Issues: Whether failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing vitiated the orders.

Analysis: The show cause notice and reminders stated "N.A." against the date, time and venue of personal hearing. A date, time and venue were required to enable the assessee to present its case.

Conclusion: The orders were vitiated by denial of a personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is vitiated for breach of natural justice where the assessee is denied an opportunity of personal hearing through failure to specify its date, time and venue.

Issues: Whether an appeal is maintainable without filing Form APL-05 when the defect remains uncorrected despite opportunities to cure it.

Analysis: Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 110 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, provides for an appeal in Form APL-05. Rule 18 of the GST Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, requires online filing in the prescribed form with the relevant documents. Final acknowledgment follows filing and removal of defects. Form APL-05 had not been filed despite notices and opportunities to correct the defect.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable without Form APL-05.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal to the Tribunal is not maintainable where the mandatory statutory appeal form has not been filed and the defect remains uncorrected despite opportunities to cure it.

Issues: Whether CGST authorities had jurisdiction under Section 73 of the CGST Act to recover allegedly inadmissible CENVAT credit transitioned to GST.

Analysis: The proceedings concerned CENVAT credit transitioned under Section 140 of the CGST Act. The applicable precedents distinguish the admissibility of credit under the earlier law from input tax credit under the CGST Act and recognise the preservation of proceedings under the earlier law through Section 174.

Conclusion: The CGST authorities lacked jurisdiction to conduct the recovery proceedings under Section 73. The impugned appellate order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 73 of the CGST Act cannot be used to determine the admissibility under the earlier law of CENVAT credit transitioned to GST; proceedings under the earlier law remain subject to the statutory saving.

Issues: (i) Whether transitional credit could be denied because it was entered in the wrong table of Form GST TRAN-1. (ii) Whether Revenue could challenge substantive eligibility for the credit on appeal when that ground was omitted from the notice and adjudication. (iii) Whether the appellate authority was obliged to conduct a further inquiry into eligibility.

Issue (i): Whether transitional credit could be denied because it was entered in the wrong table of Form GST TRAN-1.

Analysis: Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for transitional credit for different categories of registered persons, and Rule 117 requires a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1. A dealer claiming credit under Section 140(3) must use Table 7(a), rather than Table 5(a). Adopted precedents distinguish inadvertent procedural lapses from substantive eligibility. The later circular provided an opportunity to revise declarations.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied solely because it was entered in the wrong table. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Revenue could challenge substantive eligibility for the credit on appeal when that ground was omitted from the notice and adjudication.

Analysis: The notice and adjudication confined the proposed recovery to use of the wrong table, although invoices had been produced and verification was available under Rule 121. The reasoning applied principles analogous to constructive res judicata and approbation and reprobation to the eligibility objection available but omitted during adjudication.

Conclusion: Revenue could not raise the omitted eligibility objection on appeal. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellate authority was obliged to conduct a further inquiry into eligibility.

Analysis: Section 107(11) provides for further inquiry as may be necessary, conferring discretion to be exercised according to the facts. The appellate authority addressed the ground on which recovery had been adjudicated.

Conclusion: A further inquiry was not obligatory in this case. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transitional credit remains undisturbed without a fresh adjudication of substantive eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: An inadvertent procedural error in a transitional credit declaration cannot by itself defeat a claim to credit where the claimant is otherwise eligible.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit of Rs. 4,176 each under CGST and SGST was liable to reversal for exceeding the prescribed time limit. (ii) Whether credit inadvertently reported under CGST and SGST instead of IGST was liable to reversal with interest and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit of Rs. 4,176 each under CGST and SGST was liable to reversal for exceeding the prescribed time limit.

Analysis: Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 operates notwithstanding the earlier time limit in Section 16(4).

Conclusion: The taxpayer was absolved of liability to reverse the credit of Rs. 4,176 under each head.

Issue (ii): Whether credit inadvertently reported under CGST and SGST instead of IGST was liable to reversal with interest and penalty.

Analysis: Section 73 addresses, among other matters, wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit. The Tribunal applied the cited High Court rulings treating the electronic credit ledger as a unified pool and recognising inadvertent allocation of eligible IGST credit to CGST and SGST as a technical error.

Conclusion: The reversal and associated interest and penalty require fresh consideration in light of those rulings.

Final Conclusion: The time-barred credit reversal is removed; liability arising from the allocation of credit under the wrong tax heads remains for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Inadvertent allocation of otherwise eligible IGST credit to CGST and SGST heads does not by itself establish wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit.

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the customs house agent for involvement in the import of misdeclared goods was sustainable.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority found that the agent's role in importing the seized consignment was not proved, but inferred knowledge of misdeclaration from third-party statements and the use of the agent's telephone number in the trader's contact details. No independent documentary evidence directly linked the agent to the import. Penalties against other implicated persons had been set aside, eroding the foundation of the allegations. Cross-examination is not an absolute right, but forms part of natural justice and is consistent with Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. The agent's request to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon was denied on grounds including delay; the Tribunal incorrectly proceeded on the basis that no such request had been made.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs penalty based on third-party statements cannot be sustained where cross-examination has been denied, independent evidence of the alleged role is absent, and the foundation of the allegations has been eroded.

Issues: Whether the request to convert free shipping bills into advance authorisation shipping bills was rightly rejected.

Analysis: A coordinate bench had allowed conversion on substantially similar facts involving the same advance authorisation. The time limit prescribed by the circular relied upon by the authorities had been held ultra vires the statute.

Conclusion: The rejection of the conversion request was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A time limit prescribed by a circular held ultra vires the statute cannot bar conversion of shipping bills.

Issues: (i) Whether the application against the personal guarantor was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the personal guarantee was validly invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the application against the personal guarantor was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The continuing guarantee expressly treated a written acknowledgment by the borrower as made on the guarantor's behalf for limitation purposes. The borrower's balance-sheet acknowledgment was made during the subsisting limitation period. Applying that acknowledgment and the exclusion of the pandemic period, limitation extended to 28 February 2025; the application was filed on 8 May 2024.

Conclusion: The application was within limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal guarantee was validly invoked.

Analysis: The guarantee made the guarantor's obligation payable on written demand and permitted enforcement without first proceeding against the borrower. A copy of the default notice was addressed to the guarantor, and the subsequent recall notice was also addressed to the guarantor.

Conclusion: The guarantee was validly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The guarantor remains subject to the initiated insolvency resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a guarantee expressly deems the borrower's written acknowledgment to bind the guarantor for limitation purposes, a timely acknowledgment extends limitation against the guarantor even after invocation of the guarantee.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the insolvency appeal could be condoned when the order was uploaded after its pronouncement.

Analysis: The order recorded counsel's presence, and no material showed that it had not been pronounced on its stated date. Under the insolvency appeal framework, limitation runs from pronouncement rather than subsequent uploading, with the day of pronouncement excluded from computation. The prescribed period is 30 days, extendable by no more than 15 days for sufficient cause. Exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy requires an application within the prescribed limitation period; the copy was sought after that period.

Conclusion: The delay was beyond the Tribunal's condonable jurisdiction and could not be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an insolvency order is pronounced in counsel's presence, subsequent uploading does not defer limitation. The Tribunal cannot condone delay beyond the statutory maximum, and exclusion of time for obtaining a certified copy requires a timely application for it.

Issues: Whether rejection of the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit on supplies to a special economic zone should be sustained where return disclosures and supporting documents require verification.

Analysis: Supplies to a special economic zone for authorised operations are zero-rated under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 prescribes the refund formula and documentation requirements. Correct reporting of zero-rated turnover and its breakup is material to applying the formula. The returns did not disclose the claimed SEZ supplies, turnover figures required reconciliation, and there were conflicting accounts concerning the submission of supporting documents. Invoice-wise reconciliation, invoices, endorsements and the letter of undertaking required verification, with an opportunity of hearing and a speaking order.

Conclusion: The rejection could not be sustained without re-examination of the claim. Refund entitlement remains undecided.

Issues: (i) Whether the GST refund limitation applies to a service-tax appeal pre-deposit mistakenly paid through the GST portal. (ii) Whether unjust enrichment applies to the refund of that pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the GST refund limitation applies to a service-tax appeal pre-deposit mistakenly paid through the GST portal.

Analysis: Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act concerns refunds of amounts paid under GST law. The disputed payment was identified as a service-tax appeal pre-deposit and was subsequently paid through the accepted channel. The adopted precedents distinguish amounts paid under mistake of law from tax collected under GST law and apply general limitation principles.

Conclusion: Section 54's limitation does not bar the claim; general limitation provisions apply. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether unjust enrichment applies to the refund of that pre-deposit.

Analysis: A statutory appeal pre-deposit secures the right of appeal rather than discharging duty. The adopted precedent and departmental circular distinguish its return from a refund of duty.

Conclusion: Unjust enrichment does not apply to the pre-deposit refund. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The erroneous GST-portal payment is recoverable as a service-tax appeal pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal pre-deposit mistakenly paid through the GST mechanism is outside the GST refund limitation and its refund is not subject to unjust enrichment; general limitation provisions apply.

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 74 for financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 could be sustained on the basis of audit-detected discrepancies.

Analysis: Section 74 requires the adjudicating officer's satisfaction that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the short payment, with the foundational facts stated in the show-cause notice. The discrepancies arose from records produced by the taxpayer, and no incriminating material was identified. The taxpayer's stated exemption from filing the reconciliation statement and accounts was not disputed. Failure to discharge the liability voluntarily before audit did not necessarily establish wilful suppression.

Conclusion: The Section 74 proceedings are unsustainable. Liability for financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 is to be determined on the footing of a notice under Section 73.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for short payment under Section 74 require foundational facts supporting the adjudicating officer's satisfaction that fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression caused the short payment; an audit-detected discrepancy and failure to pay voluntarily do not by themselves establish that requirement.

Issues: Whether the claim for refund of special additional duty was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The refund notification, as amended with effect from 1 August 2008, required a claim to be filed within one year of payment of the additional duty. Its conditions required strict interpretation. The goods were imported and the duty paid after the amendment, while the claim was filed more than one year after payment. Decisions concerning imports before the amendment were distinguished.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and was correctly rejected. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For imports after the amendment, a claim under the conditional special additional duty refund notification must be filed within one year of payment of the duty.

Issues: (i) Whether admission of the financial creditor's insolvency application was justified; (ii) whether the lenders could be compelled to accept the proposed settlement; (iii) whether the admitted insolvency application could be withdrawn outside the statutory procedure.

Issue (i): Whether admission of the financial creditor's insolvency application was justified.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires ascertainment of default in a financial debt that is due and payable. The debt and default were undisputed, and evidence of default had been supplied. The objections concerned the applicant's minority share, settlement and assignment.

Conclusion: Admission was justified, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the lenders could be compelled to accept the proposed settlement.

Analysis: The initial settlement proposal required an upfront deposit before the lenders could obtain internal approvals. That deposit was not made, and subsequent commitments to deposit settlement amounts were also not honoured.

Conclusion: The lenders could not be compelled to accept the proposed settlement, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the admitted insolvency application could be withdrawn outside the statutory procedure.

Analysis: Amended Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prescribes the procedure for withdrawal, including committee approval and restrictions on the stage at which withdrawal is available.

Conclusion: Withdrawal could occur only in accordance with the statutory procedure, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The established default supports continuation of the insolvency process; unfulfilled settlement offers do not displace the statutory withdrawal mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: A complete insolvency application by a financial creditor must be admitted when a due financial debt and default are established.

Issues: Whether penalties could be imposed for breaches involving tax of less than Rs. 5,000 in each case.

Analysis: Section 126 of the Central and Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Acts prohibits penalties for minor breaches. Its explanation defines a minor breach as one involving tax of less than Rs. 5,000. The disputed tax in each case was below that threshold.

Conclusion: The penalties are set aside. The disputed tax and interest remain payable within four weeks of receipt of the order, with the bank account to be de-frozen upon proof of payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A breach involving tax of less than Rs. 5,000 is a minor breach for which no penalty may be imposed under section 126.

Issues: Whether the taxpayer was entitled to input tax credit on the supplies covered by three invoices.

Analysis: Section 16 requires, among other conditions, receipt of the goods and payment of the tax charged to the government. Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility on the claimant. Physical verification found the supplier non-existent approximately three months after the transactions. Invoices, e-way bills, payment entries, transport records and photographs were not conclusive proof of physical receipt; independent verifiable evidence of the source of the goods and evidence of the supplier's payment of tax were lacking. Section 74 provides for recovery where credit is wrongly availed by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.

Conclusion: The input tax credit was denied, and the tax, penalty and applicable interest were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant bears the burden of establishing the conditions for input tax credit, including actual receipt of goods and payment of tax to the government; documentary records alone do not conclusively establish receipt where physical verification reveals that the supplier is non-existent.

Issues: (i) Whether detention of the goods was justified in the absence of an e-way bill for the sale in transit; (ii) Whether the first appellate order satisfied the requirement of a reasoned decision.

Issue (i): Whether detention of the goods was justified in the absence of an e-way bill for the sale in transit.

Analysis: No e-way bill had been generated for the sale transaction. The sale invoice covered only part of the goods loaded in the vehicle. Rule 138 governs the e-way bill requirement for movement of goods.

Conclusion: The detention was justified. The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the first appellate order satisfied the requirement of a reasoned decision.

Analysis: Section 107 requires the appellate authority to state the points for determination, its decision and reasons. The first appellate order did not provide cogent reasons addressing why the original findings were legally or factually unsustainable. Recording reasons is also an aspect of natural justice.

Conclusion: The first appellate order did not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned decision. The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The tax and penalty remain to be determined afresh after both parties are heard.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority must give reasons addressing the points requiring determination; an inadequately reasoned decision cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand relating to job-work and repair expenses required restoration. (ii) Whether the input tax credit treatment of insurance, machinery and capital goods required interference. (iii) Whether cancelled e-way bills justified a demand for suppressed turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the demand relating to job-work and repair expenses required restoration.

Analysis: The job-work expenses were supported by tax invoices reflected in the taxpayer's returns. Machinery repair expenses were verifiable, while no input tax credit had been claimed for the remaining identified repair and maintenance expenses.

Conclusion: Restoration of the demand was not warranted. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the input tax credit treatment of insurance, machinery and capital goods required interference.

Analysis: The blocked-credit provisions relating to insurance of motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft were distinguished from insurance of merchandise stock. The records also identified machinery-related purchases used in furtherance of business and items treated as unrelated to business.

Conclusion: The credit treatment required no interference. Eligible credits remained allowable, while the identified non-business credits remained disallowed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether cancelled e-way bills justified a demand for suppressed turnover.

Analysis: The cancelled e-way bills disclosed clerical errors, and replacement bills against the same invoices were issued immediately or within a short period compared with the time required for transportation.

Conclusion: The cancelled e-way bills did not justify the demand for suppressed turnover. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The verified expense and credit treatment remains effective, including the identified non-business credit disallowances, without an addition for suppressed turnover.

Ratio Decidendi: The restriction on input tax credit for insurance relating to motor vehicles, vessels or aircraft does not extend to insurance of merchandise stock.

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for the consolidated refund claim runs from annual reconciliation or separately from each monthly tax payment; (ii) whether the monthly claims are within limitation under the pandemic extensions and exclusions; (iii) whether the alleged excess was paid without authority of law so as to escape statutory refund limitation; and (iv) whether any excess payment was refundable for March 2018.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for the consolidated refund claim runs from annual reconciliation or separately from each monthly tax payment.

Analysis: Section 54 fixes the relevant date for this claim as the date of payment. The applicable circulars permit adjustment in subsequent returns but do not postpone that date; no actual month-wise adjustment was identified in the returns. Annual reconciliation and disclosure in the annual return do not change the statutory period, and the press release created no legitimate expectation that limitation would begin at year-end. The statutory scheme also requires self-assessment for each tax period.

Conclusion: Limitation runs separately from the filing date of each monthly GSTR-3B, not from annual reconciliation. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the monthly claims are within limitation under the pandemic extensions and exclusions.

Analysis: The extensions under Notifications Nos. 35/2020 and 55/2020 apply to deadlines falling within their specified window and do not revive periods that had already expired. Notification No. 13/2022 and the Supreme Court's limitation directions independently exclude pandemic periods beginning in March 2020. The February 2018 deadline fell within those exclusions, while the deadlines for July 2017 to January 2018 expired before they began. The March 2018 deadline fell within the earlier notification window.

Conclusion: The July 2017 to January 2018 claims are time-barred, against the assessee. The February and March 2018 claims are within time, in favour of the assessee; the February refund is to be quantified and granted according to law.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged excess was paid without authority of law so as to escape statutory refund limitation.

Analysis: Article 265 may affect limitation where an amount is established to have been collected without authority of law. Here, GST was chargeable on the services, and the claimed excess arose from a disputed reconciliation of returns. No identified amount was established to have been paid twice or under a mistake of law. It was unnecessary to decide whether the alleged excess was tax or another amount covered by Section 54.

Conclusion: The exception based on payment without authority of law was not established. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether any excess payment was refundable for March 2018.

Analysis: The month-wise figures recorded a negative difference between tax paid and tax payable for March 2018. The negative figure represented a shortfall, consistent with the finding of a nil eligible refund. Earlier monthly amounts could not be treated as March excess merely by characterising them as carried forward.

Conclusion: No refund is sanctionable for March 2018. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The February 2018 excess is eligible for refund after segregation and quantification; the earlier claims remain time-barred, and no March 2018 excess is refundable.

Ratio Decidendi: For a refund of excess GST paid through monthly returns, the relevant date is the date of each payment; annual consolidation or alleged carry-forward does not postpone it.

Issues: Whether a loss on the sale of depreciable assets in a block of assets was deductible as a business loss under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 41(2), reinstated after the introduction of block depreciation, links its operation to depreciation under Section 32(1)(i), the straight-line regime for power-generation or generation-and-distribution undertakings. Under the block-of-assets regime, additions and sale proceeds are adjusted in determining the block's written-down value.

Conclusion: Section 41(2) did not apply to the assessee, and the claimed business loss deduction was disallowed. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 41(2) applies to qualifying assets depreciated under the straight-line regime for power-generation or generation-and-distribution undertakings, not to assets depreciated under the block-of-assets method.