Issues: Whether GST registration could be cancelled retrospectively when the show cause notice did not propose or disclose retrospective cancellation.

Analysis: The cancellation operated retrospectively from 27.10.2023, whereas the show cause notice contained no reference to retrospective cancellation. The governing Division Bench ruling on this defect applied, and the factual and legal position was undisputed.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation without prior notice in the show cause notice was invalid; the cancellation order and show cause notice were quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether technical impediments to online filing of a GST appeal, despite alleged pre-deposit of the disputed tax, obstruct the statutory right of appeal.

Analysis: The impediment was treated as raising a prima facie concern of access to justice. Instructions were sought on permanent online filing measures and, failing those, offline filing measures; maintainability was left for independent consideration after filing.

Outcome: Time granted for instructions and matter listed for further hearing.

Issues: Whether the customs authorities could rely on an exemption-notification amendment that commenced after the bills of lading to decline consideration of provisional release of the imported goods.

Analysis: The bills of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and could not govern the imports concerned. The request for provisional release of similar goods had also been addressed in an earlier common order, with no distinguishing feature shown.

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

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification effective after the dates of the bills of lading could govern the imports and justify refusal to consider provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The bills of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of an express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and cannot apply to imports covered by bills of lading issued before its effective date. The issue of provisional release of similar goods had also been addressed in an earlier common order, and no distinguishing circumstance was established.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be relied upon to refuse consideration of provisional release. The petitioner's request must be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the goods must be provisionally released upon compliance with the conditions lawfully imposed.

Issues: Whether service tax was leviable on construction of residential complexes undertaken by a builder/developer before 01.07.2010.

Analysis: The applicable Board circulars clarified that construction by a builder/developer under agreements to sell remained self-service until transfer of the completed property and was not taxable before 01.07.2010. The settled position further established that, whether the arrangement was a service simpliciter or a composite works contract, construction of a residential complex before that date was outside the taxable net; the Explanation extending taxability took effect only from 01.07.2010.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable on the respondent's construction of residential complex services for the period before 01.07.2010, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be permitted to seek revocation of cancelled GST registration upon payment of tax dues and submission of pending returns.

Analysis: The petitioner's stated inability to carry on business following cancellation and the request for an opportunity to revive registration were treated as relevant for directing the revocation process. No final adjudication was made on the validity of the cancellation order.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to file a revocation application, submit proposed returns, deposit tax dues, and obtain consideration of the application by the registering authority.

Issues: Whether a bank account frozen under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 could continue to remain frozen after expiry of the maximum statutory period of twelve months.

Analysis: Section 110(5) permits freezing initially for six months, with a further extension of six months upon recorded reasons. Since the account had been frozen on 07.02.2025, the maximum permissible period had expired. Issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 124 did not authorise continuation of the freezing beyond that statutory limit.

Conclusion: Continuation of the account freezing beyond twelve months was impermissible; the account was required to be de-frozen, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an auction purchaser of the premises of a defaulting electricity consumer can be required to clear the previous consumer's electricity arrears as a condition for a fresh electricity connection.

Analysis: The auction conditions placed all liabilities attached to the property on the purchaser; the statement that no encumbrance was known to the secured creditor was confined to its knowledge and did not override the distribution licensee's independent statutory rights. Under the statutory conditions of supply framed under the Electricity Act, 2003, outstanding dues may be required to be cleared before fresh supply is released. Clause 10.19 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2005-08 regulates recovery of arrears and does not extinguish the underlying liability or preclude insistence on payment as a condition for a new connection. The as is where is basis of sale and the doctrine concerning contracts of adhesion did not nullify a statutory condition having force of law.

Conclusion: An auction purchaser may be required to clear the previous consumer's outstanding electricity dues before obtaining a fresh electricity connection; the requirement is legally valid.

Issues: (i) Whether explained loans credited to the bank accounts of foreign companies could be treated as undisclosed foreign assets or income under the Black Money Act; (ii) Whether gross commission credited to a foreign company's bank account could be assessed without considering corresponding operating debits.

Issue (i): Whether explained loans credited to the bank accounts of foreign companies could be treated as undisclosed foreign assets or income under the Black Money Act.

Analysis: The additional evidence was duly remanded for verification, and the lenders' financial capacity was accepted from their tax returns and bank statements. The loan credits were thus established as liabilities of the foreign companies. The foreign transactions had also been disclosed where the relevant entities and accounts continued to exist.

Conclusion: The explained loan credits could not be assessed as undisclosed foreign assets or income. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether gross commission credited to a foreign company's bank account could be assessed without considering corresponding operating debits.

Analysis: The bank statement showed commission credit of USD 32,565.19 but also operating debits totalling USD 46,354.21. Assessment of only the gross credit while disregarding the corresponding expenditure did not reflect the actual result of the operations, which was a net loss.

Conclusion: No addition could be sustained on the gross commission credit where the corresponding debits resulted in a net loss. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The loan credits stood explained and the commission transaction yielded no taxable surplus; the related penalty consequently had no surviving basis.

Issues: Whether revision under Section 263 was valid where repayment of loans was allowed as application of income for assessment year 2022-23 and the Assessing Officer had examined the claim during limited scrutiny.

Analysis: Explanation 4(ii) to Section 11(1), as applicable for assessment year 2022-23, recognised repayment of a loan out of the income of the year as application of income. The additional qualifying restrictions concerning such repayment were introduced prospectively with effect from 01.04.2023. Those later restrictions could not be imported into the statutory regime governing the relevant assessment year. An assessment adopting a legally plausible interpretation of the applicable provision cannot be treated as erroneous merely because a different view is preferred in revision.

Analysis: The assessment records showed that the limited scrutiny specifically covered the repayment claim, relevant particulars and supporting material were called for, and the explanation was accepted after consideration. Absence of elaborate reasons in the assessment order did not establish lack of enquiry. Revisionary jurisdiction may be founded on lack of enquiry, but not merely on an opinion that further or more detailed enquiry was warranted.

Conclusion: The assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid and the original assessment stood restored.

Issues: Whether State GST assessment and rectification proceedings could be sustained when the Central GST authorities had earlier adjudicated the same issues for the same assessment period and that adjudication was pending in appeal.

Analysis: The Central GST order preceded the State GST orders, and comparison established that both sets of proceedings concerned identical issues and the same assessment period. The pendency of an appeal against the earlier Central GST adjudication did not permit parallel State GST adjudication on those matters.

Conclusion: The State GST assessment and rectification orders could not be sustained because they duplicated the prior Central GST adjudication.

Issues: Whether tax liability could be assessed under Section 73(9) before expiry of the due date for filing the annual return for financial year 2022-2023.

Analysis: The annual-return due date was 31.12.2023, whereas the assessment order was made on 25.11.2023. The Proper Officer lacked authority to assess tax liability under Section 73(9) before expiry of the return-filing due date.

Conclusion: Assessment under Section 73(9) before expiry of the annual-return due date was without authority and was set aside for fresh assessment after notice and opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the sub-contracted work of shifting water pipelines on a national highway was exempt from service tax.

Analysis: The appellate order proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the principal work order was dated 31.12.2015. The record established that it was dated 31.12.2012 and that the pipeline work had been awarded by a Government undertaking and subcontracted to the assessee. Sr. No. 12(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 exempted specified pipeline-related services provided to Government, while Sr. No. 29(h) extended the exemption to a sub-contractor where the main works contract was exempt.

Conclusion: The sub-contracted pipeline work was exempt from service tax; the demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with liberty to submit a reply and supporting documents to the show-cause notice; the competent authority shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned and the appeal restored for merits adjudication.

Analysis: The appeal was filed 163 days after the order-in-original, including 43 days beyond the period ordinarily condonable under Section 107(4). The stated circumstances included pending rectification proceedings and the petitioner's family circumstances. Since the tax levy was disputed and factual matters required adjudication, the delay was treated as fit for condonation, consistently with the approach adopted in a similar matter.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the statutory appeal was restored for adjudication on merits; all merits contentions remain open.

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of interest on term loan under Section 43B could be sustained without loan-wise evidence establishing accrual and payment before the return-filing due date; (ii) Whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D where no exempt income was earned during the relevant previous year.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of interest on term loan under Section 43B could be sustained without loan-wise evidence establishing accrual and payment before the return-filing due date.

Analysis: The financial statements, ledger accounts and bank statements reflected consolidated figures and did not provide a loan-wise nexus between interest accrued on the term loan and the payments asserted to have been made within the prescribed time. The claimed payment could be established through primary evidence, including an appropriate bank certificate. Fresh verification of the relevant documents and details was therefore necessary.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance is set aside for fresh verification and adjudication after allowing reasonable opportunity to furnish supporting evidence; this issue is in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D where no exempt income was earned during the relevant previous year.

Analysis: No exempt income was earned during the relevant previous year. In the absence of exempt income, the basis for disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A does not arise.

Conclusion: The disallowance under Section 14A is deleted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claim for interest deduction requires fresh factual verification, while the expenditure disallowance attributable to exempt income is unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the amendment effective from 15.06.2026 could be invoked for imports covered by earlier bills of lading to refuse consideration of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The bills of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of an express provision conferring retrospective operation, the amendment operated prospectively and could not govern the subject imports. No distinguishing feature warranted departure from the established approach governing provisional release of similar imported goods.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be relied upon to refuse consideration of provisional release. The request for provisional release must be considered in accordance with law, and the goods released provisionally upon compliance with the conditions imposed.

Issues: (i) Whether the Finance Act, 2019 amendment extending the period for sale of attached immovable property under Rule 68B applies to demands for assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009; (ii) Whether the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation exclusion applies to sale proceedings conducted by the Tax Recovery Officer for assessment year 2009-2010; (iii) Whether, for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, limitation under Rule 68B runs after expiry of the period under the notice of demand and appeal limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the Finance Act, 2019 amendment extending the period for sale of attached immovable property under Rule 68B applies to demands for assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

Analysis: Rule 68B originally permitted sale within three years from the end of the financial year in which the demand-generating order became conclusive or final. As no appeals were filed, even reckoning finality after expiry of the demand period, the three-year periods expired on 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014. Limitation law may operate retrospectively, but an enlarged period cannot revive a claim already barred when the amendment came into force on 01.09.2019.

Conclusion: The sale proceedings for assessment years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 are barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court's COVID-19 limitation exclusion applies to sale proceedings conducted by the Tax Recovery Officer for assessment year 2009-2010.

Analysis: The assessment order attained finality in the financial year ending 31.03.2017, and the unexpired three-year period was validly enlarged to seven years by the 2019 amendment. The Tax Recovery Officer's functions under the recovery schedule affect rights and liabilities, including attachment, sale proclamation, and applications to set aside sale; they are therefore quasi-judicial. The COVID-19 exclusion from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 applies. The subsequent court-ordered status quo also requires exclusion, with the statutory minimum remaining period applying.

Conclusion: The sale proceedings for assessment year 2009-2010 remain within limitation, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether, for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, limitation under Rule 68B runs after expiry of the period under the notice of demand and appeal limitation.

Analysis: An assessee cannot be treated as in default until expiry of the 30-day period to pay under the notice of demand, which is coterminous with the ordinary period to appeal. Recovery certificate proceedings depend upon such default and subsequent expiry of the Rule 2 notice period. Accordingly, where no appeal is filed, finality for Rule 68B is reckoned after expiry of the ordinary 30-day period. Since the relevant financial year ended on 31.03.2017, the 2019 seven-year amendment applied before expiry of the earlier limitation period. The COVID-19 exclusion and the status quo order further preserved the available period.

Conclusion: The sale proceedings for assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 remain within limitation, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The attachment cannot be released because recovery by sale may proceed for the demands relating to assessment years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012, while recovery by sale for the two earlier assessment years is time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enlarging a limitation period applies to a subsisting claim but cannot revive a claim already time-barred; recovery-sale proceedings before a Tax Recovery Officer are quasi-judicial and receive the applicable exclusion of limitation periods.

Issues: (i) Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the issue of unsecured loans where the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and accepted the explanation; (ii) Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the alleged suppression of business receipts without an independent finding on the reconciliation furnished by the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the issue of unsecured loans where the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and accepted the explanation.

Analysis: Revision requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had specifically called for details of unsecured loans and the assessee had furnished supporting material. An assessment order cannot be revised merely because the revisional authority considers further inquiry desirable or prefers a different view where the Assessing Officer, after inquiry and application of mind, has adopted a plausible view. The distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry is material; inadequate inquiry does not by itself justify revision.

Conclusion: Revision on the unsecured-loan issue was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the alleged suppression of business receipts without an independent finding on the reconciliation furnished by the assessee.

Analysis: Before invoking revision on the ground that the Assessing Officer omitted inquiry, the revisional authority must conduct at least such inquiry as is necessary and record a clear finding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The reconciliation of business receipts was placed before the revisional authority, but no defect or failure in that reconciliation was identified. A direction for fresh inquiry without a definite finding of error amounts to an impermissible fishing or roving inquiry.

Conclusion: Revision on the alleged suppression of business receipts was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The conditions for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction were not established on either of the grounds relied upon in the revision order.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely for further verification or on a difference of opinion where the Assessing Officer has made inquiry and adopted a plausible view; where inquiry is alleged to be absent, the revisional authority must independently establish and record that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.

Issues: Whether the advance ruling on classification of imported kitchen exhaust hoods could stand without considering additional material bearing on whether the hoods incorporate fans.

Analysis: The classification depended on the factual question whether the imported kitchen exhaust hoods contained fans. The additional material relied upon by the assessee had not been considered because it was sent to an incorrect email address. A fresh factual determination after consideration of that material was necessary.

Conclusion: The Authority must consider the additional material furnished by the assessee and determine afresh whether the imported kitchen exhaust hoods contain fans.