Issues: (i) Whether assessments of the other person could validly be initiated under Section 153C where the seized material was received and satisfaction was recorded after 1 April 2021; (ii) Whether an addition founded solely on a conditional voluntary disclosure of alleged unaccounted jewellery purchases could be sustained in full.

Issue (i): Whether assessments of the other person could validly be initiated under Section 153C where the seized material was received and satisfaction was recorded after 1 April 2021.

Analysis: Under the first proviso to Section 153C(1), the relevant search date for the other person is the date on which the seized books, documents or assets are received by that person's jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The satisfaction recorded on 7 March 2023, after receipt of the seized material, was therefore the relevant date. Section 153C(3) excludes application of that provision to searches initiated on or after 1 April 2021. The jurisdictional precedent applied this statutory date uniformly for the other person, including for determining whether Section 153C proceedings may be commenced.

Conclusion: The Section 153C notices and consequential assessments for assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21 were without jurisdiction and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition founded solely on a conditional voluntary disclosure of alleged unaccounted jewellery purchases could be sustained in full.

Analysis: The disclosure was made to avoid litigation while the assessee maintained that the transactions were recorded and furnished reconciliations, payment details, metal-exchange details and invoices. No independent material established unaccounted purchases. A conditional admission, without corroborative evidence, could not justify taxation of the entire alleged purchase value. Where unaccounted purchases are assumed, only the profit element embedded in them is taxable. A 2% rate was regarded as reasonable for the disputed jewellery transactions, rather than the 23% gross-profit rate offered by the assessee.

Conclusion: The full addition was unsustainable; the addition was restricted to 2% of the value of the alleged unaccounted purchases, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessments for the four earlier years lack statutory jurisdiction, while the surviving addition for assessment year 2021-22 is confined to the estimated profit component of the disputed purchases.

Ratio Decidendi: For an other person under Section 153C, receipt of seized material by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer determines the relevant search date; where that date is on or after 1 April 2021, Section 153C proceedings are barred. A conditional disclosure unsupported by corroborative evidence cannot sustain addition of the full alleged unaccounted purchase value, and only the embedded profit may be assessed.

Issues: (i) Whether the manufacturing-segment arm's length margin for the pandemic-affected assessment year should be compared with the comparable companies' results for that year alone; (ii) Whether payment for sourcing support services to the associated enterprise could be treated as a shareholder activity and benchmarked separately at nil; (iii) Whether the assessed income required recomputation after deleting deductions already found allowable under Section 35(1)(i) and Section 35(1)(iv).

Issue (i): Whether the manufacturing-segment arm's length margin for the pandemic-affected assessment year should be compared with the comparable companies' results for that year alone.

Analysis: Rule 10B requires comparability adjustments for material differences arising from market conditions. The assessee's operations and sales were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic during the relevant year. Comparing its single-year margin with the comparables' weighted average margins for three years, including normal years, was not an equitable comparison. Consistent single-year data of both the assessee and comparables was required.

Conclusion: The arm's length price for the manufacturing segment shall be recomputed by comparing the assessee's results for the impugned year with the comparable companies' results for that year alone, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment for sourcing support services to the associated enterprise could be treated as a shareholder activity and benchmarked separately at nil.

Analysis: Separate benchmarking is appropriate where the costs, revenues and risks of a controlled transaction can be separately identified and reliably compared with uncontrolled transactions. The additional evidence concerning sourcing support required examination. The services involved identifying suppliers, facilitating procurement and customs clearance, and supporting the assessee's manufacturing operations. Applying the benefit test, these were services for which an independent enterprise would be willing to pay and were not shareholder activities.

Conclusion: The sourcing-support payment is not a shareholder activity. The matter is remanded for examination of the evidence and determination of whether separate benchmarking is warranted; if so, a proper arm's length benchmarking exercise shall be undertaken, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessed income required recomputation after deleting deductions already found allowable under Section 35(1)(i) and Section 35(1)(iv).

Analysis: Although the assessment findings accepted the deductions, the computation adopted income processed under Section 143(1), which included the disallowances. This was an inadvertent computational error inconsistent with the assessment findings.

Conclusion: The assessed income shall be recomputed after deleting the disallowances under Section 35(1)(i) and Section 35(1)(iv), in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing margin is to be determined on a consistent single-year basis, the sourcing-services adjustment requires fresh examination subject to the finding that it is not a shareholder activity, and the admitted research deductions must be reflected in the income computation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exceptional market conditions materially affect the tested party's results, transfer-pricing comparability must employ consistent data or appropriate adjustment; services yielding a benefit for which an independent enterprise would pay are not shareholder activities.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal could be condoned and the matter remanded for decision on merits under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay beyond the statutory limitation period. The Court noted that the delay was only of 36 days beyond the prescribed period and that the petitioner had explained that the appeal was filed after knowledge of the original order. In similar circumstances, the Court followed its earlier approach and found it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order, condone the delay, and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the matter was remanded for disposal of the appeal on merits, in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: Whether a charge created by the tax authority over mortgaged property could be quashed in view of the secured creditor's priority under Section 31B of the Securitization Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The secured creditor had already created and uploaded the mortgage particulars in the CERSAI portal. Section 31B gives priority to the secured interest over government tax dues, so the secured creditor may proceed against the property notwithstanding the charge. At the same time, the existence of that priority did not justify deleting or quashing the tax charge at that stage, because any surplus after the secured debt is satisfied may still be available for adjustment towards the tax dues, and the Sub-Registrar can note the eventual SARFAESI sale by appropriate endorsement.

Conclusion: The charge was not quashed. Liberty was left open to the secured creditor or the auction purchaser to make a representation to the Sub-Registrar after the sale for appropriate entry in relation to the SARFAESI sale.

Issues: (i) Whether electricity arrears relating to the corporate debtor's pre-auction period could be enforced against the auction purchaser when the claims were not submitted in the insolvency process and were not part of the approved resolution plan. (ii) Whether the impugned demand notice for arrears relating to 2008-09, issued in 2025, could be sustained and used as a basis to disconnect supply.

Issue (i): Whether electricity arrears relating to the corporate debtor's pre-auction period could be enforced against the auction purchaser when the claims were not submitted in the insolvency process and were not part of the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The property was purchased in liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the decisive question was whether prior statutory dues survived against the purchaser. The settled position applied was that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished and cannot later be enforced against the corporate debtor or other stakeholders, including Government authorities. The respondents had not lodged their claim before the resolution professional and the dues were therefore outside the approved process. The rule applicable to sales under the SARFAESI regime was held inapposite because an auction purchaser under insolvency proceedings stands on a different legal footing.

Conclusion: The arrears could not be recovered from the petitioner, and the respondents' claim stood extinguished.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned demand notice for arrears relating to 2008-09, issued in 2025, could be sustained and used as a basis to disconnect supply.

Analysis: The demand was raised after an interval of about sixteen years. The legal position applied was that under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, recovery of electricity dues is subject to a two-year limitation and disconnection cannot be resorted to for stale arrears or supplementary claims raised beyond that period. Since the demand was for a period long antecedent to the notice and the respondents sought to press it for disconnection, the notice was held unsustainable on limitation as well.

Conclusion: The demand notice was unsustainable and could not justify disconnection of supply.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the demand notice was quashed, and the respondents were restrained from disconnecting electricity supply on the basis of the impugned arrears claim.

Ratio Decidendi: In insolvency proceedings, statutory dues not included in or submitted during the resolution process stand extinguished on approval of the resolution plan, and stale electricity arrears beyond the period prescribed under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be enforced by disconnection.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions challenging notices and tender conditions had become infructuous on expiry of the licence period; (ii) whether the demand of GST under reverse charge mechanism on 99% of the bar licence fee paid to the Government through TASMAC was sustainable; (iii) whether the assessment orders and show cause notice impugned in the later batch were liable to be quashed and the matters remitted for action under the provision governing assessment of unregistered persons.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions challenging notices and tender conditions had become infructuous on expiry of the licence period.

Analysis: The challenge to the notices and tender conditions related to licences for a fixed period, and the Court found that the licence term had already expired by the time of decision. In that situation, any ruling on the correctness of the notices or tender conditions would be purely academic. The matters were therefore treated as having ceased to survive for adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notices and tender conditions was dismissed as infructuous.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of GST under reverse charge mechanism on 99% of the bar licence fee paid to the Government through TASMAC was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court examined the bar licence framework under Rule 9B of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and the reverse charge notification for services supplied by the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory or Local Authority to a business entity. It held that TASMAC is a body corporate and not the State Government for the purpose of the reverse charge notification. Since the impugned demand proceeded on the footing that TASMAC was supplying a service as the State Government, that basis failed. The Court also noted that the actual taxable activities of the licensees, namely sale of short eats and sale of used or empty bottles, were not the basis of the impugned demand.

Conclusion: The GST demand on the 99% licence fee under the reverse charge mechanism was held unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment orders and show cause notice impugned in the later batch were liable to be quashed and the matters remitted for action under the provision governing assessment of unregistered persons.

Analysis: The Court found that the impugned assessments and the show cause notice had proceeded without adequate examination of the petitioners' actual turnover and their possible entitlement to registration exemption. It held that the correct route, if warranted, was the mechanism for assessment of unregistered or recalcitrant persons under Section 63 of the GST enactments, rather than confirmation of liability on the footing adopted in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the orders could not stand in their present form and the matters required fresh consideration under the proper statutory framework.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed and the matters were remitted for action under Section 63 of the GST enactments, and the show cause notice was also quashed for that purpose.

Final Conclusion: The batch was disposed of in part on mootness and in part by setting aside the impugned GST demands, with liberty to proceed afresh under the proper statutory mechanism where applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: A reverse charge levy under a notification applicable only to services supplied by the Government cannot be fastened on a body corporate that is not the State Government, and where the proper basis for taxation is the taxable turnover of an unregistered person, the authority must proceed under the specific assessment provision for such cases.

Issues: Whether the jurisdiction objection to the intimation issued under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 survived after the Joint Commissioner issued a fresh intimation, and whether the writ petition was liable to be disposed of with liberty for the proper officer to proceed in accordance with law.

Analysis: The earlier objection was founded on the fact that the intimation had been issued by an officer said to be lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. A subsequent intimation was, however, issued by the Joint Commissioner under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In that view, the jurisdictional challenge to the earlier communication ceased to survive. The petitioner had also filed objections to the later intimation, and the Court held that it was open to the proper officer to consider the matter in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction objection was no longer available, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a competent authority issues an intimation under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an objection based on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the earlier issuing officer does not survive.

Issues: Whether the order confirming tax demand for belated availment of input tax credit under the GST law could stand after the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) to the GST enactments.

Analysis: The impugned demand related to belated availment of input tax credit for the same tax period that had already been the subject of an earlier confirmation order. The defect forming the basis of the demand stood cured by the statutory intervention through insertion of Section 16(5) with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. In view of that curative amendment, the foundation of the impugned order could not be sustained without a fresh consideration on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained setting aside of the challenged demand order, but the tax liability issue was left open for reconsideration by the authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand founded on a defect in availing input tax credit cannot be sustained once the statutory provision governing that defect has been retrospectively cured, and the matter must be reconsidered afresh on merits.

Issues: (i) whether the cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the show cause notice and the order in original did not disclose proper service and the order was passed ex parte without adequate reasons; (ii) whether the appellate authority was required to consider the specific grounds urged for condonation of delay and could reject the appeal without dealing with them.

Issue (i): whether the cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the show cause notice and the order in original did not disclose proper service and the order was passed ex parte without adequate reasons.

Analysis: The cancellation order proceeded on the basis that no reply had been filed, but it did not indicate the date, manner, or mode of service of the show cause notice. In a matter affecting registration, the authority was expected to record material showing due service and the opportunity granted. The absence of such particulars, coupled with the ex parte nature of the cancellation order, rendered the original order unsustainable.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was held unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate authority was required to consider the specific grounds urged for condonation of delay and could reject the appeal without dealing with them.

Analysis: The memorandum of appeal contained a specific explanation for delay, including the asserted lack of knowledge of the cancellation order. The appellate authority instead focused on a different explanation and rejected the appeal as beyond the condonable period without dealing with the actual grounds pleaded. A request for condonation must be examined on the grounds specifically raised.

Conclusion: The appellate order was held unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: Both impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after response to the show cause notice and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order cancelling registration cannot be sustained where due service of notice is not shown and the order is ex parte without proper material; similarly, an appellate authority must adjudicate the actual grounds pleaded for condonation of delay before rejecting an appeal.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice and the inquiry report were liable to be quashed for having been issued beyond the timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: The prescribed period of ninety days for issuance of the notice after receipt of the offence report, and the stipulated period for completion of the inquiry, were treated as mandatory. The Court followed the binding view that these timelines are integral to the regulatory scheme and that failure to comply with them vitiates the proceedings. Since the notice was issued long after the offence report and the inquiry report was also delayed beyond the prescribed period, the challenge succeeded on the ground of non-adherence to the statutory schedule.

Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice and the inquiry report were quashed as being time-barred and unsustainable, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the consequential proceedings arising from the delayed initiation and completion of the customs broker disciplinary process were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: The timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 are mandatory, and breach of those timelines invalidates the notice and the ensuing inquiry proceedings.

Issues: Maintainability of the appeal against the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the grievance arose from the intimation under section 143(1) and a rectification application under section 154 was pending.

Analysis: The intimation under section 143(1) and the assessment order under section 143(3) are both appealable under section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The grievance of the assessee was essentially against the intimation under section 143(1), against which a statutory appellate remedy was available. The assessment order under section 143(3) did not make any addition and merely accepted the reduced loss already determined in the intimation. Since the rectification application under section 154 had not yet been disposed of, the controversy did not arise from the assessment order itself.

Conclusion: The appeal against the assessment order under section 143(3) was not maintainable on the asserted grievance, and the dismissal of the appeal was upheld. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the pending rectification application in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made under section 68 in respect of long term capital gain from sale of shares was sustainable; (ii) whether the addition of commission income could be sustained despite the assessee's admission and payment of taxes during assessment; (iii) whether the short term capital gain addition required reconsideration on the basis of the assessee's reconciliation and supporting records.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made under section 68 in respect of long term capital gain from sale of shares was sustainable.

Analysis: The record showed that the purchase and sale of the scrip were supported by broker details, bills, bank statements and demat records. The revenue did not dislodge these materials or demonstrate any defect in the transaction details. The assessee's primary burden to explain the source and genuineness of the capital gain was therefore discharged.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of commission income could be sustained despite the assessee's admission and payment of taxes during assessment.

Analysis: The assessee admitted the commission income during the assessment proceedings and also paid tax on it. In these circumstances, the entire amount could not be sustained as an addition when the omission in the return had been rectified in the course of assessment.

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

Issue (iii): Whether the short term capital gain addition required reconsideration on the basis of the assessee's reconciliation and supporting records.

Analysis: The reconciliation, scrip-wise workings, demat extracts and contract notes were not properly considered by the lower authorities. The matter required verification of the supporting material and recomputation of short term capital gain after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing and adherence to natural justice.

Conclusion: The issue was restored for fresh verification and was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the main additions relating to long term capital gain and commission income, while the short term capital gain issue was sent back for verification, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee substantiates share transactions with contemporaneous documentary evidence and the revenue fails to rebut it, the addition cannot be sustained; similarly, an admitted income offered and taxed during assessment cannot be added again without justification, while unconsidered reconciliation material warrants fresh verification in compliance with natural justice.

Issues: Whether the inquiry report was vitiated as barred by limitation under Regulation 17(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, and whether the consequential revocation order could be sustained.

Analysis: The inquiry report was prepared beyond 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, while the dates were not in dispute. The Court followed its earlier view that the timelines prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations are mandatory. The contrary view relied on by the respondents, based on a decision concerning Regulation 17(1), was not accepted as governing the issue arising under Regulation 17(5).

Conclusion: The inquiry report was held to be time-barred, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with the alleged offence under the CGST Act, or whether bail should be granted only upon surrender subject to conditions.

Analysis: The complaint did not name the petitioner, but it disclosed allegations of violation of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for which the maximum sentence extended up to five years. In those circumstances, the Court found it appropriate not to grant pre-arrest bail straightaway. Instead, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional court within a stipulated time and, upon surrender, to be considered for release on bail on furnishing security and on such other suitable conditions as the trial court deemed proper.

Conclusion: Pre-arrest bail was not granted, but the petitioner was directed to surrender and was granted bail on compliance with the stated conditions.

Issues: Whether stay of realization of the balance tax demand pending the second appeal before the Tribunal was warranted, and what interim protection should be granted in the writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The disputed demand arose from audit assessment under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999, where the authorities proceeded on the basis that mandatory supporting documents, including C Forms and mining permits, had not been produced. The writ Court noted that the Commissioner's power under Section 17(7) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 to stay recovery pending the second appeal was discretionary, and that the petitioner had not shown sufficient justification for non-production of material before the assessing and appellate authorities. At the same time, the Court took note of the pre-deposit already made and considered it appropriate, for maintaining the balance of convenience, to grant conditional interim protection against coercive recovery.

Conclusion: The prayer for unconditional stay was not accepted, but conditional protection against recovery was granted on deposit of 30% of the balance demand within the stipulated time; failing compliance, the revenue authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ proceeding was finally disposed of with limited interim relief in favour of the petitioner, subject to compliance with the directed deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief against recovery pending statutory appeal may be granted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction on a conditional basis, where the Court balances the parties' interests and the statutory authority's discretionary refusal to stay recovery is not found wholly unjustified.

Issues: Whether rebates received by the applicant from the bank for payment of excise duty through a corporate card are liable to GST.

Analysis: The rebate was found to be a post-transaction monetary adjustment linked to corporate card usage and not attributable to any independent or identifiable supply of goods or services by the applicant. Such adjustment was treated as a transaction in money within the meaning of section 2(75) of the CGST Act, 2017 and therefore outside the scope of consideration for supply under section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. The ruling also noted that the arrangement functioned as short-term financial accommodation and that the rebate operated as a discount falling within the exemption for services by way of extending deposits, loans or advances where consideration is by interest or discount under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Conclusion: The rebates do not constitute supply of goods or services and are not liable to GST.

Issues: (i) Whether the value of supply of second-hand cars is to be determined on margin basis under Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate), and (ii) whether motor vehicles sold by the applicant are classifiable under Heading 8703 and the exact rate of tax can be determined on the material placed before the Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the value of supply of second-hand cars is to be determined on margin basis under Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: Second-hand cars are movable property and therefore goods within the meaning of Section 2(52) of the CGST Act, 2017. Rule 32(5) prescribes a special valuation method for persons dealing in buying and selling second-hand goods, where no input tax credit has been availed and the goods are supplied as such or after minor processing that does not change their nature. The notification also extends margin-based valuation to old and used motor vehicles, subject to the prescribed conditions.

Conclusion: The value of supply is governed by Rule 32(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with Notification No. 8/2018-Central Tax (Rate), subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, and negative margin is to be ignored.

Issue (ii): Whether motor vehicles sold by the applicant are classifiable under Heading 8703 and the exact rate of tax can be determined on the material placed before the Authority.

Analysis: Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons fall under Heading 8703 of the GST Tariff. The applicable rate depends on particulars such as engine capacity, vehicle length and fuel type. Those particulars were not furnished, and the nature and extent of repairs were also not substantiated with documents sufficient to verify the transaction pattern and the precise tax consequence.

Conclusion: The motor vehicles are classifiable under Heading 8703, but the exact applicable rate of tax cannot be determined on the record before the Authority.

Final Conclusion: The ruling grants the benefit of margin-based valuation for second-hand cars subject to statutory conditions, while leaving the exact rate determination unresolved for want of essential vehicle particulars.

Ratio Decidendi: Second-hand motor vehicles are goods, and where they are bought and sold without availing input tax credit, their taxable value is to be computed on the margin between selling price and purchase price under the special valuation rule and corresponding notification, subject to strict compliance with the prescribed conditions.

Issues: Classification under the GST tariff of B20, B30, B40, B50, B60 and B70 biodiesel-High-Speed Diesel blends.

Analysis: The GST rate notification adopts the tariff meanings, interpretative rules and relevant notes in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Heading 2710 covers preparations containing 70% or more by weight of petroleum oils or oils obtained from bituminous minerals, including biodiesel blends; Heading 3826 covers biodiesel and its mixtures containing less than 70% of such oils. The HSN Explanatory Notes apply the same petroleum-oil-content threshold. B20, with 80% HSD, falls within the specific B6-to-B20 tariff entry. B30, with 70% HSD, falls within sub-heading 271020 but, lacking a specific entry beyond B20, falls under the residual tariff entry. B40 to B70 contain less than 70% petroleum oils and fall under Heading 3826.

Conclusion: B20 conforming to IS 16531 is classifiable under tariff item 27102020; B30 is classifiable under tariff item 27102090; and B40, B50, B60 and B70 are classifiable under tariff item 38260000.

Issues: Whether pure labour services supplied for construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works pertaining to a single stand-alone residential dwelling unit, otherwise than as part of a residential complex, are exempt under Entry No. 11 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: Entry No. 11 exempts pure labour contracts relating to construction, erection, commissioning, or installation of original works when the supply is for a single residential unit and not as part of a residential complex. The notification defines original works, residential complex, and single residential unit, and the exemption applies only where no goods or materials are supplied by the service provider. On the facts, the services were confined to pure labour for stand-alone residential dwelling units, with no supply of materials and no involvement of apartments, housing projects, or residential complexes.

Conclusion: The services qualified for the exemption under Entry No. 11 and were held to be exempt from GST, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.