Issues: Whether the show cause notice uploaded only on the 'Additional Notices Tab' was effectively served on the petitioner, and whether the impugned demand order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after granting opportunity of reply and personal hearing.

Analysis: The SCN was issued prior to the portal changes that made the 'Additional Notices Tab' visible, and no reply was filed because the notice was not brought to the petitioner's knowledge. A subsequent reminder in respect of the same notice, also uploaded in the same tab, did not cure the defect because the original SCN had not been effectively served. The absence of an effective opportunity to contest the SCN and the resulting ex parte demand made the adjudication unsustainable. The proper course was to set aside the demand and restore the matter to the adjudicating authority for consideration on merits after filing of reply and grant of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after permitting the petitioner to file reply and after granting a personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a show cause notice is not effectively served because it remains inaccessible on the GST portal, any ex parte adjudication based on such notice violates natural justice and must be set aside for fresh decision after due hearing.

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory GST remedy, the petitioner's failure to pursue the appeal within limitation and to make the required pre-deposit, and the challenge based on the alleged excess demand over the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The impugned demand arose from proceedings under the GST regime, where notices and the final order were found to have been issued on the portal. The petitioner did not place material to establish lack of service. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for want of mandatory pre-deposit and also on limitation. The Court held that the petitioner could not use writ jurisdiction to bypass the statutory appellate framework, especially when an effective further remedy before the GST Tribunal remained available. The plea founded on excess demand was not accepted as a basis to override the statutory remedy structure in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and stood dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available statutory remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication order deserved to be set aside for breach of natural justice on account of non-service or non-consideration of the reply and denial of personal hearing under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could survive after the order-in-original was set aside and the matter was remanded.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication order deserved to be set aside for breach of natural justice on account of non-service or non-consideration of the reply and denial of personal hearing under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The record showed that no reply had been filed to the show cause notice and no personal hearing had been availed. The Court treated the right to be heard as an integral part of the principles of natural justice, while also noting that the writ petition had been filed belatedly. In these circumstances, the adjudication was not allowed to stand and the matter was directed to be heard afresh on deposit of the demand amount.

Conclusion: The impugned order in original was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, subject to the stipulated deposit, reply, and personal hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could survive after the order-in-original was set aside and the matter was remanded.

Analysis: The attachment had been made in aid of recovery pursuant to the adjudication order. Once that order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication, continuation of the attachment was considered unwarranted at that procedural stage.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was directed to be lifted forthwith.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part by restoring the petitioner to a fresh adjudicatory hearing, while also removing the consequential recovery attachment, with the merits of the tax dispute left open for de novo determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication under the GST law proceeds without an effective opportunity of reply and hearing, the order cannot be sustained and must be set aside for fresh decision in accordance with natural justice; consequential recovery measures linked to that order also lose their basis upon remand.

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy, the delay in filing appeal, and non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The demand and subsequent notices were issued on the GST portal, and no material was produced to show that the notices were published only in an additional tab or that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the proceedings. The appellate authority recorded that the appeal was filed without the mandatory pre-deposit, that no application for condonation of delay was filed, and that the petitioner remained absent on the scheduled dates of hearing. In these circumstances, the Court found that the petitioner had been negligent in pursuing the statutory remedies and could not invoke writ jurisdiction to circumvent the appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether, in the absence of a produced and duly served intimation under Section 143(1), the demand reflected on the portal could be treated as enforceable and whether the refund for a later assessment year could be adjusted against such demand.

Analysis: The material on record did not include the actual intimation under Section 143(1) or proof of its service on the petitioner. The Court relied on its earlier view that an intimation under Section 143(1), when it results in a demand, has to be served on the assessee and that a demand cannot be enforced in the absence of the underlying intimation or any independent notice of demand. Since the respondents were unable to substantiate the existence and service of the alleged demand, the Court drew an adverse inference and held that the demand could not be sustained. On that basis, the adjustment of refund against such demand was also unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand shown on the portal was not enforceable and the adjustment of refund against it was invalid, hence the petitioner succeeded.

Issues: Whether the impugned order and recovery notice were liable to be quashed for non-service of the show cause notice at the correct registered address and registered email ID, resulting in denial of opportunity of hearing and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner's registered address and email IDs had been updated on the GST registration and portal, yet the show cause notice was not shown to have been served on those particulars. The record did not substantiate effective service on the correct address or email ID. The consequent order was therefore passed without affording a pre-decisional hearing. Such a course vitiates the proceedings, since no adverse order can be sustained without observance of the audi alteram partem rule.

Conclusion: The impugned order and the recovery notice were quashed and set aside, and fresh adjudication was directed after issuance of a new show cause notice and grant of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid; (ii) whether the addition of cumulative bank credits under section 69A could be sustained in full or only to the extent of an estimated income component.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid.

Analysis: The reopening was found to have been properly invoked on the record. The assessee did not succeed on the jurisdictional challenge, and no material was shown to dislodge the reopening proceedings.

Conclusion: The reassessment was upheld and the challenge to reopening failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of cumulative bank credits under section 69A could be sustained in full or only to the extent of an estimated income component.

Analysis: The credits in the bank accounts were treated as unexplained, but the Tribunal accepted the view that the entire credits could not be taxed as income in the absence of cogent material from the Revenue to support full addition. The estimation at 8% of the total credits was held to be a reasonable approach on the facts, and the balance addition was directed to be deleted.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to 8% of the total credits and the remaining addition was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge to the restricted addition failed, the reopening objection did not succeed, and the assessee received partial relief by having the balance addition deleted for one assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of material supporting full taxation of bank credits, only a reasonable estimated income element from the unexplained credits can be sustained under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: (i) Whether the summary assessment order passed under Section 64 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 required interference and reconsideration in light of additional documents produced by the petitioner. (ii) Whether the consequential cancellation of registration could survive once the assessment order was set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the summary assessment order passed under Section 64 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 required interference and reconsideration in light of additional documents produced by the petitioner.

Analysis: The assessment was founded on inspection findings, alleged non-functioning of the business premises, and discrepancies said to show ineligible availment of input tax credit. Additional material, including e-way bill particulars and ledger extracts, was produced in the writ proceedings to explain the transactions and the alleged discrepancies. In view of this material, the assessment required reconsideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to establish the genuineness of the transactions.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and remitted for fresh consideration in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential cancellation of registration could survive once the assessment order was set aside.

Analysis: The cancellation of registration was treated as intertwined with the assessment order, since it was based on the same factual foundation regarding the place of business and the alleged irregularities in the transactions. Once the assessment order was interfered with and fresh consideration was directed, the cancellation order could not independently stand.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was set aside and the registration was directed to be restored in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were sent back for reconsideration on the assessment issue, while the consequential cancellation of registration was nullified and restoration of registration was ordered, with liberty to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law after considering the additional material.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment is shown to rest on disputed factual inferences and additional documentary material is produced that may explain the alleged discrepancies, the matter may be remitted for fresh consideration, and a consequential registration cancellation founded on the same basis cannot survive independently.

Issues: Whether officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were competent proper officers to issue the show cause notice and whether the order of remand on that jurisdictional question could stand.

Analysis: The binding Supreme Court review decision in the Canon India line, as applied here, held that officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are proper officers competent to issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of that position, the earlier remand made only for reconsideration of the jurisdictional issue could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection failed, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the matter was remitted for consideration of the Revenue appeal on merits, and the Tribunal's remand order stood annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are proper officers competent to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a remand resting on the contrary view cannot stand.

Issues: Whether the demand of customs duty, interest and penalty could be sustained on the ground that the importer breached the exemption conditions by not re-exporting the goods within the time stated in the DGH certificate, and whether clearance of the goods to an SEZ unit satisfied the requirement.

Analysis: The exemption notification required the sub-contractor to produce a DGH certificate confirming that the goods were required for petroleum operations and imported under the relevant licence or mining lease. It did not itself prescribe any time limit for re-export. The time-bound re-export condition was introduced in the DGH certificate pursuant to the Foreign Trade Policy. A prior decision on the same notification had held that clearance of the goods to an SEZ unit amounts to export under section 2(m) of the SEZ Act, 2005, and that the importer cannot be denied the exemption merely because the goods were not re-exported in the manner stated in the certificate. The reliance on section 69(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was found inapposite because that provision concerns warehoused goods for export.

Conclusion: The re-export condition in the DGH certificate did not defeat the exemption, and clearance to the SEZ unit satisfied the export requirement.

Issues: Whether the refund claim of service tax was barred by limitation and liable to be rejected notwithstanding the plea that the tax had been paid under mistake.

Analysis: The claim was made in 2022 for service tax relating to the period 2013-14 to 2017-18, although the alleged excess payment was noticed in audit in 2019. The refund application was treated as one under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax by Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The record did not establish that the appellant had promptly sought refund within a reasonable time, nor did it satisfactorily explain the delay. The evidence also did not remove the inconsistencies regarding the leased area and did not show that the excess rent and corresponding tax had been returned to the service recipient. On these facts, the claim was held to be hit by delay, laches, and the statutory refund framework.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and was rightly rejected as time-barred and unsupported on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether the process undertaken for producing granulated soil conditioner amounted to manufacture; (ii) whether the product was classifiable under Chapter Heading 3103 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and whether the demand, penalty and extended limitation were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the process undertaken for producing granulated soil conditioner amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The process involved mixing phosphogypsum, dolomite and bentonite, followed by granulation and packing, resulting in a product having a distinct character and use. Applying the principle that a process amounts to manufacture when it brings about transformation into a product with a character and use of its own, the process could not be treated as a mere physical mixing exercise. The emergence of granulated soil conditioner as a marketable product supported the conclusion that manufacture had taken place.

Conclusion: The process amounted to manufacture.

Issue (ii): Whether the product was classifiable under Chapter Heading 3103 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and whether the demand, penalty and extended limitation were sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that there was no specific tariff entry for soil conditioner in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In the facts disclosed, the product could not be treated as excisable merely because it was used to improve soil quality. The appellant had earlier disclosed the manufacture of soil conditioner to the Department, and the omission to include it in ER-1 returns for excisable goods could not be treated as suppression. In the absence of suppression, invocation of the extended limitation period and the consequential penalty provisions was not justified.

Conclusion: Classification under Chapter Heading 3103 was not sustained and the demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture when it results in a new product with a distinct character and use, but extended limitation and penalty cannot be invoked where the relevant facts were disclosed and suppression is not established.

Issues: Whether the ex parte GST adjudication orders passed without effective service of the show-cause notices and without affording a personal hearing were liable to be quashed, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication as de novo proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on alleged non-service of the show-cause notices and consequential denial of an opportunity to defend, attracting the principles of natural justice in proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Department fairly stated that it would issue a fresh show-cause notice and would not act upon the impugned orders. In view of that stand, the Court did not examine the merits of the demand and found it appropriate to restore the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions for a fresh notice, a personal hearing, and a reasoned determination uninfluenced by the earlier orders.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the adjudication was directed to proceed afresh after issuance of a fresh show-cause notice and grant of personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the refund application was liable to be reconsidered in accordance with law notwithstanding the earlier rejection and the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred, in view of the alleged non-compliance with the refund procedure under the CGST Rules.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of the refund application was found to be procedurally defective, as the record did not show issuance of a deficiency memo or grant of hearing before rejection, as contemplated by the refund procedure. The subsequent refund application had also been entertained by the department and a deficiency memo had been issued, but the application was not taken to its logical conclusion. The Court also noted that the original rejection order had not been uploaded on the GST portal and that the petitioner had pursued the matter rather than abandoning its claim. In these circumstances, the earlier orders were not treated as a proper basis to foreclose reconsideration of the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund application was directed to be decided afresh by the designated officer in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier rejection order or the appellate order, and the parties' contentions were kept open.

Final Conclusion: The petitions resulted in a direction for reconsideration of the refund claim on the merits and in accordance with the statutory refund procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund rejection that is passed without following the prescribed refund procedure and without affording the procedural safeguards required by the rules cannot be allowed to preclude fresh consideration of a subsequently pursued refund claim.

Issues: Whether questions relating to alleged international transaction of AMP expenses and disallowance of payment to doctors gave rise to substantial questions of law, and whether the challenge to deletion of depreciation disallowance did so as well.

Analysis: The appeal arose at the admission stage. The challenge concerning AMP expenses was held to merit consideration in view of the pending challenge to the Tribunal's earlier view and was therefore admitted. The challenge concerning payment to doctors was also held to require consideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision on the legality of such expenditure. The challenge to depreciation disallowance was rejected as not raising any substantial question of law because the Tribunal had relied on earlier binding and accepted orders applying the block of assets principle, under which depreciation is allowed on the aggregate written down value of the block and not on individual assets.

Conclusion: The appeal was admitted on the issues relating to AMP expenses and payment to doctors, while the challenge to depreciation disallowance was declined at the admission stage.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained where the assessee's income was assessed under section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on book profit basis and no tax liability arose under the normal computation.

Analysis: The assessment was ultimately made on the basis of book profit under section 115JB, which operated as the deemed total income. The Tribunal noted that the normal computation did not form the basis of taxation and that the alleged concealment had no effect on the tax payable under the MAT regime. Relying on the principle that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted only where there is tax sought to be evaded on the basis of the computation actually adopted, the Tribunal held that the concealment, if any, became irrelevant once tax was determined under section 115JB.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Issues: (i) whether the assessment was invalid for want of a notice under section 143(2) in the prescribed CBDT format; (ii) whether capital gains on the sale of two Mumbai offices were taxable in the impugned year or had already arisen in the earlier year when the agreement, consideration, and possession were completed; (iii) whether the cost of improvement claimed for the Visakhapatnam land was to be allowed; (iv) whether the cost of acquisition based on fair market value as on 01.04.2001 and the cost of improvement for the Jagi Road land were to be allowed; (v) whether the rent received during the year could again be taxed despite earlier accrual-based disclosure; and (vi) whether the disallowance of club membership and business promotion expenses was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the assessment was invalid for want of a notice under section 143(2) in the prescribed CBDT format

Analysis: The notice issued under section 143(2) was held to be not in conformity with the binding CBDT instruction governing the prescribed format. On that footing, the subsequent assessment proceedings were treated as flowing from an invalid notice and therefore incapable of being sustained.

Conclusion: The assessment was quashed as invalid; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether capital gains on the sale of two Mumbai offices were taxable in the impugned year or had already arisen in the earlier year when the agreement, consideration, and possession were completed

Analysis: The material showed that the offices had been sold in the earlier year, consideration had been received, possession had been handed over, and the transferee had become a member of the society. The later registration of the documents did not change the year in which the transfer had effectively occurred for capital gains purposes. The gain had already been offered to tax in the earlier year, so taxing it again in the impugned year would be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The addition on this account was deleted; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the cost of improvement claimed for the Visakhapatnam land was to be allowed

Analysis: The expenditure had been reflected in the successive audited balance sheets and formed part of the fixed assets schedule. The demand for old bills and vouchers, after such a long lapse of time and in the face of consistent audited records, was held to be unwarranted. The cost of improvement was treated as duly supported by the books and accepted business records.

Conclusion: The cost of improvement was allowed; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): whether the cost of acquisition based on fair market value as on 01.04.2001 and the cost of improvement for the Jagi Road land were to be allowed

Analysis: The same reasoning applied to the claimed improvement expenditure, since it had been incurred in earlier years and reflected in the audited accounts. On valuation, the adoption of a backward-calculated fair market value was accepted, and the lower figure adopted by the tax authorities was found unsustainable in the absence of a proper basis for rejection.

Conclusion: The assessee's claim for indexed cost and related relief was allowed; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): whether the rent received during the year could again be taxed despite earlier accrual-based disclosure

Analysis: The assessee had followed the mercantile system and had already offered the rental income on accrual basis in the earlier year. Receipt in the current year, accompanied by TDS reporting, did not justify taxing the same amount again as current-year income.

Conclusion: The addition was deleted; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): whether the disallowance of club membership and business promotion expenses was sustainable

Analysis: The expenses were accepted as incurred for commercial expediency in the course of business. No sufficient basis was found to sustain the disallowance.

Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment did not survive because the foundational notice was held invalid, and the additions/disallowances challenged on merits were also deleted except for the ground not pressed.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice that is not issued in the prescribed CBDT format can vitiate the assessment proceedings, and for capital gains purposes a transfer may be treated as completed when the effective transfer of rights and possession has already taken place, even if registration occurs later.

Issues: Whether penalty was sustainable for filing the Bill of Entry in respect of Technical Grade Urea imported through a State Trading Enterprise on a High Seas Sale basis.

Analysis: The governing import policy permitted import of Urea through the designated State Trading Enterprises, and the Tribunal applied the settled distinction between import "through" such enterprise and import "by" it. On the facts, the goods were procured from the State Trading Enterprise on High Seas Sale, which satisfied the policy requirement. The reasoning adopted held that no violation arose merely because the domestic buyer filed the Bill of Entry after such procurement. Once the import was found to be in accordance with the policy and consistent practice, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted and penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not survive.

Conclusion: Penalty was held to be unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded on the ground that import through the canalising State Trading Enterprise on High Seas Sale did not constitute a legal breach warranting confiscation or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the import policy permits import through a designated State Trading Enterprise, procurement on High Seas Sale from that enterprise does not defeat compliance, and confiscation or penalty cannot be imposed merely because the buyer filed the Bill of Entry.

Issues: (i) Whether the second ROM application was maintainable and whether the earlier order required further rectification for an apparent mistake on the face of the record.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the earlier rectification order had corrected part of the error, but a contradiction still remained because the order both upheld the impugned order and recorded that the appeal stood allowed. The correction sought was confined to a clerical and apparent mistake, without seeking any fresh substantive reconsideration. On that basis, the Tribunal accepted that further rectification was warranted.

Conclusion: The second ROM application was allowed and the earlier order was further rectified.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings resulted in further correction of the earlier order in favour of Revenue, without any fresh adjudication on the underlying refund dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application may be entertained to remove a persisting apparent contradiction or clerical mistake in an order, provided it does not seek a substantive review of the merits.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution for offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The alleged offences were stated to be punishable up to five years and triable by a Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 17.10.2025, the prosecution report had already been filed, and the petitioner was a lady working as a data entry operator in the office of the principal accused. On these circumstances, bail was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted bail.