Issues: Whether input tax credit could be denied for delayed filing of returns despite the retrospective benefit under Section 16(5).

Analysis: The statutory entitlement under Section 16(5) operates retrospectively. Failure to seek rectification within the period stipulated by an administrative circular could not defeat that entitlement. The returns for the relevant months had been filed before the cut-off prescribed by Section 16(5).

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to consideration for input tax credit under Section 16(5).

Issues: Whether a refund allowed to the petitioner could be withheld merely because the Revenue had subsequently filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The refund had been allowed in 2022, whereas the Revenue's Tribunal appeal was instituted only in 2026 and had not been fixed for hearing. The petitioner, being an established manufacturing company, was not regarded as an entity likely to evade a future liability. Release of the refund with an undertaking to repay any liability ultimately determined in the Revenue's appeal adequately protected the Revenue.

Conclusion: The refund must be released to the petitioner on furnishing an undertaking to deposit any liability that may ultimately be determined in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether waiver under Section 128A extends to demands concerning self-assessed tax where proceedings were initiated under Section 73, notwithstanding Section 75(12) and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST; (ii) Whether the time limits under Rule 164, including the deadline for filing a waiver application, are mandatory, and whether delayed disposal results in deemed approval; (iii) Whether an order approving waiver in Form GST SPL-05 may be subsequently declared void otherwise than under Rule 164(16) or Rule 164(17).

Issue (i): Whether waiver under Section 128A extends to demands concerning self-assessed tax where proceedings were initiated under Section 73, notwithstanding Section 75(12) and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.

Analysis: Section 128A is triggered by initiation of proceedings under Section 73. Section 75(12) permits direct recovery under Section 79 of unpaid self-assessed tax without prior determination, but does not preclude the revenue from initiating determination proceedings under Section 73. The wider non obstante clause in Section 128A, the absence of an express exclusion for self-assessed tax, and the express exclusion of erroneous refunds demonstrate that self-assessed tax cannot be impliedly excluded from the waiver scheme. Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST cannot restrict the statutory scope of Section 128A.

Conclusion: Where proceedings are initiated under Section 73, waiver under Section 128A is available even in relation to self-assessed tax; exclusions based solely on Section 75(12) or Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST are invalid. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the time limits under Rule 164, including the deadline for filing a waiver application, are mandatory, and whether delayed disposal results in deemed approval.

Analysis: Rule 164 establishes a time-bound scheme for filing, scrutiny and disposal of waiver applications. Its prescribed consequence of deemed approval where no order is issued within the period under Rule 164(13) confirms that the stipulated time limits are integral to the scheme. The expression "may" in Rule 164(6) enables an eligible person to elect to apply; it does not render the three-month filing deadline discretionary. Deemed approval under Rule 164(14) operates only where the substantive conditions of Section 128A are satisfied. Substantial compliance may apply only to non-essential procedural lapses, not to belated filing or belated payment that defeats an essential condition of the scheme.

Conclusion: The time limits under Rule 164 are mandatory; a timely eligible application is deemed approved if no order is issued within the period under Rule 164(13), whereas belated applications or payments do not qualify for waiver. The deemed-approval finding is in favour of the assessee, and the mandatory filing and payment requirements are against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an order approving waiver in Form GST SPL-05 may be subsequently declared void otherwise than under Rule 164(16) or Rule 164(17).

Analysis: Rule 164(16) and Rule 164(17) exclusively identify the circumstances in which waiver granted through Form GST SPL-05 or Form GST SPL-06 becomes void, namely failure to make specified additional payments. In those circumstances, voidness follows by operation of law. Neither Section 161 nor any other provision authorises the proper officer to issue a separate void order after approving the waiver for reasons outside those sub-rules.

Conclusion: An approval order in Form GST SPL-05 cannot be declared void except in the situations specified by Rule 164(16) or Rule 164(17). This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Waiver applicants satisfying the statutory conditions cannot be denied the amnesty benefit merely because the demand concerns self-assessed tax, and approvals or deemed approvals remain effective unless the narrowly prescribed grounds of voidness arise; applications or payments made beyond mandatory deadlines remain outside the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amnesty provision with a broad non obstante clause cannot be curtailed by implying an exclusion absent from its text or by an administrative circular; mandatory timelines governing the scheme bind both applicants and authorities, subject to the express consequence of deemed approval.

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exported output services could be denied for alleged absence of nexus between input services and exported services, and for invoices not bearing the service provider's PAN-based registration number.

Analysis: The availment of credit on the disputed input services had never been questioned through recovery proceedings under Rule 14 read with Section 73. Nor was export of the output services or compliance with the requirements of Rule 5 specifically disputed. Rule 5 permits refund of accumulated credit relating to exported output services subject to its prescribed conditions and procedure; the refund claim could not consequently be denied on grounds concerning the eligibility of credit that had not been challenged at the stage of availment.

Conclusion: The refund denial on the grounds of lack of nexus and absence of PAN-based registration particulars in invoices was unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to the disputed refund.

Issues: Whether a demand based on alleged undervaluation of guarantees could be confirmed under Section 73 without prior scrutiny and investigation to ascertain revenue leakage.

Analysis: Following self-assessment, the statutory framework requires scrutiny of returns and permits audit, special audit and inspection or investigation mechanisms to verify whether transactions resulted in tax leakage. The authorities issued the demand notice and confirmed it without undertaking those measures to determine whether the guarantees were corporate guarantees or whether taxable value had been suppressed.

Conclusion: The demand-confirming order is unsustainable and is quashed; the matter is remitted for inspection or investigation and fresh determination, if warranted.

Issues: Whether the compounding fee was required to be computed under the CBDT Guidelines dated 16.05.2008 or under the revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024.

Analysis: The applicability of the 2008 Guidelines had been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties and that determination, affirmed in appeal, had attained finality. A direction to calculate and communicate the compounding fee was confined to quantification and did not permit reopening the settled question governing the applicable guidelines. The statutory power to issue compounding instructions could not override a final inter partes judicial determination. Further, the 2024 Guidelines did not apply because the application had not been rejected for a curable defect contemplated by those Guidelines.

Conclusion: The compounding fee must be recomputed strictly under the CBDT Guidelines dated 16.05.2008 after crediting the amount already paid by the assessee.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to adjudicate the disputed denial of input tax credit, interest and penalty despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute required verification of the existence and utilisation of the ERP software, as well as the genuineness of the underlying transaction. These factual matters had not been tested by either side. Given the statutory appeal mechanism, writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving that factual controversy. In the special circumstances, an opportunity was provided to pursue the statutory appeal without pre-deposit.

Outcome: The writ appeal was disposed of with liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days; the appellate authority was directed to entertain it without pre-deposit and decide it on merits within three months.

Issues: Whether an assessment order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained where the show-cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration.

Analysis: Following cancellation of registration, the taxpayer was not obliged to monitor the GST portal. Service of a show-cause notice in those circumstances required recourse to an alternative mode of service. Uploading the notice solely on the portal denied an effective opportunity of hearing and breached the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether unspent Government grant constituted taxable income; (ii) Whether interest on unutilised grant was allowable as a deduction; (iii) Whether depreciation could be denied for individual assets retired from active use within a block of assets.

Issue (i): Whether unspent Government grant constituted taxable income.

Analysis: The grants were received for implementing the specified micro-irrigation scheme and were subject to directions governing their utilisation. Applying the established treatment of project-specific Government grants, the amount could not be regarded as income of the assessee.

Conclusion: Unspent Government grant was not taxable income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on unutilised grant was allowable as a deduction.

Analysis: The obligation to pay interest on the unspent grant arose from the terms governing disbursement of the grant and was an ascertained business liability, rather than a contingent liability.

Conclusion: Interest payable on the unutilised grant was deductible. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether depreciation could be denied for individual assets retired from active use within a block of assets.

Analysis: Under the block-of-assets regime, individual assets in a block cannot be segregated for restricting depreciation where the business assets in the block are used. Simultaneous active use of every individual item is not required.

Conclusion: Depreciation could not be denied merely because particular assets within the block had been retired from active use. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of additions relating to the grant and interest, and the allowance of depreciation, remain undisturbed; no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A project-specific Government grant subject to mandated utilisation is not taxable income; liabilities arising from its governing terms are deductible when ascertained; and depreciation under the block-of-assets regime cannot be restricted by isolating individual inactive assets.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the seizure of gold and the pending customs show-cause proceedings should be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction before completion of statutory adjudication.

Analysis: The pending proceeding before the Additional Commissioner of Customs was considered an available forum for determination of the parties' claims. No view was expressed on the legality of the seizure, the show-cause notice, or the merits of the competing claims. The petitioners were directed to submit further material and participate in the adjudication, which must be concluded through a reasoned order after fair opportunity of hearing.

Outcome: The writ petitions were kept pending and adjourned sine die pending completion of adjudication by the customs authority.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of a mini agricultural market and agricultural facilitation centre for a government organisation qualified for exemption as a structure predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry or business; (ii) Whether construction of residential units under government-approved housing projects was rendered to a competent government authority and eligible for exemption; (iii) Whether construction of a government high school under contracts entered into after 01.03.2015 qualified for exemption under Entry 14A.

Issue (i): Whether construction of a mini agricultural market and agricultural facilitation centre for a government organisation qualified for exemption as a structure predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry or business.

Analysis: Entry 12A(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 exempts original works provided to Government, a local authority, or a governmental authority where the structure is predominantly meant for non-commercial use. Commercial use requires assessment of the factual purpose of the activity. Although the market infrastructure was created under a government drought-mitigation scheme, no statutory mandate for collection of user fees or evidence that such fees were deposited into the government treasury was established. The activity therefore did not fall within statutory public functions undertaken for non-commercial use.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied and service tax on construction of the mini agricultural market remained confirmed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether construction of residential units under government-approved housing projects was rendered to a competent government authority and eligible for exemption.

Analysis: The work orders for residential units at Vasant Vihar and Chhatarpur were issued by the Executive Engineer of the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and showed that the works formed part of government-approved residential housing projects. The basis that services were not supplied to a competent authority was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand on construction of residential units was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether construction of a government high school under contracts entered into after 01.03.2015 qualified for exemption under Entry 14A.

Analysis: Entry 14A restricts the exemption to original-work contracts entered into before 01.03.2015. The relevant school-construction work orders were dated 26.09.2016, after the prescribed date.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied and service tax on construction of the government high school remained confirmed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The residential-units demand was excluded, while the tax liabilities relating to the agricultural mini market and government high school were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for government-related original works requires fulfilment of the prescribed non-commercial-use conditions; infrastructure involving fee-based use is not shown to be non-commercial merely because it is created under a government scheme, and a contract-specific temporal condition for exemption must be strictly satisfied.

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed for alleged manipulation of Form-38 where machinery parts imported for the assessee's own repair and maintenance use were accompanied by requisite documents and no evasion or attempted evasion of tax was established.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, goods receipt, Form-38 and Form-402, with no discrepancy in their description, quantity or value. The only irregularity was use of a correction marker in a Form-38 column concerning invoice-tax amount. The machinery parts were not intended for resale, and no material showed that the assessee dealt in or sold such plant and machinery. Further, the authorities had recorded no finding that tax had been evaded or that there was an attempt to evade it. The applicable precedents governed the matter.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) was not sustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: Whether goods detained in transit, where the petitioner claims ownership, must be released under Section 129(1)(a) rather than Section 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governs release of detained goods and conveyances. The applicable precedent established that, where the person seeking release is the owner of the goods, the release mechanism under Section 129(1)(a) applies; valuation cannot be enhanced for this purpose, and the penalty is to be determined with reference to the invoice and e-way bill. The record disclosed no basis to depart from that position.

Conclusion: The goods are required to be released under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a notice and demand order under the GST law issued in the name of a deceased proprietorship taxpayer are valid.

Analysis: Section 74(1) authorises issuance of notice to the person chargeable with tax, while an individual proprietor falls within the definition of "person" under Section 2(84). The taxpayer had died before issuance of both the notice and the consequential demand order, and this factual position was undisputed. The proceedings were thus initiated and concluded against a person who was no longer in existence.

Conclusion: The notice and demand order issued against the deceased taxpayer were without jurisdiction and void; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a demand of tax, interest and penalty exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits a demand in the adjudication order from exceeding the amount specified in the notice and prohibits confirmation on grounds other than those stated in the notice. The notice specified a composite proposed demand of Rs. 78,059.50, whereas the impugned order raised Rs. 8,63,486.24 towards tax, interest and penalty. The demand was therefore ex facie beyond the notice.

Conclusion: The demand order was invalid for contravention of Section 75(7) and was set aside.

Issues: Whether prosecutions for wilful failure to furnish returns pursuant to search-assessment notices could be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when the alleged non-supply of seized material and the existence of wilful default were disputed factual matters.

Analysis: The alleged requests for search and seizure material, their receipt by the Department, supply of the material to the authorised representative, and the petitioner's ability and intention to furnish returns within the stipulated period were contested. The record did not prima facie establish that a request for the material had been made before expiry of the period prescribed in the notice. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to evaluate disputed evidence, determine the accused's factual defence, or decide the existence of wilful default or mens rea; those matters require adjudication on evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted; the disputed factual defences concerning wilful failure to file returns must be determined by the Trial Court.

Issues: Whether the dismissed writ petition should be restored to enable a challenge to Section 147-A and the reassessment proceedings.

Outcome: The review application was allowed, the earlier dismissal was set aside, and the writ petition was restored with liberty to amend; reassessment proceedings were stayed during its pendency.

Issues: Whether consequential corrections in the GST returns for Financial Year 2017-18 could be permitted after amendment of the export shipping bills and corresponding corrections in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

Analysis: The original grievance concerning amendment of the shipping bills and correction of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B stood redressed under the earlier orders. On the peculiar facts, including the delayed issuance of Customs amendment certificates, the parties agreed that consequential corrections in the GST returns should be allowed, without restricting the respondents' power to assess, verify or scrutinise the amendments independently.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to rectify the short reflection in GSTR-3B, reconcile the consequential GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch, and amend GSTR-9 for Financial Year 2017-18. Any consequential proceedings shall be decided on their merits and not rejected solely on limitation.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the second demand-cum-show cause notice and the resulting assessment order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The question whether the later proceedings were founded on material already available during the earlier audit requires factual and legal examination. That examination falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, and the assessment order is amenable to appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained; the petitioner may pursue the statutory appeal.