Issues: (i) Exemption for dam protection and flood security works; (ii) exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction; (iii) exemption for construction and improvement of public roads; (iv) exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office; (v) reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments; (vi) reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments; (vii) reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses; (viii) reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions; and (ix) invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Exemption for dam protection and flood security works.

Analysis: Entry 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers specified construction and repair services relating to canals, dams and other irrigation works supplied to government. The records connected the ghat construction with prevention of dam erosion and the flood protection work with the extended irrigation department contract.

Conclusion: Both works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction.

Analysis: The relevant exemption under Entry 12(a) had been withdrawn before the contract. A larger bench ruling established that payment of service tax by the main contractor does not itself exempt a subcontractor; earlier conflicting decisions were relevant to limitation.

Conclusion: The subcontract was not exempt and was taxable in principle, against the assessee, subject to the limitation finding.

Issue (iii): Exemption for construction and improvement of public roads.

Analysis: Entry 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers construction or repair of roads for use by the general public. The evidence addressed the public character of the riverfront pathway, neighbourhood and approach roads, and connected the other payments with road construction or improvement.

Conclusion: The road-related works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office.

Analysis: Entry 12A(a) covers specified work, including repair and renovation, on qualifying civil structures supplied to a governmental authority. The recipient was a governmental authority and the interior decoration was treated as repair of a civil structure.

Conclusion: The interior decoration qualifies for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments.

Analysis: Reverse charge applies to qualifying goods transport agency services. Supplier invoice amounts and loading and unloading expenses were distinguished from payments for those services; a payment to a freight carrier was identified as taxable.

Conclusion: The non-transport payments are not liable on that basis; the identified freight-carrier payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vi): Reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST provides for reverse charge on services supplied by an advocate to a business entity. Payments to other professionals and for incidental expenses were distinguished from the identified advocate payment.

Conclusion: The other professional and incidental payments are not liable as advocate services; the advocate payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vii): Reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses.

Analysis: The burden of proof rested on the revenue to establish that the payments were for manpower supply or works contract services. No corresponding contracts were identified, and the demands rested on assumptions drawn from accounting descriptions.

Conclusion: The demands on labour and subcontract expenses cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions.

Analysis: Government services were taxable under the applicable negative-list framework and reverse-charge notification. No transaction granting a right to use natural resources was identified, and one deducting authority was neither government nor a local authority.

Conclusion: The demand on royalty deductions cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): Invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The disputes involved interpretation of service tax provisions. Returns had been regularly filed, the information came from the assessee's books, and no fraud or suppression was established.

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

Final Conclusion: No service tax demand or related penalty survives for the period, although the medical college subcontract and identified transport and advocate payments were taxable in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: A reverse-charge service tax demand cannot be sustained solely on accounting descriptions or assumptions without proof of the taxable service.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the special leave petition was disposed of with liberty to prefer a statutory appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents; (ii) Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Issue (i): Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Analysis: Inspection and verification are distinct from the powers to seize goods and impose penalties. Freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 informs the limits of transit-state penal jurisdiction. The goods originated and were destined outside the transit state, with no tax incidence arising there; a perceived documentary deficiency could be referred to the jurisdictional authorities in the origin or destination state.

Conclusion: No. The transit-state authorities lacked jurisdiction to seize the goods and impose the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Analysis: Section 129 addresses deliberate tax evasion during transit, including movement of untaxed or unaccounted goods and use of fake bills. Valid tax invoices and e-way bills covered the outward movement; the date mismatch concerned a revenue-neutral internal accounting sequence between registrations of the same business.

Conclusion: No. The internal invoice-date mismatch did not justify the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty demand is quashed, and any penalty or security collected is refundable with interest in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit-state authority may inspect an interstate consignment but cannot exercise penal jurisdiction under Section 129 where the supply originates and ends outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Issues: Whether fines and penalties in lieu of confiscation were sustainable for excess or unaccounted stock discovered during surveys of business premises.

Analysis: Section 35 of the GST Acts requires registered persons to maintain true and correct accounts and provides for determination of tax on unaccounted goods as though supplied, applying sections 73 or 74. Binding High Court decisions address excess stock discovered during surveys by reference to those assessment provisions rather than confiscation proceedings.

Conclusion: No. The confiscation proceedings and resulting fines and penalties were unsustainable, and their setting aside was upheld. The issue was decided in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess or unaccounted stock is found during a survey of business premises, tax is to be determined under sections 73 or 74 rather than through direct confiscation proceedings under section 130.

Issues: Whether transportation under an expired e-way bill justified the GST penalty.

Analysis: Section 129 of the GST enactments addresses detention and penalties, while Rule 138 governs e-way bills. The e-way bill had expired and recorded a vehicle registration different from the vehicle carrying the goods, although the goods and other documents matched. Repair slips for the alleged breakdown were produced during adjudication rather than at interception, the driver had not reported a breakdown, and no FASTag movement was shown. Fiscal penalties were treated as civil liabilities, while intention to evade tax under section 129 was stated to be ascertainable from the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The expired e-way bill amounted to no valid e-way bill, and the penalty was justified against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Transportation under an expired e-way bill may attract a GST penalty where the surrounding circumstances support an inference of intention to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the same officer could conduct the GST audit and adjudicate the resulting tax demand.

Analysis: The adopted coordinate-bench reasoning requires the audit and ensuing adjudication to be conducted by different officers. Although the petitioner participated in the proceedings and submitted replies, the same officer performed both functions.

Conclusion: The audit and adjudication could not be conducted by the same officer. A different proper officer must consider the petitioner's contentions, subject to deposit of 10% of the tax demanded.

Ratio Decidendi: An officer who conducts a GST audit cannot adjudicate the resulting tax demand.

Issues: Challenge to a customs order on the ground of alleged reliance on non-existent precedents and lack of independent application of mind.

Outcome: The order was quashed by consent and a fresh decision directed. The allegations were not adjudicated.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal without a personal hearing violated natural justice.

Analysis: The appeal remained undisposed of for six years before three personal hearing notices were uploaded within a short period. The petitioner was unaware of the notices and did not appear. Natural justice requires a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside, with a sufficient opportunity of hearing to be afforded on reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Natural justice requires a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing before disposal of an appeal.

Issues: Whether delay beyond the statutory condonation period for a GST appeal could be condoned and the appeal restored for consideration on merits.

Analysis: The appellate authority's statutory power to condone delay extends for one month beyond the prescribed three-month limitation period. The appeal was dismissed solely because it was filed beyond that period. In exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court relied on relief granted in a materially similar case following earlier decisions.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal restored for consideration on merits, subject to payment of an additional 10% of the tax demanded. The parties' contentions on merits remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, delay beyond the statutory appellate condonation period may be condoned to enable consideration of an appeal on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether an assessee may challenge the taxability of a receipt included in a return processed without adjustment; (ii) Whether interest on an advance-tax shortfall can be charged on an unforeseen trust distribution accruing after the instalment due dates.

Issue (i): Whether an assessee may challenge the taxability of a receipt included in a return processed without adjustment.

Analysis: Tax liability must arise under law, and there is no estoppel against challenging an amount merely because it was included in the return. Restrictions on making a new claim before the assessing authority do not curtail appellate jurisdiction to consider that claim.

Conclusion: The assessee may challenge the inclusion of the receipt in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on an advance-tax shortfall can be charged on an unforeseen trust distribution accruing after the instalment due dates.

Analysis: Sections 207 and 209 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 link advance tax to an estimate of current income. The distribution was unforeseen on the relevant instalment dates, accrued later and was received in the following financial year. The exceptions in the proviso to section 234C reflect the difficulty of estimating certain receipts; the same principle applies to unforeseen income under other heads. A taxpayer cannot be in default of an obligation impossible to perform.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; interest attributable to the distribution must be excluded and deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee may contest the receipt's inclusion and is entitled to relief from the related advance-tax interest. The underlying taxability of the trust distribution remains for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: An unforeseeable receipt that has neither accrued nor been received by the relevant advance-tax instalment dates cannot form part of the estimated income for those instalments, and interest cannot be charged on the resulting shortfall.

Issues: Whether imported bulk drugs or active pharmaceutical ingredients are eligible for IGST at 5% under the entry for drugs and medicines.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 links IGST on imports to the rate applicable to a like domestic supply. The rate notification covers drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any chapter, while excluding goods specified in the nil-rate notification. The definition of drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 includes substances intended as components of a drug; the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 defines bulk drugs by reference to their use in formulations. The entry's separate reference to formulations and its coverage of any chapter support a construction extending beyond finished dosage forms. The specific description-based entry takes precedence over the general chemical entries. Import for testing, clinical research or bioequivalence studies does not by itself exclude an API from the definition of drug. Individual goods and the applicable exclusion remain subject to verification at import.

Conclusion: Yes. The described bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients qualify for IGST at 5%, provided the particular goods are not covered by the specified exclusion.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific, description-based IGST rate entry for drugs and medicines encompasses qualifying bulk drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients, notwithstanding their classification under chemical chapters, subject to the entry's exclusions.

Issues: (i) Whether PS sheets, PVC sheets and PVC sheets (UV) are classifiable under heading 3921 and at which tariff items; (ii) whether PVC wall panels, PS wall panels, PS wall panel sheets, PU wall panels, PVS panels (foam) and PS mouldings are classifiable under heading 3925 and at which tariff items.

Issue (i): Whether PS sheets, PVC sheets and PVC sheets (UV) are classifiable under heading 3921 and at which tariff items.

Analysis: Chapter 39 Note 10 permits surface-working and rectangular cutting of plastic sheets without further working. The product descriptions indicated flat, cellular sheets, and the photograph of the UV sheet showed a printed surface without ribs, relief or shaped edges. Subheading classification depends on the constituent plastic.

Conclusion: PS sheets are classifiable under tariff item 3921 11 00; PVC sheets and PVC sheets (UV) are classifiable under tariff item 3921 12 00. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether PVC wall panels, PS wall panels, PS wall panel sheets, PU wall panels, PVS panels (foam) and PS mouldings are classifiable under heading 3925 and at which tariff items.

Analysis: Chapter 39 Note 10 and the explanatory notes distinguish permitted surface-working from shaping beyond rectangular cutting. The described panels and mouldings had profiled forms or shaped edges; the material supplied did not distinguish the two unphotographed panel products from the other panels. Note 11 includes ornamental architectural features in builders' ware. The products were designed to form decorative finished wall or ceiling surfaces, and removability did not by itself alter their character.

Conclusion: PU wall panels are classifiable under tariff item 3925 90 10. PVC wall panels, PS wall panels, PS wall panel sheets, PVS panels (foam) and PS mouldings are classifiable under tariff item 3925 90 90. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classifications apply only to goods matching the descriptions and photographs on which the ruling was based.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of plastic wall-covering goods as sheets or builders' ware depends on their form and extent of working and, where applicable, their character as ornamental architectural features; removability alone does not displace the latter character.

Issues: Whether proportionate Cenvat credit reversal is required when bagasse and related by-products are cleared without payment of duty.

Analysis: Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 governs reversal of credit attributable to exempted goods. The applicable Supreme Court decisions and the Board's circular treat bagasse as a non-excisable agricultural residue rather than a product of manufacture, and reject the contrary circular.

Conclusion: The demands for proportionate credit reversal were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Clearance of non-excisable bagasse without payment of duty does not require proportionate Cenvat credit reversal under Rule 6.

Issues: Whether eligible transitional input tax credit could be denied because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column in Form TRAN-1.

Analysis: Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 govern the transition of eligible credit through Form TRAN-1. The credit's eligibility and quantum were undisputed, and the declaration was filed within time. The revenue's objection concerned the category under which the credit was declared. The unutilised credit was treated as a vested right that could not be defeated on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The transitional credit was admissible and could not be denied merely because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column. The decision was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Admitted eligible transitional input tax credit cannot be denied solely because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column in Form TRAN-1.

Issues: (i) Whether GST paid under the CGST and SGST heads can be transferred to the IGST head; (ii) Whether payment of GST under the wrong head justified proceedings and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Issue (i): Whether GST paid under the CGST and SGST heads can be transferred to the IGST head.

Analysis: The revenue did not dispute payment under the CGST and SGST heads. Section 77 of the CGST Act provides for refund where a transaction treated as intra-State is subsequently held to be inter-State. Section 19 of the IGST Act provides that no interest is payable on the IGST in those circumstances. Rule 4 of the GST Refund Rules provides for adjustment of a refund against an outstanding demand. These provisions permit transfer of the amount paid under the wrong heads.

Conclusion: The amount paid under the CGST and SGST heads is to be transferred to the IGST head, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment of GST under the wrong head justified proceedings and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 74 requires satisfaction that fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression caused the relevant shortfall, with foundational facts apparent from the notice. Payment under the wrong head was not accompanied by a deliberate attempt to evade tax.

Conclusion: The Section 74 proceedings and penalty were not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transferred payment is to be credited towards IGST; the quantum of IGST and any liability beyond the amount already paid remain undetermined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST has been paid under an incorrect head without fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, the payment may be transferred to the correct head and does not by itself justify proceedings under Section 74.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond three years could be sustained through exclusion of time when the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh; (ii) Whether the approval for reassessment was valid without independent consideration of the material and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond three years could be sustained through exclusion of time when the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 distinguishes the ordinary three-year period from the extended period available where the prescribed escaped-income threshold is met. Its fifth and sixth provisos concern exclusion of specified time and extension of a short residual period. The assessing authority had quantified the alleged escaped income at Rs. 47.29 lakh, and no court order had stayed the proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation, and the provisos did not save it. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval for reassessment was valid without independent consideration of the material and limitation.

Analysis: Section 151 requires the sanctioning authority to apply its mind independently to the material, including the taxpayer's reply, the quantum involved and the applicable limitation. The record contained no such consideration or contemporaneous reasons invoking the exclusion of time; reasons supplied later could not supplement the approval.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment and penalty could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion provisions for reassessment limitation cannot be used to invoke the extended limitation period where the prescribed escaped-income threshold is not met.

Issues: Whether interest on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is taxable as income from other sources.

Analysis: Interest awarded under Section 28 is an accretion to the value of the acquired land and forms part of the compensation as a capital receipt. The adopted precedent explains that the amendments to Section 145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 do not alter that character.

Conclusion: The interest was not taxable as income from other sources, and the addition was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forms part of enhanced compensation and is not taxable as interest income from other sources.

Issues: (i) Whether the former complainant and successor authorised representatives should be impleaded in the disciplinary appeal; (ii) whether subsequent events and documents could be introduced to contest the former representative's authority and the disciplinary order.

Issue (i): Whether the former complainant and successor authorised representatives should be impleaded in the disciplinary appeal.

Analysis: Under the complaint-handling framework, the Board acts on a complaint and conducts the disciplinary process. A complainant's participation in an insolvency professional's appeal is not mandatory, and impleadment ordinarily follows the complainant's request. Protection against vexatious litigation must be balanced against any need for the complainant's presence for just disposal. The appeal concerns the legality and propriety of the disciplinary order.

Conclusion: Neither representative is to be impleaded. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent events and documents could be introduced to contest the former representative's authority and the disciplinary order.

Analysis: Replacement of an authorised representative operates prospectively and does not nullify acts validly performed during the predecessor's tenure. The Board had found the complaint maintainable and disciplinary proceedings had culminated in an order. The order's correctness falls to be assessed on the material before the disciplinary committee.

Conclusion: The subsequent material is not to be taken on record, and the professional cannot reopen the complainant's locus at this stage. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary order remains subject to adjudication in the pending main appeal on the material before the disciplinary committee.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disciplinary appeal by an insolvency professional, a complainant is not a mandatory party and cannot be impleaded against the complainant's wishes merely because of subsequently discovered facts, unless the Tribunal requires the complainant's presence for just disposal.

Issues: (i) Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation; (ii) whether the notice and consequential order disclosed independent application of mind; (iii) whether the proceedings violated binding judicial directions and natural justice; (iv) whether the record justified applying the works-contract tax rule for failure to maintain accounts.

Issue (i): Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 prescribes a four-year limit for revisional jurisdiction. The revised notice and consequential order were issued beyond that period when measured against either order proposed to be revised. A change of officer or a pending audit objection could not revive the expired jurisdiction. Section 174 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 preserved the limitations and safeguards applicable to pre-GST proceedings.

Conclusion: The revision proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice and consequential order disclosed independent application of mind.

Analysis: Section 32 and Rule 50 require an opportunity to show cause and independent formation of opinion by the revisional authority. The notices reproduced the audit objection without independently verifying the relevant record. The consequential order also misunderstood the identity of the appellate authority, undermining its reasoning.

Conclusion: The notice and consequential order were vitiated by lack of independent application of mind, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings violated binding judicial directions and natural justice.

Analysis: A prior judicial direction prohibited a fresh notice and expressly permitted objections concerning limitation and jurisdiction. The revised notice was issued despite that direction, and the petitioner was instructed not to raise those objections.

Conclusion: The proceedings violated the binding directions and natural justice, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the record justified applying the works-contract tax rule for failure to maintain accounts.

Analysis: Rule 17 provides for taxation on total consideration and denial of input tax credit where the requisite accounts are not maintained. The petitioner produced contract-wise ledgers, tax deduction returns and audited financial statements. The allegations concerning accounts and supporting details rested on an unverified audit observation and were substantially answered by that material.

Conclusion: Reliance on the works-contract tax rule was not sustained, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The revision was legally untenable on jurisdictional, procedural and evidentiary grounds; migration to GST did not remove the safeguards applicable to the pre-GST proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory limitation period governing revisional jurisdiction cannot be extended or revived by an audit objection or administrative change.