Issues: (i) Whether penalty equal to duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable for clearance of imports against forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices; (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to reduced penalty of 25% under the first and second provisos to Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether penalty equal to duty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable for clearance of imports against forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices.

Analysis: Forged DEPB scrips and Transfer Release Advices were void ab initio, and the confirmed invocation of the extended period on account of fraud engaged the same statutory elements-collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts-that trigger penalty under Section 114A. The appellant did not establish reasonable due diligence before using the documents; the alleged broker denied supplying the disputed scrips. Presentation of forged documents for nil-duty clearance constituted a positive misstatement, and penalty equal to duty was mandatory once the statutory conditions were fulfilled.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was rightly imposed. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to reduced penalty of 25% under the first and second provisos to Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The first and second provisos permit payment of 25% of the penalty where the prescribed payments are made within 30 days of communication of the order. The appellant's compliance with this requirement was asserted and was not controverted by the Department.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to the statutory reduced penalty of 25%. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The mandatory penal liability is sustained, with the statutory concession of reduced penalty available upon timely compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where forged duty-credit documents are used and the importer fails to establish due diligence, the ingredients supporting extended-period recovery also sustain mandatory penalty under Section 114A, subject to the statutory reduced-penalty benefit on timely payment.

Issues: Whether interest on a refundable investigation deposit is payable from the date of deposit and whether interest at 12% per annum is sustainable.

Analysis: The jurisdictional High Court had answered the substantially identical question in favour of the assessee, holding that where no pre-existing duty liability was shown, interest on the refunded amount was payable from the date of deposit. It also found no substantial question of law regarding award of 12% interest in view of the prolonged retention of the amount. That decision squarely governed the present dispute.

Outcome: The opinion of the Member (Technical) was found incorrect in law, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Regular Division Bench for a majority view.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, without examining its merits, warranted interference where the delay arose from genuine inability to comply with online GST requirements and lack of notice of the cancellation proceedings.

Analysis: Cancellation of GST registration has severe consequences for a business. The stated circumstances of the proprietor's lack of technical competence, reliance on an accountant or local advocate for statutory compliance, failure of that representative to file returns or communicate the proceedings, and absence of awareness of the show-cause notice and original order were accepted as genuine. Consistent with the applicable coordinate-bench decisions, the appeal required consideration on merits rather than rejection solely on limitation.

Conclusion: The time-bar dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law, upon payment of admissible late fee, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: (i) Whether a fresh notice under Section 74 could be issued within two years of the earlier writ direction despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period; (ii) Whether the impugned notice was vitiated by prejudicial observations of the issuing adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether a fresh notice under Section 74 could be issued within two years of the earlier writ direction despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Analysis: The earlier writ order, having attained finality, expressly left it open to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 74 if the jurisdictional ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax existed. That direction could not be diluted at the implementation stage. Section 75(3), read with that direction, preserved two years from communication of the earlier order for consequential fresh adjudicatory action; a literal construction confined only to cases where an adjudication order had been set aside would defeat the binding direction.

Conclusion: The fresh notice was not barred by limitation; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notice was vitiated by prejudicial observations of the issuing adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The notice included unnecessary allegations that the assessee had misled the High Court. Those remarks were unrelated to the required statutory inquiry and disclosed prejudice, particularly because they stemmed from the assessee having obtained relief in the earlier writ proceedings. An adjudicatory notice must be issued through a neutral application of mind.

Conclusion: The notice was unsustainable for prejudice and was set aside; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh proceedings under Section 74 may be initiated only by a different officer, neutrally and upon the existence of jurisdictional facts, with the assessee afforded the prescribed opportunity to respond and obtain relevant documents.

Ratio Decidendi: A final judicial direction permitting fresh statutory proceedings preserves the consequential period for action, but a notice issued with demonstrable adjudicatory prejudice cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could continue where transaction information linked to the petitioner's PAN was disputed on the ground of identity theft and denial of the underlying business activity.

Analysis: Under the amended reassessment framework, the determination at the stage of Section 148-A is whether the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148, rather than the former test of reasons to believe. Information concerning substantial transactions linked to the petitioner's PAN constituted relevant material. The GST communication did not conclusively establish that the petitioner had not undertaken the transactions, since no conclusive GST enquiry had determined identity theft. Acceptance of that defence required evidence, examination of documents and enquiry in reassessment proceedings. Nevertheless, once the petitioner substantiates the plea that he did not undertake the transactions, the Revenue must lead primary positive evidence establishing that the transactions were undertaken by the petitioner; the onus does not shift merely on the basis of the disputed information.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were permitted to continue; the petitioner may establish the identity-theft defence in those proceedings, and the Revenue must prove the petitioner's involvement in the disputed transactions.

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.