Issues: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner could invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions on the ground that belated employees' contribution to PF and ESI, and certain penalty or interest items, had not been properly disallowed. (ii) Whether the scope of the revisionary direction could extend beyond the specific issues covered by the revision notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Principal Commissioner could invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions on the ground that belated employees' contribution to PF and ESI, and certain penalty or interest items, had not been properly disallowed.

Analysis: The revisionary power under section 263 is determined with reference to the record examined by the Principal Commissioner at the time of revision. A later Supreme Court ruling holding that delayed employees' contribution is not allowable can render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue when the record is examined. The final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions is not exempt from revision under section 263 merely because it arose from the DRP process.

Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was valid and the objection to jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the scope of the revisionary direction could extend beyond the specific issues covered by the revision notice.

Analysis: The revisional direction was confined to the identified items, namely delayed employees' contribution and the penalty or interest components referred to in the notice. A roving enquiry beyond those matters was not permissible.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the proceedings to the issues covered by the revision order.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary order was sustained, subject to limitation of the remand proceedings to the specific disallowance issues identified in the revision notice.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 263, the relevant record is the record existing when the Principal Commissioner examines it, and a final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions remains amenable to revision if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue on that basis.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) was justified on account of abnormal cash sales, cash in hand, and cash deposits during the demonetization period; (ii) Whether the addition under section 68 for unexplained cash deposits was sustainable in full; (iii) Whether the addition confirmed was chargeable to tax at the rate prescribed under section 115BBE.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of books of account under section 145(3) was justified on account of abnormal cash sales, cash in hand, and cash deposits during the demonetization period.

Analysis: The cash sales, cash in hand, and cash deposits showed a steep and abnormal increase during the relevant period as compared with the preceding year. The explanation that the cash deposits represented genuine sales receipts was found unsubstantiated because the invoices and supporting records lacked proper particulars and did not establish a reliable business pattern. The surrounding circumstances supported the view that the books did not reflect a true and correct picture of the business.

Conclusion: The rejection of the books of account was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition under section 68 for unexplained cash deposits was sustainable in full.

Analysis: The explanation relating to cash sales was rejected, but the record showed opening cash balance and cash withdrawals from bank during the relevant period which were not found to be tainted by any specific anomaly. Those amounts were treated as available sources for part of the deposits. Only the balance amount, after giving credit for the opening cash and withdrawals, remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The addition was sustained only to the extent of the unexplained balance and was deleted pro tanto; the issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition confirmed was chargeable to tax at the rate prescribed under section 115BBE.

Analysis: The enhanced rate under section 115BBE applied to the assessment year in question, and the addition sustained under section 68 attracted that special rate.

Conclusion: The applicability of section 115BBE was upheld against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with partial relief granted on the quantum of addition while the rejection of books and the special rate of tax were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Abnormal and unsupported cash sales, coupled with unexplained spikes in cash holding and deposits, justify rejection of books of account; however, where part of the deposited cash is traceable to opening balance or proved withdrawals, only the unexplained balance can be brought to tax, and the sustained addition attracts the applicable special rate of tax.

Issues: Whether the penalty levied for non-compliance with notices was sustainable where the assessee had responded to the reopening notice and showed a genuine for non-appearance, and whether the penalty orders for both assessment years called for interference.

Analysis: The assessee had filed returns in response to the reopening notice and the assessment record itself noted the response. For the later notice, the explanation was that the authorised consultant was ill and could not appear, which was treated as a genuine reason for the default. On these facts, the basis for penal action for failure to comply was not made out, and the same factual matrix applied to both years.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not justified, and both appeals were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the deemed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 should be taken at the higher value adopted for the co-owners, instead of the lower DVO-based value adopted in the assessee's case. (ii) Whether deduction under section 54EC was allowable for investment made in specified bonds within the prescribed period.

Issue (i): Whether the deemed cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 should be taken at the higher value adopted for the co-owners, instead of the lower DVO-based value adopted in the assessee's case.

Analysis: The assessee was a one-third co-owner of the same property, and the sale consideration was already determined on a common basis. The co-owners' cases had adopted the deemed cost of acquisition at Rs. 37,84,000, whereas the assessee's case was assigned a lesser value without cogent justification. In the absence of a rational basis for differential treatment, the same valuation approach was required to be applied consistently.

Conclusion: The higher deemed cost of acquisition was accepted, and the assessee's computation of long-term capital gain was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 54EC was allowable for investment made in specified bonds within the prescribed period.

Analysis: The amount received from transfer was invested in REC bonds within 47 days from the last receipt of consideration, which fell within the statutory six-month period. The investment therefore satisfied the time condition for exemption.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 54EC was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment additions were not sustained and the appeal succeeded on both issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where co-owners are taxed on the same transfer of property, a different deemed cost of acquisition cannot be adopted in one case without a cogent basis, and investment in specified bonds within the statutory period qualifies for section 54EC relief.

Issues: Whether the commission expenditure of Rs. 2 crore paid to the promoter full-time director was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: The assessee failed to establish that the commission payment was for any extraordinary effort beyond the director's normal duties as promoter and full-time working director. The payment was linked to turnover, but the director was already receiving remuneration for the same functional role in marketing and business development. No direct nexus was shown between the alleged incentive and any distinct service justifying a separate commission. The approval by the board and shareholders did not by itself establish allowability when the expenditure was found to be excessive and lacking independent business justification.

Conclusion: The deletion of the disallowance was unsustainable and the addition was rightly restored in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) whether passenger transport facility provided by an employer to employees on recovery of a nominal amount is a supply under GST; (ii) whether the exemption for non-air-conditioned contract carriage under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applies to such transport; (iii) whether input tax credit on the transport service is available; and (iv) whether canteen facility provided by an employer to employees on recovery of a nominal amount is a supply under GST and whether input tax credit is available.

Issue (i): whether passenger transport facility provided by an employer to employees on recovery of a nominal amount is a supply under GST.

Analysis: The applicant recovered consideration from employees for transportation provided by third-party service providers and then made the facility available to employees. The activity was held to be connected with the applicant's business because employee welfare services such as transport support the principal manufacturing activity and are ancillary to it. The employer's supply to employees was treated as a distinct transaction from the third-party supply to the employer. Schedule III was held to exclude only services by an employee to the employer, not services by the employer to the employee. Since consideration was recovered, the transaction fell within supply under GST.

Conclusion: The transport facility is a taxable supply under GST, and GST is chargeable on the amount recovered from employees.

Issue (ii): whether the exemption for non-air-conditioned contract carriage under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applies to such transport.

Analysis: The exemption applies only to transport of passengers by a non-air-conditioned contract carriage other than radio taxi, excluding tourism, conducted tour, charter or hire. The applicant was not the holder of a contract carriage permit, the arrangement was not shown to be a contract carriage service in the statutory sense, and the buses were hired by the applicant from a transport operator on a service arrangement. The service was therefore treated as transport of passengers under the applicable tariff entry and not as exempt contract carriage transport.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) is not available.

Issue (iii): whether input tax credit on the transport service is available.

Analysis: The transport facility was treated as a service used for employees' personal convenience and consumption. The ruling held that input tax credit on the transport invoices was not available in view of the blocking provision relied upon by the Authority, and the fact that a nominal recovery was made from employees did not alter the credit restriction.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on the transport service is not available.

Issue (iv): whether canteen facility provided by an employer to employees on recovery of a nominal amount is a supply under GST and whether input tax credit is available.

Analysis: The canteen facility was supplied by the applicant to employees for consideration, even though the amount recovered was nominal. The Authority held that the employer-employee exclusion in Schedule III applies only to services by an employee to the employer, not the reverse. The canteen arrangement was therefore treated as a taxable supply by the employer to employees. The ruling also held that input tax credit was not available on the canteen-related expenses in the circumstances considered.

Conclusion: The canteen facility is a supply under GST, GST is chargeable on the recovered amount, and input tax credit is not applicable.

Final Conclusion: The ruling substantially favours the revenue position by holding that the employee transport and canteen recoveries are taxable supplies, while denying exemption and input tax credit on the transport arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: Services or facilities provided by an employer to employees for consideration are taxable supplies when they are incidental to business and fall outside the limited employer-to-employee exclusion in Schedule III; exemption provisions must be strictly satisfied on their own terms, and input tax credit is not available where the relevant supply is treated as exempt or blocked under the Act.

Issues: (i) Whether recoveries from employees towards subsidized canteen facility are liable to GST. (ii) Whether recoveries from employees towards bus transportation facility are liable to GST. (iii) Whether notice pay recoveries from employees for not serving the full notice period are liable to GST.

Issue (i): Whether recoveries from employees towards subsidized canteen facility are liable to GST.

Analysis: The employer's provision of canteen facility through third-party vendors and recovery of a portion of the cost from employees was held to be an activity connected with and incidental to the employer's business within the meaning of the inclusive definition of business. The transaction between the employer and employees was treated as a separate supply for consideration. The exemption logic available for employee-related perquisites was confined to the concession portion only and did not extend to the recovered amount.

Conclusion: GST is payable on the recovered amount, and the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether recoveries from employees towards bus transportation facility are liable to GST.

Analysis: The transportation facility supplied by the employer to employees was held to be similarly connected with the employer's business and not a merely external, unrelated arrangement. The employer paid the vendor and recovered part of the consideration from employees, which was treated as a taxable supply from employer to employees. The concession element was not treated as taxable, but the amount actually recovered retained the character of consideration for supply.

Conclusion: GST is payable on the recovered amount, and the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether notice pay recoveries from employees for not serving the full notice period are liable to GST.

Analysis: The amount recovered as notice pay was held not to represent consideration for any service by the employer. It was treated as compensation for premature exit and not as a charge for agreeing to tolerate an act or situation. The clarification in the GST circular on notice pay recoveries was applied to conclude that such recoveries do not amount to a taxable supply.

Conclusion: GST is not payable on notice pay recoveries, and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The ruling sustains GST on employee recoveries for subsidized canteen and bus transportation facilities, while excluding notice pay recoveries from GST.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employer supplies canteen or transportation facilities to employees for a recoverable consideration, the recovered portion constitutes taxable supply in the course or furtherance of business, but notice pay recovered for premature resignation is not consideration for toleration of an act and is not taxable.

Issues: (i) Whether GST is payable on recoveries made from employees' salary towards canteen facility provided at subsidised rates. (ii) Whether GST is payable on notice pay recoveries for non-fulfilment of the notice period.

Issue (i): Whether GST is payable on recoveries made from employees' salary towards canteen facility provided at subsidised rates.

Analysis: The canteen facility was held to be supplied by the employer to employees in the course or furtherance of business, as the activity was incidental or ancillary to the principal manufacturing activity and formed part of the employment arrangement. The Authority also treated the subsidised recovery from employees as consideration for that supply. The exclusion for services by an employee to an employer in Schedule III was held not to cover the employer's outward supply of canteen services, and the exemption for perquisites was limited to the concession portion, not the amount recovered from employees.

Conclusion: GST is payable on the amount recovered from employees towards the canteen facility, and input tax credit is not available on that recovered amount.

Issue (ii): Whether GST is payable on notice pay recoveries for non-fulfilment of the notice period.

Analysis: The notice pay recovery was treated as a penalty or compensation for breach of the employment terms, not as consideration for any supply or for agreeing to tolerate an act. The Authority relied on the departmental circular clarifying that such recoveries are made to deter premature quitting and do not represent taxable consideration for a toleration service.

Conclusion: GST is not payable on notice pay recoveries for non-fulfilment of the notice period.

Final Conclusion: The ruling confirms taxability of employee recoveries towards subsidised canteen services, while excluding notice pay recoveries from GST.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recovered from employees are taxable where they represent consideration for an employer's outward supply in the course or furtherance of business, but recoveries made as compensation or penalty for breach of employment terms do not amount to consideration for a taxable supply.

Issues: (i) Whether printing and supply of books, textbooks, large-print books, online admission booklets, open-sale publications and special-edition books where the content is owned by the applicant or by the customer constitutes supply of goods or supply of services, and the tax consequence thereof; (ii) whether printing activity where the content is supplied by the recipient is a job work service or a printing service under GST.

Issue (i): Whether printing and supply of books, textbooks, large-print books, online admission booklets, open-sale publications and special-edition books where the content is owned by the applicant or by the customer constitutes supply of goods or supply of services, and the tax consequence thereof.

Analysis: The ruling applied the CBIC clarification on printing contracts and the scheme of classification of goods and services. Where the applicant owns the content and supplies printed books, the activity is treated as supply of goods falling under HSN 4901 and, in the case of printed books, is exempt under the relevant exemption notification. Where the content is not owned by the applicant and is supplied by the customer, the dominant supply is printing, which is classifiable as a service under SAC 9989 and taxable at 18%.

Conclusion: The supply is goods and exempt when the applicant owns the content, but it is a taxable service when the content is supplied by the customer.

Issue (ii): Whether printing activity where the content is supplied by the recipient is a job work service or a printing service under GST.

Analysis: Job work requires treatment or process on goods belonging to another registered person and presupposes that the goods, including relevant inputs, belong to the recipient. On the facts, the applicant did not establish that the recipient supplied the physical inputs necessary to characterise the activity as job work. The activity was therefore treated as printing service under the classification for publishing, printing and reproduction services.

Conclusion: The activity is not job work on the facts found and is taxable as printing service under SAC 9989.

Final Conclusion: The ruling draws a distinction between printed books owned by the applicant, which are treated as exempt goods, and printing undertaken on customer-supplied content, which is treated as a taxable service.

Ratio Decidendi: In GST, the tax treatment of printed material depends on whether the applicant owns the content and supplies finished printed books as goods, or merely performs printing on content supplied by the recipient, in which case the principal supply is printing service.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction of a nominal amount from employees' salary towards canteen facility amounts to supply of service and is taxable under GST, and whether input tax credit on canteen services is available; (ii) Whether deduction of a nominal amount from employees' salary towards non-air-conditioned bus transportation facility amounts to supply of service and is taxable under GST, and whether input tax credit on transport services is available; (iii) Whether recovery of salary in lieu of notice pay from employees who do not serve the full notice period is liable to GST.

Issue (i): Whether deduction of a nominal amount from employees' salary towards canteen facility amounts to supply of service and is taxable under GST, and whether input tax credit on canteen services is available.

Analysis: The canteen facility was provided through third-party service providers and the employees paid a subsidised portion through salary deduction, while the balance was borne by the employer. The arrangement was treated as arising in the course of business and not as a mere free perquisite, because only the concession element could be linked to employment benefits. The Authority also held that the employer was supplying the canteen facility to employees for consideration, and that the blocked credit restriction under section 17(5)(b) was not displaced merely because canteen maintenance was statutorily required; however, the credit was denied on the separate reasoning that the canteen service was taxed at the concessional rate prescribed without input tax credit under the relevant rate notification.

Conclusion: The nominal recovery for canteen facility is taxable as a supply of service, GST is payable on the recovered amount, and input tax credit on the canteen service is not available to the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction of a nominal amount from employees' salary towards non-air-conditioned bus transportation facility amounts to supply of service and is taxable under GST, and whether input tax credit on transport services is available.

Analysis: The transport facility was arranged through third-party bus operators and was available only to employees under the employment arrangement, with a subsidised amount recovered from salaries and the balance borne by the employer. The Authority held that this arrangement constituted a taxable supply by the employer to employees for consideration and within the scope of business, and that the recovery did not fall outside GST merely because the transport was provided as a workplace benefit. For credit, the Authority held that input tax credit was not available, relying on the nature of the transportation service and the applicable credit restrictions and rate structure governing passenger transport by non-air-conditioned contract carriage.

Conclusion: The nominal recovery for transportation facility is taxable as a supply of service, GST is payable on the recovered amount, and input tax credit on the transport service is not available to the applicant.

Issue (iii): Whether recovery of salary in lieu of notice pay from employees who do not serve the full notice period is liable to GST.

Analysis: The notice pay recovery was treated as a contractual deterrent or penalty arising from premature resignation, not as consideration for any independent service of tolerating an act or situation. The Authority relied on the CBIC clarification that such recoveries are not made in exchange for any service to the employee and therefore do not constitute taxable consideration under the GST law.

Conclusion: Recovery of notice pay from employees who fail to serve the agreed notice period is not liable to GST.

Final Conclusion: The ruling sustains taxability of the employer's recoveries for canteen and transport facilities, denies input tax credit on those inward supplies, and exempts notice pay recoveries from GST.

Ratio Decidendi: A recovery from employees is taxable where the employer supplies a facility to employees for consideration in the course of business, but notice pay recovered as a contractual deterrent for premature resignation is not consideration for a taxable service.

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of a nominal amount from employees for canteen facility constitutes a supply of service and whether GST is payable on such recovery; (ii) whether input tax credit on GST charged by the canteen service provider is available and, if so, whether it is restricted to the cost borne by the applicant; (iii) whether salary recovered in lieu of notice period from employees is taxable under GST.

Issue (i): Whether recovery of a nominal amount from employees for canteen facility constitutes a supply of service and whether GST is payable on such recovery.

Analysis: The canteen arrangement was held to be part of the applicant's business because it was incidental and ancillary to manufacturing activity and was supplied to employees for consideration through salary deduction. The employer recovered a part of the canteen cost from employees, while the balance was borne by the employer, and the employer was treated as the supplier of the service to employees. The employee-side recovery was treated as consideration for a taxable supply and the perquisite exclusion was confined to the employer-borne portion.

Conclusion: The recovery from employees for canteen facility is a supply of service and GST is payable on the amount deducted from employees' salaries.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit on GST charged by the canteen service provider is available and, if so, whether it is restricted to the cost borne by the applicant.

Analysis: Although canteen facility was obligatory under the factory law, the authority held that the canteen contractor supplied restaurant service taxed at the concessional rate without ITC, and that the applicant could not claim ITC merely because it engaged a contractor instead of running the canteen itself. The blocking provision was considered inapplicable to the extent of the statutory obligation, but the applicable rate notification and its conditions prevented availment of ITC in the present arrangement.

Conclusion: ITC on GST charged by the canteen service provider is not available to the applicant.

Issue (iii): Whether salary recovered in lieu of notice period from employees is taxable under GST.

Analysis: The recovery of notice pay was treated as a contractual recovery made to deter premature resignation and not as consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act or situation. The amount did not represent a taxable supply because the employee received nothing in return for the recovery and the circular clarification was applied to such recoveries.

Conclusion: Notice pay recovery is not taxable under GST.

Final Conclusion: The ruling treats employee canteen recoveries as taxable supplies, denies ITC on the canteen tax charged by the service provider, and holds notice pay recovery to be outside GST.

Ratio Decidendi: A recovery from employees for canteen is taxable where the employer supplies the service for consideration in the course of business, but notice pay recovered under an employment contract is not consideration for a taxable supply; ITC depends on the applicable statutory and notification-based restrictions governing the inward supply.

Issues: Whether the proposed "Pooja Oil" is classifiable as an inedible mixture of vegetable oils under Chapter Heading 1518 and, if so, the applicable GST rate.

Analysis: The product was found to be a mixture of different vegetable oils and not a single fixed vegetable oil. It was also not shown to be chemically modified in the manner required for Heading 1516. Heading 1517 was held inapplicable because the goods were marketed and labelled as not for human consumption and were therefore not an edible mixture. On the other hand, Heading 1518 covers inedible mixtures or preparations of vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of different fats or oils of the chapter, not elsewhere specified or included. Applying this classification, the product was placed under Chapter Heading 1518 of the Customs Tariff as applicable to GST. Under Entry No. 96 of Schedule I of Notification No. 9/2025-Central Tax (Rate), goods falling under Chapter 1518 attract 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST.

Conclusion: The proposed "Pooja Oil" is classifiable under Chapter Heading 1518 and is chargeable to GST at 5% in total, being 2.5% CGST and 2.5% SGST.

Final Conclusion: The advance ruling answered the classification question against the applicant's lower-rate claim and fixed the product's tax incidence under the later rate notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A mixture of vegetable oils marketed and labelled as not for human consumption, and not chemically modified, is classifiable as an inedible mixture under Chapter Heading 1518, attracting the rate prescribed for that heading in the applicable GST notification.

Issues: (i) Whether the adverse remarks concerning delay in filing extension and liquidation applications, and the belated submission of hard copies, called for interference; (ii) Whether the observations that the Resolution Professional was lax in filing progress reports and was canvassing for a particular resolution plan could stand.

Issue (i): Whether the adverse remarks concerning delay in filing extension and liquidation applications, and the belated submission of hard copies, called for interference.

Analysis: The extension applications were moved with delay, and the record showed that in some instances the applications were received after the extended period had already expired. The liquidation-related application was also filed belatedly. Those remarks were supported by the record and did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The remarks on delay and belated filing were upheld and remained adverse to the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the observations that the Resolution Professional was lax in filing progress reports and was canvassing for a particular resolution plan could stand.

Analysis: The record did not show any specific duty or direction requiring periodic progress reports in the manner assumed by the Adjudicating Authority, and the criticism on that score was not supported by the established facts. The remarks on canvassing were also unsustainable because the Resolution Professional acted on the CoC's directions and merely facilitated the process, including by explaining the applicable regulatory framework. Such conduct could not be treated as taking sides in the resolution process.

Conclusion: The remarks on progress reports and canvassing were directed not to be read adversely against the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the impugned observations partly retained and partly neutralised.

Ratio Decidendi: Adverse remarks against a resolution professional must be grounded in the record, and facilitating the CIRP in accordance with CoC directions does not amount to impermissible canvassing.

Issues: (i) Whether the services of bio-mining of waste and site remediation fall under SAC 9994 and attract GST at 18%. (ii) Whether such services, when provided to Ariyalur Municipality, are exempt under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT dated 28.06.2017.

Issue (i): Whether the services of bio-mining of waste and site remediation fall under SAC 9994 and attract GST at 18%.

Analysis: The service involved reclamation of an existing dump yard by excavation, screening, shredding, processing and scientific disposal of legacy waste. The activity was not confined to mere remediation of land, but included waste treatment and disposal. On that basis, the service was held to fall broadly under Heading 9994, including waste treatment and disposal services and site remediation services. The classification under the scheme of services under GST led to the applicable rate under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Conclusion: The service falls under SAC 9994 and attracts GST at 18%.

Issue (ii): Whether such services, when provided to Ariyalur Municipality, are exempt under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The service was held to be a pure service, with no supply of goods involved, rendered to a municipality which qualifies as a local authority under Section 2(69) of the CGST Act, 2017. The activity was also found to relate to solid waste management, a municipal function under Article 243W of the Constitution of India, and to fit within the duties contemplated under Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The conditions for the exemption entry were therefore satisfied.

Conclusion: The service rendered to Ariyalur Municipality is exempt under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT dated 28.06.2017.

Final Conclusion: The ruling classifies the activity under Heading 9994, but grants exemption for the services supplied to the municipality under the relevant notification. The third question was not answered as outside the scope of advance ruling for the applicant's supply.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure service relating to municipal solid waste management, supplied to a local authority and connected with a function entrusted to a municipality, qualifies for exemption under the specified notification even though the underlying activity is classifiable under Heading 9994.

Outcome: The advance ruling application was permitted to be withdrawn at the applicant's request and was disposed of without adjudication on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether the bio compostable carry bags manufactured from compostable polymer materials are classifiable under Chapter 39, heading 3923, sub heading 39232990; (ii) Whether the supply of such biodegradable/compostable carry bags is covered by Entry No. 319 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025 Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 09 2025, attracting GST @ 5%.

Issue (i): Whether the bio compostable carry bags are classifiable under Chapter 39, heading 3923, sub heading 39232990.

Analysis: The goods are articles for the conveyance or packing of goods made of polymer materials including PBAT and PLA. Classification under the Harmonised System depends on the physical character and composition of the goods as described in the relevant chapter and headings. The Authority does not undertake scientific or technical determinations of biodegradability for classification purposes; classification is based on the nature of the material and the relevant tariff headings.

Conclusion: The bio compostable carry bags are classifiable under Chapter 39, heading 3923, sub heading 39232990.

Issue (ii): Whether the supply of such biodegradable/compostable carry bags is covered by Entry No. 319 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025 Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 09 2025, attracting GST @ 5%.

Analysis: Entry No. 319 of Schedule I grants a concessional rate of 5% for "paper sacks/bags and bio degradable bags" under Chapters 39 and 48. The concessional rate is conditional on the goods being biodegradable as understood in the context of the notification. Determination of actual biodegradability or compostability is a scientific and technical matter within the competence of environmental authorities and not within the jurisdiction of this Authority under Section 97(2) of the CGST Act. Therefore, the applicability of Entry No. 319 depends on whether the specific goods supplied are biodegradable.

Conclusion: If the bags supplied are biodegradable, Entry No. 319 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025 Central Tax (Rate) dated 17 09 2025 applies and GST shall be payable at 5% (2.5% CGST + 2.5% SGST). If the bags are not biodegradable, the concessional rate does not apply and the general rate applicable to plastic articles under Chapter 39 shall apply.

Final Conclusion: The advance ruling confirms classification of the goods under Chapter 39 heading 3923 sub heading 39232990 and rules that the concessional 5% rate under Entry No. 319 is available only where the supplied bags are biodegradable; the Authority cannot itself adjudicate the scientific question of biodegradability.

Ratio Decidendi: A concessional rate notification granted for "bio degradable bags" under the GST rate schedule applies only where the goods supplied are demonstrably biodegradable, and an advance ruling authority lacks jurisdiction to make independent scientific determinations of biodegradability; classification is based on the goods' tariff description while applicability of the concessional entry is conditional on biodegradability.

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging issuance of a show cause notice for cancellation of GST registration is maintainable.

Analysis: The petition raises a challenge to a show cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration. The Court examined settled precedent establishing that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not available to pre-empt or quash the issuance of a show cause notice, and that such challenges are not maintainable where the remedy is to be sought in the statutory proceedings. The judgment notes that prior communications and an investigation by DGGI preceded the notice and that the petitioner had sought interim protection against coercive measures; nonetheless the writ was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability of a writ against a show cause notice, following binding authority on the point.

Conclusion: Writ petition dismissed; decision adverse to the assessee (in favour of the revenue).

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition seeking to quash or challenge the issuance of a show cause notice relating to cancellation of GST registration is not maintainable; such matters must ordinarily be contested within the statutory adjudicatory process rather than by pre-emptive writ relief.

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) validly cancelled the Trust's registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007, and whether the cancellation was sustainable in view of subsequent fresh assessment orders and the requirement of independent application of mind.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme of Sections 11, 12, 12A and 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and relevant judicial precedents, including decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts, which construe Section 12AA(3) as not conferring power to cancel registration with retrospective effect absent express legislative intent or allegation of fraud. The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner's satisfaction was founded on findings recorded in original assessment orders of 2016 which were set aside by this Tribunal and remitted for de novo assessment. On remand the Assessing Officer examined the seized electronic evidence and in the fresh assessment orders of 31.03.2023 accepted the assessee's reconciliations and deleted additions relating to inflated receipts; no fresh independent findings substantiating capitation fee or statutory violation under Section 13(1)(c) were made. The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner's order was derivative of the nullified 2016 assessments and lacked independent application of mind; further, retrospective cancellation would unsettle past completed transactions and deprive the assessee of long standing status without express statutory authority.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2007 is unsustainable. The impugned order dated 19.01.2021 cancelling the Trust's registration is quashed and set aside, and the registration granted under Section 12A vide order dated 28.07.2006 is restored with consequential benefits. The assessee's appeal is allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating recorded sales of Rs.55,11,843/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 is sustainable; and (ii) Whether the estimation of profit by the learned CIT(A) at 4.5% (leading to a 2.73% addition) is sustainable when the sales have been recorded in books and profit thereon offered to tax.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in treating recorded sales as unexplained cash credits under section 68.

Analysis: The impugned amount forms part of the turnover and is recorded in the books of account, credited to trading results, with GST discharged and receipts routed through banking channels. The books of account were not rejected under section 145(3). Section 68 applies where a sum is found credited in the books and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its nature and source. Where the nature and source are disclosed as business receipts forming part of turnover and profit has been offered to tax, treating gross sales as unexplained credits would amount to taxing the entire turnover.

Conclusion: The addition treating the recorded sales as unexplained cash credits under section 68 is not sustainable and is deleted. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the learned CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 4.5% (resulting in a 2.73% addition) is sustainable despite acceptance of the sales as part of turnover and profit already declared thereon.

Analysis: Estimation of additional profit is permissible where books are rejected or trading results are shown to be unreliable or income suppression is demonstrated. There is no finding that the overall gross profit declared is abnormal, nor were the books rejected. The sales were accepted as part of turnover and profit on those sales has been offered to tax, so there is no legal basis to estimate further profit on the same sales absent rejection of books or demonstration of suppression.

Conclusion: The estimation sustained by the learned CIT(A) is not justified and the addition of 2.73% is deleted. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the profit element embedded in undisclosed 'on-money' receipts should be estimated and, if so, at what rate for taxation; (ii) Whether the estimated unaccounted profit on 'on-money' receipts is taxable in the year of receipt of cash or in the year of execution/registration of the sale deed (i.e., year of recognition of revenue).

Issue (i): Whether the profit element embedded in undisclosed 'on-money' receipts should be estimated and at what percentage rate it should be taxed in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Authorities establish that only the profit element embedded in undisclosed receipts is taxable and not the entire receipt. The rate of profit is a matter of estimation depending on project nature, location, cost structure, available seized material and past audited margins. The seized material and past audited accounts in the group indicated average past profit margins below 10%. A coordinate bench decision in identical group cases applied a 10% rate after examining comparable data and facts. The Tribunal applied factual criteria for selecting comparable projects and avoided arbitrary benchmarks, emphasizing estimation grounded in seized material and past records.

Conclusion: Profit element on 'on-money' receipts is to be estimated and taxed at the rate of 10% in the present facts. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimated unaccounted profit on 'on-money' receipts is taxable in the year of receipt of cash or in the year of execution/registration of the sale deed.

Analysis: Accounting and judicial authorities distinguish contractors from contractees for applicability of ICDS-III; ICDS-III does not apply to a contractee. Precedent supports recognition of sale proceeds for taxation upon transfer of significant risks and rewards, typically on execution/registration of the sale deed, where the assessee consistently follows project-completion/accrual recognition. Decisions cited establish that unaccounted receipts converted into profit should be taxed in the year of sale deed execution where revenue recognition method is consistently applied.

Conclusion: The estimated unaccounted profit on 'on-money' receipts is taxable in the year in which the sale deed is executed (year of recognition of revenue). This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed to the extent that the assessing officer is directed to estimate and tax the profit element on undisclosed 'on-money' receipts at 10%, and the revenue appeals are dismissed; the estimated profit is to be brought to tax in the year of execution/registration of the sale deed.

Ratio Decidendi: Only the profit element embedded in undisclosed 'on-money' receipts is taxable and the appropriate profit rate must be estimated based on seized material, past audited margins and project-specific facts; where the assessee consistently recognises revenue on execution/registration of sale deeds, the estimated profit is taxable in the year of execution of the sale deed.