Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a GST prosecution, having regard to the period of custody, the documentary nature of the evidence, and the stage of trial.

Analysis: The petitioner had undergone custody of about 3 months and 29 days. The case was founded on documentary evidence, the complaint and supplementary complaint had already been filed, the matter was triable by the Magistrate, and the prosecution had identified 25 witnesses. In these circumstances, further incarceration was found unnecessary for the progress of the trial.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner on furnishing bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate, subject to the conditions imposed by that court.

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number could be sustained. (ii) Whether uploading the order on the GST portal constituted sufficient service and whether delayed challenge to such order could be entertained subject to a deposit condition.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number could be sustained.

Analysis: The order was found to suffer from an inherent defect on account of the absence of a Document Identification Number. The deficiency was treated as a patent irregularity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment order could not be sustained and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading the order on the GST portal constituted sufficient service and whether delayed challenge to such order could be entertained subject to a deposit condition.

Analysis: Service by portal upload under Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was pressed into service by the Revenue, while the Court noticed the practical difficulties faced by registered persons in accessing the portal. Balancing those difficulties against the need for tax administration, the Court indicated that delayed writ petitions in such situations may be considered on the condition of a 20% deposit of the disputed tax. It also directed exclusion of the period from filing of the writ petition till receipt of the order by the Assessing Officer for limitation purposes and preserved all issues before the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The challenge was entertained and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment after due opportunity of hearing, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was annulled for want of a DIN and the matter was sent back for reconsideration, with a conditional deposit requirement and liberty to raise all contentions before the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order lacking a required Document Identification Number is liable to be set aside, and in cases involving service through the GST portal, equitable consideration of delay may be coupled with a conditional deposit and remand for fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 1,38,25,455 during the demonetization period could be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee showed that it was engaged in a cash-intensive travel business, that cash deposits were part of business receipts, and that the deposits during the demonetization window were lower than the comparable period in the immediately preceding year. The opening cash balance, sales-linked receipts, and bank-supported deposit details were accepted in substance, while no defect was brought out in the books or in the explanation that the deposits emanated from recorded cash sales and collections. On these facts, the addition was found to rest on conjectures rather than on any demonstrated unexplained source.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was not sustainable and was rightly deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000 as alleged bonus/commission receivable was sustainable when no receipt, no booking of corresponding liability in the employer's books, and no enforceable right to receive the amount were shown; (ii) Whether the addition under section 69A on account of cash found during search was to be sustained in full or to be reduced on the basis of explanations supported by confirmations and other evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000 as alleged bonus/commission receivable was sustainable when no receipt, no booking of corresponding liability in the employer's books, and no enforceable right to receive the amount were shown.

Analysis: The seized sheets and the assessee's statement did not establish actual receipt of the amount or a crystallised right to receive it. The assessment order itself proceeded on a due-basis assumption, but there was no material showing payment by the employer or any provision made in its books. In the absence of evidence of accrual as real income, the proposed addition could not stand.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition of Rs. 3,17,00,000 was upheld and the department's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition under section 69A on account of cash found during search was to be sustained in full or to be reduced on the basis of explanations supported by confirmations and other evidence.

Analysis: The explanation for Rs. 85,00,000 was supported by confirmations, revenue records and replies to notices under section 133(6), and the rejection of that explanation as an afterthought was not justified. At the same time, the remaining explanations were only partly substantiated, and the relief granted by the first appellate authority for Rs. 18,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,000 was found to be reasonable on the available material. Accordingly, only the component of Rs. 85,00,000 was held liable to be deleted.

Conclusion: The addition was sustained only to the extent it survived after deleting Rs. 85,00,000, and the assessee succeeded to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The department's appeal was rejected, the assessee's appeal succeeded only in part, and the addition relating to cash of Rs. 85,00,000 was directed to be deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition based on alleged receivables cannot be sustained without evidence of actual accrual or an enforceable right to receive income, and a cash addition under section 69A must be tested against credible explanations supported by corroborative material on the preponderance of probability.

Issues: Whether the addition of bank credits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the impugned receipts were recorded in duly audited books of account and supported by reconciliation and confirmations.

Analysis: The books of account, including the bank book and allied records, were audited and the revenue authorities did not reject the books or dispute the audit report. The difference between bank credits and turnover was explained by advances, refunds, third-party settlements and related transactions recorded in the books. The assessment order proceeded mainly on the absence of further verification, without meaningful enquiry into the confirmations or invoking the available enquiry powers. Amounts reflected in the books could not be treated as unexplained money merely because the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation, where the receipts were already accounted for in the books.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was rightly deleted and the revenue's challenge failed.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned and the petitioners should be permitted to file a fresh appeal to be decided on merits without rejection on limitation.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by earlier co-ordinate Bench decisions on the same limitation question under section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017 and the CGST Act, 2017. The parties were ad idem that the matters could be disposed of in the same terms. The Court also took note of the Supreme Court decision permitting such relief and accepted the request to keep all contentions open before the appellate authority. The petitioners did not press any further prayer.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the petitioners were permitted to file a fresh appeal within the stipulated time, to be considered on merits without objection on limitation. The petitioners were thus granted relief.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy on merits, and the limitation bar was directed not to defeat consideration of the appeals if filed within time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the limitation issue in filing a statutory GST appeal stands covered by binding precedent and the court finds it to preserve the assessee's right to an adjudication on merits, delay may be condoned and the appeal directed to be entertained without deciding limitation against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Policy Relaxation Committee's rejection of the request to treat the two export shipments under the Advance Authorisation Scheme, and the refusal to grant personal hearing, were vitiated by non-application of mind and breach of the principles of natural justice under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: Paragraphs 2.59 and 2.60 of the Foreign Trade Policy contemplate relaxation, exemption or relief on grounds of genuine hardship and adverse impact on trade, and also provide for personal hearing in grievance redressal. The record showed that the petitioner had pleaded a technical failure in transmission of Advance Authorisation data, had repeatedly sought correction, and had asked for personal hearing, yet the committee rejected the claim without meaningful consideration. The orders were found to be mechanical and unsupported by a reasoned examination of the hardship plea, and the denial of hearing further offended fair procedure. In the absence of any reply from the respondents, the factual assertions remained substantially uncontroverted.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were vitiated for non-application of mind and violation of natural justice, and were liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh decision by the competent authority after an effective personal hearing and a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the policy itself permits relaxation on genuine hardship and requires fair grievance redressal, a mechanical rejection without meaningful consideration of the hardship plea and without effective personal hearing is liable to be set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee was invalid on the ground that it was served upon a person claiming only as legal representative and not as a legal heir; (ii) Whether approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings, when extended limitation was invoked, was required to be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rather than the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

Issue (i): Whether notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee was invalid on the ground that it was served upon a person claiming only as legal representative and not as a legal heir.

Analysis: Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 contemplates proceedings against the legal representative of a deceased assessee, and the expression "legal representative" is given the wider meaning under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The concept is not confined to succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and does not require the recipient to be a Class I heir. Since the person concerned had himself responded in the capacity of legal representative and had projected himself as such before the Revenue, service of notice upon him could not be treated as void merely because he was not shown to be a legal heir in the strict succession-law sense.

Conclusion: The challenge to service of notice failed and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings, when extended limitation was invoked, was required to be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rather than the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

Analysis: For invocation of the extended period of limitation, the statutory safeguard under Section 151(ii) required approval from the higher designated authority. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was therefore not in conformity with the statutory scheme when the case attracted the extended limitation regime.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice could not be sustained because the mandatory approval requirement was not satisfied, even though the objection based on service on the legal representative was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For tax proceedings following the death of an assessee, "legal representative" under the Income-tax Act has a broader meaning than "legal heir", and where extended limitation is invoked for reopening, approval must be obtained from the authority specified by the statute for that situation.

Outcome: Civil appeal dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of low tax effect, with all questions of law kept open.

Issues: (i) Whether the exported goods were liable to confiscation under Sections 113(i) and 113(ja) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether diversion of duty-free gold imported under Notification No. 57/2000-Cus stood established and attracted confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) whether the duty demand on HDFC Bank was sustainable; (iv) whether the penalties imposed, dropped, or not imposed upon the various noticees were legally sustainable; and (v) whether redemption fine could be imposed on HDFC Bank in the absence of physically available goods.

Issue (i): Whether the exported goods were liable to confiscation under Sections 113(i) and 113(ja) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The exported consignment, declared as 22 carat gold jewellery, was scientifically found to consist of gold-coated copper/brass articles with a very low gold content. The discrepancy between the declared description and the physical nature of the goods, coupled with inflated value and false declarations in export documents, amounted to misdeclaration in material particulars. In customs proceedings, confiscation can be sustained on preponderance of probability and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The exported goods were correctly held liable to confiscation and the finding was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether diversion of duty-free gold imported under Notification No. 57/2000-Cus stood established and attracted confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The quantity of duty-free gold procured far exceeded the gold content actually found in the exported goods. No reliable transport, manufacturing, reconciliation, or job-work records were produced to account for the shortage. The scientific analysis of the exported jewellery, the statements of persons connected with manufacture, and the absence of a credible explanation established non-utilisation of the gold for the intended export purpose. A conditional exemption notification must be strictly complied with, and the beneficiary bears the burden of proving such compliance.

Conclusion: Diversion of duty-free gold stood conclusively established and confiscation under Section 111(o) was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the duty demand on HDFC Bank was sustainable.

Analysis: HDFC Bank functioned as a nominated agency under a conditional exemption scheme and had already discharged the customs duty and interest before issuance of the show cause notice. The records disclosed no collusion, wilful suppression, or conscious participation by the Bank in the exporter's fraud. The liability in such a scheme may arise through the notification and bond mechanism, but fraud-based invocation of extended recovery provisions against the Bank was not justified once the statutory dues had already been paid and no culpable conduct was established.

Conclusion: The duty demand against HDFC Bank was not sustainable and the departmental challenge failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalties imposed, dropped, or not imposed upon the various noticees were legally sustainable.

Analysis: Penalties were sustained against the principal exporter, associated persons, the Customs Broker and its personnel, and the examining officer where the record showed conscious facilitation, deliberate misdeclaration, and knowing use of false documentation. At the same time, penalties were not sustained against persons for whom the evidence showed only procedural lapse, job-work activity without conscious participation, or no nexus with the imported gold. The Bank was also not liable to penal consequences in the absence of mens rea, collusion, or knowing facilitation. The statutory ingredients of the relevant penal provisions were applied role-wise and not on a theory of vicarious liability.

Conclusion: The confirmed penalties were upheld to the extent of conscious involvement, while the dropped penalties and the refusal to impose certain penalties were also upheld where the evidence did not satisfy the statutory threshold.

Issue (v): Whether redemption fine could be imposed on HDFC Bank in the absence of physically available goods.

Analysis: Redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is contingent upon confiscable goods being available for redemption. HDFC Bank neither had custody nor control over the export goods and was not shown to be complicit in the fraudulent export. Since the goods were not physically available and the Bank was not the offending party, the foundation for redemption fine was absent.

Conclusion: Redemption fine on HDFC Bank was not leviable and the refusal to impose it was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The order was substantially sustained with limited modifications on individual penalties, resulting in confirmation of confiscation and diversion findings, rejection of the Bank's penal exposure, and partial success for both sides depending on the specific noticee-wise issues.

Ratio Decidendi: In a conditional exemption regime, confiscation and recovery can be sustained where misdeclaration and diversion are proved on a preponderance of probability, but penal or fraud-based liability cannot be fastened on a person unless the record establishes conscious participation, knowledge, or deliberate facilitation.

Issues: Whether the three questions seeking a ruling on the documentary sufficiency for proving supplies for authorized operations and the need for invoice endorsement in DTA-to-SEZ and intra-SEZ transactions fell within the scope of advance ruling under section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis: The questions were confined to whether LOA, eligibility certificates, and other documents were sufficient, or whether endorsement by the Specified Officer was mandatory. Such questions did not concern classification, applicability of a notification, time or value of supply, input tax credit, liability to pay tax, registration, or whether an activity amounted to a supply. They were therefore outside the statutory matters on which an advance ruling could be sought.

Conclusion: The questions were held to be outside the ambit of section 97 of the CGST Act, 2017, and no ruling was given on the merits.

Final Conclusion: The application was not entertained on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the substantive GST and SEZ documentary issues unanswered.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling can be given only on matters expressly covered by section 97(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and a request confined to documentary sufficiency or procedural endorsement requirements is not maintainable where it does not fall within those categories.

Issues: Whether AAC bricks/blocks are classifiable under Heading 6904 as ceramic building bricks, or under Heading 6810 as articles of cement, concrete or artificial stone.

Analysis: The classification was examined by comparing the declared composition and manufacturing process of the goods with the competing tariff entries and Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 69. The goods were found to undergo autoclaving and not the kind of firing required for ceramic products under Chapter 69. The chemical analysis relied upon by the applicant was also held not to establish that the product satisfied the criteria of a ceramic brick. The tariff description and explanatory notes for Heading 6810 were found to align with the goods, and the claim that Heading 6904 should prevail was rejected.

Conclusion: AAC bricks/blocks are not classifiable under Heading 6904 and are correctly classifiable under Heading 6810; the ruling is against the applicant.

Issues: Whether input tax credit is admissible on inputs and input services used for construction of a concrete VCV tower erected to support and operate the VCV lines for manufacture of EHV cables, in view of the restrictions under section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act.

Analysis: The concrete tower was found to be an essential and integral structural support for the vertical continuous vulcanization line, with the machinery fixed to earth by foundation and structural support. On the facts placed, the tower was not treated as a mere civil structure housing equipment, but as part of the foundation and structural support of plant and machinery used for making outward supplies. Since the explanation to section 17 includes foundation and structural supports within plant and machinery, the exclusion in clauses (c) and (d) was held not to apply. The ruling also drew support from the departmental clarification on ducts and manholes used in OFC networks, applying the same principle that credit is not blocked where the structure forms part of plant and machinery.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on inputs and input services used for construction of the concrete VCV tower is admissible and is not blocked under section 17(5)(c) or 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a concrete structure is established as foundation or structural support for plant and machinery used in making outward supplies, it falls within the statutory definition of plant and machinery and credit on its construction is not blocked under section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d).

Issues: Whether the contempt application should proceed on the allegation of non-compliance with the earlier order concerning cessation of anti-dumping duty levy and refund of amounts collected after the judgment.

Analysis: The levy ought not to have continued after the earlier judgment, but the Court accepted the explanation that the continued collection resulted from an inadvertent misinterpretation of its direction and not from wilful or deliberate disobedience. The affidavits disclosed that the duty collection had been stopped, a decision to refund the amounts collected had been taken, and the refund applications were being processed. In these circumstances, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the contempt matter pending.

Conclusion: The contempt application was not proceeded with further and was disposed of.

Final Conclusion: The Court accepted the explanation tendered by the alleged contemnors, noted the steps taken to stop the levy and process refund, and brought the contempt proceeding to an end without adjudicating any contempt liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged non-compliance is satisfactorily explained as inadvertent and corrective steps have been taken to secure compliance and refund, contempt jurisdiction need not be continued in the absence of wilful disobedience.

Issues: Whether meal-plan charges for food and beverages supplied to hotel guests were naturally bundled with accommodation services, or constituted independent restaurant services eligible for separate abatement.

Analysis: The invoices showed room charges and meal charges as separate line items, with separate tax treatment for accommodation and food services. The service recipient could choose room-only accommodation or opt for meal plans, and the food and beverage supply was also available independently. On these facts, the Tribunal found that the services were not supplied as one inseparable bundle in the ordinary course of business. The accommodation service continued to enjoy abatement at 40%, while the restaurant service was entitled to the separate abatement applicable to food and beverages.

Conclusion: The services were not naturally bundled, and the appellant correctly availed separate abatement on restaurant charges; the demand, penalty, and associated tax liability were not sustainable.

Issues: Whether input tax credit is available on inputs and input services used for setting up the continuous catenary vulcanization tower used for manufacture of insulated cables, and whether such credit is barred under the blocked credit provisions relating to construction of immovable property other than plant and machinery.

Analysis: The ruling turned on the statutory exclusion for works contract services and other goods or services used for construction of immovable property, except where the construction is of plant and machinery. The expression "plant and machinery" was applied to mean apparatus, equipment and machinery fixed to earth by foundation or structural support, including such foundation and structural supports, but excluding land, building, other civil structures, telecommunication towers and pipelines laid outside the factory premises. On the facts, the tower was found to be a specialised steel structure essential to support and erect the CCV line, with its height, layout and load-bearing function being integral to the manufacturing process. The tower was therefore treated as structural support for the machinery and not as a disqualifying civil structure. The clarification issued on ducts and manholes used in optical fibre cable networks was also relied upon by analogy to support the conclusion that such support structures are not hit by the restriction when they form part of plant and machinery.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on inputs and input services used for construction of the CCV tower is admissible and is not blocked under the cited provisions.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for monetary reward under the CBDT guidelines required consideration and disposal by the competent authority by a reasoned and speaking order.

Analysis: The petitioner's claim had remained pending for a long period despite a prior recommendation in his favour. The Court noted the respondents' submission that the representation was still pending before the competent authority. In these circumstances, the appropriate course was to direct the petitioner to place the recommendation and relevant papers before respondent No. 2 and require a decision on the claim in accordance with law within a fixed time. The relief granted was confined to consideration and decision of the pending claim, without adjudicating entitlement to the monetary reward itself.

Conclusion: The claim was directed to be considered and decided by the competent authority by a reasoned and speaking order within the stipulated time, in favour of the petitioner to that limited extent.

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant's black mineral water branded "ALVA" is classifiable under HSN 22011010 under Heading 2201 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the said product attracts GST at the rate applicable to Entry 146 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant's black mineral water branded "ALVA" is classifiable under HSN 22011010 under Heading 2201 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The product was found to be drinking water with added minerals, without added sugar, sweetening matter, flavouring agents, preservatives or other functional additives. The Chapter 22 notes and the HSN notes to Heading 2201 expressly cover waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavoured. The notes also recognise artificial mineral waters prepared from potable water by adding mineral salts or gases.

Conclusion: The product is classifiable under HSN 22011010 under Heading 2201 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (ii): Whether the said product attracts GST at the rate applicable to Entry 146 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Once classified under Heading 2201, the product falls within Entry 146 of Schedule I, which covers waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavoured. The notification prescribes the applicable rate for that entry.

Conclusion: The product falls under Entry 146 of Schedule I of Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and is liable to GST at 5%.

Final Conclusion: The ruling confirms both the tariff classification and the GST rate for the applicant's product as a mineral water covered by the specified tariff heading and corresponding notification entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Waters prepared with added minerals, but without added sugar, sweetening matter or flavouring, remain classifiable as mineral waters under Heading 2201 and attract the GST rate prescribed for that heading.

Issues: Whether Additional Excise Duty was leviable on goods manufactured and lying in stock before 11.07.2014 but cleared after 11.07.2014, when the levy was introduced with effect from 11.07.2014.

Analysis: The levy of Additional Excise Duty was introduced by Section 118 of the Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 11.07.2014 for the relevant goods. The decisive question was whether goods already manufactured before the commencement date could be subjected to the new duty merely because they were cleared later. The issue had already been decided in the appellant's own matters and in a similar case, following the settled principle that excise duty attaches to manufacture or production, while collection at the stage of removal is only for convenience. Once no levy existed at the time of manufacture, the later introduction of duty could not be applied to goods manufactured earlier. The departmental acceptance of earlier favourable orders also supported the same view.

Conclusion: Additional Excise Duty was not payable on the pre-11.07.2014 stock cleared after that date, and the demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Excise duty is attracted by the event of manufacture or production, and where no levy existed at that stage, the subsequent collection mechanism cannot fasten the duty on goods manufactured before the levy came into force.