Issues: Whether extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be exercised to quash an input-tax-credit adjudication order despite an available statutory appeal, on the asserted bar under Section 6(2)(b), variance from the show-cause notice, and denial of an effective hearing.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction does not ordinarily substitute the statutory appellate process where the challenge requires examination of the adjudication record and disputed facts. The bar under Section 6(2)(b) depends upon identity of the precise subject matter, including the relevant tax period, transactions, invoices, ITC liability and allegations; a common supplier or general connection with ITC is insufficient. Whether the State and Central proceedings concerned identical liabilities required examination of their respective notices, orders and transaction-wise material. The impugned order disclosed an independent finding of ITC availment on goods-less invoices with reference to Section 16(2)(b), and therefore did not facially rest on a wholly new basis. The recorded grant of hearing opportunities, notwithstanding an apparent date discrepancy, and objections regarding evidence, limitation, clubbing of periods, replies and invocation of Section 74 required scrutiny of the underlying record in appeal.

Conclusion: An efficacious appellate remedy was required to be pursued because no ex facie lack of jurisdiction or undisputed breach of natural justice was established; all objections, including the applicability of Section 6(2)(b), remained open for appellate determination.

Issues: (i) Whether unfiled GST dues, interest and penalty for the pre-resolution-plan period were extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, thereby barring later proceedings; and (ii) Whether the statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction where the demands were initiated without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether unfiled GST dues, interest and penalty for the pre-resolution-plan period were extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, thereby barring later proceedings.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 makes an approved resolution plan binding upon the Central Government and authorities owed statutory dues, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. The GST liabilities concerned the period preceding approval of the resolution plan, and no claim was lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The approved plan extinguished all pre-effective-date governmental claims, whether assessed or unassessed, unless specifically preserved. This accords with the clean-slate principle, under which a successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with undisclosed or undecided pre-plan claims.

Analysis: The distinction between adjudication and recovery was inapplicable after extinguishment of the underlying claim. A show-cause notice and consequential demand proceedings under Section 73(9), including interest and penalty, amount to proceedings concerning that extinguished claim. Section 88 concerns liquidation and cannot revive a liability extinguished through an approved resolution plan; the general adjudicatory powers under the GST law remain subject to Sections 31(1) and 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the pre-resolution-plan GST dues, interest and penalty stood extinguished, and no subsequent proceedings for their determination or recovery could be initiated or continued.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction where the demands were initiated without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenged action is without jurisdiction and contrary to binding insolvency law. The relevant facts were undisputed and the challenge raised a pure legal question concerning the authority to initiate proceedings for an extinguished claim.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, writ jurisdiction was available notwithstanding the alternate statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: An approved resolution plan conclusively extinguishes unfiled statutory claims relating to the pre-approval period and precludes subsequent tax-adjudication proceedings concerning those claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory dues not lodged in the corporate insolvency resolution process and not preserved by an approved resolution plan are extinguished under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and cannot thereafter be assessed, adjudicated or recovered notwithstanding general powers under fiscal legislation.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory audit was completed within the prescribed limitation period; (ii) Whether the show cause notice and final audit observations were valid when the audit findings were finalized without the prescribed opportunity to reply.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory audit was completed within the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Section 65(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires completion of an audit within the stipulated period from its commencement. Under its Explanation, commencement is the later of the date on which records are made available and the date on which the audit is actually instituted at the registered person's place of business. As the on-site audit was instituted after the documents had been furnished, that later date governed the computation.

Conclusion: The audit was not time-barred; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice and final audit observations were valid when the audit findings were finalized without the prescribed opportunity to reply.

Analysis: Section 65(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 101(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules require the registered person to be informed of audit discrepancies, afforded an opportunity to respond, and have the reply considered before audit findings are finalized. The communication treated as the basis for the show cause notice was only an intimation of discrepancies, not final audit findings. The subsequent final audit observations were also issued without deciding the request for time and without permitting a reply to the discrepancy intimation.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and final audit observations were invalid and were quashed; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The audit must be finalized only after permitting a response to the discrepancy intimation and considering that response in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice founded on audit discrepancies cannot be sustained unless the audit findings have been finalized after giving the registered person the prescribed opportunity to respond and considering the response.

Issues: Whether purchases of traded edible oils from associated enterprises were required to be benchmarked under the Other Method using contemporaneous independent market quotations instead of the Transactional Net Margin Method, and whether the consequential arm's-length adjustment required recomputation.

Analysis: Selection of the most appropriate method depends on the nature of the international transaction, the functional profile, and the availability and reliability of comparable uncontrolled data. The Other Method, based on contemporaneous market quotations, had been accepted for identical purchase transactions in the assessee's earlier assessment year. No material change in the transactions or functional profile was established to justify departure from that approach. A different methodology applied in another taxpayer's case could not displace the principle of consistency without material similarity of facts. Consequential computation was required to give effect to the directions on comparables, margin recomputation, and working-capital adjustment upon verification of reliable data.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee: the Other Method is to govern the benchmarking of the impugned purchase transactions, and the consequential arm's-length adjustment is to be recomputed in accordance with the applicable directions after verification.

Issues: (i) Whether a mark-up on reimbursement of salary and travel costs of employees seconded to associated enterprises was warranted; (ii) Whether one-fifth of amalgamation expenditure paid in the financial year 2011-12 was deductible for the assessment year 2016-17 under Section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the earlier appointed date of amalgamation.

Issue (i): Whether a mark-up on reimbursement of salary and travel costs of employees seconded to associated enterprises was warranted.

Analysis: The employees were seconded temporarily, and the salary and travel costs were recovered from the associated enterprises strictly on a cost-to-cost basis without any mark-up. The reimbursement was not a consideration for a continuing service. The same treatment had been accepted in other assessment years, and the bilateral advance pricing agreement also recognised recovery of such secondment costs at cost. In the absence of any change in facts, a contrary transfer-pricing treatment was impermissible under the rule of consistency.

Conclusion: No mark-up was chargeable on the cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees' salary and travel costs; the related transfer-pricing adjustment was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether one-fifth of amalgamation expenditure paid in the financial year 2011-12 was deductible for the assessment year 2016-17 under Section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the earlier appointed date of amalgamation.

Analysis: The amalgamation expenditure was incurred and paid only in the financial year 2011-12 after approval of the amalgamation. Computing the five-year deduction period from the appointed date would require the assessee to claim deduction before incurring the expenditure, contrary to the principle of impossibility of performance. The deduction had also been accepted for the preceding four assessment years without any change in facts.

Conclusion: The fifth annual instalment of the amalgamation expenditure under Section 35DD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable for the assessment year 2016-17, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing addition on secondment-cost reimbursements and the disallowance of the fifth instalment of amalgamation expenditure could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of changed facts, consistently accepted cost-to-cost reimbursement treatment cannot be replaced by a transfer-pricing mark-up, and an amortised deduction must run from the year in which the underlying expenditure was actually incurred.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed comparable was functionally comparable at the entity level to the assessee's software-development services; (ii) Whether the AO/TPO was required to recompute comparable margins in accordance with the DRP's directions; (iii) Whether the interest adjustment on outstanding receivables required verification of balances linked to an Indian entity and a transaction-specific determination of the arm's length interest rate.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed comparable was functionally comparable at the entity level to the assessee's software-development services.

Analysis: Functional comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method must be established from the comparable's actual business and financial profile for the relevant year. General and undated website descriptions could not reliably establish the nature or extent of its activities during that year. The comparable undertook multiple activities, including infrastructure management, network operations, cloud computing, engineering and quality-assurance services, besides software development. In the absence of segmental revenue and results, its entity-level margin could not be reliably compared with that of a software-development service provider.

Conclusion: The disputed comparable is not a valid entity-level comparable and must be excluded from the final set of comparables; this finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the AO/TPO was required to recompute comparable margins in accordance with the DRP's directions.

Analysis: The AO/TPO was bound by the directions issued under Section 144C(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring computation of comparable margins under the extant rules after considering the assessee's submissions. Retention of earlier margins without the directed verification warranted recomputation of the margins and median after revising the comparable set.

Conclusion: The software-development-services adjustment must be recomputed after applying the DRP's directions and revising the comparable set; the matter is decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (iii): Whether the interest adjustment on outstanding receivables required verification of balances linked to an Indian entity and a transaction-specific determination of the arm's length interest rate.

Analysis: The claim that part of the outstanding balance related to an Indian entity required factual verification. Further, arm's length interest cannot be fixed through mechanical adoption of a uniform spread over LIBOR. The appropriate rate must reflect the associated enterprise's financial standing and creditworthiness, along with the rate that would apply in a comparable uncontrolled transaction on relevant terms.

Conclusion: The interest adjustment requires fresh verification and determination of the arm's length rate on the stated parameters; this relief is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation must exclude the functionally unsuitable comparable and be recalculated under the DRP's margin directions, while the receivable adjustment must reflect verified domestic balances and a transaction-specific interest benchmark.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Transactional Net Margin Method, a company carrying on multiple functions without reliable, relevant-year segmental information cannot be used as an entity-level comparable for a software-development service provider.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 54,734 attributed to purported accommodation entries could be sustained in respect of share trades in Padmanabh Industries Ltd. and Kushal Ltd.; (ii) Whether closing-stock valuation of unlisted shares after an approved demerger could be adjusted below their pre-demerger acquisition cost under ICDS-VIII

Issue (i): Whether disallowance of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 54,734 attributed to purported accommodation entries could be sustained in respect of share trades in Padmanabh Industries Ltd. and Kushal Ltd.

Analysis: Contract notes, demat records evidencing delivery, securities transaction tax payments, and banking-channel transactions supported the share trades conducted in the ordinary course by a regular securities trader. No material established that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries. The Rs. 1,000 transaction in Padmanabh Industries Ltd. had in fact yielded a disclosed profit, rather than a loss. On the preponderance of probabilities, the disallowances lacked factual basis.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 54,734 is unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether closing-stock valuation of unlisted shares after an approved demerger could be adjusted below their pre-demerger acquisition cost under ICDS-VIII

Analysis: Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and ICDS-VIII governed the valuation question. Following the approved demerger, the project-division assets ceased to form part of the original company and securities were allotted in the resulting companies. The original acquisition cost consequently required apportionment between the retained shares and the securities received under the demerger. Documentary evidence substantiated the reduction to Rs. 1,800 per share, and retaining the pre-demerger cost of Rs. 2,000 per share would produce a distorted valuation. The rule concerning actual cost for securities acquired in exchange supported the adjusted valuation.

Conclusion: The adjusted closing-stock valuation is valid and the addition of Rs. 4,30,00,000 is unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjustments for the share transactions and closing-stock valuation cannot be retained in the assessment.

Issues: Whether delayed GST returns for 2017-18, filed before 30 November 2021, preserved entitlement to input tax credit under retrospectively inserted Section 16(5).

Analysis: Section 16(5), effective retrospectively from 1 July 2017, entitles a registered person to input tax credit in returns filed by 30 November 2021 for the financial years 2017-18 to 2020-21. The returns in question were filed before that cut-off, and the amendment was not on the statute book when the adjudication order was made.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to input tax credit under Section 16(5).

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after the applicable limitation period was valid.

Analysis: The notice concerning assessment year 2015-16 was issued on 29.07.2022. The governing Supreme Court position recognised that notices for that assessment year issued on or after 01.04.2021 could not be completed within the period preserved under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice was therefore beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was time-barred and was quashed; all consequential proceedings were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was valid without issuance of a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee elected to treat its original return as the return in response to notice under section 148; (ii) Whether the absence of signature by an authorised person on that election invalidated the return and reassessment.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was valid without issuance of a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee elected to treat its original return as the return in response to notice under section 148.

Analysis: An assessee may communicate that its earlier return be treated as the return furnished in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such communication makes the earlier return operative for reassessment purposes from the date of the communication. Issuance and service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is mandatory for completing a reassessment under sections 147 and 148. The assessment record and assessment order disclosed no issuance of such notice.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid for want of notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of signature by an authorised person on that election invalidated the return and reassessment.

Analysis: A defect concerning signature or verification is curable under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and does not render the return non est without an opportunity for rectification. The unsigned communication did not negate the assessee's election to treat the original return as its return in response to the notice under section 148.

Conclusion: The absence of an authorised signature did not validate the reassessment or displace the jurisdictional defect, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional annulment of the assessment remained undisturbed, and the additions did not require adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier return is validly adopted as the return in response to a reassessment notice, complete absence of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) invalidates the reassessment; a curable signature defect does not alter that consequence.

Issues: Validity of the reassessment initiation where the recorded reasons incorrectly stated that no original scrutiny assessment had been made and did not record the assessee's failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts.

Analysis: The recorded reasons proceeded on the premise that the return had only been processed under Section 143(1), whereas an assessment under Section 143(3) had in fact already been completed. The reopening was initiated after the stipulated period from the end of the relevant assessment year. The recorded reasons neither reflected application of mind to the completed scrutiny assessment nor identified any material fact not fully and truly disclosed by the assessee, despite that failure being a jurisdictional requirement under the first proviso to Section 147.

Conclusion: The assumption of reassessment jurisdiction was invalid; the reassessment and consequential assessment order were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether capital gains from the sale of property gifted by the assessee's husband had to be clubbed and assessed in the husband's hands under Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 64(1)(iv) ordinarily requires income arising from an asset transferred by a spouse without adequate consideration to be included in the transferor-spouse's income. The disclosure that the sale proceeds funded the fixed deposits and that the property had been received from the husband was made only in response to the final show-cause notice, after expiry of the period for initiating reassessment against the husband. The husband had also not filed a return of income. The delayed claim was treated as an attempt to avoid assessment of the income in either spouse's hands.

Conclusion: The capital gain was not required to be assessed in the husband's hands, and its assessment in the assessee's hands was sustained. [Against Assessee].

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting under section 270A could be sustained where the assessee had fully disclosed software-development expenditure and its accounting treatment, but the Revenue treated the claimed revenue expenditure as capital loss.

Analysis: Section 270A(6)(a) excludes an amount from under-reported income where the assessee offers a bona fide explanation and discloses all material facts necessary to substantiate it. The expenditure and its accounting treatment, including the separate components relating to impairment of an internally developed software asset and capital work-in-progress, were disclosed in the audited financial statements. The dispute concerned the legal characterisation of disclosed expenditure as revenue or capital, rather than any fictitious claim, false factual statement, inflated expenditure, or suppression of material facts. Rejection of an arguable legal claim in quantum proceedings does not, by itself, establish that the explanation was not bona fide.

Conclusion: The conditions for exclusion under section 270A(6)(a) were satisfied; the amount could not be treated as under-reported income, and the penalty under section 270A was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a creditor's insolvency petition is maintainable where no act of insolvency under Section 6(1) is established; and (ii) Whether the resulting insolvency adjudication may survive against non-appellant debtors when the petition itself is incompetent.

Issue (i): Whether a creditor's insolvency petition is maintainable where no act of insolvency under Section 6(1) is established.

Analysis: Section 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 imposes conjunctive and mandatory conditions for a creditor's petition, including occurrence of an act of insolvency within the prescribed period. Although the creditors had cited Section 10, the misdescription did not invalidate the petition and it was treated as one under Section 9(1). An attempt or intention to alienate property, unlike an actual transfer falling within Section 6(1), is not an act of insolvency. Mere failure to repay a debt may found a money claim but does not by itself satisfy the statutory condition for insolvency proceedings.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellant: the creditor's insolvency petition was not maintainable because no qualifying act of insolvency was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the resulting insolvency adjudication may survive against non-appellant debtors when the petition itself is incompetent.

Analysis: Absence of the mandatory statutory foundation for the creditor's petition constituted a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the insolvency proceedings. An adjudication founded on such an incompetent petition could not be selectively retained against some of the persons proceeded against.

Conclusion: The insolvency adjudication could not survive against the non-appellant debtors and was invalid in its entirety.

Final Conclusion: The insolvency proceedings lacked statutory foundation and could not sustain adjudication or consequential liquidation measures against any person proceeded against, without prejudice to the creditors' lawful remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: A creditor's insolvency petition requires strict fulfilment of the conditions in Section 9(1), including an actual statutory act of insolvency; mere non-payment of debt or an attempted transfer of property is insufficient.

Issues: (i) Whether the reference to the Full Bench was valid in light of conflicting coordinate-bench rulings; (ii) Whether show-cause notices, adjudication orders and DRC summaries electronically authenticated on the GST common portal are invalid merely because PDF versions do not display a visible physical or digital signature; (iii) Whether upload of a notice or order on the GST common portal constitutes valid service and fixes the date of receipt and limitation; (iv) Whether absence of a Document Identification Number or Reference Number invalidates portal communications; (v) Whether upload of notices or orders under the Additional Notices and Orders tab after 16 January 2024 constitutes valid service.

Issue (i): Whether the reference to the Full Bench was valid in light of conflicting coordinate-bench rulings

Analysis: Conflicting coordinate-bench views existed on the applicability of the authentication requirement and the validity of unsigned GST demand documents. Judicial discipline required a reference to a larger Bench rather than a contrary ruling by a co-equal Bench. The later availability of the GSTN's technical explanation of the portal's operation also warranted an authoritative determination.

Conclusion: The reference to the Full Bench was validly made.

Issue (ii): Whether show-cause notices, adjudication orders and DRC summaries electronically authenticated on the GST common portal are invalid merely because PDF versions do not display a visible physical or digital signature

Analysis: Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires notices, orders and their summaries under Chapter XVIII to be electronically uploaded, but does not prescribe a visible digital signature on the prescribed forms. Rule 26(3), dealing with registration under Chapter III, cannot be imported into Chapter XVIII. The signature fields in statutory forms are subservient to the Rules and cannot impose a requirement absent from the governing Rules.

Analysis: DSC-based officer authentication, use of a protected private key, generation of an immutable JSON record and hash value, and mapping of the officer's certificate to the notice or order satisfy the requirements for electronic authentication under Sections 3, 3A and 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. A PDF generated for readability need not visibly display the embedded electronic authentication. The statutory presumptions concerning secure electronic records and regular performance of official acts remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: Notices, orders and DRC summaries electronically authenticated by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal are valid despite absence of a visible physical or digital signature on their PDF versions; this issue is against the taxpayers.

Issue (iii): Whether upload of a notice or order on the GST common portal constitutes valid service and fixes the date of receipt and limitation

Analysis: Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 independently recognizes service by making a communication available on the common portal. The portal is the designated and secure computer resource for registered taxpayers under the GST framework. Under Section 13(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, receipt occurs when the electronic record enters that designated computer resource, not when it is subsequently retrieved by the taxpayer.

Conclusion: Upload on the common portal constitutes valid service, and statutory limitation runs from the date of upload; this issue is against the taxpayers.

Issue (iv): Whether absence of a Document Identification Number or Reference Number invalidates portal communications

Analysis: The applicable circular framework treats a verifiable Reference Number as a valid alternative to a Document Identification Number for communications generated through the common portal. The clarification does not operate only prospectively. A communication must bear either a Document Identification Number or a Reference Number for traceability and verification. The impugned documents in the individual matters contained one of these identifiers in the notice, order, summary or attachment.

Conclusion: A communication bearing neither a Document Identification Number nor a Reference Number is invalid, but the impugned documents were not invalid on this ground; this issue is against the taxpayers in this batch.

Issue (v): Whether upload of notices or orders under the Additional Notices and Orders tab after 16 January 2024 constitutes valid service

Analysis: The portal note issued on 16 January 2024 expressly notified taxpayers that assessment, adjudication, audit, enforcement, recovery and related communications would be available under the Additional Notices and Orders tab. Such communications are also accompanied by electronic alerts. In view of Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the specified portal placement satisfies service.

Conclusion: Upload under the Additional Notices and Orders tab after 16 January 2024 constitutes valid service; this issue is against the taxpayers.

Final Conclusion: The GST statutory framework validates DSC-authenticated Chapter XVIII demand communications made available through the common portal, while requiring the communication to remain traceable through a Document Identification Number or Reference Number.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Chapter XVIII GST notice or order is generated through DSC-based electronic authentication by the proper officer and uploaded on the common portal, absence of a visible signature on the taxpayer-facing PDF does not create a separate defect of validity or service.

Issues: Whether a Magistrate may consider withdrawal of an already filed Customs prosecution under the revised prosecution-threshold circular where the value of the allegedly smuggled gold is below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: The 2015 Customs prosecution circular fixed a Rs. 20 lakh threshold for prosecution in outright smuggling cases involving precious metals and entrusted the criminal court with deciding whether an already filed complaint should continue. The 2022 modification raised the relevant threshold to Rs. 50 lakh while retaining the remaining terms of the earlier circular. As the value of the goods was Rs. 27.97 lakh, it fell below the revised threshold. No restriction in the circulars barred consideration of withdrawal merely because a sanction order had been issued.

Conclusion: The Magistrate is empowered to consider withdrawal of the pending complaint under the revised threshold; the circulars do not preclude such consideration on account of the prior sanction for prosecution.

Issues: (i) Whether the Department could challenge the appellate finding on utilisation of IGST input tax credit where that point was not specified in the Commissioner's authorisation under Section 112(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether utilisation of IGST input tax credit, despite an equivalent unutilised CGST and SGST credit balance, constituted unjust enrichment barring refund; (iii) Whether the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the ocean-freight IGST reverse-charge levy operated retrospectively; (iv) Whether a taxpayer that was not a party to that ruling could claim refund and rely on it as the order required by Rule 89(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the Department could challenge the appellate finding on utilisation of IGST input tax credit where that point was not specified in the Commissioner's authorisation under Section 112(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 112(3) confines a departmental application to the points specified by the Commissioner. The authorisation did not dispute the appellate finding concerning utilisation of IGST credit; an authorised officer could not enlarge that scope by raising the omitted objection.

Conclusion: The credit-utilisation objection was outside the authorised appeal and could not be raised. This was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether utilisation of IGST input tax credit, despite an equivalent unutilised CGST and SGST credit balance, constituted unjust enrichment barring refund.

Analysis: The utilisation framework under Section 49A and Section 49B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 88A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires priority utilisation of IGST credit. An equivalent unutilised balance under the CGST and SGST heads, capable of debit towards the refund amount, constituted non-utilisation in substance and did not yield a double benefit.

Conclusion: Utilisation of IGST credit did not result in unjust enrichment or bar the refund. This was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the ocean-freight IGST reverse-charge levy operated retrospectively.

Analysis: Judicial declarations ordinarily operate retrospectively because they declare the law rather than legislate it. Prospective overruling is an exception requiring an express limitation. The ruling did not limit its operation prospectively; consequently, the ultra vires levy lacked legal authority from its inception and was void ab initio.

Conclusion: The invalidation of the ocean-freight IGST reverse-charge levy applied retrospectively. This was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether a taxpayer that was not a party to that ruling could claim refund and rely on it as the order required by Rule 89(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India prohibit collection of tax without authority of law. A declaration that the levy is unconstitutional removes its legal foundation as against all taxpayers, including non-parties, except a taxpayer whose own unsuccessful challenge to the levy has attained finality. The judicial declaration itself supplied the legal foundation contemplated by Rule 89(2).

Conclusion: A non-party taxpayer could claim the refund and rely on the judicial declaration as the requisite order under Rule 89(2). This was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Tax paid under the void ab initio ocean-freight reverse-charge levy is recoverable by refund, with statutory interest consequentially payable for delayed payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial declaration that a tax levy is ultra vires operates retrospectively unless expressly limited, rendering the levy void ab initio and permitting taxpayers who were not parties to the litigation to seek recovery of tax collected without authority of law, subject to established finality exceptions.

Issues: (i) Whether return transit of fully duty-paid imported goods to a customs warehouse after an aborted delivery, without a fresh e-way bill, amounts to tax evasion or a procedural lapse; (ii) Whether intent to evade tax is a prerequisite for penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (iii) Whether the precedents relied on by the assessee governed the documentation lapse and rendered the Revenue's contrary authorities inapplicable.

Issue (i): Whether return transit of fully duty-paid imported goods to a customs warehouse after an aborted delivery, without a fresh e-way bill, amounts to tax evasion or a procedural lapse.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 regulates movement documentation. The imported goods were supported by bills of entry, import invoices and customs-clearance records; physical verification disclosed no discrepancy in description or quantity. Their return to secure warehouse storage followed the missed delivery slot and did not involve an unrecorded commercial sale, revenue loss, or diversion of goods.

Conclusion: The omission to generate a return transit document was a bona fide procedural lapse and not tax evasion, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether intent to evade tax is a prerequisite for penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 129 cannot operate as an absolute strict-liability penalty where the transaction is fully accounted for, taxes on the imported goods stand paid, and the material reveals no intention to evade tax. A confiscatory tax-evasion penalty requires material establishing mens rea; a technical documentation omission without such intent attracts, at most, the general penalty applicable to the procedural default.

Conclusion: Intent to evade tax is a necessary prerequisite to the Section 129 penalty in the circumstances; the Section 129 penalty was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the precedents relied on by the assessee governed the documentation lapse and rendered the Revenue's contrary authorities inapplicable.

Analysis: The governing jurisdictional precedent treated bona fide transit-documentation failures unaccompanied by tax evasion as outside Section 129 and required substitution of a nominal general penalty under Section 125. The Revenue authority concerned materially different facts of a commercial movement displaying indications of deliberate non-compliance and did not displace that principle.

Conclusion: The binding precedents applied to the return transit and the contrary Revenue authority was distinguishable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The technical omission was confined to a general penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 125, while the confiscatory penalty founded on Section 129 was set aside and consequential refund and release relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 129 penalty cannot be sustained for a bona fide documentation lapse involving fully tax-paid and accounted goods unless the material establishes an intent to evade tax.