Issues: Whether cheque dishonour proceedings could be maintained for cheques issued against a tax and penalty assessment that had been set aside.

Analysis: The cheque dishonour offence requires a legally enforceable debt or liability. The underlying assessment had been set aside because the investigating and reporting officer had also adjudicated the matter. The applicable VAT legislation permits cash, bank guarantees or bank drafts, but not cheques, as security for release of goods. It separately provides for penalties and recovery, including as arrears of land revenue.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable because the cheques did not discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A dishonoured cheque cannot sustain prosecution where it was taken against a tax and penalty assessment subsequently set aside and the governing security provision does not recognise cheques.

Issues: Whether defence evidence should be reopened to summon bank officials concerning the closure of the account in cheque dishonour proceedings.

Analysis: The application to summon witnesses was made under the witness-summoning provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at the judgment stage. The account balance at closure was Rs. 8,383, grossly insufficient to honour the cheque. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners contained no comparable finding of insufficient funds.

Conclusion: Reopening defence evidence and summoning the bank officials was rightly refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening defence evidence to summon a witness may be refused where the proposed testimony would not assist the defence on the material facts.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed integrated tax input credit was admissible; (ii) whether the remaining central and state tax demands required appropriation from amounts already paid; (iii) whether the penalties for alleged wrongful availment of credit were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed integrated tax input credit was admissible.

Analysis: Revenue verification of the invoices and the chartered accountant's certificate, including its unique document identification number, supported the disputed credit. Revenue conceded the demand on that basis.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the disputed integrated tax credit is admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining central and state tax demands required appropriation from amounts already paid.

Analysis: Payments of Rs. 10,792 each towards central and state tax had been made, but only Rs. 10,269 each had previously been appropriated. The remaining demands arose from incomplete appropriation.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: Rs. 522 each towards central and state tax is to be appropriated from the amounts already paid.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties for alleged wrongful availment of credit were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 73(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act provides for payment of tax and interest within the prescribed period following notice. Revenue confirmed timely payment in relation to the central and state tax penalties. The same reasoning was applied to the integrated tax penalty, with Revenue reporting that the disputed penalty was unsupported by the records.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the penalties under central, state and integrated GST are not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: No tax remains due under the disputed heads, and the consequential interest demand also falls.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment of tax and interest within the prescribed period following notice precludes penalty under the applicable GST provisions.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order could be passed against an eligible assessee without first serving a draft assessment order.

Analysis: Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires a draft assessment order where a transfer pricing adjustment results in a variation prejudicial to an eligible assessee. The faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B incorporates that requirement, enabling objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The relied-upon precedent treats omission of the draft order as a jurisdictional breach rather than a mere procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The final assessment order passed without serving a draft assessment order is invalid and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A final assessment order passed against an eligible assessee without first serving the mandatory draft assessment order suffers from a jurisdictional defect.

Issues: How interest on enhanced acquisition compensation is characterized for income tax purposes and how claims for refund of tax deducted from agricultural-land compensation are to be assessed.

Analysis: Section 28 governs interest on excess compensation, whereas Section 34 addresses delay in payment; an acquisition award may also include additional compensation and solatium. The adopted precedent provides for the Assessing Officer to assess the nature of the land and refund claims where deducted tax has been deposited with the Income Tax Department.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 28 forms part of enhanced compensation, unlike interest under Section 34 for delayed payment. Agricultural-land refund claims are to be determined by the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on excess compensation under Section 28 forms part of the enhanced value of acquired land, while interest under Section 34 is compensation for delay in payment.

Issues: Whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A where no exempt income was earned during the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: Section 14A and Rule 8D govern disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income. Appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law. The concurrent findings that no exempt income was earned were not shown to be unsupported by the record or perverse. Binding precedent addressed disallowance in the absence of exempt income.

Conclusion: No disallowance was permissible in the absence of exempt income, and no substantial question of law arose. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A for an assessment year in which no exempt income is earned.

Issues: (i) Whether a late or absent reply to a demand notice precludes reliance on a pre-existing dispute, and whether the holding response constituted notice of dispute; (ii) whether the correspondence established a pre-existing dispute concerning the operational debt.

Issue (i): Whether a late or absent reply to a demand notice precludes reliance on a pre-existing dispute, and whether the holding response constituted notice of dispute.

Analysis: Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provide for communication of a dispute following a demand notice and rejection of an application where notice of dispute has been received. The statutory scheme does not make a timely detailed reply the sole means of placing material concerning an earlier dispute before the adjudicating authority. The holding response withheld admission of the demand, although it contained no specific details.

Conclusion: A late or absent reply does not preclude reliance on material establishing a pre-existing dispute. The holding response was in the nature of a notice of dispute. The issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the correspondence established a pre-existing dispute concerning the operational debt.

Analysis: The applicable test requires a plausible dispute supported by evidence, without deciding whether the defence is likely to succeed. Communications preceding the demand notice addressed outstanding credit notes, detention and demurrage charges, reconciliation and the amount payable. A subsequent email expressly disputed the claimed balance and sought adjustment of pending credit notes. These communications were linked to the transactions underlying the claim.

Conclusion: A genuine pre-existing dispute barred initiation of the insolvency process. The issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor is restored to independent management, and the insolvency process and consequential orders cease to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: An operational creditor's insolvency application must be rejected where material establishes a plausible, non-illusory dispute predating the demand notice; failure to provide a detailed reply within the prescribed period does not preclude the debtor from producing that material.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals involving place of supply fall within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the support and software services qualify as exports rather than intermediary services. (iii) Whether additional grounds for rejecting one refund claim were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals involving place of supply fall within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 reserves cases involving an issue relating to place of supply to the Principal Bench. The intermediary classification affects whether the place of supply is in India or outside India under Section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The appeals fall within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the support and software services qualify as exports rather than intermediary services.

Analysis: The definition of intermediary requires facilitation of a separate supply between other persons and excludes supplies made on the supplier's own account. The agreements established a principal-to-principal relationship, without agency or authority to bind the overseas recipient. Applying ejusdem generis, the expression covering other persons was read in the context of brokers and agents. The export requirements include an overseas place of supply and receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange. The separately incorporated parent and subsidiary were not merely establishments of a distinct person.

Conclusion: The services are exports, not intermediary services, and qualify for refund of unutilised input tax credit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether additional grounds for rejecting one refund claim were sustainable.

Analysis: The notice did not specify the alleged mismatches, missing invoice details or lack of input nexus sufficiently, and the first appellate authority recorded no reasoned findings on them. Rejection on those grounds went beyond the notice and violated natural justice.

Conclusion: The additional grounds for rejection are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification and additional objections do not bar refund of the unutilised credit with statutory interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A service supplied on the supplier's own account on a principal-to-principal basis is not an intermediary service merely because it facilitates the recipient's business.

Issues: Whether construction services supplied to Indian Railways qualified as a composite supply of works contract taxable at 12% rather than 18% GST.

Analysis: Entry 3(v)(a) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, provides a concessional rate for qualifying composite works contracts supplied to railways. The taxpayer bore the burden of establishing that the services involved construction relating to immovable property and constituted a composite works contract. The invoices described the services as general construction, and the record lacked structural proof and billing breakups establishing the claimed classification.

Conclusion: The services did not qualify for the 12% rate and were taxable at 18% GST. The issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Entitlement to the concessional rate for railway works contracts requires proof that the supply is a composite works contract involving construction relating to immovable property.

Issues: (i) Whether interest is payable on an admissible refund delayed beyond sixty days; (ii) whether interest may be denied because the disputed tax was paid through the electronic credit ledger and subsequently re-credited; (iii) whether payment of the entire disputed demand rather than the minimum statutory pre-deposit defeats a claim for interest on its refund.

Issue (i): Whether interest is payable on an admissible refund delayed beyond sixty days.

Analysis: Section 56 provides for interest when an eligible refund is not made within sixty days of receipt of the refund application. The record established a delay in sanctioning the refund, which the department did not dispute.

Conclusion: Interest is payable for the qualifying delay beyond sixty days, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest may be denied because the disputed tax was paid through the electronic credit ledger and subsequently re-credited.

Analysis: Section 49 recognises statutory electronic ledgers for payment. Input tax credit debited against the disputed demand remained unavailable for use until it was restored, and no provision was identified that denied delayed-refund interest solely because payment was made through the credit ledger.

Conclusion: Interest cannot be denied merely because payment was made through the electronic credit ledger and subsequently re-credited, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether payment of the entire disputed demand rather than the minimum statutory pre-deposit defeats a claim for interest on its refund.

Analysis: Section 107 prescribes a minimum pre-deposit for an appeal and provides for a stay of recovery of the balance. It does not prohibit payment of the full demand or treat such payment as a waiver of statutory refund or interest rights. Payment in full may also avoid interest consequences if a demand is ultimately confirmed.

Conclusion: Payment of the entire disputed demand does not, by itself, extinguish the statutory claim for interest on its refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxpayer's statutory entitlement survives both the mode and amount of payment, with the interest calculation to be examined and the amount payable disbursed by the proper officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory interest on an eligible delayed tax refund cannot be denied solely because the disputed demand was paid in full through an electronic credit ledger and subsequently re-credited.

Issues: Whether the determinations of suppressed turnover could be sustained without entry-wise verification and reasoned computation.

Analysis: A determination of suppressed turnover requires an evidentiary basis for assessment, including identification of disputed entries, examination of their nature, reconciliation with books and returns, and a transparent computation. Neither order adequately identified and analysed the relevant entries or explained its computation. Non-production of invoices during the initial investigation did not by itself establish suppression; their subsequent production also required verification against the diaries, books and returns. A speaking order must record the evidence, explanations and reasons for the determination.

Conclusion: Neither determination could be sustained. The suppressed turnover and consequential tax and penalty liability remain to be determined afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: A determination of suppressed taxable turnover based on seized records must identify and assess the relevant entries and provide an evidence-based computation supported by reasons.

Issues: Whether delay in filing a statutory appeal against the ex parte assessment could be condoned and an opportunity to appeal granted.

Analysis: The statutory limitation period had expired. In exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice, the Court relied on the petitioner's offer to deposit half of the assessed liability.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned subject to deposit of 50% of the assessed liability, amounting to Rs. 4,08,885.84. An appeal filed within one month of receipt of the order must be decided on its merits.

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable despite the monetary limit in the applicable circular; (ii) whether penalty could be imposed for non-completion of Part B of the e-way bill without an established intention to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable despite the monetary limit in the applicable circular.

Analysis: The circular excepted cases which, in the Commissioner's opinion, required contest in the interest of justice or revenue. Where an appeal is based on that opinion, the Commissioner need not state its grounds or reasons, and the opinion cannot be challenged.

Conclusion: The monetary-limit objection was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be imposed for non-completion of Part B of the e-way bill without an established intention to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129 of the GST enactments was applied in light of the principle that mens rea is necessary for a penalty where the violation is technical. The transaction was supported by genuine commercial documents, and the e-invoice was generated on the portal before movement. Neither the penalty order nor the departmental grounds identified an intention to evade tax.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee remains relieved of the penalty despite rejection of the monetary-limit objection.

Ratio Decidendi: A technical e-way bill violation alone cannot sustain a penalty under section 129 without an intention to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the penalty and appellate orders could be sustained without adequate verification of the transactions and an effective opportunity for the taxpayer to be heard.

Analysis: The appellate authority had not adequately examined whether the taxpayer discharged the burden of substantiating the transactions, while the original proceedings were ex parte. Closure of the premises after the claimed discontinuance of business, subsequent cancellation of a supplier's registration, or the absence of a particular document was not conclusive by itself. The available evidence required collective evaluation, and an effective hearing was necessary to permit the taxpayer to respond and produce supporting records.

Conclusion: Neither order could be sustained. The genuineness of the transactions and ultimate penalty liability remain undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fictitious transactions requires evaluation of the available evidence as a whole; where material facts remain unresolved following ex parte proceedings, an effective hearing is necessary before an adverse finding.

Issues: Whether non-consecutive tax invoice numbering warrants detention or a penalty under section 129, or a general penalty under section 125.

Analysis: Rule 46 requires consecutive invoice numbering. The interstate movement was supported by valid documents, and the quantity and description of the goods matched. No other discrepancy, unaccounted transaction or tax evasion was alleged. The numbering lapse was treated as a technical irregularity in a revenue-neutral transaction. Section 125 was identified as the appropriate provision for a technical infraction, with deliberate noncompliance required for its imposition.

Conclusion: The numbering lapse did not justify detention or a penalty under section 129; a general penalty under section 125 was not established on the facts. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A technical invoice-numbering lapse, without a substantive contravention or tax evasion, does not justify detention and penalty for goods in transit.

Issues: (i) Whether a fraud-based penalty could be imposed when the notice proposed a non-fraud penalty; (ii) Whether undisputed transitional credit could be denied for late filing of a return caused by a departmental portal failure; (iii) Whether invocation of the fraud-based demand provision was justified.

Issue (i): Whether a fraud-based penalty could be imposed when the notice proposed a non-fraud penalty.

Analysis: The notice proposed a penalty under section 122(2)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, while the authorities applied section 122(2)(b) read with section 74. Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand on grounds not specified in the notice. The notice also combined a fraud-based demand provision with a non-fraud penalty provision.

Conclusion: The fraud-based penalty was impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether undisputed transitional credit could be denied for late filing of a return caused by a departmental portal failure.

Analysis: Section 140 requires the relevant returns for the six months preceding the appointed date, while Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for the transitional declaration. The credit balance and timely declaration were undisputed. A departmental portal failure prevented filing of one return despite diligent efforts, and the return was filed at the first available opportunity. The principle that law does not compel the impossible and the concept of substantial compliance informed the interpretation of the filing requirement.

Conclusion: The transitional credit was admissible.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of the fraud-based demand provision was justified.

Analysis: Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, supported by foundational facts in the notice. The filing difficulty had been disclosed to the department, and the notice identified no supporting facts or undisclosed information. Mere perceived wilfulness did not establish the requisite intent. A subsequent GST instruction requiring supporting evidence in the notice was treated as consistent with that interpretation.

Conclusion: Invocation of section 74 was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The transitional credit remains available, with consequential relief from the associated interest and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Otherwise admissible transitional credit cannot be denied for delayed filing of a required return where a diligent taxpayer is prevented from timely filing by a departmental portal failure and files at the first available opportunity.

Issues: (i) Whether the return mismatch and non-production of certificates justified denial of input tax credit for the relevant period. (ii) Whether integrated-tax credit on an inter-State supply was wrongly availed when recorded under central and state tax heads.

Issue (i): Whether the return mismatch and non-production of certificates justified denial of input tax credit for the relevant period.

Analysis: Section 16 required possession of an invoice, receipt of services, actual payment of the tax to the Government and furnishing of a return; Section 155 placed the burden of proving eligibility on the claimant. The later invoice-reflection requirement did not apply to the relevant period. The record included the invoices' integrated-tax entries in GSTR-2A, reconciliation and bank records, with no material showing non-payment by the supplier. The circular prescribed certificates as a means of verification, not an additional eligibility condition. Its certificate mechanism addressed specified supplier-reporting discrepancies and was not engaged where the integrated tax on the invoices was reflected in GSTR-2A. The prescribed preliminary inquiry into the invoices and statutory conditions was not shown to have been undertaken.

Conclusion: No. The mismatch and non-production of certificates did not justify denial of the credit. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether integrated-tax credit on an inter-State supply was wrongly availed when recorded under central and state tax heads.

Analysis: Supplies by a special economic zone unit are treated as inter-State supplies, while Section 73 addresses wrongly availed credit. The integrated tax on the invoices corresponded to credit entered under the central and state tax heads. A reasoned higher-court construction of Section 73 was followed, and the statutory text was independently applied. The provisions concerning tax paid under the wrong head address tax paid on a transaction, not credit claimed by its recipient. The alleged state revenue loss was unquantified, and revenue neutrality was not established.

Conclusion: No. The credit was not wrongly availed merely because it was recorded under the central and state tax heads. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit remains available, the related interest and penalty cannot survive, and consequential pre-deposit relief, including statutory interest, follows.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions for input tax credit are satisfied, inadvertent reporting of eligible integrated-tax credit under central and state tax heads does not constitute wrongful availment; a verification certificate under an administrative circular is not an independent condition of eligibility.

Outcome: The special leave petitions were dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.

Issues: Whether penalties for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars are sustainable on estimated additions for alleged bogus purchases.

Analysis: The penalties were imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on additions for alleged bogus purchases that were successively assessed at 100%, reduced to 5% and ultimately sustained at 6%. Judicial discipline and consistency required adherence to coordinate-bench decisions on identical estimated additions, in the absence of distinguishing features or a subsequent contrary ruling.

Conclusion: The penalties on the estimated additions are unsustainable and must be deleted.

Issues: Whether the belated suspension of a customs broker's licence pending inquiry was justified.

Analysis: Regulation 16 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 provides for immediate suspension pending inquiry; Regulation 17 governs disciplinary proceedings. Preventive suspension requires a demonstrated need for urgent action. The licensing authority received an offence report containing allegations against the broker three to four months before suspension. The suspension order identified no additional information in the later documents establishing a need for urgency. Separate action for revocation remains subject to the applicable procedure and timelines.

Conclusion: The suspension was unjustified and is set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Immediate suspension of a customs broker's licence pending inquiry cannot be sustained where the authority delays acting on an offence report without demonstrating a subsequent need for urgent action.