Issues: Whether the compounding fee was required to be computed under the CBDT Guidelines dated 16.05.2008 or under the revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024.

Analysis: The applicability of the 2008 Guidelines had been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties and that determination, affirmed in appeal, had attained finality. A direction to calculate and communicate the compounding fee was confined to quantification and did not permit reopening the settled question governing the applicable guidelines. The statutory power to issue compounding instructions could not override a final inter partes judicial determination. Further, the 2024 Guidelines did not apply because the application had not been rejected for a curable defect contemplated by those Guidelines.

Conclusion: The compounding fee must be recomputed strictly under the CBDT Guidelines dated 16.05.2008 after crediting the amount already paid by the assessee.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to adjudicate the disputed denial of input tax credit, interest and penalty despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute required verification of the existence and utilisation of the ERP software, as well as the genuineness of the underlying transaction. These factual matters had not been tested by either side. Given the statutory appeal mechanism, writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving that factual controversy. In the special circumstances, an opportunity was provided to pursue the statutory appeal without pre-deposit.

Outcome: The writ appeal was disposed of with liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days; the appellate authority was directed to entertain it without pre-deposit and decide it on merits within three months.

Issues: Whether an assessment order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained where the show-cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration.

Analysis: Following cancellation of registration, the taxpayer was not obliged to monitor the GST portal. Service of a show-cause notice in those circumstances required recourse to an alternative mode of service. Uploading the notice solely on the portal denied an effective opportunity of hearing and breached the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether unspent Government grant constituted taxable income; (ii) Whether interest on unutilised grant was allowable as a deduction; (iii) Whether depreciation could be denied for individual assets retired from active use within a block of assets.

Issue (i): Whether unspent Government grant constituted taxable income.

Analysis: The grants were received for implementing the specified micro-irrigation scheme and were subject to directions governing their utilisation. Applying the established treatment of project-specific Government grants, the amount could not be regarded as income of the assessee.

Conclusion: Unspent Government grant was not taxable income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on unutilised grant was allowable as a deduction.

Analysis: The obligation to pay interest on the unspent grant arose from the terms governing disbursement of the grant and was an ascertained business liability, rather than a contingent liability.

Conclusion: Interest payable on the unutilised grant was deductible. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether depreciation could be denied for individual assets retired from active use within a block of assets.

Analysis: Under the block-of-assets regime, individual assets in a block cannot be segregated for restricting depreciation where the business assets in the block are used. Simultaneous active use of every individual item is not required.

Conclusion: Depreciation could not be denied merely because particular assets within the block had been retired from active use. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of additions relating to the grant and interest, and the allowance of depreciation, remain undisturbed; no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A project-specific Government grant subject to mandated utilisation is not taxable income; liabilities arising from its governing terms are deductible when ascertained; and depreciation under the block-of-assets regime cannot be restricted by isolating individual inactive assets.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the seizure of gold and the pending customs show-cause proceedings should be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction before completion of statutory adjudication.

Analysis: The pending proceeding before the Additional Commissioner of Customs was considered an available forum for determination of the parties' claims. No view was expressed on the legality of the seizure, the show-cause notice, or the merits of the competing claims. The petitioners were directed to submit further material and participate in the adjudication, which must be concluded through a reasoned order after fair opportunity of hearing.

Outcome: The writ petitions were kept pending and adjourned sine die pending completion of adjudication by the customs authority.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of a mini agricultural market and agricultural facilitation centre for a government organisation qualified for exemption as a structure predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry or business; (ii) Whether construction of residential units under government-approved housing projects was rendered to a competent government authority and eligible for exemption; (iii) Whether construction of a government high school under contracts entered into after 01.03.2015 qualified for exemption under Entry 14A.

Issue (i): Whether construction of a mini agricultural market and agricultural facilitation centre for a government organisation qualified for exemption as a structure predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry or business.

Analysis: Entry 12A(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 exempts original works provided to Government, a local authority, or a governmental authority where the structure is predominantly meant for non-commercial use. Commercial use requires assessment of the factual purpose of the activity. Although the market infrastructure was created under a government drought-mitigation scheme, no statutory mandate for collection of user fees or evidence that such fees were deposited into the government treasury was established. The activity therefore did not fall within statutory public functions undertaken for non-commercial use.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied and service tax on construction of the mini agricultural market remained confirmed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether construction of residential units under government-approved housing projects was rendered to a competent government authority and eligible for exemption.

Analysis: The work orders for residential units at Vasant Vihar and Chhatarpur were issued by the Executive Engineer of the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and showed that the works formed part of government-approved residential housing projects. The basis that services were not supplied to a competent authority was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand on construction of residential units was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether construction of a government high school under contracts entered into after 01.03.2015 qualified for exemption under Entry 14A.

Analysis: Entry 14A restricts the exemption to original-work contracts entered into before 01.03.2015. The relevant school-construction work orders were dated 26.09.2016, after the prescribed date.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied and service tax on construction of the government high school remained confirmed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The residential-units demand was excluded, while the tax liabilities relating to the agricultural mini market and government high school were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for government-related original works requires fulfilment of the prescribed non-commercial-use conditions; infrastructure involving fee-based use is not shown to be non-commercial merely because it is created under a government scheme, and a contract-specific temporal condition for exemption must be strictly satisfied.

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed for alleged manipulation of Form-38 where machinery parts imported for the assessee's own repair and maintenance use were accompanied by requisite documents and no evasion or attempted evasion of tax was established.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, goods receipt, Form-38 and Form-402, with no discrepancy in their description, quantity or value. The only irregularity was use of a correction marker in a Form-38 column concerning invoice-tax amount. The machinery parts were not intended for resale, and no material showed that the assessee dealt in or sold such plant and machinery. Further, the authorities had recorded no finding that tax had been evaded or that there was an attempt to evade it. The applicable precedents governed the matter.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) was not sustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: Whether goods detained in transit, where the petitioner claims ownership, must be released under Section 129(1)(a) rather than Section 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs release of detained goods and conveyances. The applicable precedent established that, where the person seeking release is the owner of the goods, the release mechanism under Section 129(1)(a) applies; valuation cannot be enhanced for this purpose, and the penalty is to be determined with reference to the invoice and e-way bill. The record disclosed no basis to depart from that position.

Conclusion: The goods are required to be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a notice and demand order under the GST law issued in the name of a deceased proprietorship taxpayer are valid.

Analysis: Section 74(1) authorises issuance of notice to the person chargeable with tax, while an individual proprietor falls within the definition of "person" under Section 2(84). The taxpayer had died before issuance of both the notice and the consequential demand order, and this factual position was undisputed. The proceedings were thus initiated and concluded against a person who was no longer in existence.

Conclusion: The notice and demand order issued against the deceased taxpayer were without jurisdiction and void; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a demand of tax, interest and penalty exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits a demand in the adjudication order from exceeding the amount specified in the notice and prohibits confirmation on grounds other than those stated in the notice. The notice specified a composite proposed demand of Rs. 78,059.50, whereas the impugned order raised Rs. 8,63,486.24 towards tax, interest and penalty. The demand was therefore ex facie beyond the notice.

Conclusion: The demand order was invalid for contravention of Section 75(7) and was set aside.

Issues: Whether prosecutions for wilful failure to furnish returns pursuant to search-assessment notices could be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when the alleged non-supply of seized material and the existence of wilful default were disputed factual matters.

Analysis: The alleged requests for search and seizure material, their receipt by the Department, supply of the material to the authorised representative, and the petitioner's ability and intention to furnish returns within the stipulated period were contested. The record did not prima facie establish that a request for the material had been made before expiry of the period prescribed in the notice. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to evaluate disputed evidence, determine the accused's factual defence, or decide the existence of wilful default or mens rea; those matters require adjudication on evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted; the disputed factual defences concerning wilful failure to file returns must be determined by the Trial Court.

Issues: Whether the dismissed writ petition should be restored to enable a challenge to Section 147-A and the reassessment proceedings.

Outcome: The review application was allowed, the earlier dismissal was set aside, and the writ petition was restored with liberty to amend; reassessment proceedings were stayed during its pendency.

Issues: Whether consequential corrections in the GST returns for Financial Year 2017-18 could be permitted after amendment of the export shipping bills and corresponding corrections in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Analysis: The original grievance concerning amendment of the shipping bills and correction of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B stood redressed under the earlier orders. On the peculiar facts, including the delayed issuance of Customs amendment certificates, the parties agreed that consequential corrections in the GST returns should be allowed, without restricting the respondents' power to assess, verify or scrutinise the amendments independently.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to rectify the short reflection in GSTR-3B, reconcile the consequential GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch, and amend GSTR-9 for Financial Year 2017-18. Any consequential proceedings shall be decided on their merits and not rejected solely on limitation.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the second demand-cum-show cause notice and the resulting assessment order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The question whether the later proceedings were founded on material already available during the earlier audit requires factual and legal examination. That examination falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and the assessment order is amenable to appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained; the petitioner may pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether a statutory pre-deposit under Section 112(8) is required for admission of an appeal concerning only penalty, where the show-cause notice and impugned appellate order pre-date the proviso effective from 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The pre-amendment provision required payment of admitted amounts and a prescribed percentage of the remaining tax in dispute. The proviso specifically requiring a ten per cent pre-deposit in penalty-only matters became effective on 01.10.2025. The proceedings, including the show-cause notice, original order and appellate order, arose before that date. The amendment contained no express or necessarily implied retrospective operation. Imposing the subsequently introduced condition would curtail the vested substantive right of appeal applicable when the proceedings commenced.

Conclusion: No pre-deposit under Section 112(8) is required for admission of the present penalty-only appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks; (ii) whether the balance additional depreciation relating to machinery installed in the preceding year was allowable for Assessment Year 2016-17; and (iii) whether milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory-testing equipment qualified as plant and machinery for additional depreciation.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable on interest and dividend income from investments with cooperative societies and cooperative banks.

Analysis: The issue stood covered by the earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Income received from investments in cooperative societies and cooperative banks satisfied the statutory requirement for deduction.

Conclusion: Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was allowable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the balance additional depreciation relating to machinery installed in the preceding year was allowable for Assessment Year 2016-17.

Analysis: The third proviso permitting the unavailed balance of additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year took effect from 1 April 2016. As the matter concerned Assessment Year 2016-17, the statutory entitlement applied.

Conclusion: The balance additional depreciation was allowable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether milk cans and artificial insemination and laboratory-testing equipment qualified as plant and machinery for additional depreciation.

Analysis: The issue was governed by an earlier decision in the assessee's own case. Milk cans had been treated as plant for normal depreciation and fell within the definition of plant; therefore, additional depreciation could not be denied where the remaining conditions were met.

Conclusion: The milk cans and relevant equipment qualified for additional depreciation. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The deductions and additional-depreciation claims sustained by the appellate authorities remained available to the assessee for the relevant assessment years.

Issues: Whether a writ court should direct consideration of representations against recommendatory anti-dumping final findings when no statutory duty to consider them exists and a statutory appeal would lie after notification.

Analysis: A direction to consider a representation cannot create a remedy not provided by law or compel an authority to decide a representation absent a statutory obligation. The anti-dumping final findings were recommendatory and had not resulted in a Central Government notification. Upon notification, the statutory appellate remedy before CESTAT would be available. The requested writ intervention was therefore premature.

Conclusion: No direction for consideration of the representations was warranted; the writ petition was premature and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

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: Whether uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The prior rulings governing the issue were applied. The retrospective amendment concerning functions capable of being performed on the Common Portal does not authorise the portal to substitute formal service of a show-cause notice or order. The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 do not provide for service of such notice or order merely through the Common Portal; electronic communication under the Rules does not validate portal uploading where the document itself is not duly served. Portal-only uploading may not be challenged where the assessee acknowledged receipt or contested the proceedings by filing a reply; however, an ex parte adjudication following portal-only uploading requires restoration to the show-cause-notice stage, while limitation for an appeal against a contested order does not commence from such uploading.

Conclusion: Uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original only on the Common Portal does not by itself amount to valid service. The writ petition was governed by the relief and consequences laid down in the prior rulings.