Issues: Whether the imported "Brass rods" (as described) are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 7407.21.20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The product as imported is a solid rod of alloy CW617N/CuZn40Pb2 with uniform circular cross-section and produced by extrusion; its chemical composition shows copper as the predominant metal (57-59%) and zinc as the predominant element among remaining constituents, with nickel and tin below prescribed limits. Classification is governed by the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI), Section Notes to Section XV (including notes on alloys and definition of bars and rods) and Sub-heading Notes to Chapter 74. GRI 1 directs classification according to the terms of the headings and applicable Section/Chapter Notes; GRI 6 applies for sub-headings. The Section and Chapter Notes define "base metals", prescribe that an alloy is classified according to the metal which predominates by weight, and define "bars and rods" as rolled, extruded, drawn or forged products with uniform solid cross-section. The HSN explanatory notes to Chapter 74 and Heading 7407 similarly describe bars and rods and the circumstances under which cast or sintered products are included. On the combined application of these rules and the product's technical specifications and composition in its as-imported condition, the goods fall within Chapter 74 (copper and articles thereof), Heading 7407 (copper bars, rods and profiles) and the sub-heading for copper-zinc base alloys (brass).

Conclusion: The Brass rods are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 7407.21.20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in favour of the applicant (assessee).

Issues: Whether PS mouldings, PS wall panels, PS L profiles, PS wall panel sheets, PVC panel foam, PVC sheet UV, PVC panel, PVC vinyl sheet, PVC panel WPC mould, PVC wall panel and PU wall panel are classifiable under Heading 3921 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Heading 3925 as builders' ware of plastics.

Analysis: Classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is governed by the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff and the terms of the relevant headings and chapter notes. Heading 3921 covers plates, sheets, film, foil and strip of plastics, including cellular products and those reinforced, laminated, supported or similarly combined with other materials, while Chapter Note 10 permits products that are printed, embossed, coloured, merely curved or corrugated, and cut into rectangles or squares, so long as they are not further worked. Heading 3925 is a residual heading for builders' ware and applies only to the articles specifically listed in Chapter Note 11. The goods on record were found to retain the essential character of plastic plates or sheets, including where supplied with in-line extrusion profiles or interlocking edges, and the profiled edges did not amount to further working of the kind that would remove them from Heading 3921. The goods were also found not to be structural elements or ornamental architectural features within Chapter Note 11, since they function as decorative wall coverings rather than load-bearing or integrated construction components.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Heading 3921, with the relevant subheadings depending on composition, and not under Heading 3925.

Ratio Decidendi: Plastic sheets or panels that retain their essential character as plates or sheets, even if surface-worked or provided with in-line profiled edges for installation, remain classifiable under Heading 3921 unless they are further worked into a distinct builders' ware article specifically covered by Chapter Note 11.

Issues: Whether the goods described as PS moulding/PS wall panel/PS L profile/PS wall panel sheet/PVC panel foam/PVC sheet UV/PVC panel/PVC vinyl sheet/PVC panel WPC mould/PVC wall panel/PU wall panel are classifiable under Heading 3921 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 rather than under Heading 3925.

Analysis: The classification is to be determined by applying the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff (GRI), read with the Chapter and Section Notes and Explanatory Notes to Chapter 39. Note 10 to Chapter 39 defines "plates, sheets, film, foil and strip" as blocks of regular geometric shape, uncut or cut into rectangles (including squares) and not further worked, while expressly permitting surface-working such as polishing, embossing, colouring or corrugation; heading 3921 covers cellular or reinforced/laminated sheets of plastics. Note 11 to Chapter 39 and the Explanatory Notes to heading 3925 list specific builders' ware categories (including structural elements and certain ornamental architectural features) and operate as an exhaustive limitation, such that heading 3925 applies only to the enumerated articles and is subordinate to a more specific heading. On the facts before the Authority, a subset of the products are plain rectangular sheets with permissible surface-working and cellular/reinforced structure; other items with profiled or interlocking edges are produced by in-line extrusion dies and retain rectangular sheet character without post-formation "further working" of the type excluded by Note 10. The panels are lightweight, removable decorative wall coverings lacking load-bearing structural function. Applying GRI 1 and GRI 3(a), heading 3921 provides the more specific description for these goods as plates/sheets of plastics (including cellular or reinforced variants) and therefore must be preferred over the residual heading 3925.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Heading 3921 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (subheadings 39211100, 39211200 and 39211390 as per composition), and not under Heading 3925; decision is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Advance Ruling application is allowed and the impugned goods shall be treated as plates/sheets of plastics under Heading 3921, subject to field verification of composition and structure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods presented as sheets or plates of plastics retain the essential rectangular sheet character and any profiling or interlocking is formed in-line during extrusion (not "further working"), the specific description in Heading 3921 (including cellular or reinforced sheets) prevails over the residual builders' ware Heading 3925 under GRI 1 and GRI 3(a), with Chapter Notes 10 and 11 determining the scope of respective headings.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order dated 28.10.2023 and its summary in Form DRC-07 dated 26.12.2024 are invalid for want of signature and DIN/Document Identification Number; (ii) Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite delay and absence of explanation (laches).

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a conventional handwritten signature or an explicitly printed DIN on the uploaded assessment order/summary renders the orders invalid.

Analysis: Electronic issuance of show-cause notices and summary assessment orders generates authentication markers when digitally signed; such authentication produces a portal-generated reference (RFN) or equivalent identification. Demonstrations and record evidence show that the portal assigns a Reference Number upon affixture of the digital signature and that formats of printed signatures vary; procedural changes in the portal may affect printed DIN placement while still producing a unique portal-assigned reference.

Conclusion: The challenge to validity based solely on absence of a conventional signature or an explicitly printed DIN is rejected. Presence of the portal-generated Reference Number/RFN establishes digital authentication and suffices for validity.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition can be entertained notwithstanding the delay in filing and no explanation for delay.

Analysis: The assessment order was passed and uploaded in October 2023 and the summary was uploaded in December 2024; no explanation for delay in approaching the court has been provided. Access to the portal for viewing orders existed notwithstanding cancellation of registration, and unexplained delay amounts to laches affecting discretionary relief by writ.

Conclusion: The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches; the substantive grounds raised are without merit.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the assessment order and its summary is dismissed; no relief is granted to the petitioner and pending applications stand closed.

Ratio Decidendi: A portal-generated Reference Number/RFN produced upon digital affixture of authentication suffices to validate electronically issued GST orders, and unexplained delay/laches bars discretionary writ relief against such validated tax orders.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the assessment order can be entertained despite the inordinate delay and laches; (ii) Whether the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity of hearing because the notices and assessment order were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner could not access them due to cancellation of registration.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of delay and laches in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The assessment order and antecedent notices were dated and uploaded on the statutory portal; an earlier direction required statutory remedies to be invoked within a specified period. The petitioner offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay of over a year in filing the present petition and did not pursue remedies after initiation of revocation proceedings. Prior departmental proceedings (inspection and audit) put the petitioner on notice of assessment action. Reliance is placed on the principle that inability to access portal or alleged non-receipt does not automatically justify condonation of long delay where statutory electronic service is prescribed.

Conclusion: The writ petition is barred by delay and laches and is not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether non-access to the GST portal due to cancellation of registration deprived the petitioner of a proper opportunity of hearing and justification to entertain the writ petition.

Analysis: The assessment relates to periods during which the petitioner was a registered person and there was no absolute restriction on accessing the portal for those records. Notices including pre-show cause and show cause forms were uploaded and served in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioner did not demonstrate that inability to access the portal prevented presentation of objections within the statutory time or that there was a substantive denial of opportunity warranting interference.

Conclusion: The contention of denial of opportunity due to portal access is rejected; electronic service through the portal is effective for the purposes of limitation and procedure in the circumstances of this case.

Final Conclusion: The petition is dismissed on grounds of inordinate delay and failure to establish denial of statutory opportunity; no interference with the assessment order is warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where electronic service via the statutory GST portal is prescribed, unexplained long delay and failure to avail statutory remedies do not justify condoning delay or quashing assessment; inability to access the portal due to cancellation of registration does not automatically vitiate service or preclude limitation where proceedings relate to periods of registration.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the petitioner's entire R&D unit as a going concern amounts to a taxable supply of goods or services under the GST law or is not chargeable as a sale of goods; (ii) Whether the unutilised input tax credit (ITC) in the transferor unit in Andhra Pradesh can be transferred to the transferee unit in Karnataka under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act and related provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the entire R&D unit as a going concern is a taxable supply of goods or services under the CGST/APGST Acts.

Analysis: The Court compared the GST definitions of "supply" in Section 7 and Schedule I with precedents under the Sales Tax and VAT regimes (including Coromandel Fertilizers and Paradise Food Court), which held that sale of an entire business as a going concern is not a sale "in the course of business" and thus not taxable as sale of individual goods. The Court observed that Notification No.12/2017 treats transfer of a going concern as supply of services and exempts it, and left open the larger question whether such transfers could be characterised as services under the GST charging provisions while applying the notification for relief.

Conclusion: The transfer of the entire R&D unit as a going concern is not to be treated as a taxable supply of individual goods under the GST charging provisions; the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemption by Notification No.12/2017.

Issue (ii): Whether unutilised input tax credit in the transferor's Andhra Pradesh ledger can be transferred to the transferee in Karnataka under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act.

Analysis: The Court construed Section 18(3) to allow transfer of unutilised ITC on transfer/ sale/ merger/ amalgamation etc., and rejected a narrow interpretation that "change in constitution" requires only internal restructuring of the same registered person. The Court held that where registrations in different States render units "distinct persons" under Section 25, the authorities cannot treat intra-entity transfers as non-transfers; however, interstate transfer of ITC between State GST ledgers (APGST to KGST) raises allocation issues affecting States and requires determination by the relevant State/Central authorities under their statutes and rules.

Conclusion: Section 18(3) permits transfer of unutilised ITC on transfer of a business; the appellate authority's conclusion denying such transfer is set aside. Questions about admissibility of credit transfer between APGST and KGST ledgers are to be decided by the competent authorities under those Acts and not finally determined by this Court.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling dated 10.11.2020 is set aside; the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.12/2017 in respect of the going-concern transfer and Section 18(3) must be read to permit transfer of unutilised ITC on transfer of business, while interstate ledger adjustments are to be considered by the appropriate tax authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer of an entire business as a going concern is not chargeable as a sale of goods under the GST charging provisions and, where a business is transferred, Section 18(3) of the CGST Act provides for transfer of unutilised input tax credit to the transferee; interstate ledger allocation issues require administrative determination by the competent authorities.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to threshold exemption after excluding diesel and related expenses from the gross receipts for diesel generator-set rental services.

Analysis: The appellate order had not addressed the specifically raised claim under Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The profit and loss account and balance sheet showed expenditure on diesel and other inputs incurred while providing the services. Such expenditure did not form part of the value of taxable services; upon its exclusion, the value of services was below the prescribed exemption threshold.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the threshold exemption, and the service-tax demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order was barred by limitation under the combined operation of Sections 144C and 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Sections 144C and 153 were applied harmoniously as interdependent provisions governing the completion of a transfer-pricing assessment. The non obstante clause in Section 144C(13) was construed as requiring prompt implementation of DRP directions and not as excluding the outer statutory limitation under Section 153. The binding precedent applied required the final assessment, rather than merely the draft assessment, to be completed within the prescribed statutory period. The Revenue's request to defer adjudication pending consideration of the issue by the Supreme Court was rejected.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was time-barred and void; it was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for appointment as Member (Accountant), ITAT, by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was vitiated by reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the participation of an officer who had faced contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner in the same service dispute.

Analysis: The uncontroverted record showed a sustained course of departmental actions obstructing the petitioner's candidature, including disciplinary action that was subsequently dropped and compulsory retirement that had earlier been set aside. The concerned officer's participation in the Selection Committee, despite having been proceeded against in contempt at the petitioner's instance concerning the continuing appointment dispute, created a genuine and reasonable apprehension regarding impartiality. Actual bias or proof of prejudice was unnecessary; the appearance or likelihood of bias in a collective selection process was sufficient to render the decision-making process vulnerable under the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The Selection Committee's minutes dated 1 September 2024, insofar as they rejected the petitioner's candidature, were set aside. A fresh Selection Committee meeting must consider the candidature with the concerned officer excluded, and the petitioner must be informed of its outcome.

Issues: Whether a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in a central-charge case, otherwise required to be issued through the faceless mechanism, was valid; and whether the objection was barred by the time restriction governing challenges to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in a central-charge case, otherwise required to be issued through the faceless mechanism, was valid.

Analysis: The statutory faceless reassessment framework required issuance of a notice for reassessment through automated allocation and in a faceless manner. The exclusion applicable to central charges concerned passing of assessment orders and did not exempt issuance of reassessment notices from the prescribed faceless process. The jurisdictional High Court's binding interpretation established that, after the amended regime came into force, a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer could not issue such notice even in cases assigned to central charges.

Conclusion: The notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was invalid, and the reassessment founded on that notice lacked valid jurisdiction. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection was barred by the time restriction governing challenges to an Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory time restriction concerns an objection to the Assessing Officer's territorial or otherwise vested jurisdiction. The assessee challenged the inherent authority of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to issue the reassessment notice under the mandatory faceless regime, rather than the officer's territorial jurisdiction or assignment over the assessee's case. The restriction therefore did not apply.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was maintainable and was not barred by the statutory time restriction. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were rendered unsustainable because their initiation did not comply with the mandatory faceless reassessment mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory faceless reassessment scheme mandates automated and faceless issuance of a reassessment notice, a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void for inherent lack of jurisdiction; the limitation on objections to territorial jurisdiction does not cure that defect.

Issues: Whether a notice for reassessment issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid where the income that could be regarded as having escaped assessment was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: Section 149 permits issuance of a notice beyond three years only where the Assessing Officer possesses material revealing escaped income, represented in the prescribed forms, of at least Rs. 50 lakh. The material furnished in response to the notice under Section 148A(b), including the housing-finance loan disbursement documents and builder receipts, established that Rs. 1.08 crore of the property consideration was funded through the housing loan. The order under Section 148A(d) disregarded material evidence of a substantial loan disbursement. Subsequent assessment scrutiny was confined to loans from relatives aggregating Rs. 12.35 lakh, and did not question the housing loan. The balance source requiring examination was consequently below the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakh.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice issued after expiry of three years was barred by limitation and was quashed; the consequential reassessment order was also quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance relating to exempt income could be computed under Rule 8D and added to book profit; (ii) Whether brand equity fees paid under a brand-use agreement were allowable as revenue expenditure; (iii) Whether discounts on unredeemed gift cards and gift vouchers were deductible in the year of their sale; and (iv) Whether interest charged under section 234C could be set off against taxable interest received under section 244A.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance relating to exempt income could be computed under Rule 8D and added to book profit.

Analysis: On materially identical facts in earlier years, the voluntary disallowance had been accepted. The assessing authority had not recorded the statutory satisfaction, having regard to the accounts, as to the incorrectness of that disallowance before invoking Rule 8D. Further, disallowance under section 14A was not includible in computation of book profit under section 115JB.

Conclusion: The relief restricting the disallowance to the voluntary disallowance and excluding it from book profit was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether brand equity fees paid under a brand-use agreement were allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The payment was made pursuant to an existing brand agreement permitting use of the business name, marks and marketing indicia. The payment was comparable to brand equity fees allowed as business expenditure in similar group-company arrangements, and no distinguishing fact or law was shown.

Conclusion: Brand equity fees were allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37(1), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether discounts on unredeemed gift cards and gift vouchers were deductible in the year of their sale.

Analysis: The discount crystallised upon sale of the gift cards and vouchers and was not contingent upon later redemption. Where an instrument remained unused after expiry, its value was credited and offered to tax. Revenue expenditure incurred in the relevant year is ordinarily allowable in that year, and the matching concept could not defer the deduction in these circumstances.

Conclusion: Discounts attributable to unredeemed gift cards and gift vouchers were deductible in the year of sale, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest charged under section 234C could be set off against taxable interest received under section 244A.

Analysis: Interest received from the Department under section 244A had been offered to tax as income from other sources. The jurisdictional precedent governing netting of such interest was applicable.

Conclusion: The assessing authority was directed to grant relief by taxing only the net interest, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disallowance relating to exempt income and the brand equity fee relief were sustained, while the assessee obtained deduction for gift-card and voucher discounts and netting of interest; book-profit computation concerning loyalty-program items was directed to be given effect in accordance with the appellate directions.

Issues: Whether the assessee's third-year claim for deduction in respect of employment of new employees could be disallowed solely because there was no increase in employee strength during the relevant previous year.

Analysis: The deduction is available at 30% of additional employee cost for three assessment years, including the assessment year relevant to the year in which eligible employment is provided, subject to the prescribed conditions. The claim had been allowed for the two preceding assessment years and the third-year claim was reduced to account for employees who had left employment. The disallowance was based only on the absence of an increase in employee number compared with March 2022, without examining the three-year deduction period, the supporting report, or the earlier appellate finding. The factual eligibility of the claim nevertheless required verification.

Conclusion: The disallowance was set aside and the claim was remitted to the Assessing Officer for limited verification under Section 80JJAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the deduction shall be allowed if found eligible.

Issues: Whether an appeal filed before a Tribunal Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction is maintainable.

Analysis: The appellant's registered office fell within the jurisdiction of the Cuttack Bench, whereas the appeal was filed before the Hyderabad Bench. No statutory provision permitted transfer of the appeal by the Bench or Registry. The delay of 315 days was also unsupported by sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The appeal filed before the Hyderabad Bench was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether non-adjudication of the residential-status and consequential Singapore-income grounds, and inconsistency in the foreign-tax-credit directions, constituted mistakes apparent from the record warranting rectification; (ii) Whether foreign tax credit could be denied solely because Form No. 67 was not filed by the due date under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether non-adjudication of the residential-status and consequential Singapore-income grounds, and inconsistency in the foreign-tax-credit directions, constituted mistakes apparent from the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: The limited rectification power under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends to patent omissions and manifest inconsistencies, but not to a merits review or re-appreciation of evidence. The original order recorded the material concerning residential status under section 6(6) and the consequential Singapore house-property and salary income, yet did not return findings on those grounds. It also contained observations supporting foreign tax credit while remanding that claim without a consistent finding. Determination of residential status is foundational to the chargeability of the foreign income under section 5(1) and to quantification of the credit.

Conclusion: The omissions and inconsistency were mistakes apparent from the record; the specified issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether foreign tax credit could be denied solely because Form No. 67 was not filed by the due date under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Form No. 67 had been filed with the return under section 139(4) before processing. The filing requirement was treated as directory rather than mandatory, and the later amendment to Rule 128(9) was regarded as clarificatory. Although the legal principle was settled, the eligible quantum remained dependent on residential status and income chargeable in India.

Conclusion: Foreign tax credit cannot be denied solely for delayed filing of Form No. 67; the Assessing Officer must re-examine and grant eligible credit after determining residential status and taxable income. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Rectification was warranted to cure the unaddressed grounds and reconcile the foreign-tax-credit directions, with a limited fresh determination on the identified matters.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration should be disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal remedy, with protection against limitation and payment of costs.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, directing that limitation would not come in the way, and requiring deposit of costs.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order was barred by limitation under the interplay of the provisions governing draft assessment, DRP directions, and completion of assessment.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the binding view that the provisions relating to draft assessment and DRP proceedings are not mutually exclusive from the limitation provisions governing completion of assessment. It held that the outer time limit prescribed for completion of assessment continues to apply, and that the non-obstante clause in the DRP provision does not exclude the operation of the limitation provision for the final order. On the facts, the final assessment order was passed after expiry of the applicable statutory time limit.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was held to be barred by limitation and was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the purchase addition made as unexplained expenditure under section 69C was sustainable when the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels from disclosed sources. (ii) Whether the sale receipts already disclosed as taxable revenue could again be taxed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 in the absence of rejection of the books or stock records.

Issue (i): Whether the purchase addition made as unexplained expenditure under section 69C was sustainable when the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels from disclosed sources.

Analysis: The purchases were reflected in the books of account, supported by invoices, stock register entries and bank payments. The source of payment was explained and traceable from disclosed funds. Once the expenditure itself is recorded and the source of payment is not found unexplained, the ingredients of section 69C are not satisfied.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale receipts already disclosed as taxable revenue could again be taxed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 in the absence of rejection of the books or stock records.

Analysis: The sales were already offered as taxable receipts and corresponding stock reduction had taken place. The books of account, quantitative details and stock records were not rejected. In these circumstances, the same turnover could not be brought to tax again as unexplained cash credit, as that would amount to double addition.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive additions and the assessment was disturbed only to the extent that the impugned additions were removed.

Ratio Decidendi: Recorded purchases paid from disclosed banking sources cannot be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, and sales already disclosed in the return cannot be assessed again as unexplained cash credit under section 68 in the absence of rejection of the books or stock records.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's application for provisional release of seized imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 should be directed to be decided by the customs authority within a fixed time.

Analysis: The petitioner had already applied for provisional release of the seized goods and had furnished a bank guarantee as well as a bond for the full value of the goods. The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the application, but noted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the application was considered expeditiously. The Court also directed that the earlier furnishing of the bank guarantee and bond be taken into account while deciding the application.

Conclusion: The first respondent was directed to pass final orders on the petitioner's provisional release application on merits and in accordance with law within six weeks, after due consideration of the bank guarantee and bond already furnished.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition resulted in a time-bound direction for decision of the provisional release request, without any adjudication on the entitlement to release itself.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provisional release application is pending, the customs authority can be directed to decide it expeditiously on merits after considering the security already furnished by the importer.

Issues: Whether crushing, screening and sizing of limestone/dolomite by the contractor amounts to manufacture under section 2(72) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis: Manufacture under section 2(72) requires processing of raw material resulting in a new product having a distinct name, character and use. The activity in question only changes the physical dimensions of limestone/dolomite; the mineral identity, chemical composition and commercial nomenclature remain the same before and after processing. Marketability alone does not satisfy the statutory test. The mere fact that the contractor bears commercial or operational risk does not change the character of the activity, because classification under GST depends on the nature of the process actually performed. Treatment or process applied to another person's goods is treated as a supply of service under Schedule II.

Conclusion: The activity does not amount to manufacture and is not a supply of goods on that basis. The answer is negative and is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The ruling treats the activity as processing on another person's goods rather than manufacture, so the GST classification remains within the service category.

Ratio Decidendi: An activity is manufacture only if processing brings into existence a new product with a distinct name, character and use; mere physical alteration of the same commodity, even if marketable, is insufficient, and contractual risk allocation does not alter GST classification.