Foreign remittances credited to an undisputed NRE account through banking channels and in accordance with RBI guidelines could not support additions for unexplained investment or unexplained cash credits. Income in NRE accounts is exempt, and the source of qualifying foreign remittances lies beyond the reach of domestic authorities. Consequently, mutual-fund investments funded from wire transfers by non-resident relatives through the NRE account did not justify additions under Sections 69 or 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Interest on fixed deposits maintained from unutilised funds at financial institutions' insistence for business purposes is incidental business income rather than income from other sources, and qualifies for deduction under section 80IAB. Expenditure disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D is restricted to the exempt income earned and cannot exceed that amount. The business-linked deposit interest therefore receives the statutory deduction, while the disallowance remains capped at exempt income.

Reassessment based on material and an interest-income claim already examined and accepted in the original scrutiny assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion and lacks a valid jurisdictional basis. Interest earned by a co-operative society from investments with a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), because a co-operative bank is treated as a co-operative society for that purpose. The reassessment was therefore invalid, and the deduction was available on the interest income.

Regular bail in alleged fraudulent availment and utilisation of input tax credit was considered within the comprehensive offence framework of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Where the alleged amount exceeded the prescribed threshold, Section 132 provided a maximum imprisonment term of five years. Statutory compounding, the applicant's custody since 1 July 2025, and bail granted to a co-accused supported release. Regular bail was granted subject to furnishing the stipulated bond and sureties and complying with prescribed conditions.

Cancellation of GST registration does not extinguish tax liability for periods preceding cancellation. For the 2018-19 assessment, the taxpayer was served with a show-cause notice and DRC-01 through the common portal, along with opportunities to pay the proposed tax, respond to reminders, and attend a personal hearing. Non-use of those opportunities did not establish an infirmity in the assessment merely because portal access was allegedly unavailable after cancellation. The assessment imposing tax and penalty remained unaffected, with the statutory appellate remedy available.

Effective notice and a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing are required before completing a GST assessment ex parte. Uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service, but repeated non-response requires the assessing officer to consider other statutory service methods, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due, to secure actual notice. Mere completion of portal-upload formalities without ensuring an effective opportunity to respond or be heard is inadequate. The assessment was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, and the consequential attachment could not continue.

Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax establishes a special procedure under the CGST Act for appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 that were not filed within ordinary limitation, were rejected solely for delay, remained pending, or were filed by the extended cut-off date. Subject to prescribed payment conditions, its benefit extends to an appeal filed after the notification's issue and before 31 January 2024, even where no earlier limitation-based rejection occurred. The Appellate Authority must consider the notification when deciding such an appeal; rejection solely on limitation is not sustainable where the conditions are met.

Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act bars CGST proceedings only where State GST proceedings on the same subject matter were initiated earlier. A CGST show-cause notice issued before SGST notices does not attract that bar. Proceedings arising from goods seized during a search may remain distinct from a later investigation-based adjudication concerning wrongful input tax credit and tax evasion, even for the same period. Although writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative remedy, it is discretionary and ordinarily should not displace the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 absent exceptional circumstances or a jurisdictional infirmity.

Provisional release of goods seized under Section 67(6) operates independently of tax determination and payment under Section 74A(9); the provisions address separate statutory fields. A constitutional challenge requires a demonstrated infringement of a constitutional mandate. Where a show-cause notice is challenged without such infringement, the noticee may submit a reply and seek discontinuance of the proceedings rather than obtain writ interference. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to respond to the show-cause notice.

Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice is not sufficient service unless the assessee acknowledges receipt or files a reply; ex parte adjudication resulting from such defective service must be restored to the show-cause-notice stage, with time to reply and a fresh hearing. Similarly, uploading an order-in-original solely on the common portal does not begin the limitation period for an appeal where the order was passed after contest. An appeal dismissed as time-barred on that basis must be restored for decision on merits. Where both defects occur, the adjudication and appellate orders must be set aside and proceedings restored to the show-cause-notice stage.

Service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely by uploading it on the common portal, without acknowledgement of receipt or a response, is insufficient to bind the assessee. Portal-only service cannot support consequential ex parte proceedings or appellate limitation consequences without applying the governing principles on valid service. Affected taxpayers may pursue consequential remedies where proceedings have been initiated or limitation has been computed on the basis of such portal-only upload.

GST appeal rejection solely on limitation was treated as unsustainable where cancellation of registration seriously affected the taxpayer's business and non-compliance resulted from an accountant or local advocate failing to communicate return-filing requirements, the show-cause notice and ensuing proceedings. As the appeal had not been examined on merits, merits consideration was required in accordance with law, subject to payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits.

GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting, gambling and casino transactions is treated as applicable where participants stake money on uncertain outcomes. Such participation is characterised as betting and gambling, with the resulting contingent beneficial interests treated as actionable claims and taxable supplies. The charging, valuation and machinery provisions are described as valid. The 2023 amendments, including valuation rules for online gaming and casino transactions, operate as clarificatory and retrospective measures. Pending show-cause notices and adjudication are to proceed under the applicable valuation framework.

GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting and gambling remains valid where pooled stakes are involved. The governing Supreme Court ruling upheld the relevant charging, supply and valuation provisions, including Rules 31A, 31B and 31C, and treated the 2023 amendments as clarificatory and retrospective. Challenges to the levy raise no independent issue where the substantive grounds are covered by that ruling. Pending show-cause-notice proceedings must therefore be pursued and determined under the applicable GST valuation framework.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit accumulated under an inverted duty structure cannot be rejected without proper consideration of the claimant's manufacturing status, business particulars, supporting documents and earlier refund claims. The rejection was characterised as palpably erroneous, legally infirm, irregular and perverse, warranting interference. The refund rejection was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after the claimant furnishes a comprehensive reply and relevant evidence and receives an opportunity of hearing.

Binding prior determinations prevent subordinate revenue authorities from issuing a fresh show-cause notice on identical allegations already conclusively resolved. The product had been treated as unmanufactured tobacco despite the use of machines and additives, and the requirements of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression for invoking extended recovery provisions were found absent. Where the controversy and parties are identical, an earlier determination remains binding unless lawfully displaced; a pending review does not permit revival of settled allegations. The fresh notice was therefore without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Provisional attachment of bank accounts under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ceases automatically on expiry of one year from its issuance under section 83(2). Once that period expires, no basis remains for continuing the account freeze unless a valid fresh attachment order is served. Attachment orders should specify their maximum one-year operation, and banks and financial institutions should de-freeze affected accounts upon expiry unless a fresh valid order is received. Regulatory communication should support compliance with this time limit.

Payment claimed under a work order must be verified by the concerned authority, which must take a reasoned decision on entitlement within two months. The petition was disposed of on those directions, without a direct determination requiring payment.

Omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 applies to pending integrated tax refund proceedings because the omitted restriction was not preserved by a saving or sunset clause. The rule had restricted export refund claims where supplies were received after specified benefits were availed. As omission ordinarily removes a rule unless pending matters are expressly saved, pending refund claims must be assessed without applying the former restriction. An advisory recommendation favouring prospective operation does not bind the rule-making authority, and removal of unnecessary complications supports this result.

Criminal process cannot be used to coerce repayment of money where allegations arising from instalment payments and a proposed flat sale disclose an essentially civil dispute. Police enquiry and documentary material did not support the oral allegations, while earlier orders had treated the matter as civil; criminal cognizance was therefore unwarranted, and the refusal of cognizance and dismissal of the complaint stood restored. Setting aside a refusal of cognizance and remanding the matter necessarily prejudices the accused person; reopening cognizance without hearing that person was unsustainable.