Issues: (i) Whether the stay of proceedings under one show-cause notice barred adjudication of another notice arising from the same investigation; (ii) Whether the challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an efficacious statutory appeal; (iii) Whether the Court should decide the limitation and validity issues concerning the pending adjudication under the second show-cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the stay of proceedings under one show-cause notice barred adjudication of another notice arising from the same investigation.

Analysis: The two notices concerned distinct subject matters and had separate statutory foundations, notwithstanding their origin in a common investigation, assignment to a common adjudicating authority, and common hearings. The interim order expressly stayed only proceedings under the second notice. Its scope could not be enlarged by implication to restrain adjudication under the first notice. Administrative convenience of common hearings did not merge the independent proceedings or require a composite order.

Conclusion: The stay concerning the second show-cause notice did not bar adjudication of the first show-cause notice; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an efficacious statutory appeal.

Analysis: The objections regarding denial of hearing, non-supply of relied-upon documents, justification for adjournments, appreciation of evidence, and legality of the adjudication findings involved matters suitable for examination on the adjudication record. The statutory appellate forum was competent to examine all such grounds. No exceptional circumstance justified bypassing that remedy under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication order was not entertained in writ jurisdiction, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Court should decide the limitation and validity issues concerning the pending adjudication under the second show-cause notice.

Analysis: The limitation, Call Book, extension, and communication questions arose directly in an adjudication that remained pending and had not attained finality. A determination by the Court could affect the adjudicating authority's decision. The matters were therefore left for consideration in the statutory proceedings, with an effective hearing to be afforded before a final order.

Conclusion: No ruling was made on the merits of the pending second show-cause notice; all factual and legal contentions were kept open.

Final Conclusion: The first adjudication remains subject to the statutory appellate process, while adjudication under the second notice may proceed afresh in accordance with natural justice and without any merits determination in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate show-cause notices retain independent legal character notwithstanding a common investigation or joint hearings, and writ jurisdiction ordinarily will not displace an efficacious statutory appellate remedy absent exceptional circumstances.

Issues: Whether a refund claim for interest paid under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, filed after one year from payment, is maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 27 requires a claim for refund of duty or interest to be made within one year from the date of payment, except where payment was under protest. No written protest was established; payment to generate electronic challans and complete clearance did not constitute payment under protest. A claim presented before customs authorities remains governed by the statutory refund mechanism, including limitation, even where the amount is alleged to have been collected without authority of law. Statutory authorities and the Tribunal lack power to extend the prescribed period on grounds of technical difficulty, bona fides, hardship, or late awareness of procedure. Administrative waiver orders could not override the statutory limitation in the absence of an express statutory exclusion.

Conclusion: The refund claim filed on 20.06.2024 for interest paid on 18.04.2023 and 22.04.2023 was time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order relating to gold chains imported as passenger baggage is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The goods were admittedly brought by the passenger from Kuwait in checked-in baggage, and the proceedings concerned their seizure, confiscation and penalty for alleged non-declaration and improper importation. Questions concerning the place of interception, eligibility to import gold on payment of duty, declaration, confiscation and penalty concern the merits and cannot overcome the statutory exclusion. The prescribed remedy lies before the competent Revisional Authority under Section 129DD.

Conclusion: The appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal; the statutory remedy is revision before the competent Revisional Authority.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification that came into force after the bill of lading could be relied upon to decline consideration of provisional release of imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The bill of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and cannot govern imports covered by a bill of lading issued before its commencement. The request also concerned provisional release of similar imported goods and no distinguishing feature justified a different approach.

Conclusion: The post-import amendment could not be used to refuse consideration of provisional release; the authorities were required to consider the request under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, impose lawful conditions, and release the goods upon compliance, without affecting independent merits adjudication.

Issues: Whether omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings concerning refund of integrated tax on exports.

Analysis: Rule 96(10), which restricted refund claims where supplies were received after availing specified benefits, was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The governing principle is that omission of a rule ordinarily obliterates it unless a saving provision or statutory device expressly preserves pending proceedings. The omission contained no saving or sunset clause. The advisory recommendation for prospective omission could not bind the rule-making authority. The stated purpose of removing unnecessary complications further supported application of the omission to pending refund claims.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) applies to pending proceedings; refund claims must be considered without applying the omitted restriction, in favour of the assessees.

Issues: Whether a fresh show-cause notice could be issued on allegations already conclusively determined through the advance-ruling and earlier proceedings, despite the binding prior decision on the same controversy.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench decision had determined that the product remained unmanufactured tobacco notwithstanding the use of machines, lime, aroma or menthol; it had also found no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression and held that the jurisdictional requirements for invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were absent. The same issue having been adjudicated between the parties, and the respondents accepting that the controversy was identical, the prior determination remained binding unless displaced in accordance with law. A subordinate revenue authority cannot revive concluded allegations merely because review of the earlier decision is under consideration.

Conclusion: The fresh notice founded on the previously settled allegations was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether rejection of the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit accumulated due to an inverted duty structure was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The rejection order was found to be palpably erroneous, legally infirm, irregular and perverse. The material placed with the writ petition, including the claim that the applicants were manufacturers and had supplied supporting documents, warranted interference. The refund claim requires fresh consideration after a comprehensive reply and relevant evidence concerning the applicants' manufacturing status, business details and earlier refund claims are furnished, with an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was quashed; the claim is to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the challenge to GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting and gambling transactions survived in view of the binding Supreme Court judgment.

Analysis: The Supreme Court ruling, adopted as governing the petition, upheld the GST levy on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling, including online gaming and fantasy sports involving pooled stakes. It sustained the relevant charging, supply and valuation provisions and Rules 31A, 31B and 31C; held the 2023 amendments clarificatory and retrospective; and required pending proceedings to be determined under the applicable valuation framework. All substantive prayers in the writ petition stood covered by that ruling, leaving no issue for independent determination.

Conclusion: The GST challenge failed; the petitioners must pursue the show-cause-notice proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Issues: Whether GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting, gambling and casino transactions, including the statutory valuation framework and the retrospective operation of the 2023 amendments, is valid.

Analysis: The binding Supreme Court ruling covered all substantive challenges raised. It treats participation involving stakes on uncertain outcomes as betting and gambling; recognises the resulting contingent beneficial interests as actionable claims and taxable supplies; and validates the charging, valuation and machinery framework. The 2023 amendments, including the valuation provisions for online gaming and casino transactions, were held clarificatory and retrospective. Pending show-cause notices and adjudication are required to proceed under the applicable valuation framework.

Conclusion: The GST levy and the challenged statutory and valuation framework are valid; the challenge fails against the assessee.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the GST appeal solely on limitation, despite genuine reasons for non-compliance and lack of awareness of cancellation proceedings, warranted interference.

Analysis: Cancellation of registration had serious consequences for the petitioner's business. The explanation that compliance had been entrusted to an accountant or local advocate, who failed to inform the petitioner of the requirement to file returns and of the show-cause notice and subsequent proceedings, was found genuine. The appeal had not been examined on merits, and comparable matters had been directed for merits consideration upon fulfilment of statutory payment requirements.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection could not stand; the petitioner's appeal is to be considered on merits in accordance with law upon payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: Whether service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely by uploading it on the common portal is sufficient to bind the assessee and trigger consequential proceedings.

Analysis: The respondents could not distinguish the principles laid down in the relied-upon Division Bench decision concerning portal-only service. Those principles treat uploading of a show-cause notice on the common portal, without acknowledgment of receipt or a response, as insufficient service; consequential ex parte proceedings and appellate limitation consequences must be addressed consistently with that position.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were governed by the principles applicable to portal-only service, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue consequential steps.

Issues: (i) Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service; (ii) Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal; (iii) What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Issue (i): Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service.

Analysis: Portal uploading, without acknowledgement of receipt or a reply by the assessee, does not establish sufficient service of the show-cause notice. The adopted ruling was found applicable to the writ petitions.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice is insufficient service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal.

Analysis: Where an order-in-original passed after contest is served only through the common portal, such uploading does not commence the limitation period for appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of an order-in-original does not trigger the limitation period for appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Analysis: Where portal-only service led to an ex parte order for want of reply, proceedings must revert to the show-cause-notice stage, with four weeks to file a reply and a fresh opportunity of hearing. Where an appeal was dismissed as time-barred because the order was served only on the portal, the appellate order is liable to be set aside and the appeal restored for decision on merits. If both ex parte adjudication and dismissal of appeal on delay followed portal-only service, both orders are to be set aside and the matter restored to the show-cause-notice stage.

Conclusion: The affected proceedings or appeals are to be restored to enable the assessee to avail a reply or appellate remedy with an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions receive the benefit of the principles governing defective portal-only service and the corresponding restorative relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere uploading on the common portal, without acknowledgement or response, is not sufficient service to sustain ex parte consequences or to commence appellate limitation.

Issues: Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, making its offshore activities taxable in India.

Analysis: The alleged permanent establishment was founded on survey statements concerning expatriates employed by the Indian affiliate and their remuneration from the Japanese parent. No cogent material established that any employee acted for the assessee, that the assessee had deputed personnel to India, or that it had a fixed place of business at its disposal in India. The assessee supplied goods and rendered services offshore from Thailand. The materially identical issue in the assessee's own earlier assessment years had already been decided on the basis that no permanent establishment existed, and those findings were applicable to the present years.

Conclusion: The assessee had no permanent establishment in India; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the earlier order directing disposal of the petitioner's SEIS-related claim stood complied with.

Analysis: The respondents placed an Office Memorandum recording the treatment of the petitioner's applications. The material demonstrated compliance with the prior directions. Any grievance against the respondents' subsequent decision was left available to be pursued independently in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The prior order stood duly complied with.

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within the statutory limitation period when the Department did not establish delivery of the Order-in-Original dispatched by speed post.

Analysis: Service through speed post requires proof that the order was properly received by the intended recipient or authorised agent. Dispatch alone, without evidence of delivery, does not establish valid service. Since proof of delivery of the order allegedly dispatched in December 2022 was absent, the date on which a copy was supplied to the assessee, namely 03.02.2025, was treated as the date of receipt. The appeal filed on 31.03.2025 was consequently within the two-month limitation period.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed within limitation; the contrary finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether dealer incentives, miscellaneous receipts, accounting regroupings and receivable entries were taxable as Business Auxiliary Service; (ii) Whether reverse-charge service tax was payable on freight for vehicle purchases, towing charges and carriage-inward expenses as Goods Transport Agency service; (iii) Whether reverse-charge liability applied to manpower supply and security services received from private limited companies; (iv) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether dealer incentives, miscellaneous receipts, accounting regroupings and receivable entries were taxable as Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: Incentives and reimbursements received under the authorised dealership arrangement arose from a principal-to-principal sale relationship and were trade discounts rather than consideration for an independent service. The real character of a transaction prevails over its ledger nomenclature. Other miscellaneous receipts lacked evidence of a taxable service, apart from booking cancellation charges and free service coupons for which tax had been paid. Accounting regrouping did not establish fresh consideration, while receivable entries could not be taxed again where the underlying invoiced transactions had already suffered tax; Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 governs timing and does not permit double taxation.

Conclusion: The Business Auxiliary Service demand was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reverse-charge service tax was payable on freight for vehicle purchases, towing charges and carriage-inward expenses as Goods Transport Agency service.

Analysis: Reverse-charge liability requires proof that the assessee paid or was liable to pay freight to a Goods Transport Agency. Vehicle freight was arranged and paid by the manufacturer, which had discharged the applicable liability. Towing charges could not be treated as GTA service without proof of a consignment note or fulfilment of the statutory characteristics of a GTA. Carriage-inward ledger entries, without evidence of the transporter, consignment notes or receipt of GTA service, did not establish taxable reverse-charge transactions. The Department failed to discharge its burden merely by relying on accounting descriptions.

Conclusion: The Goods Transport Agency reverse-charge demand was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reverse-charge liability applied to manpower supply and security services received from private limited companies.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST applied reverse charge for the relevant services only when supplied by specified non-corporate providers to a body corporate. The available invoices and registration particulars indicated that the suppliers were private limited companies, and the Department neither disproved nor verified their corporate status. Deficiencies alleged in document copies could not replace a finding on the statutory precondition for reverse charge.

Conclusion: The manpower supply and security services reverse-charge demand was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked.

Analysis: The demands were derived from audited financial statements, books of account and statutory returns disclosed during audit. No specific fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax was identified. A dispute concerning classification, taxability and reverse-charge interpretation, where primary facts were disclosed, did not justify the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period was without jurisdiction and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: None of the surviving tax components was legally sustainable, and the consequential interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation and reverse-charge liability cannot rest on ledger descriptions or disclosed records alone; the Revenue must establish the statutory conditions, including a wilful intent to evade where extended limitation is invoked.

Issues: Whether delay in filing monthly duty-paid statements under the area-based exemption notification permits recovery or denial of sanctioned refund/self-credit where the assessee is otherwise eligible for exemption.

Analysis: The requirement to submit statements by the stipulated date was treated as procedural. Consistent Tribunal authority on analogous area-based exemption schemes established that delayed compliance with such a procedural requirement does not defeat the substantive exemption benefit where eligibility is otherwise undisputed.

Conclusion: Delayed filing of the prescribed statements cannot justify recovery or denial of the sanctioned refund/self-credit. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on inputs and corresponding GTA services could be denied solely on vehicle-related discrepancies reflected in VAHAN portal data and limited third-party communications, despite statutory and commercial records evidencing receipt and consumption of inputs; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of the disputed credit was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on inputs and corresponding GTA services could be denied solely on vehicle-related discrepancies reflected in VAHAN portal data and limited third-party communications, despite statutory and commercial records evidencing receipt and consumption of inputs.

Analysis: Denial of substantive credit on an allegation of non-receipt of inputs requires positive, cogent and convincing evidence. VAHAN portal particulars, including entries showing non-digitised or incorrect vehicle data, and unverified communications from owners relating to only four of 270 consignments could not conclusively establish non-receipt. The Revenue neither investigated suppliers or transporters comprehensively nor found stock discrepancies, diversion of inputs, fabrication of statutory records, or an alternative source of raw materials. The undisputed manufacture and duty-paid clearance of finished goods, supported by input registers, transport records, purchase accounts and payments, materially supported actual receipt and use of the inputs. Procedural deficiencies in consignment notes, without independent corroboration of fictitious transactions, were insufficient to deny credit.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the inputs and corresponding GTA services was admissible; the denial of credit was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of the disputed credit was invocable.

Analysis: The credit had been reflected in regularly filed statutory returns, and the assessee maintained contemporaneous transport, purchase, payment and statutory records. The Revenue produced no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, which are essential for invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand lacked evidentiary foundation on merits and was independently barred by limitation; the consequential interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive CENVAT credit cannot be denied on suspicion arising from vehicle-data discrepancies without credible corroborative evidence of non-receipt of inputs, and the extended limitation period requires proof of the statutory ingredients of suppression or similar intent.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand based on a vague and hypothetical computation in the show cause notice was sustainable; (ii) Whether freight and insurance embedded in the sale price were includible in assessable value by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand based on a vague and hypothetical computation in the show cause notice was sustainable.

Analysis: The computation assumed differing freight rates for portions of the clearances without disclosing a basis, failed to ascertain actual freight or insurance amounts, and did not identify whether the quantities concerned movement from factory to depot or from depot to customers. The notice also omitted material price declarations showing that no deduction for freight and insurance was claimed and that the prices were inclusive of freight. A show cause notice must contain specific allegations sufficient to enable an effective defence.

Conclusion: The demand founded on the vague and hypothetical show cause notice was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether freight and insurance embedded in the sale price were includible in assessable value by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal.

Analysis: The price charged was all-inclusive and duty had been paid on that price, with no evidence that any separate freight or insurance amount was recovered from customers. Transit insurance did not establish retention of ownership until delivery. For the relevant period, the place of removal referred to a place from which the manufacturer sold goods, not the buyer's place of delivery. The factory or depot from which the goods were sold remained the place of removal.

Conclusion: Freight and insurance were not includible in assessable value, and the buyer's premises could not be treated as the place of removal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed through the 1996 price list and subsequent correspondence that freight was not deducted from assessable value. No fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression was established, while the demand notice was issued beyond the normal period for the relevant clearances.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax demand failed independently for vagueness of the notice, on valuation merits, and on limitation; consequential interest and penalty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot rest on an indeterminate and hypothetical show cause notice, and freight or insurance already embedded in the taxed sale price cannot be added again by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal absent a legally sustainable basis.