Issues: (i) Whether the input tax credit demand for financial year 2018-19 could be based on section 16(2)(aa) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the demand could be confirmed under section 16(2)(c) on a ground not specified in the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the input tax credit demand for financial year 2018-19 could be based on section 16(2)(aa) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The notice invoked section 16(2)(aa), which took effect on 1 January 2022, after the financial year concerned.

Conclusion: The demand could not be based on that provision for financial year 2018-19. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be confirmed under section 16(2)(c) on a ground not specified in the show cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand on grounds other than those specified in the notice. The notice alleged non-filing of supplier returns, while the adjudication introduced the distinct charge of non-payment of tax by suppliers without putting it to the assessee. This was not merely an omission to identify a statutory sub-clause and deprived the assessee of notice of the charge.

Conclusion: The demand could not be confirmed on the new ground. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenged input tax credit demand and its associated interest and penalty do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand cannot be confirmed on a distinct ground not specified in the show cause notice and not put to the noticee.

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the gold bullion and jewellery was justified on the basis that they were smuggled or made from smuggled gold; (ii) whether the seized currency was liable to confiscation as sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the gold bullion and jewellery was justified on the basis that they were smuggled or made from smuggled gold.

Analysis: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 places the burden of proving that seized gold and its manufactures are not smuggled on the possessor where seizure is made on reasonable belief. The valuation did not identify the purity or number of individual bullion pieces, and the SAM-marked cut piece had no recorded purity or biscuit number. Invoices, stock records and supplier statements supported local sourcing, while the department did not adequately investigate or rebut that evidence. Other bullion bore Indian marks, and comparable stock at the business premises was not seized.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the bullion and jewellery was not justified. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized currency was liable to confiscation as sale proceeds of smuggled goods.

Analysis: Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 concerns confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The record contained no evidence linking the currency to smuggled gold; concealment of cash alone did not establish such a link.

Conclusion: The currency was not liable to confiscation as sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The findings support consequential relief in respect of the seized gold, currency and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: In an inland seizure of gold, credible evidence of lawful local acquisition may shift the evidential burden to the customs authorities to establish smuggled origin.

Issues: Whether the appeal was correctly dismissed for non-payment of the required pre-deposit.

Outcome: The dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted for verification of the deposit. No final finding was made on whether the deposit had been paid.

Issues: (i) Whether the service tax demand could be sustained on unverified third-party income-tax data. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was available for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether the service tax demand could be sustained on unverified third-party income-tax data.

Analysis: The demand was based on income-tax data without investigation or verification of the receipts. The Department had not used its powers to obtain information from the assessee or inspect the premises.

Conclusion: The demand is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was available for the demand.

Analysis: The extended period requires the statutory ingredients of suppression or misstatement. The figures were drawn from income-tax returns and accounts treated as public documents, and no evidence of mala fide non-payment was identified.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed tax, interest and penalties no longer survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot rest solely on third-party income-tax data without verification or investigation of the receipts.

Issues: Whether an appeal concerning the taxability of services on a reverse charge basis was maintainable before the High Court.

Analysis: Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 excludes from the High Court's appellate jurisdiction Tribunal orders involving questions relating to the rate of duty or value for assessment. Section 35L provides for appeals to the Supreme Court and includes taxability within questions relating to the rate of duty. The Tribunal's determination concerned the taxability of computer reservation services on a reverse charge basis.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal from a Tribunal determination of taxability falls outside the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 35G and within the appellate route provided by Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issues: Whether service line and development charges recovered for electricity distribution infrastructure are taxable as consideration for the transfer of the right to use goods.

Analysis: Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 taxes transfers of the right to use goods. Sections 42, 43 and 46 of the Electricity Act, 2003 govern the distribution licensee's duties and recovery of expenses for providing electricity infrastructure. Recovery of equipment costs alone does not establish a transfer; control, operation and maintenance are relevant. The licensee retained ownership and control, while consumers could not independently operate the equipment. The infrastructure was developed for specified applicants, its cost was recovered from them, and its installation was an ancillary activity connected with electricity supply.

Conclusion: The transactions constituted transfers of the right to use goods, and the recovered value was taxable under Section 4(8), in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of the cost of dedicated electricity distribution infrastructure can constitute consideration for a taxable transfer of the right to use goods despite the licensee's retention of ownership and control.

Issues: Whether the accused applicant should be granted bail pending trial.

Analysis: Prima facie, no implicating material was apparent apart from the applicant's disclosure statement. The merits of the prosecution were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Bail is granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with a requirement to cooperate in the judicial process. The criminal trial remains pending.

Issues: Whether omission of the date, time and venue of personal hearing from the show-cause notice vitiated the adjudication proceedings.

Analysis: The notice under the GST legislation required a reply but did not specify the date, time or venue of personal hearing. Procedural fairness required an opportunity of hearing before adjudication.

Conclusion: The adjudication proceedings were procedurally vitiated.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax adjudication is procedurally vitiated where the show-cause notice specifies no date, time or venue for personal hearing and no opportunity of hearing is afforded.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice for cancellation of GST registration contained sufficient particulars and statutory grounds; (ii) whether the appellate authority could sustain the cancellation by relying on additional evidence and statutory grounds not disclosed in the notice.

Issue (i): Whether the notice for cancellation of GST registration contained sufficient particulars and statutory grounds.

Analysis: Section 29 and Rule 22 provide the framework for cancellation of registration. The notice alleged wrongful input tax credit but omitted supplier details, registration numbers and the relevant periods, and did not invoke the cancellation provisions. Cancellation proceedings are distinct from tax determination proceedings. The subsequent omission of wrongful input tax credit as a cancellation ground was also treated as a relevant consideration.

Conclusion: The cancellation notice was legally deficient, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could sustain the cancellation by relying on additional evidence and statutory grounds not disclosed in the notice.

Analysis: Rule 112 restricts the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Natural justice requires an effective opportunity to rebut material relied upon. The appellate authority relied on an inquiry report and invoked a statutory provision absent from the cancellation notice, without recording an effective opportunity for rebuttal.

Conclusion: The appellate order could not sustain the cancellation, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The registration stands restored without any determination in the separate tax proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: GST registration cancellation requires a notice specifying the statutory grounds and material particulars; an appellate authority cannot cure a defective notice by introducing new grounds or evidence, particularly without an effective opportunity to rebut that evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration was sustainable on the show cause notice issued. (ii) Whether the appellate authority could sustain cancellation using an inquiry report without an effective opportunity to rebut it.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration was sustainable on the show cause notice issued.

Analysis: Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 22 of the corresponding Rules govern cancellation and its procedure. The notice alleged wrongful input tax credit but omitted supplier identities, registration numbers, relevant periods and the statutory cancellation grounds. A reference to an oral intimation did not supply those particulars, and later invocation of statutory provisions could not cure the notice. Proceedings concerning cancellation and those under Section 74A are distinct. The subsequent omission of wrongful credit availment from the relevant cancellation provision was also noted as a relevant consideration.

Conclusion: The cancellation was unsustainable, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could sustain cancellation using an inquiry report without an effective opportunity to rebut it.

Analysis: The appellate authority relied on an inquiry report not disclosed in the cancellation notice, with no recorded effective opportunity for rebuttal. Rule 112 regulates admission of additional evidence, and natural justice requires a reasonable opportunity to address adverse material. Appellate proceedings are not ordinarily a fresh investigation to remedy deficiencies in the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The appellate order sustaining cancellation was unsustainable, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The registration stands restored. No finding was made on the separate proceedings concerning alleged wrongful input tax credit.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST registration cancellation notice must disclose the statutory grounds and essential particulars of the alleged contravention; its defects cannot be cured on appeal, and adverse additional evidence requires a fair opportunity of rebuttal.

Issues: Whether an appeal involving tax or input tax credit of Rs. 14,182 warranted admission despite being below the statutory monetary threshold.

Analysis: Section 112 confers discretion to refuse admission where the relevant amount does not exceed Rs. 50,000. The amount involved was Rs. 14,182.

Conclusion: Admission was refused. The substantive dispute was not examined on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal may exercise its discretion to refuse admission of an appeal where the relevant amount does not exceed the statutory monetary threshold.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed receipts represented genuine sale consideration or a benami transaction; (ii) whether reliance on a witness's statement without cross-examination violated natural justice; (iii) whether the income-tax appellate decision accepting a transaction as genuine displaced the benami determination.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed receipts represented genuine sale consideration or a benami transaction.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on same-day cash deposits and bank transfers, the intermediary controller's admissions concerning accommodation entries, and evidence of the flow of funds. It also identified discrepancies and inadequate corroboration in the invoices and other commercial records. The appellant did not provide cogent material rebutting the evidence of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The receipts formed part of a benami transaction, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on a witness's statement without cross-examination violated natural justice.

Analysis: Natural justice requires a fair opportunity to know, answer and rebut relied-upon material, but does not confer an automatic or absolute right to cross-examine every witness. The witness did not respond to repeated summons, and the appellant was afforded opportunities to address the material.

Conclusion: Reliance on the statement without cross-examination did not violate natural justice, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the income-tax appellate decision accepting a transaction as genuine displaced the benami determination.

Analysis: Income-tax assessment and benami proceedings serve different statutory purposes. The benami legislation has overriding effect, and the income-tax appellate decision did not address the circumstances relevant to identifying a benami arrangement.

Conclusion: The income-tax appellate decision did not displace the benami determination, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The determination of benami character and the attachment remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: A fair opportunity to answer and rebut relied-upon material does not confer an automatic or absolute right to cross-examine every witness.

Issues: Whether denial of access to the original import file and cross-examination of departmental witnesses violated natural justice.

Analysis: The importer had requested the original import file and cross-examination of departmental witnesses. The adjudicating authority declined cross-examination on the assumption that it would serve no purpose in light of the importer's statements, and rejected the request concerning the original documents. The valuation merits were not decided; the relevant CBIC circulars were directed to be kept in mind during fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: Natural justice was violated. The importer must be provided a copy of the original import file and an opportunity to cross-examine the department's chartered engineer before fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A requested cross-examination of a material departmental witness cannot be denied merely on the assumption that it would serve no purpose; the affected party must also have a meaningful opportunity to access relevant import records.

Issues: Whether a corporate plaintiff may produce a subsequent board resolution concerning authorization and ratification of acts connected with its suit.

Analysis: Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 concerns the powers of a company's board. Order XXIX Rule 1 and Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 address the signing and verification of pleadings. Authority to institute a suit is distinct from authority to sign and verify pleadings. A corporation may expressly or impliedly ratify an officer's signing of pleadings, and curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. An executive director's authority letter was on record, while the subsequent resolution purported to acknowledge authorization and ratify acts connected with the suit. The existence and effect of authorization require assessment on the evidence and circumstances of the trial.

Conclusion: Production of the resolution was permitted. Its admissibility and effect on authorization and maintainability remain for determination by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent board resolution may be produced without prejudging whether the company validly authorized or ratified the institution of the suit; those questions remain for determination at trial.

Issues: Whether interest on the refund of a customs investigation deposit should be enhanced from 6% to 12% per annum.

Analysis: The investigation deposit was treated as a pre-deposit carrying interest from the date of deposit. The applicable statutory notifications prescribed interest at 6%. A statutory tribunal cannot go beyond those notifications or exercise the writ jurisdiction available to High Courts. Decisions awarding higher interest were distinguished on their legal and factual basis.

Conclusion: Enhancement to 12% was denied; interest remains at 6%. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal cannot award interest on a refunded customs pre-deposit at a rate exceeding that prescribed by an operative statutory notification.

Issues: Whether personal penalties were leviable on customs officers for alleged abetment of fraudulent exports.

Analysis: Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires mens rea and a positive, deliberate act of abetment rendering goods liable to confiscation. Negligence or administrative oversight alone does not establish penal abetment. No material established collusion or personal benefit. The principal clearance preceded the cautionary alert, and the officers cooperated with the investigation, including prompt disclosure of that clearance.

Conclusion: Personal penalties under Section 114 were not leviable on either officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty on a customs officer for abetment under Section 114 requires mens rea and deliberate abetment; negligence or administrative oversight alone is insufficient.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the show cause notice.

Analysis: The extended period under the Customs Act, 1962 requires circumstances such as collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The importer had explained the nature and description of the goods before the notice, and departmental officials had visited its premises and collected information. The authorities were aware of the relevant facts but did not act within the normal period. A wholly time-barred notice raises a threshold jurisdictional question, and an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be cured on appeal.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unjustified, and the notice was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior departmental knowledge and subsequent inaction do not justify invocation of the extended limitation period absent collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Issues: The tariff classification of two-ton split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit.

Analysis: The adopted Larger Bench ruling applies the principle that a specific tariff entry takes precedence over a generic entry. The tariff also distinguishes split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit from those without one.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under tariff item 8415 82 10.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific tariff entry takes precedence over a generic entry when classifying goods described by both.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of individual residential houses on purchasers' plots is liable to service tax as construction of a residential complex; (ii) Whether abatement is available on construction and sale of residential flats.

Issue (i): Whether construction of individual residential houses on purchasers' plots is liable to service tax as construction of a residential complex.

Analysis: Before 1 July 2012, the statutory definition of a residential complex required buildings with more than twelve residential units, common areas and specified facilities within an approved layout. The purchasers had acquired separately demarcated plots and separately engaged construction of individual houses. From 1 July 2012, the exemption covered a self-contained single residential unit outside a residential complex. The agreements, title documents and approved plans were material; common gates and amenities alone did not establish that the individual construction formed part of an integrated complex. The Board's clarification supported the distinction.

Conclusion: The demand on construction of individual houses is unsustainable for both periods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether abatement is available on construction and sale of residential flats.

Analysis: The applicable notifications prescribed different abatements and conditions across the relevant periods. The flat agreements provided for consolidated consideration encompassing the flat and an undivided interest in the land. The absence of a separate monetary allocation for land did not establish separate recovery or exclusion of its value. An unreconciled allocation of corner and development charges did not, by itself, disqualify the construction consideration from abatement.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to 67% abatement for April to June 2010, 75% for July 2010 to June 2012, and the prescribed abatement thereafter, subject to the applicable conditions and verification of unit specifications.

Final Conclusion: Liability on the flats remains subject to quantification after applicable abatements and credit for tax paid. Penalties are set aside, while payment of the accepted tax liability on preferential location or development services remains subject to verification.

Ratio Decidendi: The location of an independently contracted single residential unit within a gated layout, without more, does not establish construction of a taxable residential complex.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on inputs could be denied on the ground that the suppliers' processes did not amount to manufacture.

Analysis: The definition of manufacture includes processes incidental or ancillary to completing a manufactured product. The suppliers' operations involved bonding layers, including a printed layer, followed by curing, slitting and cutting into customer-specific packaging material. Unlike mere lamination, those operations produced material with a distinct name, character and use.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the credit; its denial, recovery with interest and the equivalent penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Conversion of laminated or metallised sheets into packaging material with a distinct name, character and use constitutes manufacture; Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely on the contrary premise.