Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was liable under the company-liability provision for non-realisation and repatriation of export proceeds; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was liable under the company-liability provision for non-realisation and repatriation of export proceeds.

Analysis: Liability for a company's FEMA contravention attaches to a person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business, or where the contravention is attributable to that person's consent, connivance, negligence or neglect. The appellant's authority to sign all export-related documents submitted to the bank, including documents connected with export transactions and bank-account operations, established responsibility that could not be wholly disowned. Although consent or connivance was not established, neglect could be attributed. FEMA contraventions attract civil penalties, including for technical or procedural non-compliance, without requiring mens rea.

Conclusion: The appellant was liable for the contravention due to neglect in relation to non-realisation of export proceeds; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant required reduction.

Analysis: The circumstances warranted limiting the monetary penalty to the amount already deposited by the appellant.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 75,000, being the pre-deposit amount; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was modified by retaining liability while substantially reducing the monetary penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A company officer authorised to execute export-related banking documents may incur liability for a company's FEMA contravention where neglect in discharge of that responsibility is established, even absent consent, connivance or mens rea.

Issues: Whether a garnishee recovery notice could be sustained without considering the taxpayer's reply, affording a personal hearing, and adjudicating disputed tax and input-tax-credit figures.

Analysis: The recovery notice was issued without considering the reply already on record and without a personal hearing. Material discrepancies were also identified in the figures concerning outward supplies, tax liability, inward supplies, input tax credit, net tax payable and tax paid. Recovery through a garnishee notice entailing serious civil consequences required prior adjudication of these rival claims in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The recovery notice was required to remain in abeyance pending a fresh hearing and reasoned adjudication; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order can stand where a timely manually submitted reply to the show-cause notice was not considered merely because it was not filed electronically and the assessee did not attend the hearing.

Analysis: The reply was admittedly submitted before the stipulated deadline. A technical requirement of electronic filing could not justify refusing to consider a timely reply. Once a reply is on record, the adjudicating authority must consider it while determining the matter; non-appearance at the hearing does not relieve that authority of this obligation. The failure to consider the reply constituted a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting interference notwithstanding that the statutory appeal had been filed beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The adjudication based on non-consideration of the timely reply is invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice and requires fresh determination after considering that reply, with a personal hearing if requested.

Issues: Whether uploading a show-cause notice and adjudication order solely on the Common Portal constitutes valid service upon an assessee under the GST framework.

Analysis: The retrospective amendment concerning functions capable of being performed through the Common Portal did not expressly authorize the Portal to substitute formal service of a show-cause notice or order. The Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 confine the Common Portal's use to specified functions and do not provide that mere uploading of such documents amounts to their valid communication. A complex portal-based mode of communication that results in serious civil consequences, without effective notice to the assessee, is impermissible.

Conclusion: Uploading the show-cause notice and order only on the Common Portal did not constitute valid service; the assessee is entitled to adjudication after an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's deletion of additions based on allegedly artificial sales and rejection of books of account was perverse, giving rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The additions rested on a comparison between disputed sales and the assessee's earlier transactions, without material establishing that the underlying invoices were fabricated or that the book entries were false. The disputed sales occurred in circumstances materially different from the comparative transactions, including increased customer demand during demonetization. On the evidence, both genuine sales and artificial accommodation sales were possible views; the Tribunal, as final fact-finding authority, adopted the former view on appreciation of facts.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's findings were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal has appellate jurisdiction over an order concerning confiscation of gold brought into India as baggage.

Analysis: The dispute concerned gold seized at an airport after being brought into India as baggage. The statutory exclusion from the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction applies to such baggage matters, for which revision before the Government of India is the prescribed remedy.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; the appropriate remedy lies before the Revisionary Authority of the Government of India.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the assessment order on the ground that it lacked allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts warranted writ interference despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The show-cause notice alleged receipt of inward supplies of goods and services from bogus taxpayers. This provided a basis to reject the asserted absence of jurisdiction. An appeal against the assessment order was available under the statutory appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge was not accepted; the assessee was required to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual interpretation requiring reimbursement of GST paid on gas-transmission charges was liable to interference under Section 34; (ii) Whether the finding that GST had been deposited with the authorities was sustainable without deciding the objection to admissibility of the tax receipts; (iii) Whether the petitioner was barred by waiver, estoppel, or Clause 12.6 of the Gas Sale Agreement from claiming reimbursement.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual interpretation requiring reimbursement of GST paid on gas-transmission charges was liable to interference under Section 34.

Analysis: The dispute in arbitration was confined to contractual reimbursement and did not require determination of the statutory exigibility of GST, which lay within the jurisdiction of the GST authorities. The contractual construction that title passed at the delivery point and that VAT was payable on a price inclusive of the GST component was a plausible interpretation of the Gas Sale Agreement. A possible and reasonable contractual interpretation cannot be substituted in arbitral-review jurisdiction merely because another view is available.

Conclusion: The finding that tax actually paid was contractually reimbursable was not independently open to interference and was in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that GST had been deposited with the authorities was sustainable without deciding the objection to admissibility of the tax receipts.

Analysis: The arbitral tribunal deferred the objection to the admissibility of GST deposit receipts but did not determine it before relying on those receipts. The receipts, unsupported by GST returns, purchase and sale records, filed documents, or books of account, did not establish payment of GST attributable to gas transmitted to the petitioner. Non-cross-examination on documents whose admissibility remained undecided did not relieve the respondent of its burden to prove payment.

Conclusion: The finding that the respondent deposited GST on the transmission charges was perverse for want of admissible evidence and was in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was barred by waiver, estoppel, or Clause 12.6 of the Gas Sale Agreement from claiming reimbursement.

Analysis: Waiver requires a conscious and intentional abandonment of a known right, and the party asserting it bears the burden of proof. Estoppel requires an unequivocal representation intended to be acted upon, actual reliance, and alteration of position. Neither the requisite knowledge and intentional relinquishment nor a representation, reliance, and change of position by the respondent was established. Clause 12.6 required payment before a quantified claim could be lodged, supporting the position that payment was necessary to preserve uninterrupted supply. Each invoice gave rise to a recurring cause of action; payment of earlier invoices did not extinguish claims arising from subsequent invoices, including invoices issued after objection was raised.

Conclusion: The findings of waiver, estoppel, and a complete bar under Clause 12.6 were patently illegal and were in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary and contractual-bar findings forming the basis for rejecting the reimbursement claim were unsustainable, rendering the arbitral award liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral finding founded on documents whose admissibility was left undecided and on unproved waiver or estoppel suffers from patent illegality; prior payment under a contract requiring payment before dispute does not by itself establish waiver, estoppel, or extinguish recurring claims.

Issues: Whether an appeal concerning determination of the value of goods for assessment is maintainable before the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 130 excludes from High Court appellate jurisdiction orders relating, among other matters, to determination of the value of goods for assessment. Section 130E provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of such Tribunal orders. The proposed questions concerned alleged undervaluation and misdeclaration of imported goods and therefore fell within the excluded category.

Conclusion: The appeal lay before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 and was not maintainable before the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Tribunal order relates to determination of the value of goods for assessment, the statutory appeal lies to the Supreme Court and is excluded from the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 130.

Issues: Whether notice pay recovered by an employer from an outgoing employee in lieu of the stipulated notice period constitutes consideration for a declared service liable to service tax.

Analysis: The employment-related notice-pay stipulation forms part of the contract of employment, and amounts recovered for an employee's failure to serve the stipulated notice period are compensatory payments for breach rather than consideration for an independently agreed activity. The statutory exclusion for services by an employee to the employer applies to matters arising from the employment relationship. The circulars clarify that declared service under the relevant provision requires an independent contractual arrangement and consideration having a direct nexus with an obligation to refrain from, tolerate, or do an act; notice pay, liquidated damages and penalties for breach lack that character.

Conclusion: Notice pay recovered from outgoing employees is not consideration for a declared service and is not exigible to service tax.

Issues: Whether coercive recovery against the petitioner should be stayed pending adjudication of the partnership firm's statutory appeal against the tax demand.

Analysis: The statutory appeal against the demand was pending, though stated to be time-barred. Without examining the merits of the demand or the parties' liability, protection from recovery was considered appropriate until that appeal is decided.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner on the recovery letter until decision of the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether an order passed without fixing or providing a personal hearing, as required by law, is sustainable.

Analysis: No date of personal hearing was fixed in the show-cause notice and no hearing was afforded before the adjudication order. The mandatory hearing requirement was thereby breached, resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice. The delay objection was not accepted because the challenged order was vitiated by that breach.

Conclusion: An order made without providing the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing is vitiated and cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether the alleged non-service of the show-cause notice and hearing notices constituted an exceptional breach of natural justice justifying writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The statutory appeal under Section 107 provides the ordinary mechanism for challenging the original adjudication order. The asserted lack of service was disputed: the petitioner denied receipt, whereas the Revenue relied on dispatch to the registered address and portal upload under Section 169. The validity and sufficiency of service, the effect of the rejected registration-cancellation application, and whether additional modes of service were required involved disputed factual issues requiring appraisal by the appellate authority. No apparent or undisputed breach of natural justice was established to warrant departure from the alternative-remedy rule.

Conclusion: The alleged violation of natural justice did not justify exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction; the petitioner must pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether cumulative gross credits or gross winnings recorded in an online gaming wallet are taxable as winnings, or whether only real net winnings after adjusting buy-in amounts may be brought to tax.

Analysis: The gross winnings were lower than the assessee's buy-in amounts, resulting in a net gaming loss. Gross wallet credits reflected repeated deposits, redeployment of funds and intermediate gaming transactions, rather than an accretion of income. The expression "income by way of winnings" in the pre-amendment scheme required identification of real winnings before the restriction on deductions under section 58(4 could apply. The subsequent framework under sections 194BA and 115BBJ, Rule 133 and Circular No. 05/2023, which computes taxable online-game winnings on a net basis, was treated as clarificatory of that principle. The absence of tax deduction by the gaming intermediary also supported the position that there were no net winnings.

Conclusion: Only real net winnings from online gaming are taxable; gross wallet credits cannot be assessed as income. As the assessee incurred a net loss after buy-in amounts, no income was taxable under section 115BB and the addition was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax on gaming winnings attaches only to real net gains, not to gross transactional credits or recycled funds in a gaming account.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the Revenue's rectification application against the Tribunal's order was sustainable; (ii) Whether the seized tyres could be denied provisional release as prohibited goods pending adjudication of their classification.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the Revenue's rectification application against the Tribunal's order was sustainable.

Analysis: The material comprising the technical reports had not been placed before, or relied upon by, the Tribunal when it decided the appeals. A rectification proceeding could not be used to reopen the decision on a new factual basis or to cure the Revenue's failure to produce material at the original hearing.

Conclusion: Rejection of the rectification application was sustained, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized tyres could be denied provisional release as prohibited goods pending adjudication of their classification.

Analysis: The applicable import policy retained tyres under Customs Tariff Item 40118000 as freely importable, while restricting tyres under Customs Tariff Item 40112010. Tyres bearing speed symbol D, corresponding to a speed below 80 km/h, were outside the scope of IS 15636 and the quality-control regime requiring BIS compliance for covered commercial-vehicle tyres. The technical material did not conclusively establish that the imported tyres were prohibited goods; the later report classified them as special-use tyres based on their markings but stated that no clear criteria enabled a conclusive determination between special-use and normal-road-use tyres. Classification must turn on the goods in their imported condition, and possible subsequent misuse or end-use could not determine classification. Restricted goods are fundamentally distinct from prohibited goods, and the pending show-cause adjudication was the appropriate forum for final classification.

Conclusion: The goods were not established to be prohibited and were entitled to provisional release upon compliance with the conditions imposed by the Tribunal, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The technical and statutory material did not justify withholding provisional release while the classification dispute remained pending before the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending final adjudication, provisional release cannot be denied under the prohibition applicable to seized goods unless the imported goods are demonstrably prohibited; a disputed classification, alleged future misuse, or non-compliance not applicable to the goods as imported is insufficient.

Issues: Whether an ex-parte GST adjudication order could stand when the notices were uploaded only in the Additional Notices and Orders tab and no personal-hearing particulars were fixed despite an adverse decision being contemplated.

Analysis: Uploading notices and orders in the Additional Tab does not amount to sufficient communication for proceedings under Section 73. Further, where an adverse determination of tax, interest and penalty is contemplated, Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing. The show-cause notice and reminder did not specify the date, time or venue for a personal hearing, although the proposed action was adverse to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The ex-parte adjudication was made in breach of the statutory hearing requirement and principles of natural justice; it was set aside for fresh adjudication after permitting a reply and providing a hearing.

Issues: Whether the supplier contravened the anti-profiteering requirement by failing to pass on the additional input tax credit benefit to eligible pre-GST homebuyers.

Analysis: On revised computation incorporating the pre-GST goods component, the additional ITC benefit was determined at 4.23%, with the required benefit for 31 eligible pre-GST homebuyers quantified at Rs. 87,98,766 inclusive of GST. Documentary credit notes established that Rs. 99,67,875 had been passed on to those homebuyers, exceeding the required amount. Section 171(1) requires passing on the benefit by commensurate price reduction; that requirement is fulfilled where the entire determined benefit has been passed on, including where the amount passed exceeds the calculated entitlement.

Conclusion: No contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was established against the Respondent.

Issues: Whether a residents welfare association providing maintenance and allied facilities exclusively to residents of a particular residential complex qualifies for registration as a charitable institution.

Analysis: Registration requires the objects and activities to fall within charitable purpose. The association's maintenance, security, housekeeping, sanitation, common-facility management and community activities were funded by charges from, and rendered exclusively to, the same closed body of members and residents. These reciprocal arrangements were governed by mutuality and lacked the requisite public benefit or benefit to an indeterminate section of the public. The absence of a profit motive did not itself make the activities charitable. Although only one hearing had been afforded, remand was unwarranted because the admitted nature of the activities could not satisfy the statutory charitable-purpose requirement.

Conclusion: A residents welfare association operating for the reciprocal benefit of contributors within a specified residential complex does not qualify as a charitable institution for registration; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning confiscation of gold brought into India as baggage.

Analysis: The statutory exclusion of the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction covers orders relating to baggage. Since the seized gold had been brought as baggage and the appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the statutory revision remedy lay before the Revisionary Authority of the Government of India. The appellant's recourse to the Tribunal was treated as a bona fide error.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over the baggage-related appeal; the appropriate remedy is a revision application before the Government of India's Revisionary Authority.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to seek revocation of cancellation of GST registration despite expiry of the appellate limitation.

Outcome: The petitioner was granted liberty to submit an application for revocation of cancellation before the competent authority, which was directed to entertain and decide it in accordance with law.