Issues: Whether a complainant at whose instance reassessment proceedings were initiated has locus standi to be impleaded in the writ petitions challenging those proceedings.

Analysis: The applicant was only a complainant. The challenged action was that of the Assessing Officer, who alone was required to defend it; the applicant therefore had no right to participate in the writ proceedings.

Outcome: The impleadment application was rejected; the writ petitions were directed to be listed for further hearing, with status quo on recovery and penalty proceedings maintained until replies are filed.

Issues: Whether penalty proceedings for concealment under section 271(1)(c) were validly initiated during the assessment proceedings where the reassessment accepted the returned income without addition or disallowance and the penalty notice was issued after completion of assessment.

Analysis: Section 271(1)(c) requires the Assessing Officer's satisfaction during the proceedings as the jurisdictional foundation for penalty. The deeming fiction under section 271(1B) applies only where an assessment or reassessment makes an addition or disallowance and contains a clear direction to initiate penalty. As the reassessments adopted the income returned under section 148 without any addition or disallowance, that fiction was unavailable. The statement that penalty proceedings "will be initiated separately" conveyed only a future intention, not a present satisfaction or a positive and unambiguous direction. The delayed issue of notices under section 274, after assessment proceedings had concluded, confirmed that no valid initiation occurred during those proceedings. Explanation 5A addresses deemed concealment for imposition of penalty but does not cure the absence of the anterior jurisdictional satisfaction and valid initiation.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were invalidly initiated and the penalties under section 271(1)(c) were unsustainable in law.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the orders-in-original should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the attached bank accounts should be released pending appeal upon adequate security.

Analysis: As similarly placed noticees had been directed to pursue appeals, the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal against the later order-in-original could be filed within one month without objection as to limitation. The Revenue's interests were treated as secured through appropriation of the statutory pre-deposit from the attached accounts and an unconditional bank guarantee for the balance amount, while permitting the petitioners to continue their business operations.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of; the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal, with release of the attached bank accounts upon appropriation of pre-deposit and furnishing of bank guarantee.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge measures taken under the SARFAESI Act despite the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: Measures initiated through a demand notice and an order for assistance in taking possession are amenable to the statutory remedial mechanism before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Article 226 cannot ordinarily be used to bypass that remedy absent an extraordinary circumstance warranting writ intervention.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction was declined because an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty equal to duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable for clearance of imports against forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to reduced penalty of 25% under the first and second provisos to Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether penalty equal to duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable for clearance of imports against forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices.

Analysis: Forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices were void ab initio, and the confirmed invocation of the extended period on account of fraud engaged the same statutory elements-collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts-that trigger penalty under Section 114A. The appellant did not establish reasonable due diligence before using the documents; the alleged broker denied supplying the disputed scrips. Presentation of forged documents for nil-duty clearance constituted a positive misstatement, and penalty equal to duty was mandatory once the statutory conditions were fulfilled.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was rightly imposed. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to reduced penalty of 25% under the first and second provisos to Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The first and second provisos permit payment of 25% of the penalty where the prescribed payments are made within 30 days of communication of the order. The appellant's compliance with this requirement was asserted and was not controverted by the Department.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to the statutory reduced penalty of 25%. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The mandatory penal liability is sustained, with the statutory concession of reduced penalty available upon timely compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where forged duty-credit documents are used and the importer fails to establish due diligence, the ingredients supporting extended-period recovery also sustain mandatory penalty under Section 114A, subject to the statutory reduced-penalty benefit on timely payment.

Issues: Whether interest on a refundable investigation deposit is payable from the date of deposit and whether interest at 12% per annum is sustainable.

Analysis: The jurisdictional High Court had answered the substantially identical question in favour of the assessee, holding that where no pre-existing duty liability was shown, interest on the refunded amount was payable from the date of deposit. It also found no substantial question of law regarding award of 12% interest in view of the prolonged retention of the amount. That decision squarely governed the present dispute.

Outcome: The opinion of the Member (Technical) was found incorrect in law, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Regular Division Bench for a majority view.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, without examining its merits, warranted interference where the delay arose from genuine inability to comply with online GST requirements and lack of notice of the cancellation proceedings.

Analysis: Cancellation of GST registration has severe consequences for a business. The stated circumstances of the proprietor's lack of technical competence, reliance on an accountant or local advocate for statutory compliance, failure of that representative to file returns or communicate the proceedings, and absence of awareness of the show-cause notice and original order were accepted as genuine. Consistent with the applicable coordinate-bench decisions, the appeal required consideration on merits rather than rejection solely on limitation.

Conclusion: The time-bar dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law, upon payment of admissible late fee, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: (i) Whether a fresh notice under Section 74 could be issued within two years of the earlier writ direction despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period; (ii) Whether the impugned notice was vitiated by prejudicial observations of the issuing adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether a fresh notice under Section 74 could be issued within two years of the earlier writ direction despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Analysis: The earlier writ order, having attained finality, expressly left it open to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 74 if the jurisdictional ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax existed. That direction could not be diluted at the implementation stage. Section 75(3), read with that direction, preserved two years from communication of the earlier order for consequential fresh adjudicatory action; a literal construction confined only to cases where an adjudication order had been set aside would defeat the binding direction.

Conclusion: The fresh notice was not barred by limitation; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notice was vitiated by prejudicial observations of the issuing adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The notice included unnecessary allegations that the assessee had misled the High Court. Those remarks were unrelated to the required statutory inquiry and disclosed prejudice, particularly because they stemmed from the assessee having obtained relief in the earlier writ proceedings. An adjudicatory notice must be issued through a neutral application of mind.

Conclusion: The notice was unsustainable for prejudice and was set aside; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh proceedings under Section 74 may be initiated only by a different officer, neutrally and upon the existence of jurisdictional facts, with the assessee afforded the prescribed opportunity to respond and obtain relevant documents.

Ratio Decidendi: A final judicial direction permitting fresh statutory proceedings preserves the consequential period for action, but a notice issued with demonstrable adjudicatory prejudice cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could continue where transaction information linked to the petitioner's PAN was disputed on the ground of identity theft and denial of the underlying business activity.

Analysis: Under the amended reassessment framework, the determination at the stage of Section 148-A is whether the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148, rather than the former test of reasons to believe. Information concerning substantial transactions linked to the petitioner's PAN constituted relevant material. The GST communication did not conclusively establish that the petitioner had not undertaken the transactions, since no conclusive GST enquiry had determined identity theft. Acceptance of that defence required evidence, examination of documents and enquiry in reassessment proceedings. Nevertheless, once the petitioner substantiates the plea that he did not undertake the transactions, the Revenue must lead primary positive evidence establishing that the transactions were undertaken by the petitioner; the onus does not shift merely on the basis of the disputed information.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were permitted to continue; the petitioner may establish the identity-theft defence in those proceedings, and the Revenue must prove the petitioner's involvement in the disputed transactions.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification that came into force after the bill of lading could be relied upon to decline consideration of provisional release of imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The bill of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and cannot govern imports covered by a bill of lading issued before its commencement. The request also concerned provisional release of similar imported goods and no distinguishing feature justified a different approach.

Conclusion: The post-import amendment could not be used to refuse consideration of provisional release; the authorities were required to consider the request under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, impose lawful conditions, and release the goods upon compliance, without affecting independent merits adjudication.

Issues: Whether omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings concerning refund of integrated tax on exports.

Analysis: Rule 96(10), which restricted refund claims where supplies were received after availing specified benefits, was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The governing principle is that omission of a rule ordinarily obliterates it unless a saving provision or statutory device expressly preserves pending proceedings. The omission contained no saving or sunset clause. The advisory recommendation for prospective omission could not bind the rule-making authority. The stated purpose of removing unnecessary complications further supported application of the omission to pending refund claims.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) applies to pending proceedings; refund claims must be considered without applying the omitted restriction, in favour of the assessees.

Issues: Whether a fresh show-cause notice could be issued on allegations already conclusively determined through the advance-ruling and earlier proceedings, despite the binding prior decision on the same controversy.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench decision had determined that the product remained unmanufactured tobacco notwithstanding the use of machines, lime, aroma or menthol; it had also found no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression and held that the jurisdictional requirements for invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were absent. The same issue having been adjudicated between the parties, and the respondents accepting that the controversy was identical, the prior determination remained binding unless displaced in accordance with law. A subordinate revenue authority cannot revive concluded allegations merely because review of the earlier decision is under consideration.

Conclusion: The fresh notice founded on the previously settled allegations was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether rejection of the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit accumulated due to an inverted duty structure was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The rejection order was found to be palpably erroneous, legally infirm, irregular and perverse. The material placed with the writ petition, including the claim that the applicants were manufacturers and had supplied supporting documents, warranted interference. The refund claim requires fresh consideration after a comprehensive reply and relevant evidence concerning the applicants' manufacturing status, business details and earlier refund claims are furnished, with an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was quashed; the claim is to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the challenge to GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting and gambling transactions survived in view of the binding Supreme Court judgment.

Analysis: The Supreme Court ruling, adopted as governing the petition, upheld the GST levy on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling, including online gaming and fantasy sports involving pooled stakes. It sustained the relevant charging, supply and valuation provisions and Rules 31A, 31B and 31C; held the 2023 amendments clarificatory and retrospective; and required pending proceedings to be determined under the applicable valuation framework. All substantive prayers in the writ petition stood covered by that ruling, leaving no issue for independent determination.

Conclusion: The GST challenge failed; the petitioners must pursue the show-cause-notice proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Issues: Whether GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting, gambling and casino transactions, including the statutory valuation framework and the retrospective operation of the 2023 amendments, is valid.

Analysis: The binding Supreme Court ruling covered all substantive challenges raised. It treats participation involving stakes on uncertain outcomes as betting and gambling; recognises the resulting contingent beneficial interests as actionable claims and taxable supplies; and validates the charging, valuation and machinery framework. The 2023 amendments, including the valuation provisions for online gaming and casino transactions, were held clarificatory and retrospective. Pending show-cause notices and adjudication are required to proceed under the applicable valuation framework.

Conclusion: The GST levy and the challenged statutory and valuation framework are valid; the challenge fails against the assessee.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the GST appeal solely on limitation, despite genuine reasons for non-compliance and lack of awareness of cancellation proceedings, warranted interference.

Analysis: Cancellation of registration had serious consequences for the petitioner's business. The explanation that compliance had been entrusted to an accountant or local advocate, who failed to inform the petitioner of the requirement to file returns and of the show-cause notice and subsequent proceedings, was found genuine. The appeal had not been examined on merits, and comparable matters had been directed for merits consideration upon fulfilment of statutory payment requirements.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection could not stand; the petitioner's appeal is to be considered on merits in accordance with law upon payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: Whether service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely by uploading it on the common portal is sufficient to bind the assessee and trigger consequential proceedings.

Analysis: The respondents could not distinguish the principles laid down in the relied-upon Division Bench decision concerning portal-only service. Those principles treat uploading of a show-cause notice on the common portal, without acknowledgment of receipt or a response, as insufficient service; consequential ex parte proceedings and appellate limitation consequences must be addressed consistently with that position.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were governed by the principles applicable to portal-only service, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue consequential steps.

Issues: (i) Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service; (ii) Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal; (iii) What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Issue (i): Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service.

Analysis: Portal uploading, without acknowledgement of receipt or a reply by the assessee, does not establish sufficient service of the show-cause notice. The adopted ruling was found applicable to the writ petitions.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice is insufficient service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal.

Analysis: Where an order-in-original passed after contest is served only through the common portal, such uploading does not commence the limitation period for appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of an order-in-original does not trigger the limitation period for appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Analysis: Where portal-only service led to an ex parte order for want of reply, proceedings must revert to the show-cause-notice stage, with four weeks to file a reply and a fresh opportunity of hearing. Where an appeal was dismissed as time-barred because the order was served only on the portal, the appellate order is liable to be set aside and the appeal restored for decision on merits. If both ex parte adjudication and dismissal of appeal on delay followed portal-only service, both orders are to be set aside and the matter restored to the show-cause-notice stage.

Conclusion: The affected proceedings or appeals are to be restored to enable the assessee to avail a reply or appellate remedy with an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions receive the benefit of the principles governing defective portal-only service and the corresponding restorative relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere uploading on the common portal, without acknowledgement or response, is not sufficient service to sustain ex parte consequences or to commence appellate limitation.

Issues: Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, making its offshore activities taxable in India.

Analysis: The alleged permanent establishment was founded on survey statements concerning expatriates employed by the Indian affiliate and their remuneration from the Japanese parent. No cogent material established that any employee acted for the assessee, that the assessee had deputed personnel to India, or that it had a fixed place of business at its disposal in India. The assessee supplied goods and rendered services offshore from Thailand. The materially identical issue in the assessee's own earlier assessment years had already been decided on the basis that no permanent establishment existed, and those findings were applicable to the present years.

Conclusion: The assessee had no permanent establishment in India; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the earlier order directing disposal of the petitioner's SEIS-related claim stood complied with.

Analysis: The respondents placed an Office Memorandum recording the treatment of the petitioner's applications. The material demonstrated compliance with the prior directions. Any grievance against the respondents' subsequent decision was left available to be pursued independently in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The prior order stood duly complied with.