Issues: Whether dismissal of the GST appeal solely on limitation, despite genuine reasons for non-compliance and lack of awareness of cancellation proceedings, warranted interference.

Analysis: Cancellation of registration had serious consequences for the petitioner's business. The explanation that compliance had been entrusted to an accountant or local advocate, who failed to inform the petitioner of the requirement to file returns and of the show-cause notice and subsequent proceedings, was found genuine. The appeal had not been examined on merits, and comparable matters had been directed for merits consideration upon fulfilment of statutory payment requirements.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection could not stand; the petitioner's appeal is to be considered on merits in accordance with law upon payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: Whether service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely by uploading it on the common portal is sufficient to bind the assessee and trigger consequential proceedings.

Analysis: The respondents could not distinguish the principles laid down in the relied-upon Division Bench decision concerning portal-only service. Those principles treat uploading of a show-cause notice on the common portal, without acknowledgment of receipt or a response, as insufficient service; consequential ex parte proceedings and appellate limitation consequences must be addressed consistently with that position.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were governed by the principles applicable to portal-only service, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue consequential steps.

Issues: (i) Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service; (ii) Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal; (iii) What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Issue (i): Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service.

Analysis: Portal uploading, without acknowledgement of receipt or a reply by the assessee, does not establish sufficient service of the show-cause notice. The adopted ruling was found applicable to the writ petitions.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice is insufficient service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal.

Analysis: Where an order-in-original passed after contest is served only through the common portal, such uploading does not commence the limitation period for appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of an order-in-original does not trigger the limitation period for appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Analysis: Where portal-only service led to an ex parte order for want of reply, proceedings must revert to the show-cause-notice stage, with four weeks to file a reply and a fresh opportunity of hearing. Where an appeal was dismissed as time-barred because the order was served only on the portal, the appellate order is liable to be set aside and the appeal restored for decision on merits. If both ex parte adjudication and dismissal of appeal on delay followed portal-only service, both orders are to be set aside and the matter restored to the show-cause-notice stage.

Conclusion: The affected proceedings or appeals are to be restored to enable the assessee to avail a reply or appellate remedy with an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions receive the benefit of the principles governing defective portal-only service and the corresponding restorative relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere uploading on the common portal, without acknowledgement or response, is not sufficient service to sustain ex parte consequences or to commence appellate limitation.

Issues: Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, making its offshore activities taxable in India.

Analysis: The alleged permanent establishment was founded on survey statements concerning expatriates employed by the Indian affiliate and their remuneration from the Japanese parent. No cogent material established that any employee acted for the assessee, that the assessee had deputed personnel to India, or that it had a fixed place of business at its disposal in India. The assessee supplied goods and rendered services offshore from Thailand. The materially identical issue in the assessee's own earlier assessment years had already been decided on the basis that no permanent establishment existed, and those findings were applicable to the present years.

Conclusion: The assessee had no permanent establishment in India; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the earlier order directing disposal of the petitioner's SEIS-related claim stood complied with.

Analysis: The respondents placed an Office Memorandum recording the treatment of the petitioner's applications. The material demonstrated compliance with the prior directions. Any grievance against the respondents' subsequent decision was left available to be pursued independently in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The prior order stood duly complied with.

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within the statutory limitation period when the Department did not establish delivery of the Order-in-Original dispatched by speed post.

Analysis: Service through speed post requires proof that the order was properly received by the intended recipient or authorised agent. Dispatch alone, without evidence of delivery, does not establish valid service. Since proof of delivery of the order allegedly dispatched in December 2022 was absent, the date on which a copy was supplied to the assessee, namely 03.02.2025, was treated as the date of receipt. The appeal filed on 31.03.2025 was consequently within the two-month limitation period.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed within limitation; the contrary finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether dealer incentives, miscellaneous receipts, accounting regroupings and receivable entries were taxable as Business Auxiliary Service; (ii) Whether reverse-charge service tax was payable on freight for vehicle purchases, towing charges and carriage-inward expenses as Goods Transport Agency service; (iii) Whether reverse-charge liability applied to manpower supply and security services received from private limited companies; (iv) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether dealer incentives, miscellaneous receipts, accounting regroupings and receivable entries were taxable as Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: Incentives and reimbursements received under the authorised dealership arrangement arose from a principal-to-principal sale relationship and were trade discounts rather than consideration for an independent service. The real character of a transaction prevails over its ledger nomenclature. Other miscellaneous receipts lacked evidence of a taxable service, apart from booking cancellation charges and free service coupons for which tax had been paid. Accounting regrouping did not establish fresh consideration, while receivable entries could not be taxed again where the underlying invoiced transactions had already suffered tax; Rule 3 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 governs timing and does not permit double taxation.

Conclusion: The Business Auxiliary Service demand was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reverse-charge service tax was payable on freight for vehicle purchases, towing charges and carriage-inward expenses as Goods Transport Agency service.

Analysis: Reverse-charge liability requires proof that the assessee paid or was liable to pay freight to a Goods Transport Agency. Vehicle freight was arranged and paid by the manufacturer, which had discharged the applicable liability. Towing charges could not be treated as GTA service without proof of a consignment note or fulfilment of the statutory characteristics of a GTA. Carriage-inward ledger entries, without evidence of the transporter, consignment notes or receipt of GTA service, did not establish taxable reverse-charge transactions. The Department failed to discharge its burden merely by relying on accounting descriptions.

Conclusion: The Goods Transport Agency reverse-charge demand was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reverse-charge liability applied to manpower supply and security services received from private limited companies.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST applied reverse charge for the relevant services only when supplied by specified non-corporate providers to a body corporate. The available invoices and registration particulars indicated that the suppliers were private limited companies, and the Department neither disproved nor verified their corporate status. Deficiencies alleged in document copies could not replace a finding on the statutory precondition for reverse charge.

Conclusion: The manpower supply and security services reverse-charge demand was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked.

Analysis: The demands were derived from audited financial statements, books of account and statutory returns disclosed during audit. No specific fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax was identified. A dispute concerning classification, taxability and reverse-charge interpretation, where primary facts were disclosed, did not justify the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period was without jurisdiction and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: None of the surviving tax components was legally sustainable, and the consequential interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation and reverse-charge liability cannot rest on ledger descriptions or disclosed records alone; the Revenue must establish the statutory conditions, including a wilful intent to evade where extended limitation is invoked.

Issues: Whether delay in filing monthly duty-paid statements under the area-based exemption notification permits recovery or denial of sanctioned refund/self-credit where the assessee is otherwise eligible for exemption.

Analysis: The requirement to submit statements by the stipulated date was treated as procedural. Consistent Tribunal authority on analogous area-based exemption schemes established that delayed compliance with such a procedural requirement does not defeat the substantive exemption benefit where eligibility is otherwise undisputed.

Conclusion: Delayed filing of the prescribed statements cannot justify recovery or denial of the sanctioned refund/self-credit. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on inputs and corresponding GTA services could be denied solely on vehicle-related discrepancies reflected in VAHAN portal data and limited third-party communications, despite statutory and commercial records evidencing receipt and consumption of inputs; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of the disputed credit was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on inputs and corresponding GTA services could be denied solely on vehicle-related discrepancies reflected in VAHAN portal data and limited third-party communications, despite statutory and commercial records evidencing receipt and consumption of inputs.

Analysis: Denial of substantive credit on an allegation of non-receipt of inputs requires positive, cogent and convincing evidence. VAHAN portal particulars, including entries showing non-digitised or incorrect vehicle data, and unverified communications from owners relating to only four of 270 consignments could not conclusively establish non-receipt. The Revenue neither investigated suppliers or transporters comprehensively nor found stock discrepancies, diversion of inputs, fabrication of statutory records, or an alternative source of raw materials. The undisputed manufacture and duty-paid clearance of finished goods, supported by input registers, transport records, purchase accounts and payments, materially supported actual receipt and use of the inputs. Procedural deficiencies in consignment notes, without independent corroboration of fictitious transactions, were insufficient to deny credit.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the inputs and corresponding GTA services was admissible; the denial of credit was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of the disputed credit was invocable.

Analysis: The credit had been reflected in regularly filed statutory returns, and the assessee maintained contemporaneous transport, purchase, payment and statutory records. The Revenue produced no evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty, which are essential for invoking the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand lacked evidentiary foundation on merits and was independently barred by limitation; the consequential interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive CENVAT credit cannot be denied on suspicion arising from vehicle-data discrepancies without credible corroborative evidence of non-receipt of inputs, and the extended limitation period requires proof of the statutory ingredients of suppression or similar intent.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand based on a vague and hypothetical computation in the show cause notice was sustainable; (ii) Whether freight and insurance embedded in the sale price were includible in assessable value by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand based on a vague and hypothetical computation in the show cause notice was sustainable.

Analysis: The computation assumed differing freight rates for portions of the clearances without disclosing a basis, failed to ascertain actual freight or insurance amounts, and did not identify whether the quantities concerned movement from factory to depot or from depot to customers. The notice also omitted material price declarations showing that no deduction for freight and insurance was claimed and that the prices were inclusive of freight. A show cause notice must contain specific allegations sufficient to enable an effective defence.

Conclusion: The demand founded on the vague and hypothetical show cause notice was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether freight and insurance embedded in the sale price were includible in assessable value by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal.

Analysis: The price charged was all-inclusive and duty had been paid on that price, with no evidence that any separate freight or insurance amount was recovered from customers. Transit insurance did not establish retention of ownership until delivery. For the relevant period, the place of removal referred to a place from which the manufacturer sold goods, not the buyer's place of delivery. The factory or depot from which the goods were sold remained the place of removal.

Conclusion: Freight and insurance were not includible in assessable value, and the buyer's premises could not be treated as the place of removal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed through the 1996 price list and subsequent correspondence that freight was not deducted from assessable value. No fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression was established, while the demand notice was issued beyond the normal period for the relevant clearances.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax demand failed independently for vagueness of the notice, on valuation merits, and on limitation; consequential interest and penalty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand cannot rest on an indeterminate and hypothetical show cause notice, and freight or insurance already embedded in the taxed sale price cannot be added again by treating the buyer's premises as the place of removal absent a legally sustainable basis.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the allegation that inputs covered by a registered dealer's invoices were not physically received; (ii) Whether investigation statements, without statutory compliance and independent corroboration, could sustain the demand; (iii) Whether isolated vehicle-registration discrepancies obtained from the Vahan portal established fictitious transactions and non-receipt of inputs; (iv) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the allegation that inputs covered by a registered dealer's invoices were not physically received.

Analysis: The recipient held valid invoices issued by a registered first-stage dealer, made payments through banking channels, discharged applicable transport-service tax, and maintained statutory returns, stock records and purchase documentation. The finished goods manufactured from the inputs were cleared on payment of duty, while no investigation established any alternative source of raw materials or otherwise proved that the invoiced inputs were not received. The Revenue did not discharge its burden through cogent affirmative evidence.

Conclusion: Denial of CENVAT credit for alleged non-receipt of inputs is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether investigation statements, without statutory compliance and independent corroboration, could sustain the demand.

Analysis: There was no categorical admission from the recipient's representatives that the inputs were never delivered. The dealer's statement contained material inconsistencies and was alleged to have been obtained under coercion. Statements recorded during investigation could not independently sustain denial of credit without compliance with the safeguards under Section 9D and without reliable corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The statements were insufficient and legally unreliable as the sole basis for the demand, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether isolated vehicle-registration discrepancies obtained from the Vahan portal established fictitious transactions and non-receipt of inputs.

Analysis: The discrepancies concerned only a few vehicle numbers among numerous consignments and vehicles. No vehicle owners were examined and no independent evidence established that the disputed consignments had not been transported. Vahan-portal particulars, unsupported by a complete investigation or corroboration, had limited probative value and could not justify treating all transactions as paper transactions.

Conclusion: Isolated Vahan-portal discrepancies did not establish non-receipt of goods or fraudulent availment of credit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The disputed credit was reflected in ER-1 returns, books, stock registers and other contemporaneous records, and the records had been subjected to departmental audit without objection. No cogent evidence established fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, which was necessary to invoke the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand for reversal of credit, consequential interest, and penalties lacked evidentiary and limitation support; the impugned order was modified by setting aside those liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied on uncorroborated investigation statements or isolated transport-vehicle discrepancies where valid transactional records support receipt and use of inputs, and the Revenue fails to prove non-receipt or the ingredients for the extended limitation period.

Issues: Whether input tax credit availed for financial year 2018-19 after the earlier statutory deadline was admissible following the insertion of Section 16(5).

Analysis: Section 16(5) permitted availment of input tax credit through returns filed under Section 39 on or before 30.11.2021 for the specified financial years. The credit in question, though availed on 20.12.2019 beyond the then applicable deadline, fell within the extended period. The constitutional challenge to the time-limit provisions was not pursued.

Conclusion: The input tax credit was admissible under Section 16(5), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a penalty imposed after filing of returns and payment of late fees could exceed the statutory maximum prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The returns had already been filed and the applicable late fees paid. The aggregate penalty imposed exceeded the maximum limit prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The penalty order and the show-cause notice were quashed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the special leave petitions were dismissed as nothing survived following withdrawal of the show-cause notice.

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of imported Main PCB Boards was liable to rejection and reassessment on contemporaneous-import data; (ii) Whether differential duty with interest was recoverable by invoking the extended period; (iii) Whether the statements and documentary material could be relied upon without cross-examination; (iv) Whether penalties on the importer, its representative, overseas supplier-controller and domestic beneficiary were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of imported Main PCB Boards was liable to rejection and reassessment on contemporaneous-import data.

Analysis: The declared importer acted only as a commission-based conduit; the overseas supplier and domestic beneficiary controlled the import, pricing and disposal of the goods. The declared price was not the sole consideration and the transaction lacked the characteristics required for acceptance of transaction value. The comparable imports concerned the same goods, tariff heading, country of origin, period and comparable quantities. The appellants had disclosed no distinguishing technical specifications. The lowest contemporaneous value adopted was therefore a valid and conservative basis for reassessment under the sequential valuation framework.

Conclusion: Rejection of the declared transaction value and redetermination of assessable value were valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether differential duty with interest was recoverable by invoking the extended period.

Analysis: The import arrangement involved deliberate under-declaration of value, fabricated billing and diversion of the goods to the actual domestic beneficiary. Subsequent investigation disclosed suppression and undervaluation notwithstanding initial clearance of the consignments. Such facts justified recovery proceedings under the extended period.

Conclusion: Differential duty and applicable interest were recoverable, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the statements and documentary material could be relied upon without cross-examination.

Analysis: The findings rested on Bills of Entry, documentary evidence and voluntary admissions of the appellants. Statements recorded by Customs officers under the statutory summons power were treated as admissible evidence. As no investigative-officer statement was relied upon against the appellants and the material evidence comprised their own admissions and documents, cross-examination was neither relevant nor necessary.

Conclusion: The evidentiary material was rightly relied upon and denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the adjudication, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties on the importer, its representative, overseas supplier-controller and domestic beneficiary were justified.

Analysis: The proprietor was responsible for declarations made by the proprietary concern and had adopted her representative's admissions. The representative admitted lending the importer's credentials, receiving commission, issuing fabricated invoices and knowingly routing goods to the beneficiary. The overseas supplier-controller coordinated undervalued exports, while the domestic beneficiary controlled pricing, billing and receipt of the goods. These acts established knowing participation and abetment in the undervaluation arrangement.

Conclusion: Penalties under Sections 114A, 112(a) and 112(b) were justified, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transaction-value reassessment, recovery of duty with interest, confiscation consequences and penalties arising from the coordinated undervaluation arrangement remain legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the declared importer is a conduit and the declared price is not the sole consideration, transaction value may be rejected and reassessed using reliable contemporaneous imports; voluntary Customs statements and corroborative documents may establish deliberate undervaluation and abetment.

Issues: (i) Whether the service-tax demand and interest were liable to be sustained after payment and admission of liability; (ii) Whether penalties imposed for non-payment of service tax, registration and return-related defaults were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the service-tax demand and interest were liable to be sustained after payment and admission of liability.

Analysis: The appellant had admitted its service-tax liability and paid the tax with interest in July 2006. The deposited amounts had already been appropriated in the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand and interest were upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed for non-payment of service tax, registration and return-related defaults were sustainable.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period and penalty for suppression required proof of a positive and deliberate act of concealment with intent to evade tax. The dispute arose from interpretation of a commercial agreement, and no such positive act was established merely because tax was paid after inquiry. Penalty under Section 75A was without jurisdiction because that provision stood omitted and was not saved. The penalty under Section 77 was imposed for a default different from that alleged in the show-cause notice. The appellant's prompt registration and payment upon becoming aware of taxability also established bona fide belief and reasonable cause for relief under Section 80.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The admitted tax liability and interest remain enforceable, while the penal consequences for the disputed period do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression warranting the extended limitation period and penalty requires a positive act of deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax; a bona fide interpretational dispute and subsequent compliance do not by themselves establish such suppression.

Issues: (i) Whether service-tax demand on construction of warehouses and office buildings was sustainable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service where the structures were used for storage of agricultural produce and the contracts were indivisible works contracts; (ii) Whether receipts from renting of immovable property qualified for small-scale service-provider exemption.

Issue (i): Whether service-tax demand on construction of warehouses and office buildings was sustainable under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service where the structures were used for storage of agricultural produce and the contracts were indivisible works contracts.

Analysis: Certificates from the user entities established that the constructed buildings were used exclusively for grain storage, and no contrary evidence established commercial use. Further, the work orders were indivisible contracts involving materials and services whose values could not be vivisected; consequently, the activity could not be subjected to tax under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service.

Conclusion: The construction-service demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from renting of immovable property qualified for small-scale service-provider exemption.

Analysis: Once the construction-service demand was held unsustainable, no evidence remained that the assessee had other taxable-service receipts to be included in determining eligibility for the small-scale exemption threshold.

Conclusion: Small-scale exemption for renting receipts was available, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No part of the disputed service-tax demand survived on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An indivisible contract involving material and service cannot be taxed as Commercial or Industrial Construction Service, and small-scale exemption is available where there is no evidence of other taxable receipts affecting eligibility.

Issues: Availability of the statutory appellate remedy against the order-in-original and consequential recovery action.

Outcome: The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within two weeks with statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay; coercive action was restrained during that period, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier judgment granting relief on offshore technical-service payments was liable to be modified because of the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9; (ii) Whether the amendment to Section 9 could operate retrospectively from 01.06.1976.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier judgment granting relief on offshore technical-service payments was liable to be modified because of the Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9.

Analysis: Section 9(1)(vii), read with Sections 5 and 195 of the Income-tax Act, was construed in light of territorial nexus and the requirement that income must be chargeable to tax at the relevant time. The Finance Act, 2010 Explanation dispensed with the requirement that services be rendered in India and thereby enlarged the tax net. A subsequent legislative change, even if retrospective in form, was not a ground to reopen a concluded decision through review. Further, Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA was treated as the more beneficial regime under Section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion: The Finance Act, 2010 amendment did not warrant reversal or modification of the earlier relief; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment to Section 9 could operate retrospectively from 01.06.1976.

Analysis: Although framed as an Explanation for removal of doubts, the amendment widened the scope of Section 9(1)(vii) by bringing within taxability fees for services rendered outside India. An amendment that creates a fresh tax charge or imposes a new liability cannot retrospectively take away benefits or vested rights available under the law prevailing when the payments were made. The withdrawal of beneficial Board circulars by Circular No. 7/2009 was also prospective and could not retrospectively withdraw the taxpayer's benefit.

Conclusion: The Finance Act, 2010 amendment to Section 9 is to operate prospectively and not retrospectively from 01.06.1976; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective expansion of taxability for offshore technical services was read down, preserving the taxpayer's entitlement under the pre-amendment legal position and the applicable treaty protection.

Ratio Decidendi: A purportedly clarificatory tax amendment that substantively widens a charging provision or creates a fresh liability cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions completed under the earlier law.