Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the order-in-original could succeed on the ground of non-service of the show cause notice. (ii) Whether the proceedings and the order-in-original were barred by limitation under the Goods and Services Tax law.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the order-in-original could succeed on the ground of non-service of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The petitioners' own admission showed that the notice was available on the official portal when the matter was checked through the tax consultant after the garnishee notice was issued. The failure to respond to the notice led to best judgment assessment, and service was treated as duly effected in the manner contemplated by the statute.

Conclusion: The plea of -service of the show cause notice was rejected and is against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings and the order-in-original were barred by limitation under the Goods and Services Tax law.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the petitioners had paid lesser tax despite being aware of the applicable rate, amounting to suppression so as to attract the extended period under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It also relied on the extension of time for annual returns by Notification No. 6/2020 dated 03.02.2020, which kept the impugned order within time.

Conclusion: The limitation challenge failed and is against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the order-in-original, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record shows portal availability of the notice and the taxpayer's conduct attracts suppression, the Court may uphold deemed service, apply the extended limitation under the GST framework, and refuse writ interference with the assessment order.

Issues: (i) whether the supply of 19 MHADA-reserved flats to MHADA-identified allottees after issuance of the Occupancy Certificate was a taxable works-contract service or a sale of immovable property outside GST; (ii) if taxable, whether the value of supply was the MHADA-prescribed price or the open market value.

Issue (i): whether the supply of 19 MHADA-reserved flats to MHADA-identified allottees after issuance of the Occupancy Certificate was a taxable works-contract service or a sale of immovable property outside GST.

Analysis: The construction and transfer obligation arose at the stage of plan sanction and Commencement Certificate, not only after the Occupancy Certificate. The applicant received additional FSI as non-monetary consideration for undertaking the inclusive-housing obligation, and the identified flats were earmarked in the sanctioned plan itself. Since the entire consideration was not received only after completion, the exception in Paragraph 5(b) of Schedule II did not apply. Paragraph 5 of Schedule III, being subject to Paragraph 5(b) of Schedule II, did not exclude the transaction. The supply was in the course of business and answered the statutory description of supply and works contract.

Conclusion: The supply was taxable as a works-contract service and was not outside GST as a sale of immovable property.

Issue (ii): if taxable, whether the value of supply was the MHADA-prescribed price or the open market value.

Analysis: Section 15(1) was inapplicable because price was not the sole consideration; additional FSI was also received as consideration. The supply was therefore valued under Rule 27. The MHADA-administered price was not open market value because it was a regulated price linked to the inclusive-housing arrangement, whereas comparable flats sold to non-MHADA buyers in the same project on arm's-length terms provided the proper benchmark. The subsidy exclusion under Section 15(2)(e) was not attracted.

Conclusion: The value of supply had to be determined under Rule 27(a) as open market value based on comparable flats in the same project, and not at the MHADA-prescribed price.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on the taxability issue, and the ruling proceeded in the Revenue's favour by holding the MHADA flats taxable and directing valuation on an open-market basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a builder undertakes a statutorily mandated construction obligation in exchange for non-monetary consideration such as additional development rights or FSI, the transaction remains a taxable works-contract supply under Schedule II, and valuation must proceed on open market value under Rule 27 when consideration is not wholly in money.

Issues: (i) Whether the sewerage scheme contract was a pure service or a composite supply in the nature of a works contract; (ii) whether the recipient, Katol Nagar Parishad, was a local authority; (iii) whether the supply was in relation to a function entrusted to a Municipality under the Constitution; and (iv) whether the applicant was eligible for exemption under Entry 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Issue (i): Whether the sewerage scheme contract was a pure service or a composite supply in the nature of a works contract.

Analysis: The contract covered design, construction, installation, testing, commissioning and allied civil and electro-mechanical work for an underground sewerage system, with transfer of property in goods involved in execution. The supply was held to be a composite supply of goods and services in the nature of a works contract and not a pure service. The exclusion in Entry 3 for works contract service or composite supplies involving goods was therefore attracted.

Conclusion: The supply was not a pure service, but a composite supply in the nature of a works contract.

Issue (ii): Whether the recipient, Katol Nagar Parishad, was a local authority.

Analysis: A Nagar Parishad is a municipality within the constitutional scheme and falls within the definition of local authority. On the facts, the recipient was held to satisfy Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The recipient was a local authority.

Issue (iii): Whether the supply was in relation to a function entrusted to a Municipality under the Constitution.

Analysis: Underground sewerage infrastructure was held to relate to public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management, which are municipal functions under the Twelfth Schedule and Article 243W of the Constitution of India. The phrase "in relation to" was applied broadly to cover the activity.

Conclusion: The supply was in relation to a municipal function under Article 243W.

Issue (iv): Whether the applicant was eligible for exemption under Entry 3A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: Entry 3A applies to composite supplies of goods and services where the value of goods does not exceed 25% of the value of the composite supply, and the supply is made to a specified recipient for a qualifying municipal function. On the record, the aggregate goods component was 11.17%, the recipient was a local authority, and the activity related to a municipal function. The exemption was therefore available on the facts presently on record, subject to the statutory quantitative condition at the time of conclusion of the contract.

Conclusion: The applicant was eligible for exemption under Entry 3A on the facts presently on record.

Final Conclusion: The ruling determined that the contract is a composite works contract supply, that the recipient is a local authority, that the activity is connected with a municipal function, and that the exemption under Entry 3A is available on the present record subject to the quantitative threshold being satisfied at the relevant time.

Ratio Decidendi: For Entry 3A, the 25% goods threshold is assessed on the composite supply as a whole, and exemption depends on strict satisfaction of all cumulative statutory conditions.

Issues: Whether the outward supplies of warehoused goods from a bonded warehouse to ocean-going merchant vessels on foreign run, Indian Navy ships and Indian Coast Guard ships, before clearance for home consumption, constitute export of goods and zero-rated supply under the IGST Act, or whether such transactions fall within Schedule III to the CGST Act and are outside the scope of supply.

Analysis: Export of goods under Section 2(5) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires taking goods out of India to a place outside India. The territorial definition of India under Section 2(56) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 11(b) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, shows that a supply completed within India does not satisfy the destination-based requirement of export. The customs provisions relied upon by the applicant grant exemption from import duty for warehoused goods or ship stores, but they do not alter the GST definition of export. The goods remained warehoused goods and were supplied before clearance for home consumption, bringing the transactions within paragraph 8(a) of Schedule III to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 7(2)(a) thereof.

Conclusion: The supplies do not qualify as export of goods or zero-rated supply and are treated as neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services for GST purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: Supply of warehoused goods before clearance for home consumption is excluded from the scope of supply under Section 7(2)(a) read with Schedule III, and a transaction completed within India cannot be treated as export of goods under Section 2(5) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: (i) Whether construction and development of commercial units on the vacant plot, and the sale and leasing of such units, constitute activities in the course or furtherance of business and amount to supply under GST; (ii) whether input tax credit is admissible on inputs and input services used for construction of the commercial units, particularly in relation to units sold before completion and units leased on rent.

Issue (i): Whether construction and development of commercial units on the vacant plot, and the sale and leasing of such units, constitute activities in the course or furtherance of business and amount to supply under GST.

Analysis: The expression "business" under the GST law is wide enough to cover trade, commerce and analogous activities, whether or not undertaken with volume, frequency or continuity. A commercial construction project undertaken for sale of units and letting out of the remaining units was treated as a commercial activity. The source of funds used for construction was held to be irrelevant. Sale of under-construction commercial units and leasing of commercial units were both treated as supplies made in the course or furtherance of business.

Conclusion: Yes. Sale of commercial units to prospective buyers and rent received on leasing of commercial units are activities in the course or furtherance of business and amount to supply under GST.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit is admissible on inputs and input services used for construction of the commercial units, particularly in relation to units sold before completion and units leased on rent.

Analysis: Input tax credit is generally available only for goods or services used in the course or furtherance of business, but it is blocked where goods or services are received for construction of an immovable property on one's own account, other than plant and machinery. Since building and civil structures are excluded from plant and machinery, credit on construction inputs for the leased commercial property was denied. For units sold before receipt of the completion or occupation certificate, credit was allowed proportionately to the extent of such pre-completion supplies.

Conclusion: ITC is available on inputs and input services used for construction of commercial units sold before completion, but no ITC is available on inputs and input services used for construction of commercial units leased out on rent.

Final Conclusion: The ruling treats the commercial development activity as taxable business activity, while permitting only limited input credit for pre-completion sales and denying credit for the portion used to create leased immovable property.

Ratio Decidendi: A commercial construction project intended for sale and leasing is a business activity under GST, but credit on construction of immovable property on one's own account is blocked by the statute except to the extent the units are sold before completion.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the rectified GST demand order should be withdrawn in view of the available statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was liable to be quashed for non-consideration of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (iii) Whether the recovery order founded on the disputed dues was liable to be quashed when the petitioner intended to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and make the prescribed pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the rectified GST demand order should be withdrawn in view of the available statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The impugned demand order stood rectified, and the petitioner elected to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The availability of appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provided an efficacious alternate remedy for challenging the demand and the rectification order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and all contentions were kept open.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was liable to be quashed for non-consideration of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The appellate authority rejected the appeal only on limitation without considering the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the plea of exclusion of time was not examined, the dismissal on limitation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellate order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration on the limited ground of limitation, with merits left open.

Issue (iii): Whether the recovery order founded on the disputed dues was liable to be quashed when the petitioner intended to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and make the prescribed pre-deposit.

Analysis: The recovery action was founded on dues arising from the impugned assessment orders, one of which was already under challenge and another stood rectified. In view of the proposed appeal and the statutory pre-deposit, the recovery could not survive independently.

Conclusion: The recovery order and the consequential order were quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of by granting withdrawal with liberty in one matter, remanding the limitation-based appellate dismissal in another, and quashing the recovery-related orders, while keeping all substantive contentions open in the appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: When an appellate rejection is founded solely on limitation, failure to consider the statutory plea for exclusion of time vitiates the order, and where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the writ court may decline merits adjudication and leave the parties to pursue that remedy.

Issues: Whether the annual letting value of the disputed property could be taken at nil under section 23(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the property was claimed to have been let out in earlier years but remained vacant during the relevant year.

Analysis: The claim rested on vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c), which applies where a property let out in an earlier year remains vacant during the previous year and, because of such vacancy, no actual rent is received or receivable. The Tribunal accepted the principle that a taxpayer should get the benefit of vacancy allowance if the factual foundation is established. At the same time, the record did not clearly show whether rental income from the property was offered in the immediately preceding assessment year, which was material to applying the provision.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee in principle, but the addition was not finally deleted. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of the relevant facts and for a fresh order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the limited extent of remand, with the assessee being granted the benefit of a fresh factual examination on the vacancy claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a property is shown to have been let out in an earlier year and remains vacant in the relevant year, section 23(1)(c) can justify nil annual value, but the factual predicate for vacancy allowance must be established before relief is granted.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80P despite not claiming it in the return of income and filing the return beyond the due date under section 139(1); (ii) Whether any addition or disallowance had been made in processing the return under section 143(1).

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80P despite not claiming it in the return of income and filing the return beyond the due date under section 139(1).

Analysis: The relevant provisions were read together to hold that a deduction under Chapter VI-A can be allowed only if it is claimed in the return of income and the return is furnished within the prescribed due date. The assessee had not claimed deduction under section 80P in the return and the return was filed after the due date. Both statutory conditions were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The claim for deduction under section 80P was rightly disallowed and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether any addition or disallowance had been made in processing the return under section 143(1).

Analysis: The processed return reflected the same income as declared by the assessee, and no adjustment or disallowance was made in the intimation under section 143(1). The grievance alleging an arbitrary addition was factually unsustainable.

Conclusion: No addition or disallowance was made under section 143(1), and this ground failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed on all material grounds, and the disallowance of the deduction claim as well as the dismissal of the remaining grounds were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction under Chapter VI-A cannot be granted unless it is claimed in the return of income filed within the statutory due date, and a ground alleging an addition fails where the processed return makes no adjustment to the returned income.

Issues: (i) Whether section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the transfer of the sites sold by the assessee, or whether the matter required verification of the assessee's claim that the sites were held as business inventory in the course of real estate business; (ii) Whether the penalty matters under sections 271D and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh adjudication in view of the remand of the quantum issue.

Issue (i): Whether section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied to the transfer of the sites sold by the assessee, or whether the matter required verification of the assessee's claim that the sites were held as business inventory in the course of real estate business

Analysis: Section 50C operates in the field of computation of capital gains and applies where consideration is received or accruing as a result of transfer of a capital asset. If the lands or sites were held as stock in trade or business inventory in the ordinary course of a real estate business, the transfer would fall under business income and the deeming fiction in section 50C would not apply. The assessee, however, had not established before the lower authorities, with supporting books and records, that the sites formed part of business inventory. The claim therefore required factual verification by the Assessing Officer, along with examination of books of account, land records and other supporting material.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. If the sites are found to be business inventory held in the course of real estate business, section 50C will not apply and the addition is to be deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty matters under sections 271D and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh adjudication in view of the remand of the quantum issue

Analysis: The penalty matters arose from the same set of facts and the quantum determination was sent back for fresh consideration. In such circumstances, the penalty issues could not be finally sustained or reversed without the outcome of the restored quantum proceedings. Fresh decision-making by the Assessing Officer after giving reasonable opportunity was therefore necessary.

Conclusion: The penalty matters were also remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by restoring the core quantum dispute and the connected penalty issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, with directions to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity and to decide the applicability of section 50C on the basis of proper evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 50C applies only to transfers of capital assets for capital gains computation and does not govern transfers of stock in trade or business inventory.

Issues: Whether absence of an explicit irrevocability and dissolution clause in the trust deed, and the answer given in Form 10AB, could justify rejection of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G.

Analysis: The application for registration and renewal was rejected solely because the trust deed did not expressly state that the trust was irrevocable and did not contain a dissolution clause. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court had already examined the same issue in detail and held that a public charitable trust is deemed irrevocable by operation of law unless the instrument expressly provides a power of revocation. On that basis, absence of an explicit irrevocability clause is not a valid ground to deny registration or renewal under section 12AB. The Tribunal also accepted that the response in Form 10AB could not be treated as false or incorrect information amounting to a specified violation when the utility itself compelled the declaration in that form.

Conclusion: The rejection of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether proceedings initiated under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequent assessment were valid when the seized document was unsigned by the assessee and no independent corroborative material linked the assessee to the document.

Analysis: The seized agreement of sale was found in the premises of a third party and bore only the purchaser's signature, not the signatures of the vendors, including the assessee. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, the document could not by itself be treated as incriminating material. The satisfaction note also rested entirely on the same document and did not refer to any additional material supporting the jurisdictional assumption under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal applied the principle that jurisdiction under section 153C can be assumed only where incriminating material belonging to or relating to the assessee exists, and that deficiencies in the satisfaction note cannot be cured by later appellate supplementation.

Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid and the assessment framed thereunder was unsustainable; the appeal was allowed.

Issues: Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be sustained when dividend income was taxable and no exempt income existed in the relevant year.

Analysis: Section 14A applies only where expenditure is incurred in relation to income that does not form part of total income. The amendment to section 10(34) by the Finance Act, 2020 made dividend income taxable in the hands of the shareholder from assessment year 2021-22 onwards. On that premise, even if dividend income had arisen, it would not have constituted exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The foundational condition for invoking section 14A was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable and was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14A disallowance can be made only in relation to expenditure connected with income that is exempt from tax; where the relevant income is taxable, the section cannot be invoked.

Issues: Whether the reassessment was valid when the reason recorded for reopening concerned alleged escaped credits, but the assessment made addition on a different basis without making any addition on the recorded reason.

Analysis: The reopening was initiated on the basis that substantial credits in the bank account had escaped assessment. However, the reassessment order did not bring those credits to tax and instead made additions on account of unexplained expenditure and gross profit estimation. In such a situation, the reassessment could not survive because the assessed income did not match the reason recorded for assuming jurisdiction under reassessment provisions.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be unsustainable in law and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment based on a recorded reason cannot be sustained unless an addition is made on that very reason or the basis for reopening survives in the completed reassessment.

Issues: Whether the addition of share application money of Rs. 2 crores as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified.

Analysis: The investor company had furnished audited financial statements, bank statements, confirmation and income-tax return acknowledgement in response to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee also produced material showing that no shares were ultimately allotted and that the amount was refunded through banking channels. The investor company's audited accounts reflected substantial share capital, reserves and profits, supporting its creditworthiness, and its assessed status established identity. On the record, the three ingredients required under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 stood discharged and the addition could not rest merely on the alleged non-service or non-response to notice under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 2 crores under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not sustainable and was deleted.

Issues: (i) whether the earlier order required recall because the issue decided did not match the Revenue's grounds of appeal; and (ii) whether unpaid service tax liability could be disallowed under section 43B when no deduction of that amount had been claimed in the profit and loss account.

Issue (i): whether the earlier order required recall because the issue decided did not match the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

Analysis: The appeal grounds concerned deletion of disallowance of unpaid service tax liability under section 43B, whereas the earlier order proceeded on the different footing of inclusion of service tax in gross receipts for computation under section 44BB. The mismatch showed that the issue decided was contrary to the issue actually arising from the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion: The earlier order was recalled.

Issue (ii): whether unpaid service tax liability could be disallowed under section 43B when no deduction of that amount had been claimed in the profit and loss account.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had not claimed the service tax amount as an expenditure in the profit and loss account. In identical facts, the coordinate bench had already held that there was no basis for disallowance where the liability was not debited as a deduction. Following that view, the Revenue's challenge could not survive.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 43B was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded, the earlier order was recalled, and the Revenue's appeal on the service tax disallowance failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A disallowance under section 43B cannot be made for a liability that has not been claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account, and an order deciding a different issue from the one raised in the appeal is liable to be recalled.

Issues: (i) validity of reopening under sections 147 and 148 once the additions forming the recorded reasons were deleted on merits; (ii) allowability of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for in-house R&D expenditure certified by the prescribed authority; (iii) deletion of additions made on estimated manufacturing-expense disparity and alleged R&D revenue expenses; (iv) disallowance of interest expenditure, JV-related amount, and debit-balance write-off in the assessee's later assessment years.

Issue (i): validity of reopening under sections 147 and 148 once the additions forming the recorded reasons were deleted on merits

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on two principal grounds, namely alleged excess manufacturing expenses and alleged bogus R&D expenditure. After the appellate deletion of both additions, the basis for the recorded belief of escapement no longer survived. In such a situation, the reopening could not stand independently of the very issues that triggered it.

Conclusion: The reopening was held unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): allowability of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for in-house R&D expenditure certified by the prescribed authority

Analysis: The assessee's R&D claim was supported by approval and certification from the statutory authority. The Tribunal followed the principle of judicial consistency and the earlier coordinate-bench view that, where the prescribed authority has certified the eligible expenditure, the Assessing Officer cannot ignore that certification and sit in appeal over it without following the statutory mechanism.

Conclusion: The section 35(2AB) disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): deletion of additions made on estimated manufacturing-expense disparity and alleged R&D revenue expenses

Analysis: The manufacturing-expense addition was made by extrapolating survey findings from a later year to the relevant year, without showing any abnormality in the audited results. The R&D revenue-expense addition also failed because the same expenditure had actually been incurred, and the appellate finding showed inconsistency in the Revenue's stand across years. The estimated and survey-based approach was not sustained on the facts.

Conclusion: Both additions were deleted and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (iv): disallowance of interest expenditure, JV-related amount, and debit-balance write-off in the assessee's later assessment years

Analysis: The interest disallowance was deleted because the underlying loan addition had already been deleted in earlier proceedings. The section 35(2AB) disallowance for the later year also fell for the same reason as in the earlier year. The JV-related amount was not finally allowed on merits; it was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification. The debit-balance write-off ground was not pressed and therefore did not require adjudication.

Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the interest and section 35(2AB) issues, the JV-related issue was remanded, and the unpressed ground was not adjudicated.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained substantial relief on the core reassessment and deduction disputes, the Revenue's appeal failed, and the remaining limited issue was sent back for fresh examination.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether royalty and sponsorship receipts attracted the proviso to section 2(15) so as to deny charitable status.

Analysis: The assessee was a registered charitable entity engaged in promotion of wrestling. The receipts from royalty and sponsorship were found to be incidental to the fulfilment of its objects and not indicative of any independent business activity or profit motive. Following the consistent view taken in the assessee's own earlier years on identical facts, the receipts were held not to convert the assessee's activities into trade, commerce or business. On that basis, the restrictive proviso to section 2(15) was held inapplicable and the claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12 was sustained.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable and the assessee remained entitled to the benefit of sections 11 and 12.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee's charitable exemption was upheld on the footing that the impugned receipts did not disqualify it from charitable status.

Ratio Decidendi: Where receipts are incidental to the charitable objects of an entity and there is no profit motive, the proviso to section 2(15) does not apply to deny exemption under sections 11 and 12.

Issues: Whether the notice and assessment framed under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid when the satisfaction note was recorded after 01.04.2021 and the seized material was not shown to have been received earlier by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The appeals arose from search-based assessments of a non-searched person. The decisive question was the applicability of the amended section 153C, especially the provision inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, which bars application of that section in relation to searches initiated on or after 01.04.2021. The date on which seized material was received by the Assessing Officer was not available from the record. In that situation, the date of recording of satisfaction, 28.09.2021, was treated as the relevant date. Since that date fell after the statutory cut-off, the notice issued under section 153C and the consequent assessment were held to be without jurisdiction. The addition on merits was not separately sustained once the jurisdictional defect was found.

Conclusion: The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was invalid and the assessments were quashed.

Final Conclusion: All six appeals succeeded because the assessments made on non-searched person basis under section 153C were found unsustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where, after the Finance Act, 2021 amendment, the satisfaction for initiating action under section 153C is recorded after 01.04.2021 and the record does not establish an earlier receipt of seized material by the Assessing Officer, jurisdiction under section 153C cannot be validly assumed.

Issues: (i) Whether sale of bakery products fully manufactured at the factory and sold through outlets without cooking, preparation or processing is a supply of goods under GST; (ii) Whether preparation and sale of semi-finished items such as pizzas, pastas, salads and shakes at the outlet upon customer order constitutes restaurant service; (iii) Whether the applicant may levy GST differently on goods and restaurant services from the same premises with separate billing and records.

Issue (i): Whether sale of bakery products fully manufactured at the factory and sold through outlets without cooking, preparation or processing is a supply of goods under GST.

Analysis: The applicable circular clarifies that already manufactured food items sold without any cooking or preparation, and without any service element attached to their sale, are to be treated as supply of goods. The items in question are pre-manufactured at a separate premises and are merely sold through outlets. In such a case, the character of the supply remains that of goods, and classification follows the nature of the product under the HSN.

Conclusion: Yes. Such sale is a supply of goods under GST.

Issue (ii): Whether preparation and sale of semi-finished items such as pizzas, pastas, salads and shakes at the outlet upon customer order constitutes restaurant service.

Analysis: The ruling applies the principle that service by way of cooking, preparation or blending of food at the premises is covered by restaurant service, regardless of whether the customer consumes it on the premises or carries it away. The decisive factor is the element of preparation at the outlet, which distinguishes such supplies from mere sale of manufactured goods.

Conclusion: Yes. Such preparation and sale constitutes restaurant service.

Issue (iii): Whether the applicant may levy GST differently on goods and restaurant services from the same premises with separate billing and records.

Analysis: No legal prohibition was found against a registered person carrying on supply of goods and restaurant service from the same place of business. The taxpayer must, however, maintain clear separation of turnover and invoice series to ensure proper tax compliance, including input tax credit reversal where applicable.

Conclusion: Yes. Dual treatment is permissible, subject to separate invoicing and accounting records.

Final Conclusion: The ruling permits item-wise classification of supplies as goods or restaurant service based on the nature of each supply, and allows both types of taxable supplies to be made from the same premises with proper segregation of records.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-manufactured food product sold without any cooking or preparation is taxable as goods, whereas food prepared or blended at the outlet in response to customer order is taxable as restaurant service; both supplies may coexist from the same premises if separately accounted for.

Issues: Whether liberty should be granted to the petitioner to make an application under the Shipping Bill (Post export conversion in relation to Instrument Based Scheme) Regulations, 2025 in view of the subsequent regulatory change.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged rejection of the request for amendment of the shipping bill, but the petitioner sought relief in the light of the later 2025 regulations governing post-export conversion. The Court noted the limited nature of the request and the availability of a statutory mechanism under the new regulatory framework. It therefore permitted the petitioner to move an application within the stipulated time and directed the first respondent to examine it in accordance with law, on its own merits and without being influenced by the impugned order.

Conclusion: Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file an application under the 2025 Regulations within two weeks, and the competent authority was directed to decide it in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by permitting recourse to the post-export conversion procedure under the new regulatory regime, leaving the merits of the requested amendment to be decided by the customs authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later statutory or regulatory mechanism provides a direct procedure for the relief sought, the Court may dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to pursue that remedy and directing decision on the application in accordance with law.