Issues: (i) Whether the agreement with customers for construction of villas constitutes a supply of service under GST despite outsourcing of construction to a contractor. (ii) Whether the construction service is classifiable under Heading 9954(ia) and taxable at CGST 3.75% and SGST 3.75% under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, or under Heading 9954(xii). (iii) Whether, for valuation, the consideration under the construction agreement alone can be treated as the value of supply where there is a separate agreement for sale of land.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement with customers for construction of villas constitutes a supply of service under GST despite outsourcing of construction to a contractor.

Analysis: The contractual arrangement created a direct supply by the applicant to the buyers, with consideration received for construction and a continuing obligation to complete and deliver the villas. Outsourcing of the actual construction activity was only a mode of performance and did not alter the applicant's independent supply to the customers. Under GST, the scope of supply is wide, and each supply in the chain is taxable in the hands of the respective supplier. The cited pre-GST authority was held inapplicable to the GST framework.

Conclusion: The agreement constitutes a taxable supply of service under GST, notwithstanding outsourcing of construction.

Issue (ii): Whether the construction service is classifiable under Heading 9954(ia) and taxable at CGST 3.75% and SGST 3.75% under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, or under Heading 9954(xii).

Analysis: The agreements for sale of land and construction were interlinked and served a single economic objective of delivering a completed villa to the buyer. The transaction was therefore treated as a composite supply, with construction as the principal supply. On that basis, and having regard to the specific real-estate entry in Serial No. 3 of the notification, the service fell within Heading 9954(ia) rather than the residual Heading 9954(xii).

Conclusion: The service is classifiable under Heading 9954(ia) and taxable at CGST 3.75% and SGST 3.75%.

Issue (iii): Whether, for valuation, the consideration under the construction agreement alone can be treated as the value of supply where there is a separate agreement for sale of land.

Analysis: The valuation was held to be governed by paragraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), which prescribes a statutory deduction of one-third of the total amount charged towards the value of land where the supply involves transfer of land or undivided share of land. The separate sale agreement did not justify adoption of the actual land value in place of the notified deeming mechanism, since the agreements together constituted one bundled supply.

Conclusion: The value of supply must be determined under paragraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), with one-third of the total amount charged deemed as land value.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's construction arrangement was held to be a taxable composite supply of construction service under GST, classifiable under the real-estate entry in the notification, and valuation was required to follow the notified one-third land deduction mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a developer enters into linked agreements for sale of land and construction of a villa, the transaction is to be examined on its substance as a composite supply of construction service, and the valuation must follow the specific statutory deeming formula prescribed in the applicable rate notification.

Issues: (i) Whether the services relating to c-ECLS, ENLS and BCLS courses, including renewal of certificates, qualify as charitable activities under paragraph 2(r) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and are exempt under Entry No. 1; (ii) Whether the BCLS course offered to students other than medical students is exempt under Entry No. 1 or Entry No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; (iii) Whether the services provided by the applicant are classifiable as commercial training and coaching services and liable to GST.

Issue (i): Whether the services relating to c-ECLS, ENLS and BCLS courses, including renewal of certificates, qualify as charitable activities under paragraph 2(r) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and are exempt under Entry No. 1.

Analysis: The exemption under Entry No. 1 is confined to services by an entity registered under Section 12AA or Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by way of charitable activities. The definition in paragraph 2(r) is restrictive and covers only specified activities, including public awareness of preventive health. The courses conducted by the applicant are specialised, structured and mandatory training programmes for identifiable students and healthcare professionals. They are not disseminated to the general public as awareness programmes, nor do they amount to public health campaigns or community outreach of the kind contemplated by the notification.

Conclusion: The courses and renewal services do not qualify as charitable activities and are not exempt under Entry No. 1.

Issue (ii): Whether the BCLS course offered to students other than medical students is exempt under Entry No. 1 or Entry No. 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The BCLS course, even when offered to non-medical students, remains a structured skill-based training programme and not public awareness of preventive health. The applicant also does not satisfy the definition of an educational institution under paragraph 2(y), since it is not engaged in pre-school education, education up to higher secondary level, education forming part of a recognised qualification, or approved vocational education. As the applicant is not an educational institution, Entry No. 66 is unavailable.

Conclusion: The BCLS course for students other than medical students is not exempt under Entry No. 1 or Entry No. 66.

Issue (iii): Whether the services provided by the applicant are classifiable as commercial training and coaching services and liable to GST.

Analysis: The applicant imparts skill-based emergency care training intended to build specific competencies and assess participants through certification. Such activity falls within the nature of commercial training and coaching services under the GST rate notification for education services. The services are therefore taxable at the applicable rate under the relevant classification entry.

Conclusion: The services are classifiable as commercial training and coaching services and are liable to GST.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's activities do not fall within the claimed exemption entries and are taxable under the GST framework as training services.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST exemption for charitable activities is confined to the exact activities enumerated in the notification and cannot be extended to specialised professional training or skill-development programmes merely because they may indirectly further public health.

Issues: (i) Whether universities are educational institutions within paragraph 2(y) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; and (ii) whether printing of examination question papers supplied to universities falls under Serial No. 66(b)(iv) of the said notification and is exempt from GST.

Issue (i): Whether universities are educational institutions within paragraph 2(y) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The definition of educational institution covers institutions providing education as part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by law. Universities are statutorily empowered to prescribe curricula, conduct examinations, and award degrees or diplomas. Their courses culminate in legally recognised qualifications, bringing them within the scope of paragraph 2(y).

Conclusion: Universities are educational institutions for the purposes of the exemption notification.

Issue (ii): Whether printing of examination question papers supplied to universities falls under Serial No. 66(b)(iv) of the said notification and is exempt from GST.

Analysis: Serial No. 66(b)(iv) exempts services provided to an educational institution by way of services relating to admission to, or conduct of examination by, such institution. The phrase "relating to" is of wide amplitude and covers services having a direct and proximate nexus with the conduct of examinations. Printing of question papers is an integral and indispensable part of the examination process and is therefore covered by the entry. The view is consistent with the departmental clarification relied upon and the settled position recognised in the cited authority concerning universities as educational institutions.

Conclusion: Printing of examination question papers supplied to universities is covered by Serial No. 66(b)(iv) and is exempt from GST.

Final Conclusion: The ruling accepts that universities qualify as educational institutions and that the applicant's printing service is an exempt service connected with the conduct of examinations.

Ratio Decidendi: Services that are integral to and have a direct and proximate nexus with the conduct of examinations by an educational institution fall within the exemption for services relating to conduct of examinations.

Issues: (i) Whether the supply of unprocessed water by the applicant to its members is exempt under Entry 99 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate); (ii) Whether water charges collected from members form part of the Home Owners' Association service and must be aggregated with maintenance charges for the Rs. 7,500 per member per month exemption threshold under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate); (iii) Whether the service provided by the applicant is taxable and, if so, at what rate.

Issue (i): Whether the supply of unprocessed water by the applicant to its members is exempt under Entry 99 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate)

Analysis: The exemption for water in Entry 99 applies to goods. The applicant is not engaged in a separate sale of water as goods, but is recovering the cost of water as part of the facilities and services provided by a homeowners' association. The water supplied is therefore not an independent supply eligible for exemption under that entry.

Conclusion: The supply of water is not exempt under Entry 99 of Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Issue (ii): Whether water charges collected from members form part of the Home Owners' Association service and must be aggregated with maintenance charges for the Rs. 7,500 per member per month exemption threshold under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)

Analysis: A residents' association and its members are treated as distinct persons for GST purposes, and the association's activities amount to a supply of services under Section 7(1)(a) and Section 7(1)(aa) of the CGST Act, 2017. The association's services are classifiable as Home Owners' Association services under SAC 999598. Water provided to members is intrinsically linked with the maintenance and upkeep of the residential complex, and separate invoicing or recovery at actuals does not make it an independent supply or exclude it from the taxable value. The applicant also did not satisfy the conditions for exclusion as a pure agent.

Conclusion: Water charges form part of the Home Owners' Association service and must be aggregated with maintenance charges for the exemption threshold.

Issue (iii): Whether the service provided by the applicant is taxable and, if so, at what rate

Analysis: Since the association's supply is a service and the water charges are part of the composite service supplied to members, the entire supply becomes taxable once the prescribed threshold is crossed. The applicable classification is under SAC 999598, and the notified rate for the service applies.

Conclusion: The service is taxable at 18% under Serial No. 33 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Final Conclusion: The applicant's water recoveries are part of the taxable association service rather than a separate exempt supply, and the aggregate member-wise contribution including water determines the threshold for GST liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a homeowners' association supplies amenities to its members as part of its composite service, separately recovered water charges that are integrally connected to maintenance do not constitute an independent exempt supply and must be included in the taxable value unless validly excluded under the pure agent rules.

Issues: Whether the refund claim arising from the appellate order was barred by limitation under the Customs Act, and whether the appellant could invoke the refund provisions applicable to exported goods.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined against Section 26 and Section 27(1B)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The claim did not concern return or re-importation of exported goods, and therefore did not fall within the scope of Section 26. Even otherwise, where refund became admissible because of an appellate order, Section 27(1B)(b) required the claim to be filed within one year from the date of that order. The appellate relief was granted on 15.02.2016, but the refund application was filed only on 26.02.2020, well beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred and the rejection of refund was upheld in favour of Revenue.

Issues: Whether reassessment and assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19 could be sustained notwithstanding the approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and whether the clean slate principle extinguished the income tax liability arising during the CIRP period.

Analysis: The liability in question related to income earned during the previous year 2017-18, when the corporate insolvency resolution process had already commenced. The resolution plan and the information memorandum disclosed pending and unassessed tax matters, and the National Company Law Tribunal did not grant a blanket waiver of statutory tax dues. The clean slate doctrine was held to operate in respect of pre-CIRP claims, but not to erase liabilities or statutory compliances arising during the CIRP period unless they were specifically covered by the approved plan. The petitioner had also not filed the return within time and had not pursued the statutory route for condonation and consequential relief under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The reassessment and consequential assessment were held to be valid, and the petitioner was denied immunity from the tax liability for Assessment Year 2018-19.

Ratio Decidendi: The clean slate principle under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extinguishes only pre-CIRP claims not included in the resolution plan and does not, by itself, bar assessment or recovery of tax liabilities arising during the CIRP period where the resolution plan does not specifically extinguish them.

Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of 5419 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority was liable to be condoned on the facts shown by the assessee.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was that the assessee was involved in multiple criminal proceedings, had been arrested, and was confined to jail, which prevented timely filing of the appeal. The Court applied the settled principle that "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction and that condonation of delay should ordinarily advance substantial justice rather than defeat a matter on a pedantic or hyper-technical approach. On the facts, the Court accepted that the delay was occasioned by circumstances beyond the assessee's control.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the graphic pictorial representation of farmers with agricultural implements used on the packing material of the goods constituted a brand name so as to deny the exemption under the notification; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation under the GST enactments was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the graphic pictorial representation of farmers with agricultural implements used on the packing material of the goods constituted a brand name so as to deny the exemption under the notification.

Analysis: The notification governing the goods exempted supplies of flour and cereal flours packed in unit containers not bearing a registered brand name, and after amendment extended the benefit even to goods bearing a brand name where the actionable claim or enforceable right had been voluntarily foregone in the prescribed manner. The Court held that the pictorial device used on the packing material, viewed along with the declaration filed by the assessee and the department's own return of that declaration, did not justify treating the goods as ineligible for exemption. The corporate name printed on the package was treated as a trade name required for regulatory compliance and not, by itself, as the disqualifying brand name for the purpose of the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption under the notification and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation under the GST enactments was justified.

Analysis: The Court found that the assessee had disclosed the relevant packing and exemption claim by affidavit and the department had contemporaneous knowledge of the manner in which the goods were marketed. In the absence of suppression of facts or wilful misstatement, the precondition for invoking the extended period was not met. The Court therefore treated the normal limitation framework as applicable and declined to sustain the demand on the basis of extended limitation.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the department has contemporaneous knowledge of the facts and the assessee's disclosure negates suppression, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked; a package marking that is not used as the operative brand identifier will not by itself defeat the statutory exemption.

Issues: Whether the delay of 53 days in filing Form 10-IC for claiming the benefit under section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be condoned under section 119(2)(b) on the ground of genuine hardship.

Analysis: The assessee had applied for start-up recognition and sought the eligible business certificate, but the application was rejected shortly before the return-filing due date. After receiving the rejection and taking professional advice, the assessee arranged funds, paid self-assessment tax, and filed Form 10-IC. The delay was not found to be deliberate, concocted, or tainted by mala fides. Refusal to condone the delay resulted in denial of the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA and a substantial tax burden at the normal rate, which constituted financial hardship. The expression "genuine hardship" in section 119(2)(b) was required to be construed liberally, and the authority ought to have exercised its condonation power judiciously to advance substantial justice.

Conclusion: The delay ought to have been condoned under section 119(2)(b), and the rejection of the application was unsustainable; the assessee is entitled to have Form 10-IC accepted for the relevant assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: The power under section 119(2)(b) to admit a delayed claim must be exercised liberally where the delay is bona fide and refusal would cause genuine hardship, especially when the assessee is otherwise substantively eligible for the relief sought.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D required interference and the extent to which the assessee's suo motu disallowance should be accepted; (ii) Whether the employees' contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date under the relevant welfare laws but before filing the return was allowable; (iii) Whether the depreciation disallowance was liable to be deleted on account of a typographical error in the appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D required interference and the extent to which the assessee's suo motu disallowance should be accepted.

Analysis: The assessee had already made a suo motu disallowance while computing income. The dispute was examined in the light of the assessee's own earlier years, where the Tribunal had accepted a reasonable lump sum disallowance on similar facts relating to investments in bonds and securities. As the Revenue did not show any material change in facts, the earlier view was followed and the disallowance was moderated accordingly.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A was restricted to Rs. 13 lakhs after giving credit for the assessee's suo motu disallowance, and the assessee succeeded partly on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the employees' contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date under the relevant welfare laws but before filing the return was allowable.

Analysis: The applicable law, as settled, is that employees' contribution deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the PF/ESI enactments is not allowable as a deduction, even if paid before filing the return of income. Since the contribution was admittedly deposited after the statutory due date, the disallowance was sustained.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was upheld and the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the depreciation disallowance was liable to be deleted on account of a typographical error in the appellate order.

Analysis: The appellate finding on depreciation was found to contain a typographical mistake, and the mistake was corrected in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The depreciation disallowance of Rs. 2,04,268 was deleted and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with relief granted on the section 14A disallowance and the depreciation issue, while the disallowance relating to delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI was sustained.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's representation seeking recognition of the amount already deposited as pre-deposit for filing the statutory appeals through the GST portal was required to be considered by the Appellate Authority, and whether the authority should act in accordance with the portal instructions and the Supreme Court decision relied upon.

Analysis: The petitioner had already complied with the earlier judicial direction to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, and the subsequent assessment orders were passed after de novo adjudication. The grievance was that, because of changes in the GST portal architecture and the appeal manual, the deposited amount was not being treated as the requisite pre-deposit for the appeals, and approval from the competent authority was being insisted upon. In that situation, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the representation in the light of the appeal manual then in force and to take into account the Supreme Court decision referred to by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The representation was directed to be considered by the Appellate Authority, and the petitioner obtained a partial procedural relief.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of by granting liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority against the impugned order, with a direction that the appeal be entertained if filed within thirty days and decided on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the expired limitation, and whether liberty could be granted to pursue appeal with pre-deposit.

Analysis: The impugned GST order was amenable to appeal, but the petitioner had not filed the statutory appeal within the prescribed period. The Court treated the writ petition as not the proper course when an appellate remedy was available and the limitation had already expired. At the same time, considering that the petitioner may have a case on merits, the Court granted permission to pursue the appeal on compliance with a 25% pre-deposit of the disputed tax within the stipulated period, with adjustment of any amount already recovered towards that liability. If such appeal is filed within time, the Appellate Authority is to decide it on merits without reference to limitation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to work out the appellate remedy, subject to the stated pre-deposit condition.

Issues: (i) Whether estimated commission income could be added on the purchase turnover arising from alleged accommodation entries. (ii) Whether further addition could survive on the sales turnover when the same commission income had already suffered tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Issue (i): Whether estimated commission income could be added on the purchase turnover arising from alleged accommodation entries.

Analysis: The commission element, even where accommodation entries are alleged, is attributable to the beneficiaries obtaining the entries through sales invoices issued by the assessee. The selling party from whom the assessee made purchases cannot, on that footing, be treated as the source of commission to the assessee. Estimation of commission on the purchase turnover was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The addition on the purchase turnover was rightly deleted and is against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether further addition could survive on the sales turnover when the same commission income had already suffered tax under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Analysis: The sales turnover had already been subjected to commission estimation in earlier proceedings, and the dispute on that aspect stood settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Once the same income had already been brought to tax, a second addition on the same footing was not permissible.

Conclusion: No further addition on the sales turnover survived and the view in favour of the assessee was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed because the estimated commission could not be levied on the purchase turnover and no duplicate addition could be sustained on the sales turnover already taxed.

Ratio Decidendi: In alleged accommodation entry cases, commission income is attributable only to the beneficiary-side transactions giving rise to the entries, and income already taxed in earlier proceedings cannot be subjected to a second addition on the same basis.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs sustained as unexplained bank credits during the demonetization period was justified.

Analysis: The assessee's deposits were explained as sale consideration from its rice with a substantial turnover, while the assessment order accepted only a part of the deposits without any analysis. No defect in the books of account was pointed out and the book results were not rejected. In the absence of any rational basis for segregating the deposits into explained and unexplained portions, the addition lacked support in law and on facts.

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

Issues: Whether additions made in an assessment under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could be sustained when no incriminating material was found during the search.

Analysis: The additions related to contract receipts, settlement of a retiring partner's account, and sub-contractor charges were treated as matters arising from the regular assessment record. The search did not yield incriminating material supporting those additions. In the absence of such material, the assessment under section 153A could not be used as a substitute for a regular assessment under section 143(3), and completed assessment proceedings could not be disturbed merely on a reappraisal of the return and accounts. Since the return had already attained finality and no material from the search justified reopening those concluded matters, the additions were not sustainable.

Conclusion: The additions were deleted and the assessee succeeded.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated on the basis of AIR/CIB information without verification of the complete bank record was valid; (ii) Whether the addition of cash deposits of Rs.35,79,610 was sustainable for the assessment year concerned.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated on the basis of AIR/CIB information without verification of the complete bank record was valid.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded only on information received through AIR/CIB, while the complete bank statement was not available with the Assessing Officer when notice under section 148 was issued. The record showed that the bank account was opened on 29.12.2012, and that fact had not been examined before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment. Mere receipt of information could set the machinery in motion, but a proper examination of the material with the return was required before reopening.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of cash deposits of Rs.35,79,610 was sustainable for the assessment year concerned.

Analysis: Since the bank account itself was opened on 29.12.2012, deposits made in that account could not relate to the assessment year in question. The authorities below had not verified this jurisdictional fact, and the addition rested on an incorrect assumption as to the relevant year of deposit. In these circumstances, the cash deposit addition could not be retained.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs.35,79,610 was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both the reopening challenge and the merits of the addition, resulting in deletion of the impugned income addition.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be sustained on unverified third-party information alone, and an addition based on bank deposits fails where the basic jurisdictional fact as to the relevant accounting year is not established.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147 and 148 was valid; (ii) Whether the addition made on account of deposits in the bank account was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment initiated under sections 147 and 148 was valid.

Analysis: The assessee had filed the return of income and disclosed long-term capital gain on sale of the property. The reassessment was initiated only on the basis of information regarding bank deposits, without proper examination of the return, the assessment record, or the material explaining the source of the deposits. The formation of belief that income had escaped assessment was therefore not supported by a proper application of mind.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be not valid and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made on account of deposits in the bank account was sustainable.

Analysis: The bank statement and sale deed showed that the deposits represented sale consideration received for the transfer of the showroom property. The cheque numbers and transaction details matched the sale consideration reflected in the documents, establishing a reconciliation of the deposits with the disclosed capital transaction.

Conclusion: The addition was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, with the reassessment annulled and the consequential addition set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be sustained where the belief of escapement of income is formed without proper verification of the return and relevant records, and an addition based on bank deposits must fail when the deposits are reconciled with disclosed sale consideration.

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Panaji Bench of the Tribunal when the assessing officer having territorial jurisdiction over the assessee was situated outside its territorial limits.

Analysis: The governing principle applied was that the Tribunal's ordinary jurisdiction is determined by the location of the jurisdictional assessing officer. The order proceeds on the basis that the territorial limits of the Panaji Bench do not extend to the assessing officer who passed the impugned assessment in this case. Following the same jurisdictional principle applied in earlier coordinate bench decisions, the appeal could not be entertained by this Bench and had to be presented before the appropriate bench having jurisdiction over the assessing officer.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be not maintainable before the Panaji Bench and was dismissed in limine.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the ITAT Special Bench order was maintainable in view of the alternate statutory remedy under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the ITAT Special Bench order was maintainable in view of the alternate statutory remedy under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The availability of an efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, save in recognised exceptional situations such as violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires. The challenge raised only an alleged error in the Tribunal's interpretation of the provisions governing computation and rate of tax, and such an error could be effectively urged in an appeal under section 260A. No extraordinary circumstance justifying interference in writ jurisdiction was shown.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.