Issues: (i) Whether additions made for Assessment Year 2016-17 in a completed assessment pursuant to search could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search; (ii) Whether undisclosed profit for the assessment years should be determined by applying an estimated uniform gross profit percentage or be computed adopting actual figures from seized documents; (iii) Whether expenditure on repairs and depreciation of the director's farmhouse is deductible as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether additions made for A.Y. 2016-17 in a completed assessment pursuant to search could be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the record of the search and the assessment file and noted that no incriminating material corresponding to A.Y. 2016-17 was found during the course of search. The statutory requirement under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the binding precedent cited (Abhishar Buildwell Pvt Ltd) were applied to determine whether additions in a completed assessment can be made in absence of incriminating material relating to that assessment year.

Conclusion: The additions for A.Y. 2016-17 are not sustainable in the absence of incriminating material; the revenue's grounds in respect of A.Y. 2016-17 are dismissed (decision in favour of the assessee).

Issue (ii): Whether undisclosed profit for the assessment years should be determined by applying an estimated uniform gross profit percentage or be computed adopting actual figures from seized documents.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the seized documents which contained detailed entries of unaccounted receipts, purchases, salaries, business promotion expenses and other business-related expenses. The assessee submitted revised computations derived from those seized documents. The Tribunal evaluated the AO's methodology of applying a single highest gross profit percentage across years (46.65%) and the CIT(A)'s reduction to 12.5%, against the assessee's claim that actual profitability reflected in seized materials should be adopted. The Tribunal accepted that seized documents form the primary basis for search assessments and that where the assessee has produced year-wise computations drawn from such seized material, those figures are to be adopted unless shown to be unreliable.

Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the undisclosed profit figures as computed from the seized documents for each assessment year (list of specified amounts for AYs 2017-18 to 2023-24) and determine tax accordingly; the grounds in this respect are partly allowed (decision primarily in favour of the assessee on computation method).

Issue (iii): Whether expenditure on repairs and depreciation of the director's farmhouse is deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the documentary record including a memorandum of understanding and the director's statement recorded under Section 131(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which indicated partial business use of the farmhouse and contemporaneous evidence that a specified portion was used for company business. The CIT(A)'s factual findings that the farmhouse was partially used for business were unchallenged with contrary evidence before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the farmhouse repairs and depreciation was set aside; the deletion of the disallowance is upheld (decision in favour of the assessee).

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the revenue appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 and directed adoption of seized-document based undisclosed profit computations for the other assessment years while upholding the deletion of farmhouse-related disallowances; accordingly, the cross appeals are disposed of partly allowing the assessee's reliefs and dismissing specified revenue grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions in a completed assessment arising from search cannot be sustained unless incriminating material relating to that specific assessment year is found during the search; where seized documents furnish year-wise accounting for unaccounted receipts and related expenses, undisclosed profit should be computed on the basis of those seized documents rather than by uniform application of an estimated gross profit percentage.

Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Sections 241-242 was maintainable by Respondents Nos.1 and 2 under Section 244 on the date of filing; (ii) Whether the Tribunal could, in interim proceedings, direct transmission of shares to legal heirs and whether the NCLT had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the gift deed and related title disputes at the interlocutory stage.

Issue (i): Whether the petition satisfied the statutory eligibility threshold under Section 244 on the date of institution.

Analysis: The shareholding records, including the annual return and financial statements, were considered to assess whether the petitioners collectively met the numerical and percentage threshold required by Section 244. The register/records showed that the petitioners constituted more than one-tenth of members and held aggregate shareholding exceeding the statutory minimum. The impugned order applied the proviso to Section 244(1)(b) where necessary to permit prosecution of the petition.

Conclusion: The petition was held maintainable; the respondents satisfied the requirements of Section 244 and, in any event, the proviso to Section 244(1)(b) was exercised to permit the petition to proceed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could direct transmission of shares to legal heirs in interim relief and whether it could adjudicate the validity of the gift deed and related title issues in summary proceedings.

Analysis: The tribunal's power to decide matters incidental and integral to oppression and mismanagement proceedings was applied to evaluate whether prima facie the legal heirs were entitled to transmission. The registered status of the shares in the name of the deceased, absence of transmission through depositories, lack of documentary evidence showing the deceased's executed consent to the alleged gift, and the limited scope of the power of attorney were examined. Precedents recognising tribunal jurisdiction to examine validity of transfer instruments in such proceedings were taken into account. The tribunal directed transmission in accordance with statutory procedure, noting transmission by operation of law and prescribed company procedure for dematerialised shares.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was entitled to direct transmission of the shares to the class 1 legal heirs on prima facie review and to examine the validity of the gift deed and related documents in proceedings under Sections 241-242; accordingly, the interim direction for transmission was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the impugned order was dismissed and the interim direction for transmission and the tribunal's determinations on maintainability and prima facie entitlement to transmission were affirmed, without precluding further adjudication on remaining substantive issues in the underlying petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where shares remain registered in the name of a deceased member and no valid transmission has been effected, the tribunal under Sections 241-242 has jurisdiction to consider prima facie entitlement of class 1 legal heirs to transmission and may direct transmission in interim relief while reserving full adjudication of disputed title and validity of transfer instruments for the substantive hearing.

Issues: Whether the confirmation of sale on 20.11.2023, before commencement of CIRP on 01.01.2024, had already made the auction sale absolute so that the subsequent issuance of sale certificate did not attract the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The sale proceedings were conducted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by applying the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under Rule 63 of the Second Schedule, once the full purchase money is paid and no application to set aside the sale survives, the Tax Recovery Officer confirms the sale and the sale becomes absolute. Rule 65 shows that the sale certificate is issued only after the sale has become absolute and merely records the date on which that event occurred. The confirmation order dated 20.11.2023 expressly recorded that the auction purchaser had deposited the full amount and that no application was pending to set aside the sale. The later issuance of the sale certificate on 14.03.2024, after an interim order had kept the certificate in abeyance, did not postpone the legal effect of the confirmed sale. The scheme relied upon in Indian Overseas Bank v. RCM Infrastructure Ltd. was distinguished because the present matter turned on the statutory scheme governing tax-recovery sales, not on the SARFAESI framework.

Conclusion: The sale had already become absolute on 20.11.2023, before CIRP commenced, and Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 did not invalidate the completed sale or the purchaser's title.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory sale becomes absolute upon confirmation and compliance with the prescribed payment conditions, a subsequent ministerial issuance of the sale certificate does not affect title or revive the moratorium against the completed sale.

Issues: Whether service tax could be levied and recovered from an advocate for legal services in the face of the exemption and reverse-charge notifications issued under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The applicable notifications issued under section 93(1) and section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 exempt legal services provided by an individual advocate or partnership firm of advocates and provide that, where tax is payable under the reverse-charge framework, the liability rests on the recipient and not on the advocate as service provider. On that basis, the impugned show cause notice, order, and recovery communication were contrary to the governing notifications and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand and recovery action were unsustainable and the petition succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The service tax proceedings against the advocate were quashed and set aside, with the writ petition allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where binding notifications exempt legal services rendered by advocates and allocate tax liability under reverse charge to the recipient, proceedings seeking to fasten service tax liability on the advocate lack jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the description of the imported goods in the Bills of Entry amounted to misdeclaration so as to justify confiscation, redemption fine and penalties; (ii) Whether rejection and redetermination of the declared value based on contemporaneous imports could be sustained when the relied-upon Bills of Entry and supporting documents were not supplied to the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the description of the imported goods in the Bills of Entry amounted to misdeclaration so as to justify confiscation, redemption fine and penalties.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly zinc-coated or galvanised and painted steel sheets, while the Bills of Entry described them as painted steel sheets. The description was held to be incomplete, but not false or misleading. The proper course in such a case was for the assessing officer to seek additional particulars rather than treat the description as a misdeclaration.

Conclusion: There was no misdeclaration of the nature of the goods, and the confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection and redetermination of the declared value based on contemporaneous imports could be sustained when the relied-upon Bills of Entry and supporting documents were not supplied to the appellants.

Analysis: The declared value was rejected and redetermined on the basis of contemporaneous Bills of Entry. Since the basis of redetermination consisted of other Bills of Entry and related documents, those materials had to be supplied to the noticees so that they could effectively answer the case against them. Using undisclosed material against the appellants was impermissible, and the comparability of the relied-upon imports also depended on relevant specifications and commercial quantities.

Conclusion: The valuation redetermination and the consequent duty demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable in law and was set aside, resulting in relief to all three appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: An incomplete description of imported goods is not necessarily a misdeclaration, and valuation redetermination based on contemporaneous imports cannot be sustained unless the relied-upon material is disclosed to the noticee and the comparison is shown to be properly comparable.

Issues: Whether the appeal survived after the death of the sole appellant in the absence of any application for continuance by the legal representative.

Analysis: Rule 22 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides that proceedings abate on the death of a party unless an application is made for continuance by the successor-in-interest, executor, administrator, receiver, liquidator or other legal representative within the prescribed time. The record showed that the sole appellant had died during the pendency of the appeal and no application for continuance had been filed. The order also relied on the principle that proceedings cannot be continued against a dead person, as such continuation offends natural justice.

Conclusion: The appeal abated on the death of the appellant and could not be continued.

Final Conclusion: The appellate proceedings came to an end by operation of the abatement rule, and no adjudication on the merits of the customs dispute survived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sole appellant dies during the pendency of an appeal and no timely application for continuance is made by the legal representative, the appeal abates by operation of Rule 22.

Issues: (i) Whether anti-dumping duty could be levied on imports made during the interregnum between expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the later final notification; (ii) whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the matter required consideration only by a Special Bench under the anti-dumping appeal provision; (iii) whether the belated finalisation of provisional assessment vitiated the demand.

Issue (i): Whether anti-dumping duty could be levied on imports made during the interregnum between expiry of the provisional anti-dumping duty and the later final notification.

Analysis: The relevant legal framework comprised Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules 13, 18, 20 and 23 of the 1995 Anti-dumping Duty Rules. The governing principle applied was that provisional anti-dumping duty can operate only for the period permitted by law, and final anti-dumping duty may, in the circumstances expressly provided, relate back only within the statutory limits. The later final notification could not be used to bridge a period when no operative anti-dumping duty was in force. The Tribunal followed the settled rule that levy during the gap between lapse of provisional duty and commencement of final duty amounts to an impermissible retrospective levy outside the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Anti-dumping duty was not leviable for the gap period, and the demand on that basis was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal could be rejected on the ground that the matter required consideration only by a Special Bench under the anti-dumping appeal provision.

Analysis: Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was construed as conferring Special Bench jurisdiction only for appeals concerning the existence, degree and effect of dumping or review thereof. The dispute before the Tribunal concerned the legality of levy and recovery in a provisional assessment context, not the merits of dumping determination itself. The provision was not read expansively so as to exclude ordinary appellate jurisdiction for all questions connected with anti-dumping duty.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the Tribunal held that it had competence to hear the appeal.

Issue (iii): Whether the belated finalisation of provisional assessment vitiated the demand.

Analysis: Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 5 of the Customs (Finalisation of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018 were considered in the context of the timeline for finalisation. The Tribunal noted that the regulations prescribing a strict time-limit were not in force at the material time, and therefore the mere delay, though undesirable, did not by itself invalidate the assessment. The complaint on this score was not accepted as a ground to set aside the demand.

Conclusion: The delay in finalisation did not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned levy could not survive because no anti-dumping duty was legally chargeable during the interregnum period, and the order below was therefore set aside with consequential relief to follow in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed for a period when the provisional levy has expired and the final levy has not yet come into force, unless the statute expressly authorises retrospective recovery within its narrow limits.

Issues: Whether the interim arrangement preserving the subject matter of the dispute should continue and the scope of interim protection to be maintained pending adjudication of the Company Petition under Sections 241, 242, 244 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The Court confined its consideration to interlocutory relief necessary to preserve the project land and attendant development rights until the NCLT finally adjudicates the pending Company Petition. Having reviewed the sequence of interim orders passed by appellate and this Court, the Court noted ongoing proceedings before the NCLT and subsequent developments including initiation of insolvency proceedings against a transferee and limited protective works permitted earlier. The Court determined that the paramount interest is to prevent alteration of the nature of the property or creation of further third-party interests which could render the substantive remedy ineffectual, and that the existing interim arrangement should continue while the statutory forum decides the merits. The Court therefore modified the impugned NCLAT order to direct maintenance of status quo as per earlier orders and directed the NCLT to proceed expeditiously with the Company Petition.

Conclusion: The interim arrangement preserving the subject matter shall continue; parties shall maintain status quo in terms of this Court's earlier orders and shall not take steps altering the property or creating further third-party interests; the impugned NCLAT order dated 11.10.2022 is modified accordingly and will operate until disposal of the Company Petition.

Outcome: Application disposed of with directions to correct typographical errors in the earlier order.

Issues: (i) Whether Central Sales Tax dues constitute secured operational debt. (ii) Whether dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 constitute secured debt and are distributable under the insolvency waterfall.

Issue (i): Whether Central Sales Tax dues constitute secured operational debt.

Analysis: The determination that Central Sales Tax dues do not constitute secured operational debt was consistent with the applicable precedent of the Tribunal.

Conclusion: Central Sales Tax dues do not constitute secured operational debt. The conclusion is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 constitute secured debt and are distributable under the insolvency waterfall.

Analysis: Gujarat Value Added Tax dues were treated as secured debt in accordance with the settled legal position. Distribution of those secured dues is governed by the statutory waterfall under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Conclusion: Dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 constitute secured debt and shall be distributed in accordance with Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The conclusion is in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The secured status of State tax dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax regime is recognised for insolvency distribution, whereas Central Sales Tax dues do not obtain the character of secured operational debt.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax dues qualify for insolvency distribution as secured debt only where the applicable statutory regime creates a secured interest; their distribution then follows the statutory waterfall.

Issues: Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be sustained where no exempt income was earned during the relevant previous year, and whether the Explanation inserted to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 applied retrospectively.

Analysis: The jurisdictional High Court decisions relied upon held that in the absence of any exempt income during the year, invocation of section 14A read with Rule 8D is not permissible. The same decisions also held that the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A is prospective and not retrospective. Applying that binding legal position to the facts of the case, the disallowance made under section 14A could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of share premium under Section 56(2)(viib) upon rejecting the assessee's discounted cash flow valuation and substituting the net asset value method was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(viib) is an anti-abuse measure directed at preventing introduction of unaccounted money through excessive share premium. Where the assessee has opted for a prescribed valuation method under Rule 11UA, the Assessing Officer cannot substitute another valuation method without cogent material establishing that the chosen method or its underlying projections are perverse. The transaction's genuineness was not doubted, no material established infusion of unaccounted money, and the Assessing Officer did not demonstrate that the discounted cash flow projections were incorrect. Actual aggregate profits exceeded the projections, the comparison relied upon by the Assessing Officer was erroneous, and the share issue and premium had received RBI approval. A valuation report obtained after the share issue could still substantiate the share value.

Conclusion: The share-premium addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether subscription and redemption of redeemable preference shares with an associated enterprise could be re-characterised as a loan for transfer pricing purposes and whether interest could be imputed thereon; whether disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was justified in respect of advances to subsidiaries and related concerns.

Issue (i): Whether subscription and redemption of redeemable preference shares with an associated enterprise could be re-characterised as a loan for transfer pricing purposes and whether interest could be imputed thereon.

Analysis: The transaction was treated in earlier years as an investment in preference shares and not as a loan. No material was brought to show sham, concealment, or exceptional circumstances warranting disregard of the apparent form of the transaction. In the assessee's own case, the coordinate bench and the jurisdictional High Court had already held that such share subscription could not be re-characterised as debt merely because no dividend was paid and no notional return was realized.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment by imputing notional interest on the preference shares was not sustainable and the deletion made by the first appellate authority was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) was justified in respect of advances to subsidiaries and related concerns.

Analysis: The assessee had substantial own funds exceeding the advances made, and the record showed that the advances were comparatively small. Applying the settled presumption that, where mixed funds exist and own funds are sufficient, advances are attributable to own funds, no nexus was established between borrowed funds and the interest-free advances. The issue had also been consistently decided in earlier years in the assessee's favour.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both issues and the additions made by the Assessing Officer did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: An apparent equity investment cannot be re-characterised as a loan for transfer pricing purposes absent material showing sham or exceptional circumstances, and where an assessee's own funds are sufficient, advances are presumed to have been made from those own funds rather than borrowed money.

Issues: Whether the order of the learned Single Judge directing release of the detained goods and recording that detention without a formal detention order was illegal could be sustained at the stage when proceedings under Form MOV-10 were still pending.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted and a proposal for confiscation was issued under Form MOV-10. The respondent had offered to pay the quantified fine and penalty only to secure release of the goods, while reserving its right to challenge the proceedings. The notice under Form MOV-10 was only a proposal and the statutory adjudicating authority had not yet completed the confiscation proceedings. In these circumstances, the question whether detention without a separate detention order was illegal was not to be finally answered at that stage, since it would become academic and could be considered after the statutory process was concluded. The proper course was to allow the adjudicating authority to decide the request for release and to complete the proceedings expeditiously.

Conclusion: The direction for release on a simple bond and the finding that the detention was illegal were set aside. The adjudicating authority was directed to complete the proceedings under Form MOV-10 after hearing the respondent and pass an order within the stipulated time.

Issues: (i) Whether reversal of CENVAT credit in the subsequent return period amounts to non-availment so as not to disentitle refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST; (ii) whether refund under the SEZ exemption can be denied merely because the input services were not reflected in the Unit Approval Committee list, when they were used for authorised SEZ operations and were covered by the Development Commissioner's default list.

Issue (i): Whether reversal of CENVAT credit in the subsequent return period amounts to non-availment so as not to disentitle refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST.

Analysis: The credit initially reflected in the returns was reversed before the refund claim was filed. Reversal was treated as equivalent in law to non-availment of credit. The option in paragraph 5 of Notification No. 12/2013-ST is not attracted where the credit is not retained, and the authorities cited on conscious dual benefit were held inapplicable to an inadvertent availment followed by prompt reversal.

Conclusion: The refund rejection on the ground of CENVAT credit availment was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund under the SEZ exemption can be denied merely because the input services were not reflected in the Unit Approval Committee list, when they were used for authorised SEZ operations and were covered by the Development Commissioner's default list.

Analysis: The SEZ statute was applied as the governing special law. Exemption for taxable services used for authorised operations was held to flow from Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, with Section 51 giving overriding effect over inconsistent requirements in general tax notifications. Rule-based conditions and procedural approval requirements could not override the statutory entitlement where the services were used for authorised operations and were covered by the default list. The absence of a service from the UAC-approved list, by itself, was held not to be a valid ground for denial.

Conclusion: The refund rejection based on non-inclusion in the UAC-approved list was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the refund appeals were allowed, with the assessee's SEZ refund entitlement recognised on the merits of both grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Reversal of CENVAT credit before filing a refund claim is equivalent to non-availment, and statutory SEZ exemption for authorised operations cannot be denied on the basis of procedural or list-based conditions in a general notification where the special SEZ law governs.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 was leviable where the foreign investment was disclosed in the audited balance sheet and in Part A-BS of the return but not in Schedule FA.

Analysis: Section 43 is attracted when a resident fails to furnish in the return of income information relating to a foreign asset. The undisputed position was that the investment in the foreign entity stood recorded in the books, reflected in the audited financial statements, and disclosed in the return in Part A-BS. The controversy was confined to non-furnishing of the same particulars in Schedule FA. On the statutory language, the relevant inquiry is whether information relating to the asset was furnished in the return as a whole, not whether it appeared in a particular schedule. The omission to populate Schedule FA, in the presence of disclosure elsewhere in the return architecture, was therefore treated as a reporting lapse and not as complete non-disclosure in the return. The reasoning also rejected a mechanical application of the administrative circular where the statute itself did not support treating such a format error as the jurisdictional trigger for penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 43 was not sustainable on these facts, and the deletion of the penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest is payable on amounts collected by customs officers during investigation and retained without authority of law, in the absence of an express statutory provision for interest.

Analysis: The collection was found to be without authority of law and therefore offended Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on settled principles that when the State receives and retains money without right, it is bound to restore the amount with interest, even if the statute does not expressly provide for interest. The demand for interest was thus treated as a consequence of illegal retention of money and not as a claim dependent solely on a specific refund provision.

Conclusion: Interest was payable to the petitioner from the date of collection till payment, at the rate of 6% per annum, and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a solitary show-cause notice clubbing multiple tax periods is legally valid under the CGST/KGST regime, and whether the consequential adjudication order could be sustained.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the jurisdictional validity of issuing one notice covering multiple tax periods. The Court followed the earlier coordinate bench view that consolidation or bunching of distinct tax periods in a single show-cause notice under the GST enactments is impermissible and without authority of law. Since the defect went to jurisdiction, the notice and the adjudication order founded on it could not be sustained. The Court also recorded the petitioner's willingness to face fresh proceedings by separate notices for each tax period, and reserved liberty to the revenue to proceed accordingly.

Conclusion: The composite show-cause notice was held invalid, and the adjudication order based on it was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of by nullifying the impugned notice and order on the jurisdictional ground while permitting the revenue to initiate separate proceedings for the relevant tax periods.

Ratio Decidendi: Clubbing multiple tax periods in a single GST show-cause notice is impermissible and jurisdictionally unsustainable; any adjudication based on such notice cannot stand.

Issues: Whether the assessment order passed under Section 62 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stood deemed to be withdrawn on the filing of returns together with tax, interest and late fee, thereby nullifying the recovery and garnishee steps taken pursuant to that order.

Analysis: Section 62(2) provides that an assessment made for non-filing of returns stands withdrawn when the registered person files the relevant returns within the period allowed, along with the applicable tax, interest and late fee. On the facts recorded, the returns for the relevant months were filed and the tax liabilities were discharged with interest and late fee, and the Court accepted that the statutory consequence under Section 62(2) followed. The recovery proceedings initiated on the basis of the assessment order could not survive once the order was treated as withdrawn, subject to verification of the dates of filing and payment.

Conclusion: The assessment order was held to be deemed withdrawn and the recovery and garnishee proceedings based on it were also liable to be withdrawn.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded by negating further enforcement of the assessment-based recovery action, subject to verification of compliance with the statutory payment and filing requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where returns are filed and the associated tax, interest and late fee are paid within the statutory framework of Section 62(2), the summary assessment for non-filing of returns stands withdrawn and consequential recovery proceedings cannot continue.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the cancellation of GST registration dealt with by permitting revocation, payment of dues, filing of returns, and restoration of registration.

Analysis: The writ petition arose from cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and non-payment of tax. The Court disposed of the matter by issuing a structured set of directions requiring the petitioner to apply for revocation, file draft returns, and deposit all taxes due by the stipulated date. The registering authority was directed to receive the tax payment before considering the revocation application, to decide the application within 15 days, and, if revocation were accepted, to restore the registration and require filing of all returns due. Provision was also made for manual filing if online filing caused difficulty.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted relief by way of directions facilitating revocation of cancellation and possible restoration of GST registration, subject to compliance with the specified conditions.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with operative directions enabling the petitioner to pursue revocation of cancellation and restoration of registration upon compliance with the payment and filing requirements.