Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could reopen the assessment for levy of purchase tax after the appellate order had attained finality; (ii) Whether certified seeds developed through the respondent's research and development programme were exempt seeds used for sowing and not liable to purchase tax.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could reopen the assessment for levy of purchase tax after the appellate order had attained finality.

Analysis: The original assessment had been subjected to statutory appeal, in which the appellate authority, aware of the relevant exemption notifications, modified the demand. That order was accepted and attained finality. The revisional action subsequently sought to revive the original assessment merely by preferring one determination order over another applicable determination order. Such exercise amounted to an impermissible change of opinion.

Conclusion: The revision of the assessment for levying purchase tax was unjustified and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether certified seeds developed through the respondent's research and development programme were exempt seeds used for sowing and not liable to purchase tax.

Analysis: The material established that the seeds were processed, quality-tested and produced through a supervised research and development programme for sowing by farmers. The Department did not establish that the seeds were imported or were not intended for sowing. The applicable notification exempted seeds of all types, other than imported seeds, used for sowing; the contrary determination order was distinguishable.

Conclusion: The seeds were exempt seeds used for sowing, and no purchase tax was leviable on them, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's deletion of the additional tax, interest and penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen a concluded assessment on a mere change of opinion, and an exemption for non-imported seeds used for sowing applies where the factual use of the seeds for sowing is established.

Issues: Whether the claim for tax concession was correctly classified as an expansion of an existing industrial unit rather than as a new industrial unit.

Analysis: The existing Sonepat unit had not availed any tax concession, and the application had been considered and allowed on merits rather than rejected for alleged suppression. The classification of the Gurugram unit under Rule 28C therefore required reconsideration in light of these facts and the applicable definitions.

Outcome: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication; entitlement to the claimed benefit was left open.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was contractually entitled to retain the balance security deposit on the alleged loss of input tax credit arising from defective VAT invoices; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded security deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent was contractually entitled to retain the balance security deposit on the alleged loss of input tax credit arising from defective VAT invoices.

Analysis: The appellant established the foundational facts of completion and acceptance of the works, expiry of the relevant retention period, and demand for refund. The evidentiary onus consequently shifted to the respondent to prove the alleged invoice defects, actual denial and quantification of input tax credit, causation, and a contractual right to recover the alleged loss from the security deposit. The respondent had accepted and processed the invoices, deducted VAT, and issued Form VAT 156, yet produced no tax assessment, audit material, rejection communication, or reliable computation establishing that input tax credit was denied solely due to the appellant's invoices. Its own records also contained an inconsistency concerning the applicable tax rate. Clauses governing the security deposit permitted recovery only of loss, damage, compensation, or other sums shown to be contractually payable due to the contractor's default; they did not authorise an unproved adjustment for an alleged statutory consequence. The respondent's failure to timely address any alleged invoice defect after accepting the invoices could not be shifted to the appellant.

Conclusion: The respondent had no established contractual right to withhold Rs. 36,64,474 from the security deposit; the appellant was entitled to its refund. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the refunded security deposit.

Analysis: The contract excluded interest while the security deposit was validly retained. However, the five-year performance guarantee period ended on 30.10.2018, after which the purpose of retention ceased and continued withholding became wrongful. In the absence of a contractual stipulation for the claimed rate of 18% per annum, a commercial rate of 9% per annum was found just and equitable from 31.10.2018 until realisation.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to interest at 9% per annum from 31.10.2018 until realisation, but not at 18% per annum. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decree dismissing the claim for refund was set aside, and the appellant obtained recovery of the withheld security deposit with interest at the reduced rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a contractor establishes completion, expiry of the retention period, and entitlement to refund, the employer must prove the contractor's default, the resulting loss, and contractual authority for any deduction from the security deposit; an unsubstantiated alleged tax-credit loss cannot justify retention.

Issues: Whether penalty for wilful suppression of turnover could be sustained despite the assessment order not expressly using the words "wilful suppression".

Analysis: Penalty under Section 27(3)(b) is attracted where the record establishes wilful suppression; verbatim use of that expression in the assessment order is unnecessary. Although the turnover appeared in Form-WW, it was omitted from the monthly returns, was not brought to tax in the deemed assessment, and was detected upon subsequent inspection. The delayed filing of Form-WW and the unexplained omission from monthly returns established an intention to suppress turnover.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed for wilful suppression of turnover. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether input tax credit is available on tax paid for purchase of Duty Entitlement Passbook licences used to import plastic granules.

Analysis: Although a DEPB licence constitutes goods, entitlement to input tax credit is governed by the specific conditions in Section 19. Credit under Section 19(1) is confined to tax paid on purchase of taxable goods specified in the First Schedule, and the further provisions identify the qualifying purposes and limitations. DEPB licences are distinct from goods imported by using them, are not specified in the First Schedule, and do not independently satisfy the statutory requirements for credit. The prior Division Bench decision on the same question correctly construed the statutory scheme and was binding.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on purchase of DEPB licences is not available; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A good may fall within the general definition of goods, but input tax credit is available only where the purchase independently meets the specific statutory conditions governing taxable goods and qualifying transactions.

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was empowered to dismiss the appeal with costs; (ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the products purchased as food supplements could not be claimed as Ayurvedic medicines on sale; (iii) Whether a licence was unnecessary for dealing in proprietary Ayurvedic medicines; (iv) Whether the products were liable to classification as residuary goods rather than drugs under the specific schedule entry; (v) Whether the products qualified as Ayurvedic medicines rather than food supplements.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Tribunal was empowered to dismiss the appeal with costs.

Analysis: No provision in the applicable appellate and revision framework prohibited the Tribunal from awarding costs. Its authority to compensate a successful litigant for vexatious litigation was treated as inherent, and the exercise of that discretion was not excessive.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was empowered to dismiss the appeal with costs, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the products purchased as food supplements could not be claimed as Ayurvedic medicines on sale.

Analysis: The products were purchased in inter-State trade and declared as food supplements under the registration held by the assessee. The manufacturer's drug licence did not establish that the products were medicines in the hands of the assessee. Applying the Common Parlance Test and the Authoritative Test, the products did not acquire the character of medicines merely for securing a lower rate of tax, particularly where the assessee lacked authority to deal in drugs or medicines and no therapeutic quality was established.

Conclusion: The products purchased as food supplements could not be treated as Ayurvedic medicines on sale, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a licence was unnecessary for dealing in proprietary Ayurvedic medicines.

Analysis: Section 33A only excludes the application of a chapter to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs; it does not dispense with the regulatory requirements governing their manufacture and sale. The statutory scheme separately prohibits unlawful manufacture or sale and prescribes penalties for contraventions concerning such drugs.

Conclusion: The claim that no licence was required for dealing in proprietary Ayurvedic medicines was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the products were liable to classification as residuary goods rather than drugs under the specific schedule entry.

Analysis: The goods were bought and sold unchanged as food supplements. No evidence established that they were intended to diagnose, treat or cure disease, or that the assessee was licensed to sell them as drugs or medicines. A product sold without alteration retains the character in which it was purchased; consequently, it could not be recharacterised as a medicine solely for tariff purposes.

Conclusion: Classification of the products as residuary goods liable to the higher rate was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the products qualified as Ayurvedic medicines rather than food supplements.

Analysis: The Common Parlance Test was not conclusive. To qualify as a drug, the product had to be useful for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease and be marketed as a drug in compliance with the applicable regulatory law. Those requirements were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The products did not qualify as Ayurvedic medicines and remained food supplements, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed concessional classification as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines was unavailable, and the products remained taxable under the residuary classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods purchased and sold unchanged as food supplements cannot be reclassified as medicines for concessional taxation without proof of therapeutic character and compliance with the regulatory requirements applicable to drug dealing.

Issues: Whether the concessional rate for audio cassettes classified as electronic goods under G.O.Ms.No.252 continued after Entry 10 was introduced into the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: G.O.Ms.No.252, issued under Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, adopted the Electronics Commission's technical classification of audio cassettes as electronic goods. A statutory notification granting a concession operates independently and remains effective unless expressly withdrawn, superseded or rescinded. The subsequent introduction of Entry 10 did not, by implication, extinguish the concession because G.O.Ms.No.252 remained in force during the relevant assessment year. The classification adopted for the notification bound the taxing authorities, and authorities concerning differently framed statutory notifications were inapplicable.

Conclusion: Audio cassettes remained entitled to the concessional rate under G.O.Ms.No.252; the introduction of Entry 10 did not nullify that benefit in the absence of express withdrawal, supersession or rescission of the Government Order.

Issues: Whether coercive recovery against the petitioner should be stayed pending adjudication of the partnership firm's statutory appeal against the tax demand.

Analysis: The statutory appeal against the demand was pending, though stated to be time-barred. Without examining the merits of the demand or the parties' liability, protection from recovery was considered appropriate until that appeal is decided.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner on the recovery letter until decision of the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether recovery of a company's tax dues from its director may be pursued under Section 39 after considering the company's assets and the director's statutory defence, and on whom the burden lies to establish absence of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty.

Analysis: Section 39 permits recourse against a director in accordance with its statutory conditions. The director's assertions regarding available assets of the company, his status as director when the tax became due, and absence of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty require consideration through a reasoned determination before recovery is initiated against personal assets. However, the burden of proving that non-recovery was not attributable to negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty rests on the director, not on the Revenue.

Conclusion: Recovery against the director's personal assets may be undertaken only after a reasoned consideration of the statutory conditions and his defence; the director bears the onus of establishing absence of negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for alleged forgery and use of forged documents could continue against a co-accused when identical proceedings against a similarly placed co-accused had been quashed after the underlying VAT liability was conclusively resolved.

Analysis: The only allegation concerned non-payment of VAT. The reassessment creating tax, interest and penalty liability had been set aside in appeal, and the consequent tax liability had attained finality. A coordinate bench had already quashed the proceedings against a similarly placed co-accused on that basis. The petitioner was entitled to equivalent treatment.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings against the petitioner could not continue and were quashed.

Issues: Whether input tax credit could be allowed where the purchasing dealer failed to establish the actual movement and receipt of goods through independent evidence.

Analysis: The burden to prove the correctness and genuineness of an input tax credit claim rests on the purchasing dealer. Tax invoices, weighbridge slips, goods-received notes and payment particulars were insufficient where the slips and notes were generated by the assessee, did not identify the suppliers, and no transport receipts corresponding to the stated vehicle numbers were produced. The concurrent factual findings that there was no independent evidence of actual movement of goods warranted application of the requirement that the claimant establish genuine transactions and physical delivery of the goods.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to input tax credit because it failed to discharge the burden of proving genuine purchases and actual movement of goods.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for attempted tax evasion could be imposed where mobile-phone accessories were disclosed in stock-transfer invoices but taxed at the rate applicable to mobile phones; (ii) Whether check-post authorities could determine a disputed classification issue and infer tax-evasion intent.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for attempted tax evasion could be imposed where mobile-phone accessories were disclosed in stock-transfer invoices but taxed at the rate applicable to mobile phones.

Analysis: Penalty requires sufficient material and a specific finding of an attempt to avoid or evade tax. Although accessories were separately taxable under the subsequently settled classification position, that position alone did not establish an intention to evade tax. The stock-transfer invoices expressly disclosed that accessories accompanied the mobile phones; there was consequently neither concealment nor misdeclaration. The unsettled position regarding the applicable tax rate supported the bona fide nature of the transaction.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable for want of established intent to evade tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether check-post authorities could determine a disputed classification issue and infer tax-evasion intent.

Analysis: Check-post powers are directed to detecting patent evasion and are not a substitute for regular assessment. Where documents are produced and a bona fide dispute concerns interpretation, taxability, or classification, the matter ordinarily falls for determination by the assessing authority rather than summary penalty proceedings at the check-post.

Conclusion: The check-post authorities could not determine the disputed classification issue at the first instance to sustain the penalty, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty orders founded on the alleged attempted evasion were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A check-post penalty for tax evasion requires demonstrable intent to evade; a bona fide classification dispute accompanied by full disclosure of goods does not establish such intent and should ordinarily be addressed in assessment proceedings.

Issues: Whether steel wire ropes drawn from iron wire rods, on which sales tax had already been suffered, could be separately subjected to tax at 12%.

Analysis: Steel wire ropes drawn from taxed iron wire rods are not a separate taxable commodity. The applicable single-point taxation regime for declared goods and the settled principle governing iron wires and ropes precluded a further levy. The assessment and appellate orders failed to apply this governing legal position.

Conclusion: The levy of tax at 12% on steel wire ropes was unsustainable and could not be maintained.

Issues: Whether statutory interest is payable on the tax refund released after withdrawal of the departmental revision under the monetary-limit litigation policy.

Analysis: Section 56 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 provides that every refundable amount shall carry interest at fifteen per cent per annum from the date of its deposit. The refund was admittedly released following withdrawal of the departmental revision, but without interest. The statutory language imposed an unequivocal obligation to pay interest and did not permit withholding it merely because the underlying litigation ended through withdrawal under the State litigation policy.

Conclusion: Statutory interest on the refunded amount is payable to the assessee in accordance with Section 56 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the review petition should be condoned and the earlier revision order restored for merits consideration after the review petitioner was not shown to have received effective communication of the proceedings.

Analysis: Notice in the revision was served beyond the period stipulated in it, and no material established that the pendency of the revision was subsequently communicated to the review petitioner through the jurisdictional officer. As the earlier revision order had allowed the revision by relying on notifications whose applicability was disputed, a merits hearing was warranted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the review petitioner was granted an opportunity to contest the revision on merits.

Issues: Whether the balance VAT payable at 12.5% on pre-2010 sales of pressure cookers must be computed on the original sale price on which 4% VAT was initially collected, or by treating the gross amount inclusive of the earlier VAT as the revised tax-inclusive consideration.

Analysis: Under the definitions of output tax, sale price, gross turnover and taxable turnover, VAT is chargeable on the sale price exclusive of tax charged or chargeable. The earlier 4% VAT had been collected and paid on the stated sale price of Rs.100. Recomputing the sale price as Rs.91 to accommodate the subsequently determined 12.5% rate would disconnect the computation from the original taxable sale price and artificially reduce the differential tax liability. Computing the total 12.5% VAT and the balance 8.5% liability on Rs.100 does not amount to levying VAT on VAT, because the levy remains on the original sale price and not on the tax component.

Conclusion: The balance 8.5% VAT is payable on the original sale price on which the earlier 4% VAT was paid; the tax-inclusive recomputation advanced by the assessee is impermissible.

Issues: (i) Whether tax was leviable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on imported cars claimed to have been sold in the course of high seas sales; (ii) Whether the Tribunal could restore the assessment of tax for breach of conditions under G.O.Ms.No.381 despite no departmental appeal against the first appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether tax was leviable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on imported cars claimed to have been sold in the course of high seas sales.

Analysis: The import and sale records showed that the dealer's sale invoices were raised after the cars entered Indian territory and from its Tamil Nadu factory address. The dealer paid customs duty, while no reliable evidence established that title passed while the cars were on the high seas. Transport documents did not prove that the sales occurred before entry into the customs frontier or outside Tamil Nadu. The place of transfer, in the absence of contrary evidence, was determinable from the sale invoices.

Conclusion: The sales were not high seas sales and were taxable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could restore the assessment of tax for breach of conditions under G.O.Ms.No.381 despite no departmental appeal against the first appellate order.

Analysis: The exemption granted under G.O.Ms.No.381, issued under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, required the purchased goods to be used for the declared manufacturing purpose; its third proviso imposed tax where the goods were otherwise disposed of. The dealer failed to establish that the goods purchased against declarations were used in manufacture or correlate them with exports. The exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was unavailable to a dealer that had obtained the State exemption by declaration and breached its conditions. The Tribunal was entitled, in the dealer's appeal, to correct the apparent legal error in substituting compounding fees for the tax consequence expressly prescribed by the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The Tribunal rightly restored the assessment of tax for violation of the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.381. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed import-sale exemption and the conditional exemption for locally purchased goods were unavailable on the established facts, and the tax liability under the State regime remained enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer that avails a conditional State tax exemption on a declaration must satisfy its stipulated use condition; upon breach, the prescribed tax consequence applies and cannot be displaced by an alternative export-sale claim or compounding mechanism.

Issues: (i) Whether surrender of a transit pass precludes penalty proceedings for contravention during transit; (ii) Whether direct proof of unloading or sale within the State is necessary before initiating proceedings based on suspected diversion of goods; (iii) Whether revisional jurisdiction could be exercised to reverse the appellate order that had annulled the penalty; (iv) Whether the restoration of penalty was legally sustainable on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether surrender of a transit pass precludes penalty proceedings for contravention during transit.

Analysis: A transit pass evidences the declared movement of goods through the State but is not conclusive evidence that goods reached their declared destination. Discrepancies in transport records, shortages in goods, and surrounding circumstances capable of supporting an inference of attempted evasion remain relevant despite surrender of the pass.

Conclusion: Surrender of a transit pass does not bar penalty proceedings where material indicates attempted tax evasion. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether direct proof of unloading or sale within the State is necessary before initiating proceedings based on suspected diversion of goods.

Analysis: Contravention may be established from verification of goods in transit, accompanying records, and attendant circumstances. Documentary discrepancies, missing supporting records, and circumstances indicating possible diversion permit appropriate inferences; direct evidence of actual unloading within the State is not indispensable.

Conclusion: Direct proof of intrastate unloading or sale is not a condition precedent to proceedings for contravention. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether revisional jurisdiction could be exercised to reverse the appellate order that had annulled the penalty.

Analysis: The appellate order treated surrender of transit passes as sufficient to negate evasion while overlooking discrepancies in documents, shortages in goods, and the vehicle's movement towards Bengaluru after surrender. Those omissions constituted infirmities justifying revisional scrutiny of the legality and propriety of that order.

Conclusion: Exercise of revisional jurisdiction to reverse the appellate order was lawful. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the restoration of penalty was legally sustainable on the facts.

Analysis: The finding of intent to evade tax rested on cumulative factual circumstances and the explanation for the vehicle's return was found not credible. Such factual findings, supported by relevant material and free from perversity, arbitrariness, or legal infirmity, did not warrant appellate interference.

Conclusion: Restoration of the penalty was legally sustainable. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty for the transit-related contravention remains enforceable, and the revisional correction of the appellate order stands on a valid legal and factual basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit pass is evidentiary but not conclusive of genuine interstate transit; penalty proceedings and revisional intervention may be sustained on cumulative circumstantial material demonstrating attempted diversion and tax evasion.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, could reject the dealer's claim for deduction on inter-State purchases used in works contracts without examining the records asserted to have been filed before the lower authorities or affording an opportunity to produce them.

Analysis: The orders of the assessing authority, first appellate authority and Tribunal contained no discussion of the works-contract terms or the foundational documents bearing on whether movement of the goods from outside the State was occasioned by the contracts. Despite the dealer's specific assertion that supporting material had been produced before the assessing authority, the Tribunal rejected the claim without verifying the records. As final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was required either to summon and examine the available records or permit the dealer to produce the material.

Conclusion: The questions concerning non-consideration of evidence and denial of opportunity were answered in favour of the assessee; the Tribunal's order was set aside for fresh consideration of the evidence and, if necessary, further material.

Issues: (i) Whether a revised return filed after an income-tax inspection protects a dealer from assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression, and estimated additions; (ii) Whether penalty for suppressed turnover was validly imposed.

Issue (i): Whether a revised return filed after an income-tax inspection protects a dealer from assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression, and estimated additions.

Analysis: The detected excess gold and silver stock was supported by inspection materials and remained unreconciled even after the revised return. A post-inspection disclosure does not establish that the prior failure to maintain true and complete accounts was bona fide. The Tribunal had independently evaluated the facts and reduced the equal additions from 100% to 10%, treating the subsequent tax payment as a mitigating circumstance. The precedents disallowing equal additions in the absence of material, or where full disclosure had been made, were inapplicable because the disclosure here was neither voluntary nor complete.

Conclusion: The assessment for purchase suppression, consequential sales suppression, and the reduced estimated additions was validly sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for suppressed turnover was validly imposed.

Analysis: The unreconciled stock discrepancy and incomplete post-inspection disclosure justified the finding of suppression. The statutory explanation prescribed penalty by reference to the suppressed turnover determined in best-judgment assessment, and the assessee failed to justify the omission.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was validly sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A revised return submitted only after detection does not negate willful suppression; it may justify moderation of estimated addition but does not preclude assessment or statutory penalty where suppression remains unexplained.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer seeking to rely on a post-inspection revised return must establish that the earlier non-disclosure was not willful; subsequent payment or disclosure may mitigate estimated addition but cannot erase proved and unreconciled suppression or bar penalty.