Issues: Whether the order confirming the Input Tax Credit demand under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017 was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The impugned order proceeded on allegations that the petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit on invoices issued by fictitious entities. The petitioner had filed a detailed reply with supporting material such as tax invoices, e-way bills, transportation records, lorry receipts, and bank statements, but those materials were not duly considered. In these circumstances, the matter required reconsideration on the record, with an opportunity for the petitioner to place additional documents and be heard before a fresh decision was taken.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration after taking the petitioner's reply into account.

Issues: (i) Whether the foreign exchange loss required fresh consideration for benchmarking purposes; (ii) whether the customs duty adjustment and price penetration adjustment required fresh consideration; (iii) whether liabilities written back could be treated as operating income in part; (iv) whether the assessee was entitled to capacity utilisation adjustment and computation of cash PLI.

Issue (i): Whether the foreign exchange loss required fresh consideration for benchmarking purposes.

Analysis: The assessee had consistently treated forex movement as non-operating in earlier years, and the Revenue had accepted that treatment in prior years and in a subsequent year as well. The order under challenge did not record a specific finding on this aspect and rejected the claim in a summary manner. In these circumstances, the issue required examination afresh with reference to the consistent treatment adopted by the assessee and the relevant transfer pricing principles.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the customs duty adjustment and price penetration adjustment required fresh consideration.

Analysis: The claim for customs duty adjustment was rejected without detailed examination, although the assessee had asserted that import duty materially affected margins and that localisation of purchases was not feasible. The price penetration adjustment was also rejected for want of quantitative details and proper findings. Since the lower authorities had not dealt with the factual matrix and the supporting material in a reasoned manner, both claims required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The customs duty adjustment and price penetration adjustment were remitted to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration.

Issue (iii): Whether liabilities written back could be treated as operating income in part.

Analysis: The major component of the write-back related to trade payables waived by the associated enterprise, and the corresponding expenditure had earlier been treated as operating expense. To that extent, the write-back bore the character of operating income and did not warrant interference. For the remaining items, the factual foundation was not adequately verified to establish that they related to earlier year operating expenses, and those items therefore required verification by the Transfer Pricing Officer.

Conclusion: The treatment of write-back of trade payables as operating income was upheld, while the remaining write-back claims were remitted for verification.

Issue (iv): Whether the assessee was entitled to capacity utilisation adjustment and computation of cash PLI.

Analysis: Rule 10B permits reasonably accurate adjustments for material differences affecting net profit margins. The record showed that the assessee had suffered under-absorption and that depreciation materially affected its margins. However, the computation based merely on depreciation as a percentage of sales was not accepted as a reasonably accurate adjustment. The appropriate course was to adopt cash PLI for benchmarking, as had been accepted in an earlier year, and then re-compute the ALP accordingly.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to computation on cash PLI, and the matter was directed to be re-computed accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing disputes were partly decided in favour of the assessee, with certain claims remanded for fresh adjudication and limited relief granted on the write-back and capacity utilisation issues; the connected cross objections became academic.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing, a claim affecting comparability must be reconsidered where the lower authorities record no reasoned finding on material factual assertions, and adjustments under Rule 10B must rest on reasonably accurate methods that eliminate the material effects of differences on margins.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment order passed without notice of the subsequent hearing date and without affording a personal hearing was liable to be quashed for violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed ex parte. The record indicated that the matter was not decided on the date fixed for hearing and that no notice of the subsequent date was given to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the authority was required either to decide the matter on the date fixed or to communicate the next date of hearing. Denial of such opportunity rendered the proceedings unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice. As the facts were found to be similar to the cited coordinate Bench decision, no different view was warranted.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was quashed and set aside, and the authority was directed to grant a personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the customs authorities had a valid foundation in law to seize and continue detention of the areca nuts on the premise that they were of foreign origin.

Analysis: The seizure power depended on the existence of objective material capable of supporting a formed belief that the goods were of foreign origin. The reports on record did not establish foreign origin; the first report indicated Indian origin and fitness for human consumption, while the subsequent report could not ascertain country of origin. In the absence of material supporting the requisite belief, the continued detention and proceedings were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The seizure orders were unsustainable and were quashed, with a direction to release the goods in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid when the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 1-4-2021 and the procedure under section 148A and the amended provisions governing sanction and issuance was not followed.

Analysis: The notice dated 31-3-2021 was found, on the portal record, to have been issued only on 1-4-2021. Once the notice was issued on or after 1-4-2021, the amended reassessment regime applied, and the Assessing Officer was required to follow the procedure prescribed under section 148A and the amended section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As that procedure was admittedly not followed, the reassessment was held to suffer from a jurisdictional defect. Following the cited binding and coordinate-bench decisions, the reassessment made under the old regime could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio, and the jurisdictional challenge was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is issued on or after 1-4-2021, reassessment can be undertaken only in accordance with the amended scheme, including section 148A and the corresponding sanction requirements; failure to follow that mandatory procedure vitiates the reassessment for want of jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST assessment order could be entertained despite the petitioner's prolonged delay, failure to respond to statutory notices, and belated production of supplier certificates.

Analysis: The petitioner did not properly reply to the notices issued under the GST framework and did not furnish the invoice details sought in the proceedings. The certificates from suppliers were obtained in August 2023, but no prompt challenge was mounted thereafter, and the writ petition was filed only after about 2.5 years. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner's gross delay and lapses disentitled him from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226. The earlier decision relied on by the petitioner was found inapplicable on account of the long delay and the petitioner's failure to pursue the available remedies diligently.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was not entertained, and the writ petition was dismissed against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment order confirming tax under the GST proceedings on the disputed defect was liable to be interfered with and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, subject to a pre-deposit and filing of supporting documents.

Analysis: The petitioner had filed a reply to the show-cause notice, but the response was found to be unsupported by necessary documents. The respondent acted within the time constraints prescribed for proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, and could not be faulted for confirming the demand in the absence of substantiating material. At the same time, to balance the interests of both sides, the matter was considered fit for fresh adjudication, with the petitioner required to deposit 5% of the disputed tax and to file a complete reply with documents. The order also provided for vacation of bank attachment upon compliance and reserved liberty to the department to proceed if the conditions were not met.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits, with the petitioner directed to make the stipulated pre-deposit and furnish supporting documents; the relief was thus partly in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer fails to substantiate the defence with supporting documents in GST proceedings, the confirmed demand is not automatically set aside, but the matter may still be remitted for de novo adjudication subject to a reasonable pre-deposit and compliance with procedural directions.

Issues: Whether the imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the penalty. The Tribunal applied its earlier orders on identical facts and noted that the main allegation had not been properly investigated or established, the burden of proof remained undischarged, and the electronic documents relied upon were not admissible as evidence. In those circumstances, the basis for penalty did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalty was held to be unsustainable and set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether operation and management of Government Urban Health & Wellness Centres and Polyclinics under the agreements qualified as exempt healthcare services by a clinical establishment under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate). (ii) Whether the same activities qualified as pure services provided to the State Government in relation to functions under Article 243W of the Constitution and were exempt under Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Issue (i): Whether operation and management of Government Urban Health & Wellness Centres and Polyclinics under the agreements qualified as exempt healthcare services by a clinical establishment under Entry 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: Entry 74 grants exemption only to healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment, authorised medical practitioner, or paramedics. The activity was found to be contractual operation, management, and administrative support supplied to the executing agency, with payment structured on recurring and non-recurring contractual charges rather than on diagnosis or treatment of patients. The fact that the centres were registered as clinical establishments did not make the applicant the supplier of exempt healthcare services to the contracting agency, because the supply in question was not healthcare service rendered by the applicant to the recipient of the contractual consideration.

Conclusion: The activity did not fall within Entry 74 and the exemption was not available to the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the same activities qualified as pure services provided to the State Government in relation to functions under Article 243W of the Constitution and were exempt under Entry 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: Entry 3 applies only to pure services supplied directly to the Government, local authority, or specified public body in relation to functions under Article 243W, and excludes composite supplies involving goods. The applicant was found to have supplied services to the main contractor, not directly to the State Government, and the arrangement involved infrastructure, manpower, and operational support, which made it a composite supply rather than pure services. The grant-based character of the overall programme did not change the contractual nature of the taxable supply or convert the consideration into subsidy.

Conclusion: The activity did not qualify for exemption under Entry 3 and remained taxable.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's contractual operation and management services were held to be taxable supplies under GST and were not covered by either claimed exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption entries for healthcare services and pure services are available only when the statutory conditions are strictly satisfied, and a contractual supply to the executing agency is taxable where the recipient is not the Government and the service is not pure healthcare service supplied by a clinical establishment.

Issues: Whether affiliation fees received by the University were liable to service tax.

Analysis: Affiliation and renewal of affiliation were held to be functions discharged under the governing educational statute and not activities carried on in a commercial field for consideration. The reasoning proceeded on the statutory meaning of service, the need for an activity performed for another for consideration, and the absence of the contractual reciprocity and quid pro quo ordinarily associated with taxable services. The exemption under Notification No. 25/2012 was also treated as supporting non-taxability. The issue was covered by the cited High Court ruling, and no distinguishing fact was found.

Conclusion: Affiliation fees were not liable to service tax, and the departmental appeal failed.

Issues: Whether reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid in the absence of any recorded failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and in the absence of any new tangible material.

Analysis: The original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after scrutiny of the material placed by the assessee. The notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued beyond four years, so the proviso to Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied. In that situation, reopening could be sustained only if the Revenue showed both a failure to make a full and true disclosure and the existence of new material giving rise to a belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded for reopening relied on facts already reflected in the annual accounts and assessment record, and no fresh material was shown to have emerged after the original assessment. The reassessment was therefore founded only on a reappraisal of the same material, which amounts to a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the reassessment could not be sustained; the challenge by the Revenue failed on jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the concurrent findings that the reassessment was without jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the goods and conveyance pending revisional proceedings after satisfaction of the liability imposed by the first appellate authority.

Analysis: The appellate authority had partly allowed the appeal and modified the original order from confiscation under Section 130 to penalty under Section 129(1)(a) with levy of 200% of tax, and the petitioner had satisfied that liability. The revisional proceedings under Section 108(1) were still pending, but in view of the payment already made and the undertaking filed, release of the goods and conveyance was considered appropriate. To safeguard the revenue, the petitioner was required to furnish an indemnity bond and abide by the final revisional directions, with breach of undertaking being treated as contempt.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to release of the goods and conveyance on furnishing an indemnity bond, while the challenge to the revisional proceedings was left open.

Final Conclusion: Both writ petitions were disposed of with release of the goods and conveyance, subject to the petitioner's undertaking and indemnity bond, and with all contentions on the revisional proceedings kept open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the liability fixed in appeal has been satisfied, interim release of detained goods and conveyance may be directed during pending revisional proceedings, subject to protective conditions to secure the revenue.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for deemed export benefits and Terminal Excise Duty refund by the Policy Relaxation Committee, recorded without reasons, was sustainable and whether the matter warranted fresh consideration.

Analysis: The claim for deemed export benefits was examined under para. 7.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy, and the matter had earlier been rejected on the basis that the Import Export Code was not in existence at the relevant time. The Policy Relaxation Committee again declined relief by stating that it found no merit or hardship, but the decision disclosed no reasons explaining why the request failed to establish hardship. A rejection affecting substantive entitlement cannot rest on an unreasoned and non-speaking determination, particularly where the applicant seeks relaxation under the policy framework.

Conclusion: The rejection was unsustainable and the matter was remanded to the Policy Relaxation Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner secured reconsideration of its relaxation request, and the impugned refusal was set aside with directions for a fresh decision within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy relaxation request affecting entitlement to fiscal benefits must be decided by a reasoned order, and an unreasoned refusal is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer pricing issues concerning AMP adjustment and alleged international transaction were already covered against the Revenue by binding precedent; (ii) whether a separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted; and (iii) whether the Tribunal was justified in including the impugned comparable despite the alleged dissimilarity in FAR.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer pricing issues concerning AMP adjustment and alleged international transaction were already covered against the Revenue by binding precedent.

Analysis: The issues relating to AMP adjustment, the BLT method, conduct of parties, ownership of intangibles, and alleged brand-building benefit to the associated enterprise were noted to be covered by prior decisions of the Court on similar facts. The Court treated those questions as governed by the earlier binding view and found no occasion to take a different view.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a separate adjustment for interest on receivables was warranted.

Analysis: The question of receivables interest was held to be covered by the earlier decision relied upon by the Tribunal, and the Court found no reason to depart from that position.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in including the impugned comparable despite the alleged dissimilarity in FAR.

Analysis: The comparable-selection issue was also found to be covered by an earlier order of the Court in the assessee's own case, leading to the same result.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All the questions raised in the appeals were treated as covered against the appellant-Department, and the appeals did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transfer pricing questions raised in an appeal are already covered by binding precedent on materially similar facts, the Court will follow that precedent and decline to interfere.

Issues: Whether the first appellate authority could dismiss the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits, and whether the addition made by estimating part of the agricultural income as income from other sources could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessee had filed a statement of facts and material regarding agricultural land holding, crops cultivated, sale proceeds through banking channels, and past disclosures of agricultural income. In such circumstances, the first appellate authority was required to examine the assessment order, the grounds raised, and the material on record and pass a reasoned order on merits. A summary dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudication was inconsistent with the appellate duty under the Act. On the merits of the addition, the record did not contain any contrary material from the Revenue to show that the agricultural operations were not carried out or that the declared income was unverifiable. The estimation adopted by the Assessing Officer was held to be unsupported by cogent material and arbitrary.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal in limine was held to be unjustified, and the addition treating a part of the agricultural income as income from other sources was deleted.

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation; (ii) whether penalty under section 271B was leviable for delay in uploading the tax audit report where the audit was completed within time and the report was filed before completion of assessment.

Issue (i): whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation

Analysis: The appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority solely on limitation without examining the explanation for delay. The explanation showed that the assessee became aware of the penalty order only later and acted promptly thereafter. The delay was not found to be deliberate, and the record did not show any proper rejection of the explanation by the first appellate authority. In such circumstances, substantial justice prevails over technicality where reasonable cause is demonstrated.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was rightly condoned.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under section 271B was leviable for delay in uploading the tax audit report where the audit was completed within time and the report was filed before completion of assessment

Analysis: The audit under section 44AB was completed within the prescribed time. The default was confined to late uploading of the audit report, which was explained as a technical glitch in the e-filing process. The report was filed much before completion of assessment under section 143(3), and the Assessing Officer had the benefit of the report during scrutiny. The delay was therefore procedural, caused by reasonable cause, and attracted the protection of section 273B. The default was treated as technical and venial, with no prejudice to the Revenue.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271B was not leviable and was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both limitation and merits, resulting in deletion of the penalty and restoration of the appeal on a substantive footing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tax audit is completed within the statutory time and the only lapse is delayed uploading of the report due to a bona fide technical reason, the default is covered by reasonable cause under section 273B and penalty under section 271B cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether the assessment order passed under Section 73(9) could be sustained when the date of personal hearing was fixed prior to the last date for filing reply to the show cause notice, thereby depriving the assessee of an effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The show cause notice granted time to file reply up to a later date, but the personal hearing was fixed earlier. Such sequencing made the hearing ineffective and inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing determination of tax liability, which contemplates a meaningful opportunity to respond before adverse adjudication. The breach of this fair hearing requirement amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order could not be sustained and was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to resume from the stage of the show cause notice, permit filing of reply, and thereafter fix a fresh date for personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the application for issuance of a nil tax withholding certificate under section 197 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be set aside and whether the competent authority could disregard binding directions already issued by the Court.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner's request had been declined despite an earlier order passed in the petitioner's own case for the same financial year. The impugned order proceeded on the premise that the Department was considering whether to file an SLP, but no stay had been obtained and no legal basis existed to disregard the earlier binding directions. In these circumstances, the rejection was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the competent authority was directed to issue a tax withholding certificate at nil rate within three days, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the petitioner obtained the requested nil withholding relief for the relevant financial year.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority cannot refuse to comply with binding judicial directions merely because the Department is considering further appeal, absent any stay or other legal bar.

Issues: (i) whether the applicant's continued custody after interception at the airport, without prompt production before the nearest Magistrate, vitiated the detention and supported release on bail; (ii) whether the notices and translation process used to inform the applicant of her rights under the NDPS and Customs laws met the required legal safeguards; and (iii) whether the body-secreted contraband procedure under the Customs Act was followed in a manner that justified denial of bail.

Issue (i): whether the applicant's continued custody after interception at the airport, without prompt production before the nearest Magistrate, vitiated the detention and supported release on bail.

Analysis: The applicant had already been intercepted and part of the contraband had been recovered at the airport, yet she was taken onward for hospital procedures before formal arrest and production before the Court. The legal protection against curtailment of liberty required production before the nearest Magistrate without unnecessary delay, and the Court treated the initial post-interception custody as a serious liberty issue capable of consideration at the bail stage. The fact that further extraction of capsules was later undertaken at hospital did not erase the requirement of lawful custody from the stage when the offence had already stood revealed.

Conclusion: The continued custody after interception was treated as illegal for bail purposes, and this weighed in favour of granting bail.

Issue (ii): whether the notices and translation process used to inform the applicant of her rights under the NDPS and Customs laws met the required legal safeguards.

Analysis: The Court found the record unclear on whether the applicant was properly apprised of her rights. The English notice suggested one course of search, but the AI-generated translated version was incomplete and did not clearly contain the applicant's reply. The Court also noted that the notice under the NDPS law could not be expanded beyond the statutory safeguards, and the search options conveyed to the applicant were not shown with sufficient clarity and completeness. Similar infirmity was noticed in the translated notice under the Customs law.

Conclusion: The safeguards in the notice and translation process were not shown to have been followed with adequate clarity, which favoured the applicant.

Issue (iii): whether the body-secreted contraband procedure under the Customs Act was followed in a manner that justified denial of bail.

Analysis: The Court held that where goods liable to confiscation are suspected to be secreted inside the body, the Customs officer must proceed in accordance with the statutory mechanism, including production before the nearest Magistrate, unless the statutory exception applies. On the material before it, the Court did not find a clear and specific admission or voluntary willingness in the manner required by the statutory exception. In the absence of clear compliance with the prescribed procedure, the Court found that the case could not be treated as one where bail should be refused merely on the ground of recovery alone.

Conclusion: The statutory body-search procedure was not shown to have been complied with in the manner required, supporting release on bail.

Final Conclusion: Considering the seriousness of the liberty concerns, the unclear compliance with the statutory safeguards, and the prolonged pre-trial custody, the applicant was entitled to be released on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contraband is partially recovered at the point of interception and the accused is thereafter kept in custody without prompt production before the Magistrate, and the statutory search safeguards are not shown to have been clearly and strictly complied with, bail may be granted notwithstanding the NDPS restrictions.

Issues: (i) whether a third party, not impleaded before the adjudicating authority and not shown to be a necessary party, could insist on being heard in the appeal after the original operational creditor decided to withdraw the company petition; (ii) whether the appeal could survive after the parties recorded a settlement and the company petition was to be withdrawn.

Issue (i): Whether a third party, not impleaded before the adjudicating authority and not shown to be a necessary party, could insist on being heard in the appeal after the original operational creditor decided to withdraw the company petition.

Analysis: The party seeking impleadment had not filed any impleadment application before the tribunal and had not been a party to the company petition. The original applicant under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, being dominus litis, had recorded a settlement and expressed its decision to withdraw the proceedings. In those circumstances, no third party could compel impleadment or claim a right to oppose the withdrawal.

Conclusion: The request of the third party to intervene or be impleaded was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal could survive after the parties recorded a settlement and the company petition was to be withdrawn.

Analysis: The settlement terms showed full and final resolution of the operational debt dispute, partial payment having been made and the balance secured by post-dated cheques. Once the company petition was to be withdrawn by the operational creditor, the basis of the impugned admission order ceased to survive and there was no occasion to examine the merits of that order.

Conclusion: The appeal did not survive and was disposed of on withdrawal.

Final Conclusion: The settlement between the parties rendered the insolvency proceedings unnecessary, and the appeal was closed without adjudication on the merits of the admission order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the original applicant in insolvency proceedings, as dominus litis, elects to withdraw the petition after settlement, a stranger to the proceedings cannot insist upon impleadment, and the appellate challenge to the admission order becomes infructuous.