Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication could stand where the assessee lacked effective notice of the show-cause and hearing proceedings because communications were sent only to the e-mail address of its erstwhile auditor.

Analysis: The reasons for non-response were found plausible and bona fide. Service on the registered e-mail credentials of an erstwhile auditor with whom the assessee was no longer in contact did not afford the assessee an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice or participate in the adjudication. The requirements of a fair hearing therefore warranted fresh consideration after permitting a response and supporting transaction documents.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication was unsustainable for want of an effective opportunity of hearing, and the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Issues: Whether the notice for reassessment issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 149(1) preserves the limitation applicable under the pre-amendment regime for assessment years commencing on or before 01.04.2021. For Assessment Year 2015-16, the six-year period under the unamended provision expired on 31.03.2022. The Revenue's concession recorded in binding decisions established that notices for this assessment year issued on or after 01.04.2021 were outside the period protected by TOLA. The legal fiction arising from the directions concerning reassessment notices could not extend the expired statutory limitation for an assessment year to which TOLA did not apply.

Conclusion: The notice issued under Section 148 on 31.07.2022 was time-barred; the consequential reassessment proceedings and reassessment order were invalid and quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the support-services payment to associated enterprises could be benchmarked at nil under the Other Method; (ii) Whether the selected comparables were appropriate for determining the IPS-segment margin under TNMM; (iii) Whether the selected comparables were appropriate for determining the EEC-segment margin under TNMM; (iv) Whether specified write-backs, miscellaneous income, foreign-exchange gain and export incentives were operating items for computing the assessee's PLI; (v) Whether a COVID-period economic adjustment was warranted in benchmarking the IPS and EEC segments; (vi) Whether interest could be imputed on overdue receivables from associated enterprises where the assessee was debt-free.

Issue (i): Whether the support-services payment to associated enterprises could be benchmarked at nil under the Other Method.

Analysis: Additional evidence substantiating the benefit from the support services was admitted, consistently with the approach in the assessee's earlier years. The determination requires verification of the benefit derived from the services and fresh benchmarking under TNMM rather than a nil valuation without such verification.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the support-services adjustment is remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh verification and determination under TNMM.

Issue (ii): Whether the selected comparables were appropriate for determining the IPS-segment margin under TNMM.

Analysis: Companies manufacturing kitchen appliances, diesel-generator sets or diverse consumer electrical products were not functionally comparable to the assessee's manufacture of process-control and temperature-control systems. Further, an entity having manufacturing and trading segments without segmental results could not be accepted as a whole-entity comparable. Consistency also supported exclusion of a power-distribution-solutions company already excluded in an earlier year.

Conclusion: Partly in favour of the assessee: Penguin Electronics Ltd. and Powerica Ltd. remain excluded from inclusion, while Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Havells India Ltd., Aluminium Industries Ltd. and Tricolite Electrical Industries Ltd. are excluded from the final comparable set.

Issue (iii): Whether the selected comparables were appropriate for determining the EEC-segment margin under TNMM.

Analysis: The three proposed companies directed to be considered by the DRP require verification through a fresh search matrix and inclusion if they appear therein. Entities engaged in IT-enabled services, accounting, insurance, banking, data processing, or advertising and marketing solutions were functionally dissimilar to engineering-estimation services.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the TPO must freshly verify the three proposed companies for inclusion, and Sundaram Business Services Ltd. and Concept Public Relations India Ltd. are excluded as comparables.

Issue (iv): Whether specified write-backs, miscellaneous income, foreign-exchange gain and export incentives were operating items for computing the assessee's PLI.

Analysis: The contract-loss reversals and provisions written back corresponded to operating expenditure recognised in earlier years, while the miscellaneous income, foreign-exchange gain and export incentives were connected with business operations. The same categories had been treated as operating in the assessee's earlier year.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the specified receipts and write-backs must be treated as operating income in computing the PLI.

Issue (v): Whether a COVID-period economic adjustment was warranted in benchmarking the IPS and EEC segments.

Analysis: Although the COVID disruption affected all companies, its impact differed across entities. Comparing the assessee's recession-year result with a weighted multi-year margin of comparables that included normal years was inequitable.

Conclusion: Partly in favour of the assessee: the current-year margin of the final comparable set must be compared with the assessee's current-year margin.

Issue (vi): Whether interest could be imputed on overdue receivables from associated enterprises where the assessee was debt-free.

Analysis: The audited financial statements established that the assessee had no borrowings; the recorded long-term liability represented an Ind AS lease liability rather than interest-bearing debt. In those circumstances, imputation of interest on outstanding associated-enterprise receivables was unwarranted.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the transfer-pricing adjustment for interest on overdue receivables is deleted.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation requires fresh or consequential recomputation after verification of support-service evidence, reconsideration of the identified comparable sets, treatment of the specified operating items, application of current-year comparable margins, and deletion of the receivables-interest adjustment.

Issues: (i) Whether the entire alleged suppressed turnover can be assessed as business income, or only its embedded profit; (ii) Whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) could be sustained without payment-wise and person-wise verification.

Issue (i): Whether the entire alleged suppressed turnover can be assessed as business income, or only its embedded profit.

Analysis: The alleged receipts arose from sales of by-products generated in the assessee's disclosed business, and the purchases and source of the goods were not disputed. The Revenue's case was one of under-recording of sale consideration and margins, rather than an independent undisclosed business or unexplained investment in goods. Suppressed turnover includes the cost attributable to the goods and cannot be equated with profit merely because it was not recorded in the books. The assessee's historical net-profit rate of about 1.5% provided the objective basis for reasonable estimation. A moderately higher rate was justified because the unrecorded component represented incremental realisation for which common business expenditure was already absorbed, but no material supported a substantially higher margin.

Conclusion: Only the embedded profit in the suppressed turnover was taxable. The addition was restricted to 2% of Rs. 5,01,11,790, being Rs. 10,02,236, and the balance addition was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) could be sustained without payment-wise and person-wise verification.

Analysis: The statutory threshold applies to a payment, or aggregate payments, made to the same person on a single day, not to the aggregate annual debit under a ledger head. The supporting material asserted that the underlying payments were made to different persons or on different dates and were individually below the prescribed limit. Claims for applicable statutory exceptions also required verification from vouchers and payment details.

Conclusion: The disallowance was set aside for limited verification of payment-wise and person-wise details and applicable statutory exceptions. No disallowance may be made solely from aggregate ledger figures where the prescribed same-person, same-day threshold is not exceeded.

Final Conclusion: Taxability of the alleged unrecorded business receipts is confined to a reasonably estimated profit component, while the cash-payment disallowance requires a focused factual examination of the underlying transactions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged suppressed sales arise from the disclosed business and no independent unexplained investment in the corresponding goods is established, only the reasonably estimated profit embedded in the turnover, and not the gross turnover itself, is taxable.

Issues: (i) Whether the material established a prima facie case of the appellant's involvement in money laundering and justified attachment of his properties; (ii) Whether the asserted loan source, absence of initial naming in the FIR or ECIR, absence of a direct money trail, and reliance on a co-accused's statement invalidated the attachment; (iii) Whether properties asserted to have been acquired before the criminal activity could be attached as the value of proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether the material established a prima facie case of the appellant's involvement in money laundering and justified attachment of his properties.

Analysis: The electronic communications, cash-delivery arrangements, statements recorded under the statute, foreign-currency recovery, overseas bank withdrawal, Dubai entity documents, and investment-related communications cumulatively showed active receipt, handling, layering and concealment of proceeds of crime. At the attachment stage, a prima facie nexus with money laundering was sufficient; final determination of criminal liability was reserved for trial.

Conclusion: A prima facie case of involvement in money laundering and a sufficient nexus for attachment were established, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the asserted loan source, absence of initial naming in the FIR or ECIR, absence of a direct money trail, and reliance on a co-accused's statement invalidated the attachment.

Analysis: The appellant produced no material substantiating the claimed loan despite the reverse burden of proof. His later inclusion in the ECIR did not invalidate the proceedings because the investigation yielded material connecting him with the laundering activities. The case was supported not merely by a co-accused's statement but also by independent electronic, documentary and circumstantial material.

Conclusion: The asserted deficiencies did not invalidate the attachment, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether properties asserted to have been acquired before the criminal activity could be attached as the value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The statutory definition of proceeds of crime includes the value of such property. Where the directly derived proceeds are unavailable, untraceable, laundered or held outside India, property of equivalent value may be proceeded against. The timing of acquisition of the attached property did not preclude such attachment.

Conclusion: Property of equivalent value could be attached even if acquired before the criminal activity, where the proceeds of crime were unavailable, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory requirements for confirming attachment were satisfied by the prima facie material linking the appellant to laundering activities and by the availability of equivalent-value attachment where direct proceeds were untraceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceeds of crime are unavailable, untraceable or held outside India, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits attachment of property of equivalent value, including property acquired before the criminal activity, upon a prima facie showing of involvement in money laundering.

Issues: (i) Whether the time limit under Section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than Section 153(5), applied to the assessment made following remand; (ii) Whether foreign currency valued at Rs. 48.38 lakh was rightly assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the time limit under Section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than Section 153(5), applied to the assessment made following remand.

Analysis: Section 153(5) governs giving effect to appellate orders otherwise than through a fresh assessment or reassessment. Since the remand required fresh consideration after affording opportunity, the time limit prescribed under Section 153(3) applied.

Conclusion: Section 153(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied; the limitation challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether foreign currency valued at Rs. 48.38 lakh was rightly assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The explanations regarding the source and purpose of the foreign currency were contradictory and were unsupported by satisfactory documentary evidence, including evidence of acquisition from authorised dealers. The confiscation proceedings under foreign-exchange law concerned unlawful retention of currency and did not establish its explained source for income-tax purposes. Recording or claiming an offsetting expenditure did not displace the finding that the currency remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The foreign currency was rightly treated as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The remand assessment was within the governing statutory framework, and the addition for unexplained foreign currency remains sustainable in law.

Issues: Whether an appeal against the Tribunal's order involving taxability and classification of taxable services is maintainable before the High Court.

Analysis: Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, channels an appeal concerning the determination of taxability or classification to the Supreme Court. The dispute admittedly concerned service-tax liability on royalty under intellectual property rights and the classification of services. The statutory appellate remedy therefore lay before the Supreme Court rather than the High Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the High Court; the proper appellate remedy was before the Supreme Court.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice and assessment orders for financial year 2020-21, issued and passed after the statutory cut-off date, were valid.

Analysis: Section 73(2) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governed the time limit for the proceedings. The notice dated 15.07.2025 and the orders dated 09.09.2025 were issued and passed after the applicable cut-off date of 28.02.2025. The proceedings therefore suffered from jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, assessment orders and consequential recovery notice were set aside as time-barred and without jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether penalties could be sustained where the short-paid service tax and interest had been paid before issuance of the show cause notice; (ii) Whether excess service tax paid in one month could be adjusted against liability in a later succeeding month under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Issue (i): Whether penalties could be sustained where the short-paid service tax and interest had been paid before issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 grants relief from penalty where the tax due and applicable interest are paid before issuance of the show cause notice. The payments and interest stood admitted and appropriated.

Conclusion: The penalties were not warranted and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether excess service tax paid in one month could be adjusted against liability in a later succeeding month under Rule 6(4A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Analysis: Rule 6(4A) permits adjustment of excess tax paid against service-tax liability for a succeeding month or quarter. Applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, words in the singular include the plural; consequently, "succeeding month" or "quarter" encompasses succeeding months or quarters. The Rule imposes no requirement that adjustment must occur in the immediately following month or quarter.

Conclusion: Adjustment of the September 2009 excess payment against the January 2010 liability was permissible, and the related demand was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax payments already made remained validly appropriated, while the penalty liabilities and the demand founded on denial of the adjustment were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Excess service tax validly paid may be adjusted against liability in any succeeding month or quarter under Rule 6(4A), absent an express restriction requiring adjustment in the immediately following period.

Issues: Whether the assessee should be afforded an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and contest the GST demand proceedings despite non-filing of a reply and dismissal of the statutory appeal as time-barred.

Analysis: The demand was confirmed under the statutory adjudication framework after no reply was filed to the show-cause notice, and the appellate challenge was rejected on limitation. The asserted bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause for the omission warranted a justice-oriented approach. A meaningful opportunity to submit a reply, documents and supporting material, followed by reasonable hearing, was necessary before fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to submit a reply and contest the demand proceedings afresh before the adjudicating authority, upon payment of costs.

Issues: Whether tax deducted at source from land-acquisition compensation was refundable to the legal heirs despite non-filing of returns for the relevant assessment year and absence of an application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: Compensation payable to land losers under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was treated as not amenable to income-tax deduction. The rejection of the refund claim solely for non-filing of returns and absence of an application under Section 119(2)(b) was unsustainable, since the petitioners could seek condonation and file the relevant return. The revenue authorities were required to condone the delay, process the return and refund the TDS after receipt of the prescribed application and return.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to refund of the TDS deducted from the land-acquisition compensation; the rejection communication was quashed and consequential directions for condonation, processing of returns and refund were issued, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether seized cash could continue to be retained under Section 132B after completion of the searched person's assessment and be withheld against subsequently initiated reassessment proceedings concerning a non-searched assessee.

Analysis: The statutory charge over the seized cash ceased upon completion of the searched person's assessment, in which no demand concerning the cash was raised and the cash was accepted as belonging to the assessee. Subsequent reassessment proceedings against the assessee, who was not searched, could not sustain retention of the amount. The question whether the cash could originally have been treated as self-assessment tax remains for final consideration in the admitted appeal.

Outcome: The stay application was rejected; release of the net seized amount after adjustment of the stated tax liability was directed, while the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether deletion of the addition for alleged bogus construction expenses was sustainable where the amount had already been considered in the original assessment; (ii) Whether deletion of the addition for alleged fictitious long-term capital loss was sustainable in reassessment proceedings without new information or material.

Issue (i): Whether deletion of the addition for alleged bogus construction expenses was sustainable where the amount had already been considered in the original assessment.

Analysis: The appellate authorities concurrently found that the amount had already been assessed to tax or considered while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) in relation to capital gains. This was a concurrent finding of fact, from which no substantial question of law arose for consideration under Section 260A.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of the addition for alleged fictitious long-term capital loss was sustainable in reassessment proceedings without new information or material.

Analysis: The addition concerned an issue already considered in the original assessment under Section 143(3). No new information or material had come to the Assessing Officer's notice to support its reassessment.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent appellate relief deleting both additions remains undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings that an item was already considered in the original assessment, and that reassessment is unsupported by new material, do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260A.

Issues: (i) Whether the negative lien created over the assessee's participating interests and receivables to secure loans obtained by associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction requiring arm's-length compensation; (ii) Whether the arm's-length price determined for the negative-lien arrangement was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the negative lien created over the assessee's participating interests and receivables to secure loans obtained by associated enterprises constitutes an international transaction requiring arm's-length compensation.

Analysis: The negative lien prevented the assessee from creating further charges over, or disposing of, its participating interests and receivables without the lender's consent. The holding companies held investments, whereas the assessee directly owned the underlying operating assets and remained a distinct legal entity protected by the corporate veil. The lien was therefore an independent and valuable security, not a mere consequence of the corporate guarantee furnished by the ultimate holding company. It restricted the assessee's borrowing and expansion capacity while securing loans availed by the associated enterprises. Bankruptcy of the borrower entities and invocation of the corporate guarantee did not cause the negative lien to cease, since the lender's security continued to operate during the bankruptcy process.

Conclusion: The negative lien is an international transaction for which the assessee is required to receive arm's-length compensation. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the arm's-length price determined for the negative-lien arrangement was sustainable.

Analysis: The bank-guarantee rates adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and the LIBOR-based approach directed by the Dispute Resolution Panel did not appropriately address the nature and consequences of a negative lien over the assessee's substantial business assets. The arm's-length price requires determination under the applicable transfer-pricing provisions with due regard to the restriction imposed on the assessee's capacity to borrow, expand, and offer its assets as security.

Conclusion: The existing arm's-length price determination is set aside and requires fresh computation by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The negative-lien arrangement remains a compensable international transaction, but its arm's-length consideration must be determined afresh under the applicable transfer-pricing framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A negative lien over an operating subsidiary's real assets, voluntarily furnished to secure loans of associated enterprises and materially restricting the subsidiary's use of those assets, is a compensable international transaction notwithstanding the separate corporate identity of the entities.

Issues: Whether late-filing fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be levied through processing of TDS statements under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for defaults relating to the period before 01.06.2015.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 200A enabling computation and demand of fee under Section 234E took effect from 01.06.2015. That amendment conferred substantive authority for such computation and could operate only prospectively. Therefore, TDS-statement defaults pertaining to periods before 01.06.2015 could not attract fee under Section 234E merely because the statements were filed or processed after that date.

Conclusion: The late-filing fee levied under Section 234E for the pre-01.06.2015 periods was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest on borrowed capital was disallowable where an interest-free advance to the assessee's son was allegedly made from borrowed funds for a non-business purpose.

Analysis: The assessee's own capital exceeded the interest-free advance made to his son. The bank overdraft had been obtained in earlier financial years for business purposes, and no evidence established a nexus or proximity between the borrowed funds and the advance. Where sufficient own funds are available to cover an interest-free advance, disallowance of interest on borrowed capital cannot be made merely because the advance was made without charging interest.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the fifteen-working-day period for a competing open offer under Regulation 20(1) runs from the first acquirer's detailed public statement or from the subsequent letter of offer or its advertisement; (ii) Whether Regulation 11(1) permits exemption from the prescribed timelines for making a competing offer.

Issue (i): Whether the fifteen-working-day period for a competing open offer under Regulation 20(1) runs from the first acquirer's detailed public statement or from the subsequent letter of offer or its advertisement.

Analysis: Regulation 20(1) unambiguously requires a competing acquirer to make a public announcement within fifteen working days of the detailed public statement issued by the first acquirer. The letter of offer and its advertisement are distinct subsequent stages under the regulatory scheme. Regulation 20(8) requires identical timelines for competing offers; treating a later letter of offer as a detailed public statement would disrupt that scheme, create uncertainty, and confer an unequal advantage on a bidder who did not participate within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The competing-offer period commenced from the detailed public statement issued on 04.10.2023, not from the later letter of offer or advertisement; the issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether Regulation 11(1) permits exemption from the prescribed timelines for making a competing offer.

Analysis: Regulation 11(1) authorises exemption only from the obligation of an acquirer to make an open offer, subject to investor and market interests. It is not a general power to relax regulatory requirements or timelines governing an ongoing open-offer process. The appellant neither made the required competing public announcement within time nor complied with the deposit direction that conditionally extended the first offer process. Following closure of that process, an exemption from the competing-offer timelines could not arise.

Conclusion: Regulation 11(1) does not empower exemption from the timelines applicable to a competing offer; the issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory framework does not permit revival of a competing offer after expiry of the prescribed period and closure of the existing open offer, without prejudice to initiation of a fresh takeover process in accordance with the Regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: A competing acquirer must comply with the fifteen-working-day period measured from the first acquirer's detailed public statement, and the exemption power is confined to dispensing with an open-offer obligation rather than altering statutory timelines for a competing offer.

Issues: (i) Whether construction services rendered to the identified statutory bodies were eligible for exemption as services provided to Governmental Authorities under Entry 12 of the exemption notification; (ii) Whether the appellant satisfied the pre-01.03.2015 contract-execution and stamp-duty conditions under Entry 12A of the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether construction services rendered to the identified statutory bodies were eligible for exemption as services provided to Governmental Authorities under Entry 12 of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The service recipients listed in the work orders were authorities created under statute and consequently fell within the definition of Governmental Authority. Although the impugned order accepted exemption for certain services rendered to Government or Governmental Authorities, it denied the same treatment for other comparable authorities without reasons distinguishing their status.

Conclusion: The denial of Governmental Authority status to the other identified service recipients was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant satisfied the pre-01.03.2015 contract-execution and stamp-duty conditions under Entry 12A of the exemption notification.

Analysis: Entry 12A grants exemption for the specified construction services only where the contract was entered into and applicable stamp duty was paid before 01.03.2015. The earlier adjudication found the available certificates insufficient; the subsequently procured documents were not part of that record and require verification.

Conclusion: Eligibility for exemption under Entry 12A must be freshly determined after verification of the newly produced documents and relevant work contracts.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax demand requires reconsideration because the service recipients' Governmental Authority status was wrongly denied without reasons and the documentary satisfaction of the conditional exemption remains to be verified.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption for construction services supplied to statutory Governmental Authorities cannot be denied without a reasoned distinction, while entitlement under a conditional exemption depends upon verification of the stipulated contractual and stamp-duty requirements.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate remedy. The medical circumstances affecting the petitioner's accountant, supported by medical records, together with the peculiar facts of the case, constituted sufficient cause to permit pursuit of the appellate remedy. The merits of the input tax credit dispute were left for adjudication by the Appellate Authority.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the limitation-based dismissal of the appeal was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration and dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation warranted interference and restoration of registration.

Analysis: The statutory appellate authority could not condone delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the limitation provisions were not to be applied so as to deprive a taxpayer of the constitutional right to carry on trade and commerce under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Cancellation of registration neither conferred a corresponding right on the State nor advanced the GST regime; restoration would enable legitimate business operations and revenue collection. The earlier view permitting such relief in writ jurisdiction was followed.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration and the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred were set aside, and the registration was held valid from 29.02.2024 upon compliance with filing of pending returns and payment of outstanding dues, interest, penalty and late fees under Rule 23(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.