Issues: Whether the electronic credit ledger should be unblocked following a challenge to its blocking.

Analysis: The recorded reasons-that the supplier was non-functioning and input tax credit was availed from a non-existent unit-were found prima facie within the scope of Rule 86A. The rule permits the authorised authority to unblock the ledger if satisfied that the conditions for disallowing debits no longer exist.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with liberty to apply for unblocking; if an application is made, the respondents must decide it within 30 days. No final adjudication was made on the validity of the blocking or entitlement to credit.

Issues: (i) Whether the first appellate authority may dismiss an appeal for non-appearance without a reasoned decision on merits; (ii) Whether input tax credit reversal may be confirmed solely on a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch; (iii) Whether interest on disputed input tax credit can stand without determining utilisation.

Issue (i): Whether the first appellate authority may dismiss an appeal for non-appearance without a reasoned decision on merits.

Analysis: Section 107 requires the appellate authority to determine the appeal and record the points for determination, its decision and reasons. Non-appearance permits the authority to proceed on the available record but does not dispense with those requirements. Service through the common portal is valid.

Conclusion: Dismissal without a reasoned decision on merits was impermissible. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit reversal may be confirmed solely on a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch.

Analysis: Section 16 and rule 36 prescribe eligibility conditions that differed before and after 1 January 2022. The applicable departmental circulars require invoice-wise verification for April to December 2021, subject to the prescribed five per cent limit. From January 2022, supplier reporting and communication in GSTR-2B are required. The claimant bears the burden of proving eligibility. The assessment used annual figures without examining invoices or applying the relevant period-wise conditions.

Conclusion: The demand could not be confirmed on the mismatch alone. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest on disputed input tax credit can stand without determining utilisation.

Analysis: Section 50 and rule 88B require both wrongful availment and utilisation. Utilisation is measured by the extent to which the aggregate electronic credit ledger balance falls below the wrongly availed credit. The assessment contained no utilisation finding or corresponding ledger calculation.

Conclusion: The interest charge could not stand on the existing record. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Credit eligibility and the amounts of tax, interest and penalty remain to be determined following verification; penalty depends on the tax ultimately found due.

Ratio Decidendi: A GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch alone cannot justify reversal of input tax credit without verification of the applicable eligibility conditions and departmental circulars.

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Authority could reject the cancellation appeal without deciding its merits despite the High Court's direction, including on the ground of alleged misrepresentation; (ii) whether applying for revocation of cancellation admits its validity and bars an appeal; (iii) whether the Tribunal should decide the cancellation's validity itself or leave it for determination by the Appellate Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Authority could reject the cancellation appeal without deciding its merits despite the High Court's direction, including on the ground of alleged misrepresentation.

Analysis: Section 107 requires a reasoned appellate decision on the points for determination after any necessary inquiry. The appeal was filed within the period permitted by the High Court. A subordinate authority is bound by an operative High Court direction and cannot sit in appeal over it on an allegation that the High Court was misled. An earlier order set aside by the High Court cannot support refusal of a merits decision.

Conclusion: No. The Appellate Authority could not reject the appeal on those grounds and must decide it on merits, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether applying for revocation of cancellation admits its validity and bars an appeal.

Analysis: Sections 30 and 107 provide distinct remedies: revocation seeks restoration of registration, while an appeal tests the correctness of cancellation. Neither provision makes a revocation application an admission of the grounds for cancellation or removes the right of appeal.

Conclusion: No. Seeking revocation neither admits the cancellation's correctness nor bars an appeal, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal should decide the cancellation's validity itself or leave it for determination by the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: Section 113 permits the Tribunal to refer a case back with directions. The High Court had directed a merits decision by the Appellate Authority, and the record lacked material needed for a fair determination. Section 107 permits the Appellate Authority to conduct further inquiry and confirm, modify or annul the cancellation, but not to remand it to the original officer.

Conclusion: The Appellate Authority must first determine the cancellation's validity. Immediate restoration of registration was not granted.

Final Conclusion: The validity of cancellation and the request for restoration remain to be determined on the full record.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate appellate authority must comply with an operative High Court direction to decide an appeal on merits and cannot decline to do so because it believes the High Court was misled.

Issues: (i) Whether the first appellate authority could dismiss the appeal solely for non-appearance; (ii) Whether an aggregate mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A alone justified denial of input tax credit for FY 2018-19; (iii) Whether the evidence established excess availment of IGST input tax credit.

Issue (i): Whether the first appellate authority could dismiss the appeal solely for non-appearance.

Analysis: Section 107 requires the appellate authority to determine the points arising in the appeal and give reasons for its decision. Although the assessee did not attend the hearings, written grounds and supporting reconciliation documents were on record. The duty to issue a reasoned order also reflects the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Dismissal solely for non-appearance was impermissible. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an aggregate mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A alone justified denial of input tax credit for FY 2018-19.

Analysis: Section 16 prescribed conditions for credit, including possession of invoices, receipt of supplies, payment of tax and filing of returns. During FY 2018-19, GSTR-2A was a facilitation tool for self-assessment; the later restrictions concerning supplier-reported details did not apply to that period. A mismatch could prompt verification, but the demand identified neither invoice-level discrepancies nor a violated eligibility condition. The applicable circular prescribed verification of the relevant invoices and supplier tax payments.

Conclusion: An aggregate mismatch alone did not justify denial of the credit. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the evidence established excess availment of IGST input tax credit.

Analysis: The reconciliation included approximately Rs. 81.08 lakh reflected in the July 2019 B2BA amendment table for invoices relating to FY 2018-19. The adjudicating authority had checked the B2B table without examining those amendment entries. Revenue verified the updated figures, and the July 2019 GSTR-3B supported the absence of a second claim for the amended invoices.

Conclusion: No excess IGST input tax credit was established. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed credit remains available, and no consequential interest or penalty liability survives.

Ratio Decidendi: For FY 2018-19, an aggregate difference between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot by itself justify denial of input tax credit.

Issues: Whether interest on a refund allowed on appeal accrues by reference to the original application notwithstanding payment within sixty days of a consequential application.

Analysis: Sections 54 and 56 of the GST Acts link ordinary interest to the original refund application and prescribe an enhanced rate for a qualifying delay following an application consequent on a final order. An appellate refund order is deemed to be an order under Section 54. Rule 93 and the applicable circular govern re-credit of the electronic credit ledger and support the continuing significance of the original claim, although they do not independently fix the commencement of interest. Completeness of the original applications and compliance with the applicable statutory conditions require verification.

Conclusion: Ordinary interest at 6% per annum is payable on qualifying refunds from immediately after the expiry of sixty days from receipt of the original applications until actual disbursement, subject to verification of completeness and other statutory conditions. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rejected refund claim is allowed on appeal, payment within sixty days of a consequential application does not extinguish ordinary statutory interest accruing by reference to the complete original application.

Issues: (i) Whether the amended B2B entry and supplier certificates establish entitlement to the input tax credit they cover; (ii) Whether the residual IGST credit of Rs. 20,430 is admissible; (iii) Whether proceedings under section 74 and the consequential interest and penalty are sustainable, and whether the residual liability can be determined under section 73.

Issue (i): Whether the amended B2B entry and supplier certificates establish entitlement to the input tax credit they cover.

Analysis: Section 16 prescribes conditions for credit, while section 155 places the burden of proof on the claimant. The applicable Board circular prescribes verification of supplier tax payments for specified reporting discrepancies, including certificates from suppliers or professionals according to the supplier-wise difference. The amended portal entry, certificates and vendor ledgers were rejected without reasoned findings or verification. The notice alleged non-payment of supplier tax, not absence of invoices or receipt of services; section 75 prohibits confirmation on grounds beyond the notice.

Conclusion: The credit covered by the amended entry and certificates is established. The corresponding reversal is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the residual IGST credit of Rs. 20,430 is admissible.

Analysis: No certificate or other cogent evidence established supplier payment of tax for the residual credit. Having relied on the circular's verification mechanism for other disputed invoices, the claimant could not approbate and reprobate its conditions; the statutory burden of proof remained undischarged.

Conclusion: The residual IGST credit of Rs. 20,430 is inadmissible, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether proceedings under section 74 and the consequential interest and penalty are sustainable, and whether the residual liability can be determined under section 73.

Analysis: Section 74 requires foundational facts showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax. The notice inferred suppression from detection of the discrepancy without identifying such facts, although the credit had been disclosed in returns. Section 75 permits determination under section 73 where the section 74 charge fails; the notice and original order were within the applicable extended time limits. Interest and penalty require adjustment to the surviving liability.

Conclusion: The section 74 proceedings and their consequential levy cannot stand. The notice is deemed issued under section 73, and the residual credit is reversible with appropriate interest, if utilised, and penalty to be quantified. This issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The surviving credit liability is confined to IGST of Rs. 20,430, with consequential interest and penalty to be computed by the proper officer.

Ratio Decidendi: A GSTR-2A mismatch alone is not conclusive proof of wrongly availed input tax credit; eligibility must be assessed against the evidence prescribed by the applicable Board circular and the statutory burden of proof.

Issues: (i) Whether the demands were barred by limitation and the consequential interest and penalty sustainable; (ii) whether valuation, company-secretarial and promotional services satisfied the business nexus requirement for input service credit; (iii) whether credit on group critical-illness insurance was admissible; and (iv) whether accounting capitalisation justified treating credit on services as inadmissible capital-goods credit.

Issue (i): Whether the demands were barred by limitation and the consequential interest and penalty sustainable.

Analysis: Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribed a one-year normal limitation period and permitted an extended period upon proof of specified wrongdoing. The disputed transactions and credit entries were available in maintained records, and payments and reversals had been made before the notice. The disputes also involved interpretation of credit provisions. The return filing dates prescribed for the disputed periods were more than one year before the notice; returns filed after the notice could not retrospectively extend limitation.

Conclusion: The entire demand was barred by limitation, and the consequential interest and penalty could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether valuation, company-secretarial and promotional services satisfied the business nexus requirement for input service credit.

Analysis: The valuation services related to leased business properties, the company-secretarial services to the business, and the promotional expenditure to an Automall launch. Advertisement and sales promotion were included in the applicable input-service definition.

Conclusion: These services satisfied the business nexus requirement, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether credit on group critical-illness insurance was admissible.

Analysis: The applicable input-service definition excluded life or health insurance used primarily for employees' personal use or consumption. The material did not establish that the policies fell outside that exclusion.

Conclusion: Denial of credit on the insurance component was sustained on merits, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether accounting capitalisation justified treating credit on services as inadmissible capital-goods credit.

Analysis: The underlying documents included engineering, design, installation, communication and rental services. Accounting capitalisation does not by itself convert services into capital goods, and a prior reversal does not determine original credit admissibility.

Conclusion: The finding that the disputed amount represented inadmissible capital-goods credit was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No disputed demand, interest or penalty is recoverable despite the adverse alternative finding on insurance credit. Amounts paid or reversed are to receive consequential treatment in accordance with law without double recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: Detection of discrepancies during an audit of maintained records does not by itself establish the wrongdoing required to invoke the extended limitation period.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit of service tax on broadcasting services procured through an advertising agency was admissible where the broadcasters invoiced the agency.

Analysis: The CENVAT Credit Rules include advertising within input services and permit consideration of documentary deficiencies where the prescribed particulars are available. The manufacturer commissioned the advertisements, bore the broadcasting charges and tax, and used the services in relation to its goods. The broadcasters' invoices identified it as advertiser, while the agency's invoices disclosed the tax and service particulars. The agency neither claimed the broadcasting tax as input credit nor included the broadcasting charges in its taxable output value; under the applicable circular, those charges passed through as reimbursement. Credit on the agency's commission for procuring the same broadcasts had been accepted, and there was no risk of duplicate credit.

Conclusion: Credit on the broadcasting services was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit on broadcasting services procured through an advertising intermediary cannot be denied solely because the broadcasters invoiced the intermediary, where the manufacturer received and used the services, bore the tax, and the requisite particulars are available.

Issues: Whether the accused's acquittal for dishonour of a cheque issued against an alleged chitty debt was justified.

Analysis: Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant's initial burden includes proof of the transaction underlying the cheque. The cheque was dated before the alleged auction that gave rise to the debt. The complainant's witness could not explain the repayments, and the chitty documents and account statements were not produced. The defence was that the cheque had been issued as security.

Conclusion: The alleged debt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Tendering a dishonoured cheque alone does not discharge the complainant's initial burden of proving the transaction underlying a legally enforceable debt.

Issues: Whether the transfer-pricing comparability issues should be restored for fresh examination or the adjustment deleted.

Analysis: Under Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, comparability under the transactional net margin method requires examination of functions performed, assets employed and risks assumed, supported by relevant financial and functional information. Material objections concerning comparables, filters and margins required reasoned findings. The underlying information needed to assess the disputed comparables was not placed before the Tribunal. A remand to secure proper adjudication is distinct from routinely giving a party an opportunity to fill evidentiary gaps.

Conclusion: The comparability issues were restored for fresh examination without deleting the adjustment. The ultimate inclusion or exclusion of the disputed comparables remains open.

Ratio Decidendi: Remand may be appropriate to obtain reasoned adjudication of material transfer-pricing comparability objections where the available record prevents effective determination; it should not be ordered routinely to cure evidentiary gaps.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could allow review solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without determining whether Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied.

Analysis: The Tribunal's review jurisdiction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act was invoked after the Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment. The applicable Supreme Court precedents required consideration of whether Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was attracted; the Tribunal had not made that determination.

Conclusion: No. The Tribunal's common order allowing review and condoning delay was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot allow review solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without determining whether Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the show-cause notice should be entertained before adjudication.

Analysis: The challenge arose at the show-cause stage and involved disputed questions of fact. The petitioner could raise factual and legal objections before the adjudicating authority, which was directed to consider the response by a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law and natural justice.

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained as premature. The proposed tax liability was not decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to a show-cause notice involving disputed facts need not be entertained before the adjudicating authority has considered the objections.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory tax appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The petitioner's involvement in securing medical treatment for his daughter constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The material disclosed neither negligence nor wilful default, and a hearing on merits would cause no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the limitation-based rejection was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Sufficient cause for condoning delay may arise from circumstances beyond a litigant's control where there is no negligence or wilful default.

Issues: (i) Whether deletion of the proportionate input tax credit reversal demand was justified. (ii) Whether input tax credit for transactions reflected against an incorrect recipient GSTIN was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether deletion of the proportionate input tax credit reversal demand was justified.

Analysis: Section 17 restricts credit where inputs are used for both taxable and exempt supplies, while Rule 42 provides for proportionate reversal of common credit. The appellate order did not record the relevant taxable and exempt turnover figures or common credit calculations, and did not verify the claimed separation of records and shared overheads.

Conclusion: Deletion of the reversal demand was set aside for fresh adjudication, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit for transactions reflected against an incorrect recipient GSTIN was allowable.

Analysis: The applicable circular provides a verification mechanism for input tax credit discrepancies. Tax invoices, banking records and the supplier's certificate established payment of consideration and tax, and identified the incorrect GSTIN mapping.

Conclusion: Credit of Rs. 74,325 was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The verified mismatch credit remains available, while the reversal demand requires fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A proportionate input tax credit reversal demand cannot be deleted solely on assertions of separate accounting without verification of common credit and the relevant turnover figures.

Issues: Whether GST registration could be restored on verification of returns and tax payment alone, without considering interest, late fee and penalty.

Analysis: Rule 23 requires outstanding returns to be furnished and tax paid together with applicable interest, penalty and late fee before an application for revocation is filed. The appellate authority directed verification of returns and tax payment but did not expressly address the ancillary liabilities. The statutory scheme provides for recovery of dues under Section 79 and for interest and late fee under Sections 50 and 47.

Conclusion: The restoration was modified to provide for recovery of applicable interest and late fee and a penalty of Rs. 10,000, partly in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration of registration cancelled for failure to furnish returns cannot be based solely on filing returns and payment of tax without accounting for applicable interest, late fee and penalty.

Issues: Whether the request to quash the pending customs complaint and release the surety should be pursued before the writ court or the criminal court.

Analysis: The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The customs complaint remained pending before the criminal court, and the relief sought was in substance discharge.

Conclusion: The petitioner must approach the criminal court for discharge and may seek release of the surety there. All contentions remain open.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were undervalued; (ii) whether the declared transaction value was lawfully rejected and reassessed.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were undervalued.

Analysis: Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible when voluntary, and the circumstances and timing of any retraction are relevant. Admissions were assessed alongside parallel invoices, overseas customs information and records obtained from independent sources. The documentary evidence corroborated the statements despite procedural objections.

Conclusion: The imported goods were undervalued. The issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value was lawfully rejected and reassessed.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 ordinarily require acceptance of the price actually paid or payable. Rejection requires reasons supported by material, and reassessment follows the valuation rules sequentially. Genuine invoices and contemporaneous comparable imports supplied the basis for reassessment.

Conclusion: The declared value was lawfully rejected and the goods were correctly reassessed at Rs. 4,90,47,116. The issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment, differential duty, confiscation and penalties remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared customs transaction value may be rejected and reassessed under the sequential valuation rules when reliable evidence establishes undervaluation and supports the substituted value.

Issues: (i) Whether a qualifying resolution plan protects the corporate debtor's property from a pre-approval money-laundering attachment; (ii) Whether a Special Court finding is required to establish eligibility for that protection when the enforcement authority alleges no statutory exception.

Issue (i): Whether a qualifying resolution plan protects the corporate debtor's property from a pre-approval money-laundering attachment.

Analysis: Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code protects property covered by an approved resolution plan against action relating to an offence committed before commencement of insolvency, where control passes to a person satisfying the statutory conditions. Approval is the trigger for protection; applying it from that point gives the new management a clean slate without retrospectively invalidating the original attachment.

Conclusion: A qualifying resolution plan protects the covered property from a pre-approval attachment, which ceases to subsist from approval.

Issue (ii): Whether a Special Court finding is required to establish eligibility for that protection when the enforcement authority alleges no statutory exception.

Analysis: The enforcement authority did not allege that the property fell outside the plan or that the new controller fell within any statutory exception. There was consequently no disputed exception requiring a factual determination by the Special Court.

Conclusion: No prior Special Court finding is required where the enforcement authority alleges no applicable exception.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor receives statutory clean-slate protection, and the substituted fixed deposit must be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval of a resolution plan satisfying Section 32A prospectively bars continuation of a pre-existing attachment against covered property for a pre-insolvency offence.

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate debtors were corporate guarantors whose insolvency proceedings could be brought before the principal borrower's insolvency forum despite their registered offices being elsewhere; (ii) whether the corporate debtor's direct financial debt and default independently supported initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate debtors were corporate guarantors whose insolvency proceedings could be brought before the principal borrower's insolvency forum despite their registered offices being elsewhere.

Analysis: Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides for proceedings involving a corporate guarantor to be brought before the forum handling the corporate debtor's insolvency. The loan agreement and hypothecation deed, read together, imposed joint and several liability and an obligation to make good a shortfall from any source. Under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a guarantee may be established through the combined effect of agreements; the document's title and the absence of all parties' signatures on a single instrument are not decisive.

Conclusion: The corporate debtors were corporate guarantors, and the principal borrower's insolvency forum had jurisdiction. The issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the corporate debtor's direct financial debt and default independently supported initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code governs initiation of insolvency proceedings upon financial debt and default. The direct loans had been disbursed and remained unpaid; the arbitral awards recording the defaults had been challenged but were not stayed.

Conclusion: The direct financial debt and default independently supported initiation of insolvency proceedings. The issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The guarantor-jurisdiction framework applied, and the corporate debtor's direct financial liabilities provided an independent basis for insolvency initiation.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate hypothecator may be a guarantor where loan and security documents read together establish an undertaking to discharge the borrower's liability on default; proceedings against that guarantor may be brought before the forum handling the borrower's insolvency notwithstanding the guarantor's registered office elsewhere.

Issues: Whether shareholders acting solely in that capacity have standing to appeal against approval of a resolution plan that provides for a residual distribution to shareholders.

Analysis: Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permits an aggrieved person to appeal. The statutory scheme gives shareholders a limited role in the resolution process and treats residual equity interests as consequential to distribution under the plan. The Tribunal applied precedent concerning shareholder standing and the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors. No element of fraud or malicious proceedings was found in the present case.

Conclusion: Shareholders acting solely in that capacity lack standing to challenge approval of the resolution plan; provision for a residual distribution does not change that position.

Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder acting solely in that capacity does not acquire standing to appeal approval of a resolution plan merely because the plan provides for a residual distribution to shareholders.