Issues: Whether separately invoiced freight and insurance amounts, recovered as reimbursements, were includible in the taxable value of erection and commissioning services.

Analysis: The valuation principle applied confines service tax to consideration for the taxable service. The invoices showed that freight and insurance were separately billed as reimbursements; service tax had been discharged on erection and commissioning charges and on goods transport agency services under the reverse charge mechanism. In the absence of evidence that any amount recovered exceeded the actual freight and insurance paid, those amounts could not be treated as consideration for the taxable service.

Conclusion: Separately recovered freight and insurance reimbursements were not includible in the taxable value of the erection and commissioning service. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for contravention of GST e-way bill requirements was sustainable where the delivery address stated in the e-way bill was not a declared place of business of the recipient, despite payment of tax and absence of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129 permits penalty for contravention of the applicable GST statutes or rules, and is not confined to cases of tax non-payment. Rule 138 requires accurate e-way bill particulars to facilitate tracking of goods, including the place of delivery. The delivery address was admittedly neither the recipient's principal place of business nor an additional declared place of business on the date of interception; its subsequent registration did not cure the contravention. The supplier was required to verify that the address provided for delivery was a declared place of business before generating the e-way bill. The e-way bill was also deemed accepted because neither supplier nor recipient communicated its rejection under the prescribed mechanism. Payment of tax and absence of intention to evade tax did not eliminate the statutory breach.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 129 was sustained; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Validity of the revisionary jurisdiction invoked under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue for allowing deduction under Section 80P(2) without examining the mandatory condition in Section 80AC; (iii) Whether examination of the Section 80P(2) deduction was outside the scope of reassessment under Section 147.

Issue (i): Validity of the revisionary jurisdiction invoked under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 263(1) requires examination of the record and formation of an opinion that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The revision notice recorded perusal of the assessment records, notwithstanding reference to the Assessing Officer's proposal, and specifically identified the unverified allowance of deduction as causing error and prejudice. Prima facie satisfaction at the notice stage was sufficient, subject to final determination after hearing.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the revisionary jurisdiction was validly assumed.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue for allowing deduction under Section 80P(2) without examining the mandatory condition in Section 80AC.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 263 treats an order as erroneous and prejudicial where required inquiries or verification are not made or relief is allowed without inquiry. Section 80AC makes timely furnishing of the return under Section 139(1) mandatory for deductions under the relevant Chapter. No specific inquiry was made into the eligibility of the deduction under Section 80P(2) read with Section 80AC, although the return was filed only in response to notice under Section 148. The allowance was consequently contrary to the statutory condition and could not constitute a plausible view.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue because the deduction was allowed without the required inquiry and despite non-compliance with Section 80AC.

Issue (iii): Whether examination of the Section 80P(2) deduction was outside the scope of reassessment under Section 147.

Analysis: The deduction claim arose directly from the explanation for the cash deposits that formed the basis for reopening: the deposits were asserted to arise from cooperative-credit activities, whose profits were claimed as deductible. The deduction was therefore integral to, rather than independent of, the issue investigated in reassessment. The principle restricting additions on wholly different issues after the recorded reopening issue fails did not apply.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: examination of the deduction claim was within the scope of the reassessment.

Final Conclusion: The absence of inquiry into the mandatory statutory eligibility for deduction justified revision of the assessment and required the claim to be addressed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to inquire into a mandatory statutory condition governing a deduction, resulting in allowance contrary to law, renders an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue and amenable to revision.

Issues: Whether subscription fees received for access to an online communication platform constitute royalty under Explanation 2(iii) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and are consequently taxable in India.

Analysis: The subscription terms granted customers only a limited, non-exclusive right to access and use the platform for the subscription period. Ownership of the software, source code, copyright and all intellectual-property rights remained with the provider. Customers could neither access nor use the source code or the underlying processes, nor modify, reproduce, commercially exploit or acquire any ownership interest in the software. The complex digital processes were used by the provider itself to render communication, collaboration and file-sharing services; access to the resulting platform did not amount to use of, or a right to use, those processes. The receipts therefore did not satisfy the requirements for royalty under either the Act or the treaty. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were business receipts not chargeable to tax in India.

Conclusion: The subscription fees are not royalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and are not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment; the related additions are deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the woven man-made fibre textile rolls intended for use as labels are classifiable under CTI 5807 10 20 rather than CTI 5807 10 90; (ii) Whether goods classified under CTI 5807 10 20 are covered by Entry No. 370 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the woven man-made fibre textile rolls intended for use as labels are classifiable under CTI 5807 10 20 rather than CTI 5807 10 90.

Analysis: Heading 5807 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 covers non-embroidered labels and similar textile articles presented in the piece, strips, or cut to shape or size. The HSN Explanatory Notes exclude woven labels and similar articles from Heading 5806 even where they are narrow woven fabrics. The rolls were woven man-made fibre materials, specially processed for durable printing, presented in strips, and intended exclusively for garment labels. Their unprinted condition at import and subsequent cutting did not displace their character as labels. The common-parlance and functional-character tests supported classification as label articles, while the specific entry for woven articles of man-made fibre prevailed over the residual entry for other woven articles.

Conclusion: Against the assessee's proposed CTI 5807 10 90, the products are classifiable under CTI 5807 10 20 as woven labels or similar articles of man-made fibre, subject to verification of their declared description, construction, and composition at import.

Issue (ii): Whether goods classified under CTI 5807 10 20 are covered by Entry No. 370 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Entry No. 370 covers labels, badges, and similar articles of textile materials falling under Heading 5807 and prescribes IGST at 5 per cent. The classification under CTI 5807 10 20 falls within that heading.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the products are covered by Entry No. 370 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025, and attract IGST at 5 per cent.

Final Conclusion: The declared woven man-made fibre label rolls receive the specific tariff treatment applicable to Heading 5807 and the corresponding concessional IGST notification entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Textile rolls specially designed and exclusively intended for use as non-embroidered labels retain the character of labels under Heading 5807 despite being unprinted and requiring cutting after import; woven man-made fibre articles fall under the specific man-made fibre tariff item rather than the residual item.

Issues: Whether Bulk Drugs/Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients imported under Chapters 28 or 29, including those imported for manufacture of formulations, testing, clinical research, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, qualify as "All Drugs and medicines" taxable at 5% IGST under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 links IGST on imports to the rate applicable to like goods under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Sl. No. 226 is a description-based entry covering drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The inclusive definition of "drug" in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 encompasses substances intended for use as components of a drug. Read with the definition of bulk drug/API in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, APIs used as such or as ingredients in formulations possess the statutory character of drugs. Their use for testing, clinical trials, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies does not alter that character.

Analysis: The separate reference to formulations manufactured from bulk drugs cannot restrict "All Drugs and medicines" to finished dosage forms without rendering part of the entry redundant. The expression "or any Chapter" extends coverage to eligible APIs classified under Chapters 28 or 29. The specific description for drugs and medicines prevails over the general chemical entries for those Chapters. As the rate notification is a taxing notification rather than an exemption notification, any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the taxpayer.

Conclusion: Bulk Drugs/APIs qualifying as drugs or medicines are eligible for IGST at 5% under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, provided the particular goods are not covered by the nil-rate exclusion under Sl. No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issues: Whether bulk drugs/Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients classified under Chapters 28 or 29, including those imported for manufacture, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, qualify as "all drugs and medicines" under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and attract IGST at 5%.

Analysis: Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 links IGST on imports to the rate applicable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. As the rate notification does not define "drugs", the inclusive definition in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was applied. It includes substances intended for use as components of a drug. Bulk drugs/APIs, being pharmaceutical substances used as such or as ingredients in formulations and regulated under the drug-control framework, fall within that meaning. Their pharmaceutical character is not altered merely because they are imported for examination, testing, clinical research, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies.

Analysis: Serial No. 226 is a description-based entry covering drugs and medicines falling under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The expression "or any Chapter" extends coverage to APIs under Chapters 28 and 29. The semicolon separates the coverage of drugs and medicines from formulations manufactured from bulk drugs; restricting the former to finished dosage forms would offend the Rule Against Surplusage. Applying the Specific Over General Rule, the specific entry for drugs and medicines prevails over the general entries for inorganic or organic chemicals. As the notification is a taxing rate notification, any ambiguity is to receive Beneficial Construction in favour of the taxpayer. The nil-rate exclusion under Serial No. 113 must, however, be determined for each particular API at the time of import.

Conclusion: Bulk drugs/APIs described in the application qualify as "all drugs and medicines" under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and are liable to IGST at 5%, provided the particular API is not covered by the nil-rate exclusion under Serial No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issues: Whether omitted Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could continue to govern pending export refund claims in the absence of a savings or sunset clause.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted without any savings or sunset clause. Omission of subordinate legislation without such preservation terminates its operation in relation to pending proceedings; an advisory recommendation for prospective omission cannot independently preserve the omitted rule.

Conclusion: Rule 96(10) could not be applied to pending refund proceedings after its omission, and the refund direction remained unaffected.

Issues: Whether internal comparables derived from audited segmental accounts were rightly accepted under the Transactional Net Margin Method for determining the arm's length price and deleting the transfer-pricing adjustment.

Analysis: Under Sections 92 and 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, comparable transactions with non-associated enterprises should be preferred over external comparables where they are available and suitable. The segmental financials were derived from audited accounts, sales were allocated on actual invoice-level data, and common expenses were allocated on a rational basis. The chartered accountant's certification also extended to the rationality of the allocation basis. The factual findings accepting the internal comparables were supported by the record and were not perverse.

Conclusion: Internal comparables were rightly accepted for determining the arm's length price, and no upward transfer-pricing adjustment was warranted.

Issues: Whether GST reimbursement claims concerning contracts executed after 1 July 2017 could be denied by applying paragraph 3(iv), instead of paragraph 4, of Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated August 16, 2017.

Analysis: A plain-meaning interpretation of the Notification distinguishes pre-GST contracts from post-GST contracts. Paragraph 3(iv) is confined to pre-GST contracts, whereas paragraph 4 applies to post-GST contracts and ongoing projects covered by its terms. Reliance on paragraph 3(iv) to reject a post-GST reimbursement claim was therefore based on a misconstruction of the Notification. The factual entitlement and quantification of the reimbursement claim were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Paragraph 3(iv) cannot be invoked to deny GST reimbursement in respect of contracts executed after 1 July 2017; such claims fall for consideration under paragraph 4 of Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated August 16, 2017.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory minimum penalty under Section 73(9) could be interfered with on the plea that the breach was minor, absent a constitutional challenge; and (ii) Whether the assessment order required intervention because it was issued without affording a hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory minimum penalty under Section 73(9) could be interfered with on the plea that the breach was minor, absent a constitutional challenge.

Analysis: The applicable GST provisions draw a distinction between Section 74(1), which does not prescribe a minimum amount, and Section 73(9), which prescribes a minimum penalty. Although that distinction may furnish a basis to challenge the validity of the provisions, no such challenge was made.

Conclusion: Interference with the statutory minimum penalty was not warranted in the absence of a constitutional challenge, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order required intervention because it was issued without affording a hearing.

Analysis: The order had been issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The alleged breach also appeared prima facie to be minor. Fair adjudication required an opportunity to contest the tax proposals on merits, upon remittance of the tax demand within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The denial of hearing vitiated the assessment order, and the assessee was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposals on merits upon payment of the tax demand, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A challenge to the statutory penalty provision cannot succeed without directly questioning its validity, whereas an assessment made in breach of natural justice requires a fresh merits determination after affording a reasonable hearing.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment and transfer of input tax credit through bogus firms.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody since 23.06.2026, the investigation had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, and the material was documentary in nature. Bail granted in similar matters and bail extended to another accused in a comparable case supported parity.

Conclusion: Regular bail was warranted on the recorded circumstances.

Outcome: The recalled writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the Court afresh on the same cause of action and to challenge the subsequently introduced provision, if so advised.

Outcome: The recall application was allowed, and the revived writ petition was closed with liberty to institute fresh proceedings on the same cause of action, including a challenge to Section 147A; the earlier protection was continued for 90 days.

Issues: Whether deletion of additions for alleged unexplained investments, loans and advances under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the assessee's bank records and audited financial statements, was perverse and gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: Section 69 applies where investments are not recorded in the books and the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of their nature and source. Section 115BBE governs taxation of income brought to tax under Section 69. The investments, loans and advances had been disclosed in the books and were explained through the bank accounts and audited balance sheets, including balances carried forward from an earlier year. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, had evaluated those materials before directing deletion of the additions; its factual findings disclosed neither perversity nor illegality.

Conclusion: The additions under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE were not sustainable, and no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's deletion of those additions, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Revisionary Authority could revise an assessment order that had accepted Form-F declarations under Section 6A(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: The revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the assessment year in question involved the same issue already decided for subsequent assessment years. The decision in those years, accepted without further challenge, had found that an assessment accepting Form-F declarations under Section 6A(2) was not amenable to such revision. The finality of that adjudication required consistent application to the present assessment year.

Conclusion: The Revisionary Authority lacked power to revise the assessment accepting the Form-F declarations; the revision order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the statutory appellate remedy where non-service of the show-cause notice and denial of personal hearing are alleged; (ii) Whether the absence of remand power with the Appellate Authority permits bypassing the statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the statutory appellate remedy where non-service of the show-cause notice and denial of personal hearing are alleged.

Analysis: Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be invoked notwithstanding an alternative remedy in exceptional cases involving jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. The alleged non-service of the notice and denial of an effective personal hearing depended upon verification of the notices, their mode of service, receipt, and allied record. These were disputed factual matters suitable for determination in the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Any hearing-related infirmity was curable and did not establish a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The alleged defects in service and hearing do not justify writ intervention and must be raised before the Appellate Authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of remand power with the Appellate Authority permits bypassing the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The power to decide an appeal on merits through a fresh and independent appraisal of the record is distinct from the power to remand. The lack of remand power does not impair the Appellate Authority's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and determine the objections on merits.

Conclusion: Absence of remand power does not permit bypassing the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The factual and procedural objections remain open for independent adjudication on their merits in the statutory appellate process.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appeal should not be bypassed for fact-dependent and curable allegations of defective service or breach of natural justice, and the absence of remand power does not diminish the appellate authority's power to decide the appeal on merits.

Issues: Whether refunds arising from TDS assessment and appellate give-effect orders may be withheld for want of financial-year particulars or furnishing of Form 26B, in the absence of an order for refund adjustment, and whether interest is payable on the refundable amounts.

Analysis: Section 201 governs assessment of tax deducted at source, whereas Section 200A and Rule 31A provide for processing and adjustment of TDS statements prior to assessment. A refund arising upon assessment or an appellate order constitutes a vested and crystallised right and is not made subordinate to the procedural mechanism under Section 200A or Form 26B. The give-effect orders forming the basis of the refund were already in the departmental records, and no order under Section 245 authorising withholding or adjustment of the refund was shown.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee: refunds arising from the give-effect orders cannot be withheld on the stated technical ground and must be processed with applicable interest under Section 244A(1) and Section 244A(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 until payment.

Issues: (i) Validity and scope of the Explanation to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in permitting reassessment of subsequently noticed escaped income without compliance with Section 148A, including where no addition is made on the original basis; (ii) Whether search-derived or other external material can enlarge a pending reassessment instead of initiating separate search-based proceedings.

Issue (i): Validity and scope of the Explanation to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in permitting reassessment of subsequently noticed escaped income without compliance with Section 148A, including where no addition is made on the original basis.

Analysis: The amended substantive provision omits the words "and also" found in the unamended Section 147; consequently, authorities founded on that language do not govern the amended regime. The Explanation manifests an unambiguous legislative intention to permit assessment or reassessment of any escaped-income issue that comes to notice during the pending proceedings, without a fresh procedure under Section 148A. An Explanation may enlarge the scope of the main provision where its plain language demonstrates that legislative intention.

Conclusion: The Explanation to Section 147 is valid and permits reassessment of subsequently noticed escaped-income issues without compliance with Section 148A, even where the original issue results in no addition; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether search-derived or other external material can enlarge a pending reassessment instead of initiating separate search-based proceedings.

Analysis: The expression "any issue" in the Explanation carries no restriction that the subsequently noticed information must have been available when reassessment began or must arise from the original reassessment material. Material obtained in a search or from an external source may therefore disclose a further escaped-income issue. During pending reassessment, the statutory scheme permits either enlargement of those proceedings on such material or separate proceedings under the search-assessment mechanism.

Conclusion: Search-derived or other external material may lawfully enlarge pending reassessment proceedings; against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The expanded reassessment based on subsequently received search material is authorised by the Explanation to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the plain language of an Explanation discloses legislative intent to expand the main provision, that effect must be given; the Explanation to Section 147 permits reassessment of any escaped-income issue subsequently noticed during proceedings without fresh compliance with Section 148A.