Issues: Whether psyllium seeds supplied after procurement through APMC auctions and storage in dry ventilated godowns qualify as fresh Isabgol seeds exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Psyllium seeds are classifiable under tariff item 1211 90 13 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Eligibility for the competing rate entries turns on the condition of the goods at the time of the applicant's supply. The exemption for heading 1211 is confined to goods that are fresh or chilled, whereas frozen or dried goods under the same heading attract 5% tax. The clarification on fresh and dried products was applied by analogy: goods cease to be fresh when intentionally dried. Storage in dry and ventilated godowns was treated as drying, and the absence of evidence regarding the duration between harvest and onward supply prevented acceptance that the seeds remained fresh. The specific exemption for fresh or chilled psyllium seeds consequently did not apply.

Conclusion: Psyllium seeds supplied by the applicant do not qualify as fresh Isabgol seeds and are not exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025; they are taxable at 5% under Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Determination of the arm's length charge for a corporate guarantee; (ii) Determination of the arm's length interest rate on the loan linked to Siam Commercial Bank; (iii) Validity of ad hoc disallowance of foreign travel expenses; (iv) Appropriate electricity tariff for computing deduction under Section 80IA; and (v) Whether receipts from sale of carbon credits are capital or revenue receipts.

Issue (i): Determination of the arm's length charge for a corporate guarantee.

Analysis: The corporate-guarantee adjustment was governed by the coordinate decision in the assessee's own earlier assessment year, which adopted 0.5% as the appropriate benchmark in line with the judicially accepted rate.

Conclusion: The corporate-guarantee adjustment shall be restricted to 0.5%, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Determination of the arm's length interest rate on the loan linked to Siam Commercial Bank.

Analysis: The earlier coordinate decision, on materially identical loan terms, recognised the commercial risk and subordinated nature of the loan and fixed 9% as the appropriate interest rate.

Conclusion: The interest adjustment shall be recomputed by applying an interest rate of 9%, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Validity of ad hoc disallowance of foreign travel expenses.

Analysis: The assessee had already made a 20% disallowance and offered it to fringe benefit tax. Applying the earlier coordinate decision, a further ad hoc disallowance for foreign travel expenses was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance of foreign travel expenses is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Appropriate electricity tariff for computing deduction under Section 80IA.

Analysis: For captive power transferred to industrial units, the market value is the rate at which the State Electricity Board supplies electricity to industrial consumers, rather than a cost-plus rate.

Conclusion: The deduction under Section 80IA shall be computed using the State Electricity Board's consumer tariff, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether receipts from sale of carbon credits are capital or revenue receipts.

Analysis: Carbon credits do not constitute goods, and judicial authority treats their sale proceeds as capital receipts. Section 115BBG, introduced from assessment year 2018-19, was prospective and did not govern the assessment year in question.

Conclusion: Receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital receipts, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustments are reduced, the foreign-travel disallowance is removed, the captive-power deduction is to be recomputed on the applicable consumer tariff, and carbon-credit sale proceeds are excluded from revenue treatment.

Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty collected by including stenter galleries in annual production capacity could be denied for non-challenge to the capacity determination or on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Determination of annual production capacity under the relevant capacity-determination rules is an administrative exercise and does not give rise to an appealable order. The exclusion of galleries from the stenter for capacity determination stood settled, and duty collected by including them was treated as an unconstitutional levy. Since the capacity determination was not appealable and the levy itself lacked legal authority, the refund claim could not be rejected for failure to challenge that determination, nor could the statutory bar of unjust enrichment be applied.

Conclusion: The refund claims are maintainable without requiring the assessee to establish absence of unjust enrichment; annual production capacity must be redetermined after excluding the galleries and the refund claim processed accordingly.

Issues: (i) Whether unprocessed Psyllium Seeds (Isabgol) supplied after procurement through APMC auctions qualify as fresh seeds exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025; (ii) Whether the seeds alternatively qualify as goods of seed quality exempt under Entry 77 of that notification.

Issue (i): Whether unprocessed Psyllium Seeds (Isabgol) supplied after procurement through APMC auctions qualify as fresh seeds exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Psyllium seeds are classifiable under tariff item 1211 90 13 as seeds of a kind used primarily in pharmacy. Eligibility for the exemption turns on the condition of the goods at the time of supply by the applicant. The declared storage in dry and ventilated godowns, coupled with the absence of evidence concerning the period between harvest, procurement and onward supply, did not establish that the goods remained fresh. Storage in a dry and ventilated place was treated as drying; a commodity need not be marketed under a label describing it as dried to acquire that character. The analogy in Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST, distinguishing fresh goods from goods dried in any manner, was applied. The goods were consequently treated as dried and falling under Entry 71 of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Conclusion: The seeds do not qualify as fresh Isabgol seeds and are not exempt under Entry 87; they are taxable at 5% under Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seeds alternatively qualify as goods of seed quality exempt under Entry 77 of that notification.

Analysis: The alternative exemption claim was contingent on the primary question. Having concluded that the supplied seeds are dried and taxable under the specific rate entry applicable to heading 1211, no separate exemption was available through the alternative claim.

Conclusion: The seeds do not qualify for exemption under Entry 77, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Supplies of Psyllium Seeds in the stated circumstances are treated as dried goods under heading 1211 and attract GST at the prescribed rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption is confined to fresh or chilled goods, the supplier must establish that the goods retain that condition at the time of supply; storage intended to dry agricultural produce renders the fresh-goods exemption unavailable.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether the cash deposits used for repayment of a loan were wholly assessable as unexplained money; (iii) Whether the enhanced tax rate under the amended provision governing unexplained income applied to Assessment Year 2017-18.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay resulted primarily from the earlier counsel's failure to inform the assessee of dismissal of the first appeal. The explanation was supported by affidavit, remained unrebutted by the Revenue, and the assessee acted promptly after learning of the recovery proceedings. Though some lack of vigilance was attributable to the assessee, a liberal and justice-oriented approach warranted condonation on payment of costs.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned on payment of costs.

Issue (ii): Whether the cash deposits used for repayment of a loan were wholly assessable as unexplained money.

Analysis: No documentary evidence established the precise source of the cash deposits, justifying an adverse inference. However, treating the entire deposit as unexplained was unreasonable because an assessee could reasonably be expected to possess some cash-in-hand for ordinary requirements. Availability of cash of Rs.1,00,000 was accepted, and only the balance remained unexplained.

Conclusion: The unexplained-money addition was restricted to Rs.4,07,481, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the enhanced tax rate under the amended provision governing unexplained income applied to Assessment Year 2017-18.

Analysis: Divergent High Court views existed on the temporal operation of the amendment. In the absence of a binding jurisdictional or Supreme Court ruling, the construction favourable to the assessee was adopted. The amendment, though brought into force from 1 April 2017, contained no express retrospective operation and was treated as applicable from Financial Year 2017-18, corresponding to Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards.

Conclusion: The enhanced rate was held inapplicable to Assessment Year 2017-18, and tax on the sustained addition was directed to be computed under the unamended provision, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition for unexplained cash was reduced and the enhanced rate of tax was excluded for the relevant assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two reasonable interpretations of a taxing amendment are available and no binding contrary authority governs, the interpretation favourable to the assessee must be preferred; an enhanced tax rate without express retrospective operation applies prospectively.

Issues: (i) Whether psyllium seeds supplied after procurement through APMC auctions qualify as fresh seeds exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025; (ii) Whether the seeds alternatively qualify as goods of seed quality exempt under Entry 77 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (i): Whether psyllium seeds supplied after procurement through APMC auctions qualify as fresh seeds exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Psyllium seeds are classifiable under Tariff Item 12119013 under Heading 1211 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Eligibility for Entry 87 depends on the condition of the goods at the applicant's point of supply, rather than the processes undertaken before procurement from farmers. The seeds were stored in dry and ventilated godowns, with no evidence of the duration between harvesting and subsequent supply. Applying the clarification concerning fresh and dried products in Circular No. 163/19/2021-GST dated 06.10.2021, storage in dry ventilated conditions was treated as drying; the goods could not therefore be regarded as fresh when supplied. They consequently fall within Entry 71 of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Conclusion: Psyllium seeds supplied by the applicant are not fresh seeds eligible for exemption under Entry 87 and are taxable at 5% under Entry 71 of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seeds alternatively qualify as goods of seed quality exempt under Entry 77 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Entry 87 is the specific exemption entry governing goods under Heading 1211, including psyllium seeds supplied in fresh or chilled condition. Since the goods are not fresh at the time of supply and the first question is answered negatively, the alternative exemption claim under Entry 77 does not arise.

Conclusion: Psyllium seeds do not qualify for exemption as goods of seed quality under Entry 77, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's supplies of psyllium seeds are treated as dried goods under Heading 1211 and attract GST at the applicable 5% rate.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption as fresh goods under the relevant Heading 1211 entry, the goods must retain their fresh character at the supplier's point of supply; storage in dry ventilated conditions that imparts a dried character defeats that exemption.

Issues: (i) Whether assessments under section 153A could rely on an Excel file physically seized from another premises in the same coordinated search, without initiating proceedings under section 153C; (ii) Whether alleged on-money relating to shops standing in the names of separately identifiable agreement-holders could be assessed as unexplained investment of the assessee; (iii) Whether WhatsApp chats recovered from the assessee's mobile phone justified the addition under section 69A and its quantification.

Issue (i): Whether assessments under section 153A could rely on an Excel file physically seized from another premises in the same coordinated search, without initiating proceedings under section 153C.

Analysis: Section 153C provides the machinery for assessment of an other person where material is found in the search of a person not searched in his own right. Here, an independent search warrant had been executed against the assessee as part of an integrated group search, jurisdiction under section 153A had validly arisen, and the common search material directly relating to the assessee was confronted to him. Physical recovery of the Excel file from another searched premises did not transform the assessee into an unsearched other person or require parallel proceedings for the same assessment years.

Conclusion: The assessments under section 153A were valid and separate proceedings under section 153C were not required. The jurisdictional objection was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged on-money relating to shops standing in the names of separately identifiable agreement-holders could be assessed as unexplained investment of the assessee.

Analysis: The Excel sheet and statements were relevant material and established the assessee's connection with the block bookings. However, the sheet separately identified the agreement-holder for each shop. Use of a common group description, facilitation of bookings, relationship with purchasers, or denial by a purchaser of having paid cash did not by itself establish that the assessee funded the investment. Section 69 requires a reasonable evidentiary nexus showing that the investment was made by the assessee. An unexplained investment must be examined in the hands of the actual person liable, unless positive evidence establishes that another person was its real source.

Conclusion: Addition under section 69 may be made in the assessee's hands only for on-money relating to shops owned by him or where independent evidence proves that he supplied the funds. On-money relating to shops of independently identifiable purchasers cannot be assessed in his hands merely because of association or relationship. The issue was partly in favour of Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether WhatsApp chats recovered from the assessee's mobile phone justified the addition under section 69A and its quantification.

Analysis: The chats, currency-note photographs and serial numbers recovered from the assessee's own mobile phone were relevant material and could not be excluded merely for want of a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Yet the assessment computation adopted inconsistent multipliers for identical references to "Kg", without a uniform decoding method or independent corroboration for treating every such reference as one lakh. The reduced quantification adopted by the first appellate authority was therefore sustained. The assertion that the residual amount was included in disclosed turnover failed for want of transaction-wise reconciliation with invoices, stock records, cash book, ledgers or return records; the alternative claim for taxation of only profit also remained unproved.

Conclusion: The deletion of the higher addition was confirmed and the addition of Rs. 6,09,850 was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Common material from a coordinated search may be used in the search assessment of a person independently searched, but unexplained investment must be attributed on positive proof to the actual investor, and electronic-chat additions must rest on a rational and consistent quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained investment requires positive evidence connecting the assessee with the actual source of funds and cannot rest solely on association with, introduction of, or relationship to the registered purchaser.

Issues: Whether an upper turnover filter of ten times the assessee's turnover should be applied while selecting comparable companies for benchmarking software development services.

Analysis: Under the transfer-pricing comparability framework, turnover is a valid quantitative filter for software development service providers because substantial differences in scale affect the functions, assets and risks profile. Companies with turnover exceeding ten times that of a routine captive, limited-risk service provider derive advantages from economies of scale, market position, valuable intangibles and diversified operations. On materially identical facts, the earlier-year determination required application of the same filter, and no change in facts or law justified a departure from that consistent view.

Conclusion: Companies having turnover exceeding ten times the assessee's turnover are not appropriate comparables and must be excluded; the arm's length price shall be recomputed using the revised comparable set after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether additions based solely on material gathered during reassessment proceedings can be sustained where no addition is made on the information forming the basis for reopening.

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 147 permits assessment of issues noticed subsequently during valid reassessment proceedings. However, this power operates subject to the requirement that reassessment must result in an addition or modification on the issue forming the foundation for its initiation. The Revenue did not establish that any impugned addition was based on material available when notice under Section 148 was issued; the additions arose only from subsequent verification and enquiries.

Conclusion: Additions founded solely on material gathered during reassessment, without any addition based on the information underlying the reopening, cannot be sustained. The issue is decided in favour of the assessees.

Issues: Whether the order requiring payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for stay, affirmed on modification, could stand without reasons under the applicable stay guidelines.

Analysis: The impugned stay orders marked 90% of the demand as stayed and 10% as collectible, but did not disclose reasons for retaining the 10% deposit requirement. Where the applicable Office Memorandum requires the authorities to evaluate specified parameters in determining stay conditions, the decision must be supported by reasons. The absence of reasons warranted reconsideration of the stay application.

Conclusion: The order affirming the 10% deposit condition was set aside, and the stay application was restored for an expeditious, reasoned reconsideration after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative determination of stay terms for disputed tax demand under applicable guidelines must disclose reasons based on the prescribed parameters; an unreasoned determination is liable to be reconsidered.

Issues: Whether addition based on the difference between the purchase consideration stated in the sale deed and the stamp-duty valuation could be sustained under Section 56(2)(x) where the assessee disputed the stamp-duty value and sought a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer.

Analysis: The assessee specifically disputed the valuation adopted by the stamp-duty authority, explained that the basement and ground floor could not be valued alike, and requested valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer. The Assessing Officer neither dealt with those objections through a reasoned finding nor referred the property for valuation, and instead adopted the stamp-duty value mechanically.

Conclusion: The addition was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether assessment orders passed without the taxpayer's reply to show-cause notices, and the appellate order dismissing the appeals as time-barred, should be set aside to permit fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The taxpayer attributed the failure to respond and contest the original proceedings to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. A justice-oriented approach warranted a further opportunity to file replies and supporting material, subject to costs, before a fresh determination.

Conclusion: The assessment and appellate orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication from the stage of filing replies to the show-cause notices, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be sustained by withdrawing composition-tax benefit where liquor, incapable of lawful production in the State, was purchased from outside the State and separately subjected to tax at the normal rate.

Analysis: The original audit assessment had accepted the assessee's composition permission for its restaurant business while separately taxing resale of liquor at the normal schedule rate. The reassessment proceeded merely on a changed view regarding the applicable tax rate. Section 14D of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with the retrospectively amended proviso to Rule 28C(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 permitted a composition dealer to procure goods from outside the State where their production within the State was legally prohibited, provided tax on their resale was paid at the normal rate. The cancellation of composition permission in 2010 did not govern the assessment period 2007-08. The evidentiary objection was also untenable because the audit assessment had considered the relevant accounts and documents.

Conclusion: The reassessment and withdrawal of composition benefit were unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to retain composition-tax benefit for the restaurant business while paying normal-rate tax on liquor resale.

Issues: Whether the ex parte assessment and rejection of the delayed statutory appeal warranted reconsideration where the assessee asserted that the disputed tax had already been paid but such payment had not been captured.

Analysis: The assessment was made ex parte under Section 76 of the respective GST enactments, and the statutory appeal was rejected as time-barred. The asserted payment of the disputed tax required verification and had not been reflected in the assessment. Fresh adjudication was directed upon deposit of 15% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Credit Ledger and filing of a reply with supporting documents.

Outcome: The impugned assessment and appeal-rejection orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication subject to stipulated compliance.

Issues: Whether loading railway-owned ballast into railway wagons using JCB loaders is a works contract, a composite supply with ballast as the principal supply, or an independent cargo-handling service; and the applicable GST classification and rate.

Analysis: A works contract requires specified activities in relation to immovable property with transfer of property in goods. Supplying ballast and subsequently loading it into wagons did not involve any such activity relating to immovable property. The supply of ballast was completed upon delivery and transfer of ownership to the Railways, whereas loading was later performed on separate instructions, at separately prescribed rates and under separate invoices. The activities were therefore neither naturally bundled nor supplied in conjunction in the ordinary course of business, and no principal supply arose. Loading ballast into stationary railway wagons, without transportation, wagon movement, shunting, towing or other railway operations, has the essential character of cargo handling under SAC 996719, Heading 9967.

Conclusion: Loading ballast into railway wagons using JCB loaders is an independent supply of cargo-handling service classifiable under SAC 996719 and taxable at 18%, not a works contract or composite supply taxable at the ballast rate. The ruling is against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's deletion of additions for alleged unaccounted fees, based on seized loose sheets, visitors' slips and diary entries, warranted interference in an appeal under Section 260A.

Analysis: The Tribunal's findings were factual findings founded on scrutiny of the seized documents, the assessee's explanations, and the absence of verification from students, parents or other independent sources. The material did not support extrapolation of alleged fee collections across assessment years, estimation of receipts for unverified seats, or the assumption that fees for COMED-K cancellation seats equalled management-quota fees. The Revenue failed to establish that the Tribunal had ignored relevant material, acted without evidence, or recorded perverse findings. An appeal under Section 260A cannot be used to seek reappreciation of evidence and substitution of factual conclusions.

Conclusion: The deletion of the additions was upheld in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: Whether addition of share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit was sustainable under Section 68.

Analysis: The identity of the subscriber, genuineness of the transaction, creditworthiness, financial statements, bank records, money trail and source of the subscriber's investment were established on facts. The subscriber's own scrutiny assessment contained no adverse finding concerning its investment. The factual finding that the subscriber received funds from group companies for making the investment also satisfied the condition in the second proviso to Section 68; consequently, its prospective or retrospective operation did not require determination.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition towards share capital and share premium was sustained in favour of the assessee, as no substantial question of law arose.

Issues: Whether an assessment under section 143(3), arising from survey proceedings, is valid where the Assessing Officer obtained prior approval under section 153D despite no statutory requirement for such approval.

Analysis: Section 153D applies to assessments arising from search or requisition proceedings under sections 153A and 153C, whereas the assessment arose from a survey under section 133A and was completed under section 143(3). No provision required the Assessing Officer to obtain supervisory approval for this assessment. The recorded prior approval indicated impermissible interference with the Assessing Officer's independent quasi-judicial discretion and an exercise of power through external dictation.

Conclusion: The assessment order under section 143(3) was invalid and was quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether the Trial Court or the High Court must finally decide the fate of a closure report filed by the investigating agency; (ii) Whether a concluded proceeding resulting in conviction, acquittal or complete discharge impedes investigation or trial.

Issue (i): Whether the Trial Court or the High Court must finally decide the fate of a closure report filed by the investigating agency.

Analysis: The closure report had been filed before the Special Judge and remained pending for consideration. The competent court to determine the report was therefore the Trial Court.

Conclusion: The Trial Court alone must take the final decision on the closure report in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether a concluded proceeding resulting in conviction, acquittal or complete discharge impedes investigation or trial.

Analysis: A final order of the Special Court, including conviction, acquittal or complete discharge, does not amount to impeding investigation or trial. Statutory remedies remain available to the parties.

Conclusion: A final order of the Special Court does not impede investigation or trial.

Final Conclusion: The Trial Court was directed to decide the pending closure report within two months, while the clarification application concerning concluded Special Court proceedings was disposed of without interference with the earlier directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court before which an investigating agency files its closure report has jurisdiction to take the final decision on that report.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the service-tax adjudication on a works contract was sustainable without determining the service component under the prescribed valuation mechanism and without deciding the assessee's eligibility for reverse-charge treatment.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Availability of an appellate remedy is a rule of self-imposed restraint in writ jurisdiction and not an absolute jurisdictional bar. The challenge concerned the foundational basis of the assessment, including alleged non-consideration of applicable valuation provisions, notification-based liability, and constitutional limits on taxing works contracts, rather than mere quantification.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative statutory remedy, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the service-tax adjudication on a works contract was sustainable without determining the service component under the prescribed valuation mechanism and without deciding the assessee's eligibility for reverse-charge treatment.

Analysis: A works contract contains distinct goods-transfer and service elements. Rule 2A requires determination of the taxable service portion after excluding the value of property in goods transferred in execution of the contract, or application of the prescribed valuation percentages where applicable. The adjudication order did not meaningfully address this mechanism, the constitutional limitation concerning transfer of property in goods, or the relevant notification. Further, where applicability of reverse charge depended on whether the assessee was a partnership firm or a company, the adjudicating authority was required to ascertain that foundational fact and record a clear finding. A quasi-judicial order must deal with substantial contentions through reasoned findings.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for failure to decide material valuation and notification issues through a reasoned determination, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Service-tax liability on the works contracts must be determined afresh by applying the statutory valuation framework, deciding the assessee's status and notification eligibility, and giving a reasoned hearing-based determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment of a composite works contract fails to address the statutory method for isolating the taxable service component and other foundational notification issues, the resulting quasi-judicial order cannot stand for want of reasoned adjudication.