Maintainability of PILs alleging tax evasion depends on a genuine public injury and cannot be used to advance private commercial disputes or seek judicial supervision of statutory tax investigations. Assessment of alleged GST and income-tax evasion, the quantum involved and resulting liability requires examination of commercial and tax records through prescribed statutory procedures. Where tax authorities have initiated enquiries and no mala fides or dereliction of statutory duty is shown, non-disclosure of enquiry progress does not justify mandamus or court monitoring. Recasting substantially similar relief previously rejected for lack of locus as a PIL does not cure that defect. The High Court dismissed the PIL at the threshold and forfeited the security deposit for abuse of PIL jurisdiction.

Section 16(5) of the GST Act allows registered persons to avail input tax credit for specified financial years through a return under Section 39 filed on or before 30 November 2021. Input tax credit claimed on 20 December 2019 for Financial Year 2018-19 therefore fell within the extended statutory period. The assessment requiring payment or reversal of that credit was set aside, and the writ petition succeeded.

GST adjudication orders should ordinarily be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy where the taxpayer participated in proceedings and filed a detailed reply. Allegations concerning inadequate reasoning, service defects without demonstrated prejudice, electronic evidence, cross-examination, and overlap with an earlier statutory audit involve disputed facts and evidentiary assessment suitable for appellate examination. Writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised unless a recognised exceptional ground, including a genuine breach of natural justice, is established. The writ petition was dismissed while preserving factual and legal contentions for appeal, and the writ-pendency period was excluded from limitation if an appeal is filed.

Electronic uploading of a show-cause notice and order-in-original in the Common Portal's 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab does not, by itself, constitute valid service under the CGST Act where the assessee neither acknowledged receipt nor responded. The retrospective amendment permitting specified CGST Rules functions through the Common Portal does not expand those functions to replace formal service of notices or orders. Where portal upload may result in civil consequences and the assessee lacked knowledge of the uploaded materials, service remains ineffective. The writ petition was disposed of consistently with this principle.

Section 75(4) requires a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, and a show-cause notice for short-paid GST indicates such contemplation without requiring a separate written request. An assessment order issued without considering the taxpayer's reply, despite the reply and hearing request being on record, reflects non-application of mind. The assessment order was set aside, with fresh proceedings permitted from consideration of the reply after granting a personal hearing in accordance with law. Exemplary costs were directed against the respondent authority for treating the matter as though no reply had been filed.

Statutory GST pre-deposit and limitation requirements governed the remand of a time-barred appeal rejected for insufficient deposit. The amount previously recovered or paid from the electronic ledger was to be adjusted, subject to verification, towards 50% of the disputed tax required for the appeal. The appellate rejection was quashed on conditions requiring the assessee to deposit the balance as applicable and file a supported reply to the show cause notice, with the impugned order treated as an addendum. Fresh adjudication on merits was directed upon compliance, and bank-account attachment was to be vacated subject to the prescribed conditions.

Effective service of GST notices requires more than portal upload where repeated communications receive no taxpayer response. Although portal uploading constitutes valid service, the assessing officer should consider other statutory modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgement due, to ensure that notice reaches the taxpayer. An ex parte assessment without an effective opportunity to respond and a personal hearing risks avoidable litigation. The assessment was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after objections are filed, with a clear 14-day notice for personal hearing and a merits-based decision.

Assignment of a lessee's entire long-term leasehold rights in a GIDC plot, including rights in land and building, constitutes a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a supply of services under GST law. Unlike GIDC's original grant of a long-term lease, assignment to a third-party assignee transfers the lessee's complete right and interest. Applying the Supreme Court order in Gujarat Chamber of Commerce, Industries & Ors., the High Court treated the assignment as outside GST and quashed the show cause notice that had proposed to tax it as a service.

Papad Khar, an alkaline mixture of sodium chloride, sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate used in papad and snack preparation, is classified as other disodium carbonate under sub-heading 28362090. Its manufacture by mixing and processing prevents classification as common or rock salt under heading 2501, while its composition and culinary function distinguish it from yeast or prepared baking powder under heading 2102. Sodium chloride serves principally as a diluent or carrier, whereas the carbonates and bicarbonates provide the functional properties. As an inorganic chemical, Papad Khar attracts GST at 18%. The GST exemption for papad does not extend to Papad Khar merely because it is used as an input in manufacturing exempt papad.

Composite job-work involving cutting, sorting, plate preparation, offset printing, drying, finishing, quality checks, bundling and return of kraft or duplex paper is treated as a composite supply, with offset printing as the principal supply and ancillary activities following its tax treatment. The concessional printing job-work entry for goods under Chapters 48 and 49 applies only where the printed goods attract central tax at 2.5% or nil. As kraft paper and duplex paper attract 18% GST, the concessional entry does not apply; the residuary job-work entry applies, resulting in GST at 18%.

Common-parlance classification governs the distinction between toilet soap and laundry soap under GST where "toilet soap" is undefined. Definitions under statutes serving different objects and schemes, including the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, cannot be imported for GST classification. Toilet soap ordinarily serves washing of the body, hands or face, whereas detergent and semi-detergent bars intended to remove stains and deodorise apparel are laundry soaps. Their stated use, composition, substantial fillers and absence of constituents characteristic of toilet soaps support classification under sub-heading 34011942. Products covered by Entry 66 of Schedule II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) attract GST at 18%.

Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.

TDS credit on rental income from jointly owned property is ordinarily governed by section 199 and rule 37BA, which provide credit to the deductee and require prescribed declarations and reporting for transfer to another person assessable on the income. Where the entire TDS was deducted and reported against one co-owner's PAN, no transfer declaration was furnished, and the other co-owners neither claimed credit nor objected to that co-owner's claim, the entire credit should be allowed to that co-owner. Procedural requirements cannot permit the Revenue to retain TDS where no other person seeks the unclaimed credit.

Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit was deleted because the assessee established reasonable cause under section 273B. Materials explained that milk-pouch sales were conducted on a commission or trade-discount basis and identified the related commission income. The lower authorities had not considered this statutory protection, despite reassessment accepting the returned income without any addition. The appeal was allowed and the penalty under section 271B was deleted.

Where an assessee disputes stamp-duty valuation under section 56(2)(x), distinguishes the valuation of different portions of the property, and requests a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer must make that reference before adopting the stamp-duty value. The basement and ground floor could not be valued on the same basis without addressing the assessee's objections through a reasoned finding. Adoption of the stamp-duty valuation without a valuation reference was therefore unjustified, and the addition for the difference between declared purchase consideration and stamp-duty value was deleted to the assessee's share.

Notional usage charges for premises occupied by a sister concern were not taxable as income from other sources because no evidence showed that such charges were received or had become receivable; reimbursement of expenses alone had been implemented. Related repairs, maintenance, service charges and depreciation were deductible where incurred wholly and exclusively to earn that income, while building-related expenses and depreciation had to be restricted to the area let to a third-party tenant and assessable as house-property income. Trade incentives for brand promotion were treated as revenue expenditure, removing the ad hoc disallowance. Depreciation was allowable on moulds and dies because their use in manufacturing plastic containers established that they had been put to use.

Communication of recorded reasons is a jurisdictional requirement for reassessment where the assessee requests those reasons. Non-supply prevents the assessee from challenging the reopening and obtaining a speaking decision on objections, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. Reassessment jurisdiction is invalidly assumed when recorded reasons are withheld despite repeated requests, and the reassessment notice and resulting order are liable to be quashed as void.

Specific allegations in a show cause notice are essential to sustain disciplinary action against a Customs Broker for alleged failures to advise a client and exercise due diligence. Notices that merely reproduce material from proceedings against an importer, without identifying the Customs Broker's own contraventions, deny an effective opportunity to respond. A show cause notice forms the foundation of departmental action, and an order cannot travel beyond its stated allegations. Where the notices did not explain how the Customs Broker breached applicable obligations, they were treated as vague; consequently, the licence revocation, security-deposit forfeiture and penalty could not stand.

Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.

Declared transaction value retains statutory primacy but may be rejected under Rule 12 where reliable, objective evidence creates reasonable doubt about its accuracy. Contemporaneous invoices, overseas verification, electronic correspondence and commercial records supported enhancement of the imported vehicle's value; refundable VAT was excluded because it was not part of the price paid or payable for export to India. Temporary overseas registration without evidence of actual use does not make a vehicle used or defeat concessional-duty eligibility. Deliberate undervaluation supports confiscation, but redemption fine cannot apply after clearance where the goods are unavailable. Duty and the linked penalty require re-quantification, while the intermediary's penalty remains unaffected.