Issues: Whether a cheque-dishonour complaint instituted by a co-operative society through its authorised Secretary is liable to be quashed merely because the Secretary's name precedes the Society's name in the cause title.

Analysis: The complaint, statutory notice, agreement and cheque showed that the underlying transaction was between the petitioner and the Society and that the Society was the cheque payee. The Society's bye-laws and Managing Committee resolution authorised its Secretary to institute proceedings. An incorporeal complainant necessarily acts through an authorised official; the sequence in which the official's and entity's names appear in the cause title does not determine whether the complaint was instituted personally or on behalf of the entity. The cause-title formulation was, at most, a technical defect and did not affect the Secretary's authority or the maintainability of the prosecution. A disputed factual enquiry at the pre-trial quashing stage was also unwarranted in view of the statutory presumption attached to the cheque.

Conclusion: The complaint was validly instituted by the Society, as payee, through its duly authorised Secretary; the cause-title objection did not warrant quashing of the prosecution.

Issues: Whether the arrest and judicial custody of the petitioner for alleged GST evasion were illegal for non-compliance with the statutory conditions and safeguards governing arrest.

Analysis: The arrest-power must not be exercised routinely or mechanically; credible material, necessity for investigation, and risks of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses are material considerations under the departmental circular and the statutory scheme. The grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner recorded alleged facilitation of online-money-gaming transactions through fictitious entities, suppression of taxable value, routing and layering of funds, personal financial benefit, non-cooperation, and apprehended interference with the investigation. Those grounds also recorded reasons justifying custody and were found adequate. The governing principles applicable to offences under special enactments permit arrest for cognizable offences carrying a sentence below seven years where reasons and necessity for arrest are recorded.

Conclusion: The arrest was lawful and in conformity with the applicable statutory requirements and arrest guidelines; the petitioner's custody was not illegal.

Issues: Whether confiscated gold forming part of undeclared passenger baggage could be permitted to be re-exported by exercising the redemption power under Section 125 notwithstanding non-compliance with the declaration and detention requirements under Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 77 mandates a truthful declaration of baggage. Section 80 is a special provision governing detention and subsequent return or re-export of dutiable or prohibited passenger baggage, and makes that benefit conditional on a true declaration under Section 77. Section 125 confers a general and discretionary power to grant redemption of prohibited confiscated goods on payment of fine; it does not independently confer a right to re-export or override the special baggage regime. Reading Section 125 to permit re-export despite non-compliance with Section 80 would render the declaration condition under Section 77 and the safeguards under Section 80 ineffective. The petitioner neither declared the gold nor sought its detention before being intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. The revisional correction of the erroneous re-export direction consequently fell within the power under Section 129DD.

Conclusion: Re-export of confiscated undeclared passenger baggage cannot be granted under Section 125 where the conditions for re-export under Sections 77 and 80 are not satisfied; the finding is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the importer's letter relinquishing the SAFTA preferential-duty claim precluded a challenge to reassessment; (ii) Whether the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin entitled the imported goods to concessional duty; (iii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the importer's letter relinquishing the SAFTA preferential-duty claim precluded a challenge to reassessment.

Analysis: The relinquishment letter followed prolonged customs detention, mounting demurrage and the urgent need to clear goods required for manufacture. The contemporaneous replies and prompt appellate challenge established that the importer had consistently maintained its eligibility and had not voluntarily abandoned the preferential claim. A letter obtained under those circumstances did not amount to relinquishment contemplated by Section 28DA(4).

Conclusion: The relinquishment letter did not bar the importer from appealing the reassessment or pursuing the SAFTA benefit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin entitled the imported goods to concessional duty.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by a Certificate of Origin issued by Bangladesh's designated authority, certifying them as wholly produced or obtained there. Its authenticity was not disputed, it complied with the prescribed format and was produced within validity. The prescribed SAFTA verification procedure, including a retrospective check by the exporting State where doubt existed, was not followed. The Certificate therefore supported entitlement to preferential treatment.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to the SAFTA concessional rate under Notification No. 99/2011; the differential duty and interest arising from denial of that benefit were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Physical examination revealed no mismatch in quality, classification or valuation, and the goods were not seized. Since the preferential claim was valid and no misdeclaration or fraud was established, the basis for confiscation and the consequential monetary sanctions failed.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The importer retained its preferential-duty entitlement on the strength of the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin, and the reassessment and associated sanctions founded on denial of that entitlement could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A preferential-duty claim supported by an undisputed and valid Certificate of Origin cannot be denied without following the applicable origin-verification procedure, and an involuntary relinquishment obtained under coercive clearance circumstances does not extinguish the importer's right to challenge the assessment.

Issues: Whether service tax could be demanded on receipts reflected in Form 26AS where the underlying road-construction works were exempt and the Department had not independently established taxability.

Analysis: Road-construction works executed for the Public Works Department for general public utility fell within the exemption under Serial No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The demand was founded solely on third-party Form 26AS data, without enquiry into the nature of the receipts, available exemption, or the appellant's supporting records. The taxing authority bore the burden to establish taxable activity and could not presume that every receipt reported in Form 26AS represented taxable consideration.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable; the associated interest and penalties were consequently liable to be set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether sale of packaged information technology software was liable to service tax merely because the conditions of Notification No. 11/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 were not established; (ii) Whether late fee for delayed filing of service tax returns for three quarters was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether sale of packaged information technology software was liable to service tax merely because the conditions of Notification No. 11/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 were not established.

Analysis: Software recorded on media and marketed possesses the attributes of goods under Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India. A transaction involving its sale is a deemed sale and falls outside the definition of service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification conditions concerning valuation, duties and invoice declaration could not convert an otherwise sale-of-goods transaction into a taxable service.

Conclusion: The packaged software sale was not liable to service tax; the duty demand, consequential interest and penalty relating to that transaction were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether late fee for delayed filing of service tax returns for three quarters was sustainable.

Analysis: The returns for three quarters were not filed within the prescribed period after registration. The late fee was imposed under the applicable return-filing provisions.

Conclusion: The late fee of Rs.60,000 was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal liability on the software-sale component does not survive, while the statutory consequence for delayed return filing remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A marketed copy of information technology software on media, constituting goods and a deemed sale, is excluded from taxable service; non-fulfilment of an exemption notification's conditions does not alter that character.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand founded on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns; (ii) Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation; (iii) Whether penalty for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand founded on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns.

Analysis: The demand was based exclusively on statutory records available to the Revenue, without an independent investigation into the nature or taxability of the differential receipts. A mere variance between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax. The delayed filing of returns did not, in the absence of cogent evidence of conscious concealment, satisfy the jurisdictional conditions for invoking the extended period. Once that period was unavailable, the notice issued on 30.12.2020 was beyond the normal thirty-month limitation period, which had expired by 05.03.2020 even for the last relevant return. Pandemic-related limitation extensions could not revive an already time-barred demand.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the entire service-tax demand, interest under Section 75, and penalty under Section 78 were barred by limitation and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation.

Analysis: At the date of the notice, the applicable Board instructions required pre-show cause notice consultation for demands exceeding Rs.50 lakhs, except preventive or offence-related matters. The proceedings did not fall within an exception, and no consultation was afforded. The later circular dispensing with consultation in specified suppression-related cases could not retrospectively validate a notice issued contrary to the instructions then in force. Non-compliance with this mandatory procedural safeguard vitiated the initiation of proceedings.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and consequential proceedings were independently unsustainable for failure to undertake mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was sustainable.

Analysis: Timely filing of statutory returns is an independent procedural obligation. The delays in filing the ST-3 Returns were admitted and established on record. Although those delays did not prove suppression or intent to evade tax for limitation purposes, they constituted a default attracting the distinct penalty provision.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs.10,000 under Section 77 for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal demand and its tax-evasion consequences fail as time-barred and procedurally vitiated, while the separate penalty for delayed statutory compliance remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based solely on statutory return data and Form 26AS cannot attract the extended limitation period without affirmative evidence of fraud, wilful suppression, or intent to evade tax; mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation applicable when the notice was issued cannot be retrospectively dispensed with.

Issues: Whether grouping, pinning and plugging imported photocopier modules in a warehouse according to customer specifications amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Note 6 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Manufacture requires transformation resulting in a new and distinct marketable article having a distinctive name, character or use; labour, skill, value addition, or mere processing is insufficient where the commodity remains commercially the same. Note 6 applies only where an incomplete or unfinished article having the essential character of a finished article is converted into the complete article. The imported goods had been classified and assessed as complete machines and were cleared from the warehouse in sets and original packing. The evidence did not establish physical assembly at the warehouse: the alleged components were factory-fitted abroad, and the activity was confined to unpacking, grouping, pinning and plugging modules for customer-specific dispatch. Rule 2(a) is a classification rule and does not determine whether a subsequent process constitutes manufacture. The Revenue also failed to produce evidence displacing the Tribunal's factual findings.

Conclusion: The warehouse activity did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Note 6 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was inapplicable.

Issues: (i) Whether Papad Khar is classifiable under heading 2501 or heading 2102 at 5% GST, or under sub-heading 28362090 at 18% GST; (ii) Whether Papad Khar is entitled to GST exemption as an ingredient used in exempt papad or under the cited exemption entries.

Issue (i): Whether Papad Khar is classifiable under heading 2501 or heading 2102 at 5% GST, or under sub-heading 28362090 at 18% GST.

Analysis: Heading 2501 covers sodium chloride and specified forms of salt, whereas Papad Khar is manufactured by mixing sodium chloride with sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate and is not crude or merely processed salt within Chapter 25. It is neither common salt nor rock salt and does not satisfy the conditions for classification under that heading. Heading 2102 covers yeasts and prepared baking powders. Papad Khar is an alkaline salt mixture used to impart crispness and elasticity to traditional snacks; it is neither yeast nor prepared baking powder. Its functionally active constituents are sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate, which are covered by heading 2836. The product is therefore classifiable under sub-heading 28362090 and falls under Entry 35 of Schedule II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Conclusion: Papad Khar is classifiable under sub-heading 28362090 and is chargeable to GST at 18% (9% CGST and 9% SGST), against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Papad Khar is entitled to GST exemption as an ingredient used in exempt papad or under the cited exemption entries.

Analysis: The exemption applicable to papad does not extend automatically to its inputs or ingredients. Inputs and finished goods are independently classified and taxed according to their respective tariff entries and rate notifications. Papad Khar is not covered by the asserted exemption entries or any other identified exemption notification.

Conclusion: Papad Khar does not qualify for GST exemption, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The product remains taxable as an inorganic carbonate/bicarbonate preparation under the applicable tariff and rate schedule, without exemption based on its use in manufacturing papad.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification and rate of an input must be determined by its own composition, functional character and applicable tariff entry; exemption of the finished product does not by itself confer exemption on its raw materials or ingredients.

Issues: Whether offset-printing job work performed on Kraft Paper and Duplex Paper supplied by principal manufacturers is taxable at 5% or 18% GST.

Analysis: The printing activity, together with cutting, sorting, plate preparation, drying, finishing, quality checking, packing and return of the printed material, comprises naturally bundled supplies in the ordinary course of business. Offset printing is the principal supply; accordingly, the entire job-work supply is a composite supply taxable as the principal supply under Section 8(a). The concessional entry for printing job work on goods under Chapters 48 or 49 applies only where the goods undergoing job work attract central tax at 2.5% or nil. Kraft paper and duplex paper are taxable at 9% CGST under the applicable goods-rate notification, so the concessional entry is unavailable. The residual job-work entry applies.

Conclusion: GST at 18% (9% CGST and 9% SGST) applies to the composite supply of offset-printing job work on Kraft Paper and Duplex Paper, against the assessee.

Issues: Classification and GST rate of the applicant's semi-detergent oil-base and detergent soap bars/cakes used for washing clothes.

Analysis: The products were assessed on the composition, form and stated use available on record. Their use was to remove stains and deodorise apparel, and their composition contained substantial fillers, without features associated with soaps specifically designed for washing the body, hands or face. The definition of "toilet preparation" under a statute enacted for a different purpose could not govern GST tariff classification. Applying the common-parlance meaning of toilet soap and the tariff framework under heading 3401, the products were treated as laundry soaps rather than toilet soaps.

Conclusion: The applicant's laundry soap bars/cakes are classifiable under HSN 34011942 and taxable at 18% GST under Entry 66 of Schedule II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, against the assessee.

Issues: Whether personal penalties imposed on the appellants for alleged misdeclaration of MRP/RSP of imported goods could survive after the underlying duty demand and penalties against the main noticee and other co-noticees had been set aside or dropped.

Analysis: The underlying adjudication order had already been set aside in relation to the main noticee and other co-noticees, with the duty demand and associated penalties dropped. Since the foundation for the personal penalties no longer subsisted, the penalties imposed on the appellants could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The personal penalties are unsustainable and are dropped, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalties for alleged involvement in the smuggling of mis-declared cigarettes could be sustained against the respondent on the basis of a witness statement where the witness, during cross-examination, denied the respondent's involvement.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings rested on the statement of the IEC holder recorded during investigation. At cross-examination, the witness stated that the respondent had no role in the imports, could not produce substantial material establishing the respondent's ownership of the goods, and acknowledged a friendly relationship with the respondent. The cross-examination testimony was admissible; the witness's earlier statement, without supporting evidence, did not establish the respondent's participation in smuggling.

Conclusion: The penalties were rightly dropped; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a scheduled-offence case could be committed to the designated Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when that Special Court had not taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint.

Analysis: Section 44(1)(c) applies where the court handling the scheduled offence and the Special Court handling the money-laundering complaint have both taken cognizance and are different courts. Cognizance by the Special Court is an express statutory precondition, not an anticipated or dispensable formality. A pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not amount to cognizance. The absence of the sanction required under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also prevented cognizance against the former public servant. Further, committal is discretionary and intended to avoid delay and inconsistent findings; it could not justifiably be used to displace a scheduled-offence trial that had substantially concluded, thereby prejudicing the accused's right to speedy trial.

Conclusion: The committal application was premature and was rightly refused; the issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the assessment order.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to file an appeal within two weeks along with the statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay.

Issues: (i) Whether an Ophthalmic Binocular Surgical Microscope is classifiable under tariff heading 9018 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the product falls under Entry No. 483 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (i): Whether an Ophthalmic Binocular Surgical Microscope is classifiable under tariff heading 9018 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Heading 9011 covers compound optical microscopes generally used by amateurs, teachers, industry and research laboratories, while its HSN notes expressly exclude ophthalmic binocular-type microscopes. Heading 9012 concerns non-optical microscopes, including electron and proton microscopes and diffraction apparatus. The product is a specialised, electrically powered stereoscopic instrument designed exclusively for ophthalmic examination and delicate eye surgeries. Heading 9018 and its HSN notes cover instruments used in medical or surgical practice, including ophthalmic binocular-type microscopes mounted on adjustable supports for eye examination.

Conclusion: The Ophthalmic Binocular Surgical Microscope is classifiable under tariff heading 9018 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the product falls under Entry No. 483 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Entry No. 483 covers goods of heading 9018, namely instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences. Since the product is classified under heading 9018, it is covered by that entry.

Conclusion: The product falls under Entry No. 483 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and is taxable at 5%, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The specialised ophthalmic surgical microscope attracts the concessional rate applicable to medical and surgical instruments of heading 9018.

Ratio Decidendi: A microscope specially designed and used for ophthalmic examination and surgery is classifiable as an ophthalmic medical instrument under heading 9018, notwithstanding its magnification function.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition for unexplained investment in immovable property was sustainable; (ii) Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the addition for unexplained investment in immovable property was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 69 applies where an investment is not recorded and the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation of its nature and source. The assessee established the sources through confirmations, income-tax returns, financial statements, ledger accounts, bank statements and a fund-flow statement. The principal parties responded to notices under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the receipts were directly correlated with payments to the property seller through banking channels. After the assessee discharged the initial burden, the Revenue produced no independent material to discredit the evidence, establish accommodation entries, or show that the funds belonged to the assessee.

Conclusion: The investment source was satisfactorily explained; the addition under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts was justified.

Analysis: The cash deposits were substantially supported by professional receipts, interest income and rental income that had been disclosed in the return. Cash already accounted for and offered to tax could not be treated again as unexplained money merely because it was later deposited in bank accounts, absent contrary evidence. However, the claimed opening cash balance lacked sufficient contemporaneous substantiation through a cash book or supporting records. A reasonable acceptance of 50% of that opening balance was warranted.

Conclusion: Cash deposits were explained except for Rs. 5,12,700, representing 50% of the unsubstantiated opening cash balance; the addition under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was restricted to that amount, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unexplained-investment addition was eliminated, while only the unsubstantiated portion of the opening cash balance remained taxable as unexplained money.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an assessee substantiates the source and movement of funds through credible documentary evidence and banking records, the Revenue must bring cogent contrary material before treating the investment as unexplained; disclosed income deposited in a bank cannot ordinarily be taxed again as unexplained money.

Issues: Whether penalty for non-compliance with notices could be sustained where the assessee established reasonable cause.

Analysis: The notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the assessee, an educational trust, explained that the disruption prevented effective compliance. No independent material established deliberate or wilful disregard of the notices. The assessee's bona fide belief regarding exemption, its subsequent participation in assessment proceedings, and the remand of the quantum proceedings supported the explanation. Penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings, and a technical or venial default does not warrant penalty where reasonable cause is established.

Conclusion: The assessee had reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961; consequently, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether cash payments towards credit-card dues incurred for trading purchases could be assessed in their entirety as unexplained money when the assessee had disclosed business income under the presumptive-taxation scheme.

Analysis: The credit cards were used for business purchases, and there was no material that they funded capital acquisitions or personal expenditure. Where cash payments are intrinsically connected with business transactions, taxing the entire payment would amount to taxing gross receipts rather than real income. The assessee had disclosed profit at 20.2% of gross receipts under the presumptive scheme, and the Revenue produced no material showing that this rate did not fairly represent the business profitability.

Conclusion: The addition could be made only to the extent of the 20.2% profit element in the cash payments; the balance of the addition was liable to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.