Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim for excess export duty was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether interest on the sanctioned refund was payable under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 and, if so, from which date.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim for excess export duty was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: A refund founded on an alleged mistake in the construction or application of law must be pursued under the self-contained refund mechanism in Section 27; Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Article 265 of the Constitution of India cannot independently displace its limitation regime. On the facts, the contemporaneous EDI computation treated FOB value as cum-duty value, and the asserted later discovery of a mistake was unsupported.

Analysis: Although clearance for export following payment supported the existence of an assessment of the duty reflected in the contemporaneous records, the additional amount paid by challan was not reflected in the shipping bills, let export orders, or any assessment record. The departmental Note dated 21.09.2015 recomputed the duty pursuant to the remand and constituted reassessment within Section 2(2) and Section 27(1B)(c). The claim filed before that reassessment, together with the correction request on record, was therefore not time-barred. The finding that unjust enrichment was not attracted remained undisturbed.

Conclusion: The refund claim was within limitation and the sanctioned refund of excess export duty was validly payable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the sanctioned refund was payable under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 and, if so, from which date.

Analysis: Section 27A requires payment of interest where an ascertained refund ordered is not paid within three months of a refund application. Since the excess amount became ascertained only upon reassessment on 21.09.2015, treating the 2009 application date as the starting point for interest would be inconsistent with the finding that the refund cause of action arose upon reassessment. The three-month period accordingly ran from 21.09.2015.

Conclusion: Interest is payable on the refund from 22.12.2015 until actual payment at the notified rate, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment date governs both the maintainability of the refund claim and commencement of the statutory interest period; the original refund sanction is restored with interest computed from the stipulated post-reassessment date.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess duty was not part of the original assessment and is first quantified through a departmental reassessment, the reassessment date is the relevant date for refund limitation and for calculating statutory interest on the ascertained refund.

Issues: (i) Whether technical testing and analysis services rendered by a clinical research organisation undertaking sponsor-approved clinical trials are exempt from service tax under the relevant exemption notifications; (ii) Whether the amount recovered from employees upon premature resignation was taxable as commercial training or coaching service; (iii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was valid; and (iv) Whether interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether technical testing and analysis services rendered by a clinical research organisation undertaking sponsor-approved clinical trials are exempt from service tax under the relevant exemption notifications.

Analysis: The exemption covered testing and analysis of newly developed drugs on human participants by a clinical research organisation approved to conduct clinical trials by the Drugs Controller General of India. Under the applicable regulatory framework, trial permission is issued to the sponsor, while a clinical research organisation performs delegated trial functions under written arrangements. The clinical research organisation had performed that role for sponsors holding approvals for the concerned trials and had registered the trial activity with the clinical-trials registry. Requiring a separate institutional approval which the regulator did not issue to clinical research organisations would impose an impossible condition. Strict construction of an exemption applies only where genuine ambiguity remains.

Conclusion: The technical testing and analysis services were exempt from service tax; the related demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount recovered from employees upon premature resignation was taxable as commercial training or coaching service.

Analysis: The recovery represented a deposit taken from employees trained and appointed subject to a minimum service commitment, refundable upon completion of that commitment and forfeited or recovered upon premature resignation. It was not a fee charged by a commercial training or coaching centre for imparting skill or knowledge. The employer-employee relationship remained one of contract of service. The amount was compensation for breach of the employment commitment and was not consideration for commercial training or coaching or for tolerating an act or situation.

Conclusion: The employee recoveries were not consideration for any taxable service; the demand under commercial training or coaching service was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention accompanied by intent to evade tax. The Department had sought and received full particulars of the clinical research activity several years before issuance of the notices. Non-registration or non-filing based on a disclosed and tenable belief in exemption did not constitute deliberate suppression or a positive act undertaken with intent to evade tax.

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

Issue (iv): Whether interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: As the principal service-tax demands did not survive, interest could not be sustained. Further, the ingredients necessary for penal liability, including suppression or contravention with intent to evade tax, were absent.

Conclusion: Interest and all penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The services and employee recoveries were outside the asserted tax liabilities, the extended limitation was unavailable, and no consequential fiscal or penal liability remained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for clinical-research services cannot be construed to require a separate regulatory approval that the competent regulator does not issue to clinical research organisations; and employee bond-forfeiture recoveries are compensatory, not consideration for a taxable service.

Issues: (i) Whether sub-letting hoarding sites to advertising agencies before 1 May 2006 attracted service tax as Advertising Agency Service; (ii) Whether the post-1 May 2006 demand for sale of space or time for advertisement could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether sub-letting hoarding sites to advertising agencies before 1 May 2006 attracted service tax as Advertising Agency Service.

Analysis: Mere sub-letting of advertising sites to an advertising agency, without providing the services comprised in the taxable category, did not make the hoarding owner liable to service tax.

Conclusion: Sub-letting hoarding sites to advertising agencies during the pre-1 May 2006 period was not taxable as Advertising Agency Service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the post-1 May 2006 demand for sale of space or time for advertisement could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The arrangement was revenue-neutral because the advertising agencies paid tax on the consideration received from clients, including amounts paid for the hoarding space. The demand was based on statutory records, with no positive act of concealment identified. Regular returns had been filed, and the liability involved an interpretational dispute amid conflicting views. A bare allegation of suppression could not justify extended limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; the post-1 May 2006 demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax demands for both periods, together with consequential interest and penalties, could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked on a bare allegation of suppression where the demand arises from disclosed statutory records and the liability involves a bona fide interpretational dispute.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit under the inverted duty structure is available where bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same tax rate but packing materials used for the packaged supply attract higher rates of tax; (ii) Whether Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 applies to such refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit under the inverted duty structure is available where bulk tea and packaged tea attract the same tax rate but packing materials used for the packaged supply attract higher rates of tax.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits refund where credit accumulates because the rate on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. The plural expression "inputs" covers all business inputs and does not distinguish between principal and ancillary inputs. Section 2(59) defines inputs broadly, and packing materials used to market packaged tea qualify as eligible inputs; their higher tax incidence can result in accumulated Input Tax Credit under the inverted duty structure.

Conclusion: Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit attributable to higher-taxed packing materials is available under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 applies to such refund claim.

Analysis: Paragraph 3 of Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST concerns accumulation caused by a reduction in the GST rate on the same goods at different points in time. The claim did not arise from a rate reduction: bulk tea and packaged tea were both taxable at 5%, while the accumulation arose from packing materials taxable at higher rates. Further, administrative circulars issued for uniform implementation cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Conclusion: Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 is inapplicable to the claim. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The sanctioned refund based on accumulated credit from higher-taxed packing materials remains legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under the inverted duty structure is available where accumulated Input Tax Credit arises from any eligible business inputs taxed higher than output supplies; a circular confined to rate-reduction cases cannot impose an unstated restriction on that statutory entitlement.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure is available where packaged tea supplied at 5% uses bulk tea at 5% along with higher-taxed packing materials; (ii) Whether Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST applies to such refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether refund of accumulated input tax credit under the inverted duty structure is available where packaged tea supplied at 5% uses bulk tea at 5% along with higher-taxed packing materials.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund where credit accumulates because the rate of tax on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. The plural expression "inputs" covers all business inputs and does not distinguish principal inputs from ancillary inputs. Under Section 2(59), packing materials used for marketing packaged tea qualify as inputs; Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST also recognises packing materials as eligible inputs. Comparing only bulk tea with packaged tea while disregarding packing materials was factually and legally untenable.

Conclusion: Refund of accumulated input tax credit attributable to higher-taxed packing materials is available under Section 54(3)(ii), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST applies to such refund claim.

Analysis: Paragraph 3 of the Circular concerns accumulation caused by a reduction in GST rate on the same goods at different points in time. The claim did not arise from any rate reduction: both bulk tea and packaged tea attracted 5% GST, while accumulation resulted from tax paid on packing materials. A circular issued for uniform implementation cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Conclusion: Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST does not apply to the claim, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory entitlement to inverted-duty refund extends to accumulated credit on eligible packing materials used in supplying packaged tea, and is not excluded by the circular concerning rate reductions on identical goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under the inverted-duty provision must be determined with reference to all eligible inputs used for output supplies; an administrative circular cannot restrict that entitlement beyond its statutory scope.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand could be confirmed under CGST and SGST heads and on a computation not proposed in the show-cause notice? (ii) Whether a GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch, without verification of underlying transactions, established wrongful availment of input tax credit for Financial Year 2019-20? (iii) Whether Section 16(2)(c), Section 16(2)(aa), Rule 36(4), and the applicable CBIC Circulars were correctly applied to the relevant periods? (iv) Whether the interest and penalty could survive independently of the underlying tax demand? (v) Whether the orders satisfied the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order and what consequential relief followed?

Issue (i): Whether the demand could be confirmed under CGST and SGST heads and on a computation not proposed in the show-cause notice?

Analysis: The scrutiny intimation, pre-notice intimation, and show-cause notice quantified the alleged excess credit solely under the IGST head. The final order instead confirmed CGST and SGST demands derived from a separate working that was not reconciled with the primary reconciliation and was incorrectly attributed to the registered person's reply. Section 75(7) confines confirmation to the amount, heads, and grounds specified in the notice. The relevant records did not explain the shift from IGST to CGST and SGST or the derivation of the latter figures.

Conclusion: The CGST and SGST demand confirmed on a basis outside the show-cause notice and without resolving the conflicting computations was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch, without verification of underlying transactions, established wrongful availment of input tax credit for Financial Year 2019-20?

Analysis: A return mismatch can warrant scrutiny and verification, but it does not itself establish that tax was not paid by suppliers or that credit was wrongly availed. Eligibility requires examination of invoices, receipt of goods, purchase records, books of account, electronic credit ledger, and, where required, supplier compliance. The primary reconciliation disclosed an IGST difference while showing no CGST or SGST excess against the registered person.

Conclusion: A GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch alone was not conclusive proof of inadmissible input tax credit.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 16(2)(c), Section 16(2)(aa), Rule 36(4), and the applicable CBIC Circulars were correctly applied to the relevant periods?

Analysis: Section 16(2)(c) required actual payment of tax, but its breach could not be inferred without factual verification. Section 16(2)(aa), effective from 01.01.2022, did not govern Financial Year 2019-20. Rule 36(4) did not apply from April to September 2019 and applied thereafter only in its contemporaneous form. Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, as extended by Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST, applied the stated verification mechanism only from April 2019 to 8 October 2019; the later period required independent examination under the applicable substantive law.

Conclusion: The statutory conditions and Circulars were not applied according to their temporal operation, and the claimed credit required period-wise verification.

Issue (iv): Whether the interest and penalty could survive independently of the underlying tax demand?

Analysis: Interest under Section 50 and penalty under Section 73(9) are consequential to a valid determination of tax liability. Since the tax computation had not been lawfully established, neither consequential liability had an independent basis.

Conclusion: Interest and penalty could not independently survive and had to depend on the fresh tax determination.

Issue (v): Whether the orders satisfied the requirement of a reasoned, speaking order and what consequential relief followed?

Analysis: The orders did not address the primary reconciliation, the source of the alternate working, the change in tax heads, or the explanation and supporting material. Section 75(6) requires the relevant facts and basis of decision to be stated. A proper determination required reconciliation of both workings, invoice-wise and, where necessary, supplier-wise verification, an effective opportunity of hearing, and a determination confined to the existing show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The orders failed the requirement of a reasoned, speaking determination; the disputed liability must be reconsidered within the limits of the notice after proper verification and hearing.

Final Conclusion: The prior tax computation, and its consequential liabilities, lacked a sustainable factual and statutory foundation; a fresh determination is required without enlarging the allegations or tax heads contained in the notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A GSTR-2A mismatch cannot alone establish wrongful availment of input tax credit, and a tax demand must remain confined to the heads, amount, and grounds stated in the show-cause notice and be supported by a reasoned factual determination.

Issues: Whether the reference to the District Valuation Officer under Section 142A, made immediately before expiry of the assessment limitation period, was a valid exercise of statutory power.

Analysis: Explanation 1(v) to Section 153 excludes the period occupied by a valuation reference from computation of the assessment limitation period. The material concerning assets and the assessee's explanations had already been available, while the earlier notices and the final show-cause notices did not raise a valuation issue. A reference founded on alleged bogus depreciation was unwarranted because the claim could be disallowed in assessment if impermissible. The valuation reference concerning alleged unaccounted cash was also raised only at the last moment without a satisfactory explanation for the prior inaction, demonstrating that it was devised to obtain an artificial extension of time.

Conclusion: The reference under Section 142A was a colourable and impermissible exercise of power to extend limitation and was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice for recovery proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the personal penalties imposed for involvement in the smuggling of prohibited R-22 gas were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice for recovery proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The review decision governing the matter recognises that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers appointed as customs officers and assigned the functions of a proper officer are competent to issue notices for recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Notification No. 44/2011 assigned the relevant functions under Sections 17 and 28. Assessment under Section 17 and recovery of short-paid duty under Section 28 are distinct statutory functions.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection fails; the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had authority to issue the show-cause notice. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the personal penalties imposed for involvement in the smuggling of prohibited R-22 gas were sustainable.

Analysis: The admitted arrangement with the de facto importers for clearance of the concealed prohibited goods in return for cash consideration established a serious and active role in the smuggling operation. The penalties were therefore justified on the merits.

Conclusion: The personal penalties are sustainable. The finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The show-cause notice and the penalties imposed for the appellant's role in the prohibited-goods smuggling operation remain legally valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence who are appointed as customs officers and assigned proper-officer functions are competent to initiate recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, since assessment and duty recovery are distinct statutory functions.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration; (ii) Whether the imported fabrics were classifiable under CTH 5801 rather than the declared headings; (iii) Whether the alternative claim for exemption from CVD and SAD could be raised at the appellate stage; (iv) Whether confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration.

Analysis: The Department had itself obtained Textile Committee reports identifying the goods as viscose-rayon silk woven velvet/warp cut-pile fabrics and had nevertheless accepted the declared classification in earlier assessments. Suppression for the extended limitation under Section 28 requires a deliberate failure to disclose material facts with intent to evade duty; where the material facts were already known to the Department, that requirement was not met. Most assessments preceded the self-assessment regime, and the importer had followed the earlier departmental assessment practice.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand and interest for that period were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported fabrics were classifiable under CTH 5801 rather than the declared headings.

Analysis: The Textile Committee test reports identified the goods as woven warp cut-pile fabrics. CTH 5801 specifically covers woven pile fabrics; under the General Rules for Interpretation, the specific heading for pile fabrics prevails over the general headings based on the constituent textile material. The essential character of the composite fabrics was warp pile fabric.

Conclusion: Classification under CTH 5801 for the seven live Bills of Entry was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the alternative claim for exemption from CVD and SAD could be raised at the appellate stage.

Analysis: An assessee is not barred, absent fraud, from subsequently claiming an otherwise available exemption merely because it was not claimed at clearance. Article 265 requires that duty be collected only with authority of law. Since eligibility under the alternative notifications required examination of foundational facts and compliance with their conditions, the claim required determination by the Original Authority.

Conclusion: The alternative exemption claim was remanded to the Original Authority for determination on merits, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The declared classification had been previously accepted despite the Department possessing test reports on the goods. No deliberate or blameworthy conduct in adopting that classification was established.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation and penalties were not sustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The extended-period liability, confiscation and penalties do not survive; classification of the seven live consignments remains under CTH 5801, while the consequential exemption eligibility and normal-period duty consequences require fresh determination.

Issues: Whether notices to the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation for placing tracking information on record could be issued in proceedings concerning an investigation into a company's affairs without first satisfying the requirements of Section 213(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 and hearing the affected parties.

Analysis: Section 213(b) requires the Tribunal to form satisfaction, on the prescribed circumstances, that an investigation into the company's affairs is warranted. Since investigation-related directions can carry civil, economic and reputational consequences, the Tribunal must record rational reasons, apply its mind to the statutory conditions, and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected company or persons before initiating investigative steps or involving external investigative agencies. The impugned directions were issued at the initial stage without recorded satisfaction, reasons demonstrating necessity, or prior hearing.

Conclusion: Directions requiring the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation to furnish tracking information without compliance with Section 213(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the principles of natural justice are unsustainable; the Tribunal may reconsider the necessity of such directions only after hearing the appellant and passing an order in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether consequential directions concerning cancellation and fresh issue of shares, listing, public shareholding and stock-exchange compliances could be granted to implement the going concern sale; (ii) Whether financial creditors could be directed to undertake consequential acts for updating credit records, releasing charges and unfreezing accounts; (iii) Whether the purchaser could obtain preservation of all corporate receivables and a fresh limitation period for their enforcement; (iv) Whether immunity from pre-transfer liabilities and recognition of the new management for pending legal proceedings could be directed; (v) Whether stamp duty, registration charges and other tax-related liabilities arising from the acquisition could be waived; (vi) Whether subsisting consents, licences, contractual rights and statutory entitlements would continue after the going concern sale; and (vii) Whether incidental concessions beyond the sale documents could be granted and the corporate debtor's status changed from liquidation to active.

Issue (i): Whether consequential directions concerning cancellation and fresh issue of shares, listing, public shareholding and stock-exchange compliances could be granted to implement the going concern sale.

Analysis: Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers residuary jurisdiction over matters directly connected with liquidation. A going concern sale under Regulations 32(e) and 32A requires commercially effective implementation. A purposive interpretation of securities requirements permits recognition of the revised 95:5 capital structure consistent with Rule 19A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957. The requested directions did not displace the independent statutory jurisdiction of securities regulators.

Conclusion: The requested shareholding, listing and stock-exchange related consequential reliefs were allowed in favour of the appellant, subject to applicable procedures, filings and prescribed fees.

Issue (ii): Whether financial creditors could be directed to undertake consequential acts for updating credit records, releasing charges and unfreezing accounts.

Analysis: Following completion of the sale and distribution under Section 53(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, requiring separate negotiations with each financial creditor would undermine the commercial efficacy of the going concern sale. The clean slate doctrine requires recognition of the legal consequences of the sale, while preserving financial creditors' independent statutory powers.

Conclusion: The financial-creditor related reliefs were allowed in favour of the appellant; financial creditors must undertake necessary ministerial and consequential acts, while any account balance forming part of the liquidation estate remains distributable under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (iii): Whether the purchaser could obtain preservation of all corporate receivables and a fresh limitation period for their enforcement.

Analysis: The requested blanket preservation of present and future receivables and grant of a fresh limitation period was not contemplated by the auction notice, process document or sale certificate. Such relief could affect contractual rights of third parties and would exceed the permissible scope of directions for implementing the sale.

Conclusion: The relief concerning preservation of receivables and a fresh limitation period was denied against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether immunity from pre-transfer liabilities and recognition of the new management for pending legal proceedings could be directed.

Analysis: Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the clean slate doctrine apply to a corporate debtor sold as a going concern in liquidation after sale proceeds have been distributed under Section 53. Past unpaid claims cannot be imposed on the purchaser. Continuity of litigation under the new management is distinct from adjudication of the merits of individual proceedings, which remains with the competent forum.

Conclusion: The legal and litigation-related reliefs were allowed in favour of the appellant; relevant authorities and persons must recognise the consequences of the going concern sale, without affecting their independent statutory powers.

Issue (v): Whether stamp duty, registration charges and other tax-related liabilities arising from the acquisition could be waived.

Analysis: The sale certificate and auction terms expressly placed stamp duty, transfer charges, taxes, fees and related acquisition expenses on the successful bidder. The purchaser, having accepted those contractual terms, could not seek their rewriting through liquidation proceedings. Statutory authorities retain authority to consider any request under their governing laws.

Conclusion: The requested tax, stamp-duty and registration-fee waivers were denied against the appellant.

Issue (vi): Whether subsisting consents, licences, contractual rights and statutory entitlements would continue after the going concern sale.

Analysis: A going concern sale carries with it subsisting consents, approvals, licences, rights, entitlements, benefits and privileges of the corporate debtor. Recognition of their continuance is a consequential direction necessary for the sale, but compliance required because of the change in ownership or management cannot be dispensed with.

Conclusion: The general reliefs were allowed in favour of the appellant; subsisting rights remain vested in the corporate debtor, subject to compliance obligations and renewal fees, if applicable.

Issue (vii): Whether incidental concessions beyond the sale documents could be granted and the corporate debtor's status changed from liquidation to active.

Analysis: Reliefs must be commensurate with the process document, letter of intent and sale certificate. The sale certificate specifically contemplated changing the corporate debtor's status from liquidation to active, and refusal of this direction would impede the procedural implementation of the completed going concern sale. Other incidental concessions lacking such contractual basis could not be granted.

Conclusion: The change of status from liquidation to active was allowed in favour of the appellant; the remaining incidental concessions were denied.

Final Conclusion: The liquidation framework requires consequential directions that give practical effect to a completed going concern sale and the clean slate doctrine, but does not authorise relief contrary to the agreed sale terms or exemption from independent statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 empowers consequential directions necessary to make a going concern sale effective, including recognition of its legal consequences, but not benefits inconsistent with the auction terms or independent statutory jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 45/2010-ST or Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU confers a right to refund of Service Tax already collected and paid; (ii) Whether the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 45/2010-ST or Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU confers a right to refund of Service Tax already collected and paid.

Analysis: The notification issued under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 recognised the prevailing non-levy of Service Tax on specified electricity transmission and distribution services and protected against recovery of tax not levied. It did not create an unconditional entitlement to recover from the Government tax already collected from the service recipient and deposited. A clarification regarding non-taxability likewise does not dispense with the requirements governing a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Conclusion: Notification No. 45/2010-ST and Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU do not confer an unconditional right to refund Service Tax already collected and paid; the issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The contract expressly provided that the contractual price was inclusive of Service Tax, supporting the inference that the tax burden formed part of the consideration received. The statutory presumption of passing on could be rebutted only through primary records establishing that the claimant bore the burden. No invoices, ledgers, balance sheets, credit notes, evidence of reduction in contract consideration, or proof of repayment of the tax component to the recipient was produced.

Conclusion: The claim is barred by unjust enrichment because the assessee failed to prove that the incidence of Service Tax had not been passed on to the service recipient; the issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The non-taxability clarification and non-recovery notification cannot support a refund where the claimant fails to establish that it alone bore the tax burden.

Ratio Decidendi: A claimant seeking indirect-tax refund must independently establish that the tax incidence was not passed on; a non-levy clarification or non-recovery notification does not by itself entitle refund of tax already collected and deposited.

Issues: Whether service tax could be demanded on composite construction contracts involving supply of materials for the period before works contract service became taxable on 01.06.2007.

Analysis: The contracts were composite works contracts involving both material supply and execution of civil construction activity. The applicable framework did not permit levy on such composite works contracts before the introduction of taxable works contract service on 01.06.2007. Amounts voluntarily paid with applicable interest for the period from 01.06.2007 to March 2008 were liable to be appropriated.

Conclusion: The demand for the period before 01.06.2007 and the penalties were set aside, while appropriation of service tax and interest paid for the subsequent period was upheld.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's activities constituted manpower recruitment or supply agency service; (ii) Whether gross collections could be adopted as taxable value without excluding wages reimbursed to members.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's activities constituted manpower recruitment or supply agency service.

Analysis: The organisation brought women workers together for training, employment security and direct engagement with clients. It was itself comprised of the workforce and was not engaged in rendering a service of supplying manpower.

Conclusion: The activities did not constitute manpower recruitment or supply agency service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether gross collections could be adopted as taxable value without excluding wages reimbursed to members.

Analysis: A considerable part of the amounts collected was reimbursed as wages to members providing the work. The balance registration fee was negligible and below the taxable monetary limit. Gross collections could not be adopted without deducting reimbursable wage expenses.

Conclusion: Inclusion of reimbursed wages in the taxable value was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable both because the activity was not manpower supply and because reimbursed wages could not form part of the taxable value.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts reimbursed as wages to workers cannot be included in the taxable value of a service without establishing that they constitute consideration for the taxable service.

Issues: (i) Whether repair, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance of irrigation canals involving transfer of property in goods could be taxed as Management, Maintenance or Repair Service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the Management, Maintenance or Repair Service demand; (iii) Whether the demand for Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service was sustainable where the taxable value was below the applicable threshold exemption.

Issue (i): Whether repair, reconstruction, improvement and maintenance of irrigation canals involving transfer of property in goods could be taxed as Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.

Analysis: The contracts involved both labour and materials, with VAT paid on the transfer of goods. The statutory scheme distinguished service contracts simpliciter from composite works contracts. A composite contract involving transfer of property in goods could not be subjected to service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.

Conclusion: The demand under Management, Maintenance or Repair Service was unsustainable. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the Management, Maintenance or Repair Service demand.

Analysis: The appellate authority had found no deliberate suppression or intention to evade tax and had consequently set aside the penalty. Payment of VAT was also evidenced by the relevant certificate. These circumstances did not justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service was sustainable where the taxable value was below the applicable threshold exemption.

Analysis: Though the one-time manpower supply activity was taxable in nature, its value was below the applicable taxable threshold after excluding the other exempted values.

Conclusion: The demand under Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Service was unsustainable. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demands under both disputed categories could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite contract involving transfer of property in goods is not taxable under a service category meant for service contracts simpliciter, and the extended limitation period requires deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, with four weeks granted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether adjudication and appellate orders could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the portal tab 'Additional Notice and Orders', without separate intimation, resulting in the assessee being unable to respond.

Analysis: The notice was uploaded only in the specified portal tab and no separate intimation was given. The assessee was consequently unable to file a reply to the show-cause notice. Since the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal solely on limitation and had not considered the merits, the denial of an effective opportunity to respond constituted a breach of principles of natural justice warranting interference.

Conclusion: The adjudication and appellate orders could not be sustained; the assessee must be afforded an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and receive a fresh reasoned determination after hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be appropriated towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the statutory appellate remedy should be preserved after rectification of an erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 and portal-related filing difficulties.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be appropriated towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(6) requires payment of the prescribed pre-deposit, while Section 49(4) permits utilisation of credit in the electronic credit ledger subject to statutory restrictions. A restriction under Rule 86A prevents debit of the blocked credit for discharge of liability; blocking neither constitutes payment nor appropriation against an adjudicated demand. The adjudication order contained no appropriation of the petitioner's blocked credit. The subsisting restrictions were imposed by an authority not impleaded in the writ proceedings, and the underlying orders, recorded reasons, and current running credit balance were unavailable for review.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, the blocked credit could not be treated as payment of, or appropriated towards, the statutory pre-deposit unless the competent authority removes or modifies the Rule 86A restriction. Credit otherwise lawfully available and capable of debit may be used for the pre-deposit.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory appellate remedy should be preserved after rectification of an erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 and portal-related filing difficulties.

Analysis: The erroneous summary order had caused the portal to compute the pre-deposit on the combined tax and penalty amount, and the error was rectified only after the petitioner had attempted to file its appeal and pursued rectification. The merits of the input tax credit demand involve disputed factual questions requiring consideration by the statutory appellate authority.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the petitioner was permitted to file the statutory appeal within four weeks without rejection on limitation, subject to compliance with Section 107(6). Necessary electronic filing assistance was directed, with manual filing available if the portal continued to prevent filing despite compliance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax demand and to the validity of the Rule 86A restrictions remains open for adjudication before the competent forum, while the petitioner's access to the statutory appeal is protected.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit blocked from debit under Rule 86A cannot satisfy a statutory pre-deposit requirement merely because it is unavailable to the registered person; it must be lawfully debit-able or the restriction must first be removed or modified by the competent authority.

Outcome: Application for condonation of delay and the Special Leave Petition dismissed.