Issues: (i) Whether the Supreme Court's deferral direction concerning delayed adjudication required the writ petition to remain pending; (ii) Whether, following the adjudication orders, the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court's deferral direction concerning delayed adjudication required the writ petition to remain pending.

Analysis: The deferral direction was issued in the context of matters concerning pending adjudication and the larger issue of delay. The provisional assessments in question had culminated in adjudication orders, including an order that pre-dated the writ petition. The controversy was therefore no longer confined to delayed finalisation of provisional assessments.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative; the writ petition was not required to remain pending awaiting the Supreme Court proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether, following the adjudication orders, the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides an efficacious appeal against the adjudication orders. The appellate forum can consider the legality of those orders, the legal effect of the alleged delay, and consequential claims concerning the securities furnished. No exceptional circumstance justified bypassing that remedy. The material non-disclosure of the pre-existing adjudication order also supported refusal of discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative; the challenges and available contentions must be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The legality of the adjudication orders, the consequences of any delay in their making, and related claims concerning bank guarantees remain open for determination by the competent appellate forum in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where appealable adjudication orders have been passed and no exceptional circumstance is shown, writ jurisdiction should not bypass an efficacious statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether interest on the refund of amounts deposited during investigation is payable from the date of deposit until the date of refund, notwithstanding that the Revenue's challenge to the order setting aside the demand was dismissed subsequently.

Analysis: The confirmed demand had been set aside, with the result that the investigation deposit was not payable from inception. The amount was deposited in 2008 and retained until its refund in 2024. Applying the established principle governing interest on delayed refund of investigation deposits, the subsequent dismissal of the Revenue's challenge did not justify retention of money that was never lawfully due without interest for the period of such retention.

Conclusion: Interest is payable to the assessee on the refunded investigation deposit from the date of deposit until the date of refund.

Issues: Whether the Supreme Court ruling concerning State legislative competence over intoxicating liquors supported an additional ground challenging the service-tax demand on job-work production.

Analysis: The constitutional ruling relied upon concerned the respective legislative fields relating to intoxicating liquors, including the scope of State power under Entry 8 of List II and Parliamentary control over industries under Entry 52 of List I. It did not determine the levy of service tax on services used for production of goods on a job-work basis. A precedent governs what it actually decides and cannot be extended to a distinct service-tax issue not considered therein. Reliance on an otherwise relevant decision could also be made during hearing without a separate application.

Conclusion: The cited constitutional ruling did not establish that the service-tax demand or jurisdiction to levy service tax on the job-work service was invalid.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning gold chains brought into India by an international passenger.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) expressly excludes the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The gold chains were brought by the appellant as an arriving international passenger; their recovery from his person, alleged non-declaration, intended use, concealment, invoice, or duty-evasion allegations concern the merits and do not change the goods' character as baggage. Section 129DD provides revision before the Central Government for such orders.

Conclusion: The impugned order related to goods imported as baggage, and the Tribunal therefore lacked appellate jurisdiction; the available recourse is revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: (i) Whether e-governance portal and data-digitisation services provided to government departments and educational institutions were taxable as OIDAR, business auxiliary, or business support services before 1 July 2012; (ii) Whether portal services supplied to universities and educational institutions after 1 July 2012 were exempt from service tax; and (iii) Whether interest earned on fixed deposits from temporarily retained collections was liable to service tax.

Issue (i): Whether e-governance portal and data-digitisation services provided to government departments and educational institutions were taxable as OIDAR, business auxiliary, or business support services before 1 July 2012.

Analysis: OIDAR requires the service provider to provide access to data possessed by it. The appellant merely created and operated a network enabling government officers and citizens to access data owned by the State Government; it did not provide access to its own data. The support rendered to State departments, universities, and educational institutions was directed to governmental and educational functions and was not supplied to entities engaged in business or commerce.

Conclusion: The services were not taxable as OIDAR, business auxiliary, or business support services for the pre-negative-list period, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether portal services supplied to universities and educational institutions after 1 July 2012 were exempt from service tax.

Analysis: Although services were generally taxable after the negative-list regime commenced, portal services supplied to universities and educational institutions fell within Entry 9(d) of Exemption Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Conclusion: The portal services provided to universities and educational institutions were exempt from service tax after 1 July 2012, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest earned on fixed deposits from temporarily retained collections was liable to service tax.

Analysis: The fixed-deposit interest arose because amounts collected towards government fees, educational fees, utility bills, and premiums were remitted after the stipulated short interval. Interest represented the time value of money paid by the bank for the deposits and was not consideration for any service rendered by the appellant.

Conclusion: Fixed-deposit interest was not exigible to service tax under either the pre-negative-list or post-negative-list regime, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed e-governance and educational-service receipts either did not constitute taxable services or were exempt, while fixed-deposit interest lay outside the charge of service tax.

Issues: (i) Whether separately billed food and beverages supplied by room/grand-room service were taxable restaurant or accommodation services; (ii) Whether consideration for exclusive branding and display of liquor brands constituted taxable sponsorship/promotional activity; (iii) Whether electricity charges recovered at actual consumption from tenants formed taxable consideration; (iv) Whether the demand beyond the normal limitation period was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether separately billed food and beverages supplied by room/grand-room service were taxable restaurant or accommodation services.

Analysis: Section 65(105)(zzzzv) of the Finance Act, 1994 confined restaurant service to serving food or beverages in the premises of an air-conditioned restaurant licensed to serve alcohol. Hotel rooms were not restaurant premises, and the food was separately invoiced without evidence that its value formed part of the room tariff. Such separately charged food was a sale/transfer of goods excluded from service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The room and grand-room food and beverage receipts were not taxable services. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether consideration for exclusive branding and display of liquor brands constituted taxable sponsorship/promotional activity.

Analysis: The agreements required exclusive branding and promotion of specified liquor brands and mandatory display of branded accessories. The receipts were therefore consideration for promotional and branding activity, rather than trade margins arising solely from liquor sales. For the pre-negative-list period, the arrangements fell within the statutory scope of sponsorship; for the post-negative-list period, they were services under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 and were not covered by Section 66D of that Act.

Conclusion: The branding-related receipts constituted taxable promotional activity and not mere trading income. Against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether electricity charges recovered at actual consumption from tenants formed taxable consideration.

Analysis: The charges represented actual electricity consumption recorded through sub-meters, collected from tenants and remitted to electricity suppliers. They were not consideration for renting services. Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules could not include such reimbursement in taxable value, having been held ultra vires.

Conclusion: Electricity charges recovered on actual-consumption basis were not taxable consideration. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the demand beyond the normal limitation period was sustainable.

Analysis: The notice did not invoke the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and the record did not establish a deliberate act of suppression or other conduct evidencing intent to evade tax. Mere non-declaration or omission did not establish wilful suppression.

Conclusion: Recovery beyond the normal limitation period was unsustainable; the sponsorship-service demand could survive only for the normal period. In favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Only the service-tax liability on sponsorship/promotional activity for the normal limitation period survives; the remaining impugned demands are set aside.

Issues: (i) Taxability of pre-July 2012 construction services and entitlement to abatement and recipient-side tax liability; (ii) Valuation of post-July 2012 works contract services under Rule 2A and entitlement to abatement and recipient-side tax liability; (iii) Inclusion of free-of-cost materials supplied by customers in the taxable value of works contracts; (iv) Classification of the services treated as exclusive service contracts; (v) Appropriation of service tax allegedly deposited during investigation; (vi) Validity of penalty for non-payment of service tax and non-filing of returns.

Issue (i): Taxability of pre-July 2012 construction services and entitlement to abatement and recipient-side tax liability.

Analysis: Construction of a hospital is commercial or industrial construction service unless evidence establishes that it was intended to be a charitable hospital. The applicable abatement had already been extended, and the tax liability was correspondingly reduced wherever the recipient was required to discharge part of the tax.

Conclusion: The demand for the pre-July 2012 period was sustained; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Valuation of post-July 2012 works contract services under Rule 2A and entitlement to abatement and recipient-side tax liability.

Analysis: Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 permits exclusion of the actual value of goods where established, or valuation on the prescribed presumptive basis. The assessment had allowed the applicable abatement and reduced provider-side liability wherever reverse-charge liability applied. No material established that the actual value of goods exceeded the abatement already allowed.

Conclusion: The valuation and demand for the post-July 2012 works contract services were sustained; against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Inclusion of free-of-cost materials supplied by customers in the taxable value of works contracts.

Analysis: Materials supplied free of cost by customers do not form part of the gross amount charged for determining the taxable value of a works contract.

Conclusion: The service tax demand attributable to free-of-cost customer-supplied materials was set aside; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Classification of the services treated as exclusive service contracts.

Analysis: The assertion that the services classified as exclusive service contracts were works contracts was unsupported by material in the appeal.

Conclusion: The classification and corresponding demand were sustained; against the assessee.

Issue (v): Appropriation of service tax allegedly deposited during investigation.

Analysis: The alleged deposits require verification as to whether they were paid as service tax.

Conclusion: Any amounts verified as service tax deposits shall be appropriated against the confirmed demand; in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (vi): Validity of penalty for non-payment of service tax and non-filing of returns.

Analysis: The assessee neither paid service tax nor filed returns or declared the services, and the transactions emerged only through investigation.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 was sustained; against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax component attributable to customer-supplied free-of-cost materials is excluded, while the remaining valuation, classification, and penalty findings stand, with adjustment of verified tax deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: Free-of-cost materials supplied by the recipient cannot be included in the gross amount charged for valuation of works contract service.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal against cancellation of GST registration should be condoned so that the challenge to tax computation may be adjudicated on merits.

Analysis: The appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely as time-barred and had not examined the computation of tax. The parties agreed that, upon condonation of delay, the petitioner could contest all components of tax computation before the appellate authority. Applying the remedial approach adopted in analogous GST-registration cancellation matters, an effective opportunity for merits adjudication was warranted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the revived appeal was directed to be heard on merits, with an opportunity of hearing to both sides.

Issues: Whether revision under section 263 was valid where the Assessing Officer allowed section 11 exemption after Form 10B was furnished belatedly but before completion of reassessment, and the CBDT subsequently rejected condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b).

Analysis: Revision under section 263 requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A permissible view adopted after enquiry cannot be displaced merely because the revisional authority prefers another view. Form 10B was available before completion of reassessment, and scrutiny notices and supporting material demonstrated that enquiries had been undertaken. The legal consequences of delayed filing of Form 10B admitted of a liberal, substantive approach in appropriate circumstances; hence, allowing exemption was a legally plausible view. The later rejection of condonation did not retrospectively render that view unsustainable. Any perceived deficiency was not a complete lack of enquiry, and no specific factual or legal error in the assessment was established.

Conclusion: The cumulative conditions for revision were not satisfied. The allowance of exemption was based on a legally plausible view, and revision under section 263 was invalid.

Issues: Whether reassessment for AY 2020-21 could be initiated on the basis of information concerning a land-sale transaction undertaken in FY 2020-21, relevant to AY 2021-22.

Analysis: The information forming the basis of the proceedings, the order under Section 148A(3), and the Revenue's affidavit consistently recorded that the sale transaction occurred in FY 2020-21. That transaction was relevant to AY 2021-22 and had no bearing on the determination of income for AY 2020-21. Consequently, there was no information suggesting that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the year sought to be reopened, and the statutory precondition for initiating reassessment was absent.

Conclusion: Reassessment for AY 2020-21 based on information relating to FY 2020-21 was invalid; the impugned reopening proceedings were quashed.

Issues: Whether the final instalment tendered by cheque before the stipulated date, but credited after that date, qualified for deemed timely payment under Circular No. 15/2019 dated 12.07.2019.

Analysis: The circular treats payments tendered through cheque, RTGS, or electronic transfer by 03.10.2017 and credited by the bank by 05.10.2017 as having been paid by the due date of 30.09.2017. The factual prerequisites concerning tender of the cheque and date of credit remained to be verified by the authority; no final entitlement was adjudicated.

Outcome: The authority was directed to verify the relevant payment dates and grant the benefit of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 if the circular's conditions were satisfied.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 04.04.2022 was barred by limitation, rendering the consequential reassessment invalid.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 149(1) preserves the limitation applicable under the earlier regime for assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021. The settled position for Assessment Year 2015-16 is that a notice under Section 148 issued on or after 01.04.2022 is time-barred. Issuance of a notice under Section 148A(b) within the earlier period does not validate the subsequent notice under Section 148 issued after expiry of the applicable limitation period.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 dated 04.04.2022 was time-barred; the consequential reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible for 1%/2% additional duty of customs paid on imported coal under the applicable customs exemption notification despite the restriction on credit of excise duty under the proviso to Rule 3(1)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rule 3(1)(i) concerns credit of specified duties of excise and its proviso restricts such credit where the prescribed central excise exemption is availed. Rule 3(1)(vii), however, independently permits credit of additional duty of customs equivalent to the enumerated excise duties. The imported coal attracted additional duty of customs under the customs notification; it was not cleared on payment of excise duty after availing the central excise exemption. The restriction attached to Rule 3(1)(i) could therefore not be imported into Rule 3(1)(vii).

Conclusion: CENVAT credit of the 1%/2% additional duty of customs paid on imported coal is admissible, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: Whether an assessment order founded on notices uploaded only on the GST portal, without service through registered post, is invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The notices and hearing intimations were hosted under the portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab, without physical service through RPAD. SMS and email reminders did not cure the absence of effective service, particularly where service through RPAD was required or advised in addition to electronic communication. The omission deprived the assessee of a meaningful opportunity to file objections and produce supporting records before the assessment was made.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice owing to ineffective service of the statutory notices and hearing intimations.

Issues: Whether a contractor under a fixed-price contract entered before the introduction of GST is entitled to reimbursement of GST incurred during contract performance, and the extent of such reimbursement.

Analysis: The contractual clauses required the quoted rates to include duties and taxes applicable at the time of bidding and fixed those rates for the contract duration. GST came into force after execution of the tender and agreement and could not have been factored into the bid price. The project authorities had accepted the validity of GST reimbursement. GST was treated as an indirect tax under Section 15 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, VAT remained payable under the contract, and the GST reimbursement required adjustment by considering the differential between VAT and GST applicable to goods supplied after 14 December 2017.

Conclusion: The contractor is entitled to GST reimbursement only after recalculation accounting for the applicable VAT and the differential between VAT and GST.

Issues: Whether grounds were established under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for securing the disputed refund amount pending arbitration.

Analysis: Section 9 permits interim measures to secure the amount in dispute, but such relief requires more than a disputed monetary claim and must be justified by circumstances indicating that enforcement of a future award may become difficult. The registered deed of cancellation, the cheque issued for the identified principal amount, and its dishonour for insufficient funds prima facie supported the claim. The respondent's financial and contractual disputes, negligible disclosed bank balances, pending enforcement proceedings, and assignments of redevelopment rights collectively created a genuine concern regarding recoverability. The measure sought would only preserve the disputed amount and would not determine the underlying liability, which remains for arbitral determination. The balance of convenience favoured preservation of the amount.

Conclusion: Interim security of the identified principal amount by deposit was warranted pending arbitration, without adjudicating the parties' substantive rights or liabilities.

Issues: Whether a shortage of Cenvat-credit availed MS ingots, without corroborative evidence, establishes clandestine removal and justifies a duty demand.

Analysis: Clandestine removal is a serious charge requiring sufficient tangible and corroborative evidence. Mere shortage of inputs does not, by itself, establish clandestine removal. No evidence of transport, sale, buyer transactions, monetary consideration, or financial flow-back was produced to connect the input shortage with illicit removal. The facts could, at most, indicate improper accountal of inputs.

Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not established and the duty demand based solely on the input shortage could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether differential National Calamity Contingent Duty on chewing tobacco for the post-GST period could be demanded by applying MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pursuant to Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.) dated 24.12.2008.

Analysis: The settled position applicable to the disputed period was that the MRP-valuation mechanism under the notification was not an operating provision after 01.07.2017, as the notification continued to refer to the repealed Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was not correspondingly amended. The settled position had also been affirmed on appeal.

Conclusion: The differential NCCD demand founded on Section 4A MRP-based valuation for the disputed period is unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Validity of State GST adjudication and rectification orders for a period for which Central GST proceedings had already been initiated; (ii) Validity of the ex parte Central GST adjudication order made without a fresh communicated hearing after the dates previously fixed.

Issue (i): Validity of State GST adjudication and rectification orders for a period for which Central GST proceedings had already been initiated.

Analysis: The Central GST show-cause notice had been issued before the State GST notice for the same period. The later State GST adjudication could not stand alongside the first-initiated Central GST proceedings, and the rectification order consequential to that adjudication also could not survive.

Conclusion: The State GST adjudication order and consequential rectification order were invalid and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Validity of the ex parte Central GST adjudication order made without a fresh communicated hearing after the dates previously fixed.

Analysis: Natural justice requires an effective opportunity of hearing before adjudication. Although dates had earlier been fixed and a reply had been filed, the order was passed substantially later without communicating a fresh hearing date, resulting in ex parte adjudication without an effective opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The Central GST ex parte adjudication order was invalid for breach of natural justice and was set aside; a fresh hearing and speaking order were required, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: For the same taxable period, first-initiated Central GST proceedings prevail over later State GST adjudication, while any fresh Central GST determination must follow an effective hearing and a reasoned decision.

Issues: Whether an appeal against cancellation of GST registration was time-barred where the original order was only uploaded on the GST portal and was not communicated to the affected person in the prescribed manner.

Analysis: Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 makes the three-month period for appeal run from communication of the decision or order. Section 169(1) prescribes the modes for service of an order. Since the Appellate Authority may condone delay only for the limited additional period stipulated by Section 107(1), effective communication of the order is mandatory for commencement of limitation. Uploading the order on the common portal, without service in accordance with the prescribed modes, does not amount to communication for this purpose. The exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act reinforces the requirement of strict compliance with the statutory procedure for service.

Conclusion: Limitation for filing the appeal had not commenced merely upon upload of the cancellation order on the GST portal; the appeal could not be rejected as barred by limitation, and the delay was liable to be condoned for adjudication on merits.