Issues: Whether interest on customs duty deposited during investigation is payable from the date of deposit until actual refund.

Analysis: The refund followed the final determination that the customs duty was not payable in the first instance. Applying the principle that a person deprived of money subsequently found not lawfully collectible must be compensated for the period of retention, interest runs from the date of payment or deposit and not merely from the date of the refund application.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of deposit until its realization.

Issues: Whether a first-motion application for a merger scheme may be rejected on the basis of an appointed date more than one year before filing, alleged delay in filing, and preliminary document-related concerns before shareholders and creditors consider the scheme.

Analysis: Sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 contemplate a two-stage scheme process. At the first stage, the proposed amalgamation is primarily for consideration by shareholders and creditors, whose interests are directly implicated; threshold intervention is therefore inappropriate merely on matters that can be assessed after their decision and with the benefit of inputs from regulators and tax authorities. Regulation 37 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 required the listed company to obtain stock-exchange observations based on SEBI observations before approaching the Tribunal. The interval required for that mandatory regulatory process could not be attributed to the applicants where they approached the Tribunal promptly after the observations were received. General Circular No. 09/2019 concerns an appointed date significantly ante-dated beyond one year and requires justification and consistency with public interest; it does not warrant a mechanical threshold rejection. Concerns regarding delay, valuation, and related matters may be evaluated at the second stage.

Conclusion: Rejection of the first-motion application on the stated grounds was premature and unsustainable; the process for convening stakeholder meetings was required to proceed, with fuller scrutiny reserved for the second stage.

Issues: Whether statutory ESI contributions payable by a corporate debtor are trust assets excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, rather than ordinary operational debts subject to distribution under Section 53.

Analysis: Section 40(4) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 governs the employer's statutory obligation to deposit ESI contributions, including amounts recoverable from employees' wages. Amounts so retained for statutory employee-benefit purposes are held in trust and constitute third-party assets. Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 excludes such trust assets from the liquidation estate. Filing the claim in Form B is procedural and does not alter the substantive character of the contributions or estop the claimant from invoking the statutory exclusion. The absence of an express reference to ESI contributions in Section 36(4)(a)(iii) does not affect the independent exclusion available under Section 36(4)(a)(i).

Conclusion: ESI contributions falling within Section 40(4) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 are trust assets excluded from the liquidation estate under Section 36(4)(a)(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. They cannot be treated as ordinary Government or operational creditor dues or subjected to the Section 53 waterfall; the qualifying amount must be determined from the statutory records and contribution period.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax under reverse charge was payable on foreign services in respect of which deductions were claimed under Rules 4, 9 and 10 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012; (ii) Whether demurrage charges paid for delay in loading or discharge of cargo constituted consideration for a taxable service.

Issue (i): Whether service tax under reverse charge was payable on foreign services in respect of which deductions were claimed under Rules 4, 9 and 10 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012.

Analysis: The show-cause notice applied the default Rule 3 without specifying why the assessee's disclosed claims under Rules 4, 9 and 10 were unavailable. As the demand arose from ST-3 returns and audit records already available to Revenue, and the assessee had furnished supporting documents, the extended period could not be invoked. The burden to establish taxability and inapplicability of the claimed place-of-provision rules remained on Revenue. The adjudicating authority had separately considered the fifteen categories of services and correctly accepted the deductions under Rules 4, 9 and 10.

Conclusion: The dropped service-tax demand of Rs. 143,01,41,936 was rightly dropped; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether demurrage charges paid for delay in loading or discharge of cargo constituted consideration for a taxable service.

Analysis: Demurrage was payable as a penal charge for delay and not as consideration for services received. Such charges are in the nature of liquidated damages or penal rent and are outside the service-tax levy.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were not taxable, and the service-tax demand of Rs. 1,26,16,689 together with penalty was unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service-tax liability survives under the impugned show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A reverse-charge demand cannot be sustained where the show-cause notice does not establish the inapplicability of the specific place-of-provision rules invoked by the assessee, and penal demurrage is not consideration for a taxable service.

Issues: (i) Whether the 23% licence and facility charges received from the kitchen operator under a revenue-sharing arrangement were consideration for Business Support Service; and (ii) whether payouts linked to sales of alcoholic beverages constituted consideration for Advertisement Service.

Issue (i): Whether the 23% licence and facility charges received from the kitchen operator under a revenue-sharing arrangement were consideration for Business Support Service.

Analysis: Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 covers infrastructural support provided to support the business or commerce of a service recipient. The agreement provided for the appellant to receive 23% of the kitchen operator's net turnover, while both entities jointly operated the restaurant on a principal-to-principal basis. Circular No. 109/3/2009-S.T. recognises that, in a revenue-sharing arrangement between principal-to-principal parties, neither party renders a taxable service to the other merely because a predetermined share of revenue is received.

Conclusion: The licence and facility charges were a revenue share and not consideration for Business Support Service; the service-tax demand on this count was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payouts linked to sales of alcoholic beverages constituted consideration for Advertisement Service.

Analysis: The payouts comprised stock and cash incentives received from distributors based on the volume of alcoholic beverages sold under specific agreements. The receipts were linked to sales of goods and did not represent consideration for sale of space or time, or for advertising or promoting alcoholic beverages.

Conclusion: The payouts were sales incentives and not consideration for Advertisement Service; the service-tax demand on this count was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: As neither receipt constituted consideration for a taxable service, the associated interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A genuine principal-to-principal revenue-sharing arrangement, without provision of support to a service recipient, does not create taxable Business Support Service; sales-linked incentives not paid for advertising activity are not taxable consideration for Advertisement Service.

Issues: (i) Whether compulsory generation and carriage of an e-way bill under Rule 138 applied to inter-State movement on 24 November 2017; (ii) Whether detention, seizure and penalty for non-production of an e-way bill were sustainable on that date.

Issue (i): Whether compulsory generation and carriage of an e-way bill under Rule 138 applied to inter-State movement on 24 November 2017.

Analysis: Rule 138 was substituted by Notification No. 27/2017-Central Tax dated 30.08.2017, but its compulsory operational date for e-way bill compliance was subsequently notified. The nationwide mandatory requirement was brought into force from 1 April 2018, which was after the interception on 24 November 2017.

Conclusion: No; compulsory e-way bill compliance under Rule 138 did not apply on 24 November 2017. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether detention, seizure and penalty for non-production of an e-way bill were sustainable on that date.

Analysis: The goods corresponded with the tax invoice and transport documents, and no discrepancy was found in their quantity, weight or description. The buyer and seller were bona fide dealers, the vehicle was on its designated route, and no material established tax evasion or an intention to evade tax. Since the mandatory e-way bill requirement was not in force on the relevant date, proceedings under Sections 129 and 122 could not rest on its non-production.

Conclusion: No; detention, seizure and penalty for non-production of an e-way bill on that date were unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Non-production of an e-way bill before Rule 138 became compulsory could not constitute a breach supporting detention or penal action where the accompanying transaction documents were genuine and no tax-evasion intent was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: Detention and penalty for failure to carry an e-way bill cannot be sustained where the compulsory requirement under Rule 138 had not come into force on the date of movement and no tax evasion is established.

Issues: Whether penalty for transport of goods with an expired e-way bill containing details of a vehicle wholly different from the vehicle actually carrying the goods was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 68 requires prescribed documents to accompany goods in transit, while Explanation (2) to Rule 138(3) requires Part B of the e-way bill to contain correct vehicle particulars for a valid movement. The limited relaxation under Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST applies to minor errors in one or two digits or characters and does not extend to substitution of an entirely different vehicle. An incomplete or incorrect e-way bill gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of intention to evade tax; such intention may be inferred from surrounding circumstances. Here, the e-way bill had expired, named a different vehicle, and the stated diversion and delay were unsupported by a timely explanation or credible material rebutting that presumption.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed and the concurrent findings were sustained against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported surgical tools were classifiable under CTH 9021 as orthopaedic appliances or under CTH 9018 as orthopaedic instruments; (ii) Whether the benefit of basic customs duty exemption under Item E(9) of List 30 was available for the period from 16.07.2018 to 12.12.2019; and (iii) Whether the concessional IGST benefit under Item E(9) of List 3 was available for the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether the imported surgical tools were classifiable under CTH 9021 as orthopaedic appliances or under CTH 9018 as orthopaedic instruments.

Analysis: Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 90 confines orthopaedic appliances under Heading 9021 to appliances for preventing or correcting bodily deformities or for supporting or holding body parts following illness, operation or injury. The relevant goods were surgical tools used by surgeons and health-care professionals during operative procedures and were neither worn, carried or implanted in a patient. Heading 9018 specifically covers instruments and appliances used in medical and surgical sciences. The previous self-assessment of the same goods under Heading 9018 and the verified functional use of each imported item supported classification as surgical instruments.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under CTH 9018 and not under CTH 9021; the issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of basic customs duty exemption under Item E(9) of List 30 was available for the period from 16.07.2018 to 12.12.2019.

Analysis: For the stated period, Item E(9) of List 30 covered instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients, including spinal instruments. The imported goods were surgical tools specifically designed for spinal surgeries and therefore fell within the then applicable entry. The later amendment removing the word "instruments" did not govern the disputed pre-amendment period.

Conclusion: The basic customs duty exemption was available for the period from 16.07.2018 to 12.12.2019; the issue is against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the concessional IGST benefit under Item E(9) of List 3 was available for the relevant period.

Analysis: Item E(9) of List 3 under the IGST notification was identical to the corresponding pre-amendment customs exemption entry. Since the goods qualified under the customs entry for the earlier period, the identical IGST entry also applied. Unlike the customs notification, Item E(9) of List 3 was not amended to remove instruments, and its benefit consequently continued during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The concessional IGST benefit under Item E(9) of List 3 remained available; the issue is against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Surgical tools used in spinal procedures remain subject to classification as medical or surgical instruments, while the applicable pre-amendment customs exemption and the unamended corresponding IGST entry preserve the stated concessional benefits.

Issues: Whether specially designed disposable microcuvettes used with an analyser are classifiable as parts of analytical instruments under CTI 9027 9090 or as articles of plastic under CTI 3926 9099.

Analysis: Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 classifies parts and accessories suitable for sole or principal use with a particular instrument along with that instrument; permanent physical attachment is not required. The microcuvettes possessed specialised dimensions, configuration, material and optical characteristics necessary for calibration, spectrophotometry and accurate analytical operation of the analyser. Their function in processing samples and reagents, coupled with the absence of any established general or alternative use, demonstrated their sole or principal suitability for the analyser. Disposable character alone does not prevent an article from being a part or accessory, and classification depends on objective characteristics and functional use rather than material of manufacture.

Conclusion: The microcuvettes are parts of the analyser classifiable under CTI 9027 9090, and not articles of plastic under CTI 3926 9099.

Issues: (i) Entitlement to concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. for the disputed imports; (ii) Whether Notification No. 35/2013-Customs operates retrospectively; (iii) Validity of invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Entitlement to concessional basic customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. for the disputed imports

Analysis: On the dates of the disputed Bills of Entry, Notification No. 127/2011-Customs governed the exemption and did not cover goods under the relevant tariff heading. The subsequent Notification No. 64/2012-Customs also did not restore the omitted entry. No unequivocal governmental acknowledgment established that the omission was a drafting error. Strict construction of tax exemption notifications precluded extending the benefit beyond their expressed terms.

Conclusion: The concessional basic customs duty benefit was unavailable for the disputed imports; decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Notification No. 35/2013-Customs operates retrospectively

Analysis: Notification No. 35/2013-Customs restored the benefit for the specified goods but did not prescribe retrospective operation. In fiscal matters, a notification operates prospectively unless retrospective intent is expressly stated or necessarily follows from its terms; an alleged omission cannot supply such intent.

Conclusion: Notification No. 35/2013-Customs operates prospectively from its Gazette publication; decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Validity of invoking the extended period of limitation

Analysis: The exemption claimed had ceased to be available before the Bills of Entry were filed. Awareness of the amended notification was attributable to the importer, and the claim of an unavailable benefit supported invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid; decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed exemption was unavailable at the time of import, its later restoration did not affect prior imports, and the resulting duty demand was sustainable within the extended limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal exemption notification operates prospectively unless its text clearly provides otherwise, and a subsequent extension of exemption cannot confer benefits for an earlier period merely on an alleged omission.

Issues: (i) Whether penalties could be imposed and appropriated from refundable pre-deposit in refund proceedings after an appellate order had set aside the penalties; (ii) Whether interest on the refundable pre-deposit was governed by the pre-6 August 2014 version of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the point from which such interest was payable.

Issue (i): Whether penalties could be imposed and appropriated from refundable pre-deposit in refund proceedings after an appellate order had set aside the penalties.

Analysis: The prior appellate order had set aside the penalties. A refund claim for the pre-deposit had to be examined consistently with that binding disposition and could not be used to institute a fresh penalty determination or recover penalties by appropriation. Such reopening of penalty liability in refund proceedings was contrary to judicial discipline.

Conclusion: Penalties could not be imposed or appropriated in the refund proceedings; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the refundable pre-deposit was governed by the pre-6 August 2014 version of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the point from which such interest was payable.

Analysis: As the appeal was pending before 6 August 2014, the saving proviso to amended Section 35F, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, preserved the pre-amendment Section 35FF regime despite the later date of deposit. Under that regime, statutory interest becomes payable only where the refundable amount remains unpaid beyond three months from receipt or communication of the appellate order by the jurisdictional authority, and not from the date of the pre-deposit. The dates on which the respective refundable components became due and the consequential interest require computation.

Conclusion: The pre-amendment Section 35FF governs; interest is not payable from the date of deposit but only after the stipulated three-month period. The assessee's claim for interest from the date of pre-deposit fails.

Final Conclusion: The refundable pre-deposit must be recalculated without the impermissible penalty appropriation, and statutory interest must be computed under the unamended regime for each amount that became refundable.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to service-tax exemption for rent-a-cab service provided to an SEZ unit under Notification No. 4/2004 dated 31.03.2004.

Analysis: The Special Economic Zones Act exempts taxable services supplied to an SEZ Developer or Unit for authorised operations, and the situs of rendering the service does not defeat the exemption where the service is supplied for such operations. Form A-1 issued by the SEZ Specified Officer identified the appellant's rent-a-cab service as an authorised service. No documentary material rebutted that certification; transportation of SEZ staff by pick-up and drop was connected with the authorised service.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption, and denial of the exemption on the ground that the rent-a-cab service was rendered outside the SEZ area was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the margin earned from the purchase and resale of airline cargo slots at specifically agreed rates is taxable as Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: Business Auxiliary Service requires consideration for services rendered to another. Commission received while acting as a general sales agent had already been subjected to service tax. Cargo slots covered by specific rate arrangements carried no commission entitlement; the assessee purchased and resold the slots independently, bearing the possibility of profit or loss. The unchanged factual and legal position warranted application of the earlier final orders on the same issue.

Conclusion: The resale margin arose from an independent, principal-to-principal trading of cargo space and was not consideration for Business Auxiliary Service; the service-tax demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in relation to allegations of cess and excise-duty evasion.

Analysis: A prima facie doubt was recorded regarding computation of suspected evasion solely from the recovery and seizure of machinery under the prescribed formula. The observation was confined to bail and did not determine the validity of the Rule or bind the trial court. In the absence of antecedents, and since the machinery had already been seized, an unsupported apprehension of repetition was insufficient to justify continued custody.

Outcome: Regular bail granted.

Issues: Whether a best-judgment order for non-filing of the return could be sustained where the return was filed shortly after expiry of the condonable period together with tax, interest and late fee.

Analysis: The return was filed with payment of tax, interest and late fee after a marginal delay beyond the prescribed and condonable periods. In these circumstances, the belated return warranted scrutiny under Section 61 of the applicable GST enactment. The period from this order until completion of scrutiny was directed to be excluded in computing limitation for proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the applicable GST enactment.

Conclusion: The impugned best-judgment order was quashed, and the belated return was directed to be scrutinised in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether renewal of charitable registration could be refused because a beneficiary received treatment in the private category and the assistance given to that beneficiary constituted about 25% of the trust's expenditure.

Analysis: Renewal under the charitable-registration framework is to be assessed with reference to the charitable objects and activities of the trust. Treatment in a private category, without more, does not establish absence of financial indigence or economic hardship, particularly where prolonged treatment for a life-threatening illness may exhaust the resources of a person of modest means. Further, assistance constituting approximately 25% of the relevant expenditure did not by itself negate the public charitable character of the trust's activities. No other basis for refusing renewal was recorded.

Conclusion: The refusal of renewal was unsustainable and registration was required to be renewed. The consequential rejection of approval under Section 80G, founded solely on the refusal of registration, could not stand.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in excluding Accurate Data Converters Limited as a comparable for determining the arm's length price.

Analysis: Selection or exclusion of comparables is a factual and data-driven exercise that must conform to Rule 10B. Accurate Data Converters Limited had outsourced a major part of its work and was therefore not functionally comparable to the assessee. The Revenue produced no material to displace this factual basis or establish perversity, reliance on irrelevant material, or exclusion of relevant material.

Conclusion: The exclusion of Accurate Data Converters Limited as a comparable was justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether prior-period expenditure was deductible in the year in which the liability became known and crystallised; (ii) Whether the CP and GIC divisions could be aggregated for entity-level transfer-pricing benchmarking and the resulting adjustment sustained.

Issue (i): Whether prior-period expenditure was deductible in the year in which the liability became known and crystallised.

Analysis: Deductibility of expenditure turns on the year in which the liability becomes ascertainable and crystallises, rather than merely the period to which the underlying expenditure relates. The invoices and their particulars became known upon receipt of the parent company's reconciliation after the close of the preceding year; consequently, no provision could have been made earlier for an unknown liability.

Conclusion: The expense was allowable in the year of crystallisation and the disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the CP and GIC divisions could be aggregated for entity-level transfer-pricing benchmarking and the resulting adjustment sustained.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing framework requires benchmarking to reflect the functions and transaction profiles of the tested segments. The CP Division rendered market-analysis and consulting services to associated and non-associated enterprises and had been benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method, whereas the GIC Division was a captive back-office support provider to associated enterprises and had been separately benchmarked using the Transactional Net Margin Method. Their material functional distinction, together with the absence of any demonstrated change from the accepted separate-benchmarking approach, rendered entity-level aggregation unsustainable. The functional and economic differences of the challenged comparables further supported the grievance against the composite adjustment.

Conclusion: The divisions must be benchmarked separately; the entity-level transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Expenses follow the crystallisation of liability, and materially distinct business segments cannot be collapsed for a composite transfer-pricing analysis where their functions and transaction profiles differ.

Issues: (i) Whether transhipped goods entering India constitute imports subject to the prohibition on import or transit of Pakistani-origin goods; (ii) Whether country of origin could be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction on conflicting documentary material; (iii) Whether Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials at Chennai had authority to inspect and seize a consignment slated for transhipment to Kolkata; (iv) Whether the India-Nepal transit treaty overrides domestic customs law and the import/transit prohibition; (v) Whether seizure should be confined to 300 labelled bags rather than the entire consignment.

Issue (i): Whether transhipped goods entering India constitute imports subject to the prohibition on import or transit of Pakistani-origin goods.

Analysis: Paragraph 2.20A of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 expressly prohibits direct or indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan. The Customs Act, 1962 treats goods brought into India from outside India as imported goods, while Section 54 permits transhipment only subject to statutory prohibitions. Clearance for home consumption is not a prerequisite for the applicability of the prohibition where goods have entered India for transit.

Conclusion: The transhipped consignments constitute imports for applying the prohibition; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether country of origin could be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction on conflicting documentary material.

Analysis: The accompanying documents inconsistently identified Nigeria, Sudan and Pakistan as the origin of the goods. Such conflicting evidence gives rise to a disputed question of fact requiring determination through the statutory procedures and applicable rules of origin, rather than in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The country of origin is not conclusively determinable in writ jurisdiction and must be determined through the statutory process; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials at Chennai had authority to inspect and seize a consignment slated for transhipment to Kolkata.

Analysis: Notification No. 17/2002-Customs (N.T.) dated 07.03.2002 confers All India jurisdiction on the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Chennai was the first point of arrival of the consignment in India, permitting inspection and seizure there notwithstanding the intended onward transhipment.

Conclusion: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Chennai had jurisdiction to inspect and seize the consignment; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the India-Nepal transit treaty overrides domestic customs law and the import/transit prohibition.

Analysis: The Customs Act, 1962 and the notification provide a clear domestic legal regime governing prohibited imports and transit. In the event of conflict, municipal law prevails over an international obligation; further, the treaty framework recognises exceptions concerning prohibited goods and essential security interests.

Conclusion: The transit treaty does not override the domestic prohibition; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether seizure should be confined to 300 labelled bags rather than the entire consignment.

Analysis: All 4,050 bags formed a single consignment under two bills of lading and were placed together in the containers. The unresolved discrepancies concerning origin reinforced the absence of a basis to segregate the labelled bags from the remainder at that stage.

Conclusion: There is no basis to bifurcate the consignment or restrict seizure to 300 bags; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The prohibition applies to transhipment entering India, and the origin inquiry, enforcement action and treatment of the consignment must proceed under the applicable customs and statutory framework.

Issues: Whether a tax-demand show-cause notice under Section 74 may be issued to an unregistered person without first initiating assessment under Section 63 of the applicable GST enactment.

Analysis: Section 63 prescribes the statutory mechanism for determining the tax liability of a person who has failed to obtain registration despite being liable to do so. It operates notwithstanding Section 74 and requires a best-judgment assessment, with an opportunity of hearing, before an assessment order is made. The question of entitlement to exemption remains for determination in proceedings under the applicable GST enactment.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice issued under Section 74 was quashed, with liberty to initiate assessment proceedings under Section 63 by issuing notice in ASMT-14.