does not begin to run. Appellate dismissals as time-barred in those circumstances require restoration for adjudication on merits. These principles govern the disposal of writ petitions concerning portal-only service of GST notices and orders.

Alternative statutory remedy does not make a writ petition non-maintainable, but its entertainment remains discretionary. The statutory bar on parallel CGST proceedings applies only where State GST proceedings on the same subject matter were initiated earlier. Where the CGST show-cause notice preceded SGST notices, no jurisdictional defect arose under the bar. An earlier order concerning seized goods was distinct from later adjudication following investigation, notice under Section 74 and consideration of the taxpayer's reply, and therefore did not constitute parallel adjudication. In the absence of a jurisdictional infirmity, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal, with writ-prosecution time excluded for limitation.

Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax provides a special procedure for GST appeals filed beyond the ordinary limitation period where the appeal falls within the extended filing period and satisfies the prescribed payment condition. Its scope covers taxpayers unable to file within the statutory period, delayed appeals rejected as time-barred, and qualifying pending appeals arising from orders under sections 73 and 74. A qualifying appeal filed by 31 January 2024 cannot be treated less favourably than an appeal previously rejected solely for delay. Rejection without considering the Notification was treated as unsustainable, requiring remand for a merits determination.

Effective service of GST notices requires more than portal uploading where a taxpayer remains non-responsive despite repeated reminders. Although portal upload constitutes valid service, the assessing officer should consider other statutory modes, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due, to ensure actual communication before making an ex parte assessment. Failure to provide a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing can invalidate the assessment. The High Court set aside the ex parte assessment and lifted the consequential attachment, remanding the matter for fresh merits consideration subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax. The taxpayer may file objections, and the officer must give clear 14 days' notice of personal hearing.

Cancellation of GST registration does not extinguish tax liability for periods preceding cancellation. High Court found that the taxpayer received the show-cause notice and statutory forms through the common portal and had repeated opportunities to respond and attend a personal hearing, but did not do so. No defect justified writ interference with the assessment order imposing tax and penalty. The writ petition was disposed of without interference, while preserving liberty to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed period on payment of the statutory pre-deposit.

Regular bail was granted to an accused alleged to have wrongfully utilised input tax credit through fictitious GST transactions. The alleged conduct was treated as punishable under Section 132 of the GST Act, described as a complete statutory regime for GST offences. Bail discretion was exercised after considering the maximum prescribed sentence, statutory availability of compounding, custody period, and the effect of continued detention on the applicant's business. Release remained subject to conditions designed to secure attendance and prevent interference with the investigation or trial.

Deduction under section 80-IAB extends to interest earned on unutilised business funds compulsorily placed in fixed deposits, including deposits made at the insistence of financial institutions, where the interest is treated as business income rather than income from other sources. Expenditure disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Accordingly, the deduction for qualifying fixed-deposit interest was upheld, and the disallowance relating to exempt income was restricted to the amount of exempt income.

Remittances received by an NRE account holder from non-resident relatives through banking channels, where NRE status and compliance with RBI guidelines are undisputed, were treated as exempt income not includible in total income. Funds credited to NRE accounts were regarded as beyond tax authorities' reach regarding their foreign source. Applying prior High Court rulings, the Tribunal's deletion of additions for unexplained investment and unexplained cash credits under sections 69 and 68 was sustained, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected because no substantial question of law arose.

Reassessment of an approved educational trust is unwarranted where, even after proposed disallowances, income applied to its objects remains above the 85% exemption threshold and no taxable income escapes assessment. The proviso to section 10(23C)(vi) permits accumulation of up to 15% of income, while section 152(2) permits reassessment proceedings to be dropped if the alleged escaped income does not reduce the assessed tax liability. Reopening and consequential reassessment were quashed. Revisionary power under section 264 may also modify, revoke or set aside an assessment made contrary to an interim court order, provided the resulting order is not prejudicial to the assessee; administrative system limitations do not excuse failure to remedy the breach.

Capital gains on an assessee's mortgaged immovable property are computed on the full sale consideration, less admitted deductions, even where a secured creditor sells the property in recovery proceedings and appropriates all proceeds toward another borrower's debt. Appreciation in the owner's property value triggers the charge; a distress sale under an enforceable mortgage or attachment does not alter the computation. The owner's non-receipt of proceeds does not remove liability where the mortgage was voluntarily created with knowledge of default consequences. The capital gains assessment therefore remains sustainable.

Fixed place permanent establishment under the India-Thailand DTAA requires cogent evidence that the non-resident enterprise carried on its business through a place at its disposal in India. Survey material showing expatriates working with an Indian group company and receiving remuneration from a Japanese parent did not establish that they acted for the Thailand-based supplier, were deputed by it, or that it had a fixed place of business in India. Associated-enterprise status alone was insufficient to create a permanent establishment. On identical facts, the supplier was treated as having no permanent establishment in India, making the transfer-pricing grounds infructuous.

Leave encashment received on retirement by non-government employees under section 10(10AA)(ii) is discussed in relation to a subsequently enhanced exemption ceiling. The enhancement is characterised as a remedial and beneficial measure that rationalises an existing exemption, reduces disparity with government employees, and mitigates hardship. On that approach, the enhanced ceiling is treated as enlarging an existing benefit rather than creating a new exemption, supporting liberal application to pending claims despite no express retrospective provision. Restricting claims to the earlier ceiling could differentiate between similarly placed employees solely by retirement timing.

Tax deduction at source on leave fare concession payments was not required where binding interim judicial directions prohibited deduction or recovery. Vacation of those directions operated prospectively and could not retrospectively impose a recovery obligation on the employer. An employer acting in compliance with such orders could not be treated as an assessee in default under sections 201(1) and 201(1A). Liability under section 201 required verification of whether employees, as primary taxpayers, had discharged their tax liability; it was not automatic merely because tax had not been deducted. The demand and consequential interest were deleted.

Tax was deductible at source on annual lease rent paid to development authorities, and the exemption under section 10(20A) did not apply. Interest for delayed deduction was confined to the period from when tax became deductible until the deductee filed its return. Interest expenditure capitalised as work-in-progress and not charged to the profit and loss account could not be disallowed for delayed tax deduction, because disallowance applies only to expenditure claimed in the profit and loss account. Accordingly, the disallowance of capitalised interest was deleted, while the tax-deduction liability on annual lease rent remained.

Domestic related-party transfer pricing is ordinarily revenue neutral where under-invoicing or over-invoicing does not create a tax advantage. Revenue neutrality may not apply where profits shift from a profit-making entity to a loss-making entity, or from a higher-taxed entity to a lower-taxed entity. Interest paid on a loan was examined where the borrower was subject to a lower concessional tax rate than the associated enterprise; shifting profit to the higher-taxed enterprise would not yield a tax benefit. Verification was required to establish whether the associated enterprise was domestic and the loan constituted a specified domestic transaction. If verified, the interest transfer pricing adjustment was to be deleted.

Penalty for under-reporting or misreporting of income under section 270A requires clear identification and communication of the applicable circumstance of under-reporting and, where relevant, the act constituting misreporting. Failure to specify these statutory grounds in the assessment order, notice or penalty order denies the taxpayer an effective opportunity to respond and breaches natural justice. Where the charge finally used to impose penalty differs from the charge initially invoked, the penalty proceedings are invalid. The section 270A penalty was therefore quashed as bad in law.

Reassessment requires a valid jurisdictional notice under section 143(2). Where a private company converted into an LLP and the Assessing Officer was notified of the conversion, issuing that notice and completing reassessment in the name of the erstwhile company rendered the proceedings invalid. A company and an LLP have separate legal identities and different tax treatment; assessment of the non-existent company was therefore a substantive illegality, not a procedural defect capable of cure under section 292B. The reassessment orders were void from inception and quashed, while remaining grounds became academic.