Issues: (i) What is the tariff classification of the ophthalmic equipment and medical furniture? (ii) What GST rate applies to their supply?

Issue (i): What is the tariff classification of the ophthalmic equipment and medical furniture?

Analysis: The Harmonized System Explanatory Notes to heading 9018 exclude medical and surgical furniture. The notes to heading 9402 cover specialized medical furniture, including seats for doctors and surgeons, operating and examination tables, and instrument tables and trolleys.

Conclusion: Motorized surgeons' chairs, doctors' sitting stools and ophthalmic refraction chair units are classifiable under tariff item 94021090. Eye operating tables, ophthalmic instrument trolleys and ophthalmic instrument tables are classifiable under tariff item 94029090. The classification is against the assessee's claim for heading 9018.

Issue (ii): What GST rate applies to their supply?

Analysis: Entry 611 of Schedule II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) covers goods under heading 9402 and specifies a 9% central tax rate.

Conclusion: All the products attract GST at 18%, comprising 9% CGST and 9% SGST, against the assessee's proposed 5% rate.

Final Conclusion: The supplies receive the tariff treatment applicable to medical and surgical furniture rather than ophthalmic instruments.

Ratio Decidendi: Specialized medical or surgical furniture covered by heading 9402 is excluded from classification as instruments and appliances under heading 9018.

Issues: (i) Classification of compostable polymer-based or biodegradable plastic substitute carry bags. (ii) Applicability of the concessional GST rate for biodegradable bags.

Issue (i): Classification of compostable polymer-based or biodegradable plastic substitute carry bags.

Analysis: The bags are made principally from compostable polymers or biodegradable plastic substitutes. The tariff headings preceding heading 3926 contain no specific entry for such goods, requiring consideration of the residual heading for other plastic articles.

Conclusion: The bags are classifiable under HSN 39269099 in Chapter 39.

Issue (ii): Applicability of the concessional GST rate for biodegradable bags.

Analysis: Entry 319 of Schedule I to the rate notification covers paper sacks or bags and biodegradable bags under Chapters 39 and 48. The entry's background and purpose support coverage of biodegradable polymer-based bags. Certification and an interim test report were supplied; the report recorded biodegradation of the tested sample but noted that other tests remained outstanding.

Conclusion: The bags qualify for GST at 5%, subject to the validity of the claim that they are biodegradable.

Final Conclusion: The classified bags receive the concessional rate only if their claimed biodegradability is valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The concessional notification entry for biodegradable bags extends to polymer-based bags within Chapter 39, subject to the validity of their claimed biodegradability.

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed tea-and-accessory bundles are composite or mixed supplies and what GST rates apply. (ii) Which HSN codes should be used for those mixed supplies.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed tea-and-accessory bundles are composite or mixed supplies and what GST rates apply.

Analysis: A composite supply requires taxable supplies to be naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, with one principal supply. The relevant indicators include customer expectations, industry practice and whether the accompanying items are integral to the overall supply. Customers do not ordinarily expect tea to be bundled with the proposed accessories, similar businesses do not generally provide them together, and the accessories are not essential to the enjoyment of tea. The items can be supplied separately, while the proposed bundles have a single price. A mixed supply attracts the highest GST rate applicable to any component.

Conclusion: The bundles are mixed supplies, not composite supplies, against the assessee on classification. Bundles containing a stainless steel spoon, plastic spoon or glass cup attract 18% GST; bundles containing a wooden honey dipper attract 5% GST.

Issue (ii): Which HSN codes should be used for those mixed supplies.

Analysis: A mixed supply is treated as the component attracting the highest GST rate. The legislation is silent on HSN selection where both components attract the same rate.

Conclusion: Where rates differ, the HSN code of the higher-rated component must be used: 82159900 for stainless steel spoons, 39241090 for plastic spoons and 70139900 for glass cups. Where tea and a wooden honey dipper both attract 5%, either component's HSN code may be used.

Final Conclusion: The proposed bundles are taxable and classified as mixed supplies rather than automatically following tea as the principal supply.

Ratio Decidendi: Separately supplyable goods bundled for a single price without natural bundling constitute a mixed supply, taxable and classified by reference to the highest-rated component; where the components attract equal rates, either component's HSN code may be used.

Issues: (i) Whether the rice husk composite board is classifiable under heading 4411; (ii) What GST rates apply to the board before and from 22 September 2025.

Issue (i): Whether the rice husk composite board is classifiable under heading 4411.

Analysis: The tariff headings and Harmonised System explanatory notes distinguish particle boards from fibreboards made of wood or other ligneous materials. The submitted manufacturing details described extracted rice husk fibres bonded with PVC resin, while laboratory reports and clarification identified the rice husk-derived fraction and a PVC content exceeding the proportion normally mentioned for particle-board binders. Classification depends on composition, manufacturing characteristics and essential character; Indian Standard specifications are not mandatory for determining the primary tariff heading.

Conclusion: The board is classifiable as fibreboard under heading 4411 of Chapter 44, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): What GST rates apply to the board before and from 22 September 2025.

Analysis: The applicable rate notifications specifically list rice husk board: entry 92 of Schedule II of the 2017 notification and entry 292 of Schedule I of the 2025 notification, effective from 22 September 2025.

Conclusion: The board attracts GST at 12% before 22 September 2025 and 5% from that date, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification and applicable rates are determined on the submitted materials, subject to their authenticity.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of a composite board depends on its constituent materials and manufacturing characteristics; a board of extracted ligneous fibres bonded with resin falls under the fibreboard heading rather than the particle-board heading.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor for a pre-resolution-plan period when the tax claim was not part of the approved plan. (ii) Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor to collect evidence concerning former management or third parties.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor for a pre-resolution-plan period when the tax claim was not part of the approved plan.

Analysis: Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code makes an approved resolution plan binding on governmental creditors, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. The clean slate principle protects the successful resolution applicant from unprovided pre-plan liabilities. No income-tax claim formed part of the approved plan, which addressed pre-closing dues; the adjudicating authority's treatment of statutory obligations was assessed in that context.

Conclusion: The pre-plan tax claim stood extinguished, and the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor to collect evidence concerning former management or third parties.

Analysis: Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act concern income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment. A reassessment notice requires the corporate debtor to file a return and participate in proceedings, while other statutory powers are available for inquiry into former management or third parties.

Conclusion: Reassessment against the corporate debtor could not be initiated to collect evidence against former management or third parties. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The approved plan protects the corporate debtor's clean slate; lawful action against former management or third parties remains available, and the merits of the alleged additions remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved resolution plan binds the revenue and extinguishes pre-plan statutory claims not included in it, precluding reassessment against the corporate debtor in respect of those claims.

Issues: Whether the stay application could be rejected for non-payment of 20% of the demand without considering the financial hardship raised by the petitioner.

Analysis: The appellate authority rejected the stay application for non-payment of the stipulated deposit without considering the asserted financial hardship. The underlying statutory appeal remains pending.

Conclusion: The rejection of the stay application was unsustainable, and the application requires fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority must consider financial hardship raised by an applicant before rejecting a stay application solely for failure to make the stipulated deposit.

Issues: Whether a tax claim submitted 896 days after the liquidation claim deadline was admissible or warranted condonation of delay where the assessment was completed after liquidation commenced.

Analysis: The liquidation regulations contemplate claims as at the liquidation commencement date, while the Code recognises disputed or unquantified rights to payment as claims. Permission to assess tax during liquidation does not restart the claim-filing deadline. A timely challenge to the liquidator's rejection is distinct from timely submission of the underlying claim. The explanation addressed the period after assessment but not the preceding delay; reopening the stakeholder list could disrupt time-bound liquidation and distribution. Alternatively, a claim first arising after liquidation commenced would fall outside the claims contemplated by the regulations.

Conclusion: The claim could not be admitted and the delay did not warrant condonation.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission to assess tax during liquidation does not restart the deadline for submitting a claim to the liquidator.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was within the statutory limitation period or the delay could be condoned. (ii) Whether the unpaid provident fund claim had to be provided for in the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was within the statutory limitation period or the delay could be condoned.

Analysis: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prescribes thirty days for an appeal, with a maximum further period of fifteen days upon sufficient cause. Limitation runs from pronouncement, not knowledge of the order. No application for a certified copy was shown. The resolution professional's duty to intimate claimants of the payment formula cannot enlarge the statutory period.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred and the delay could not be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the unpaid provident fund claim had to be provided for in the resolution plan.

Analysis: Provident fund dues are excluded from the liquidation estate and protected from the ordinary distribution waterfall. Interest and damages not determined before insolvency commenced may be contingent liabilities for which the committee of creditors may decide whether to provide. The unpaid balance was not broken down into contributions, interest and damages; the plan provided in full for the admitted dues. A dissatisfied claimant may challenge claim verification during the insolvency process, while claims omitted from an approved plan stand extinguished.

Conclusion: The unpaid balance was not shown to be a protected contribution requiring provision in the plan; relief on merits was refused.

Final Conclusion: The approved plan remains effective, with provision for the admitted provident fund dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Lack of knowledge of an order or failure to give plan intimation cannot extend the statutory outer limit for an insolvency appeal.

Issues: Anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation into alleged wrongful availment, utilisation and passing on of input tax credit.

Outcome: Notice was issued and protection from coercive steps was granted until the next hearing, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation. The bail application remains pending and has not been finally adjudicated.

Issues: Whether an e-way bill was required for the transaction on 19 February 2018.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings arose under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicable precedents addressed the e-way bill requirement for the period from 1 February to 31 March 2018, within which the transaction occurred.

Conclusion: No e-way bill was required for the transaction on 19 February 2018.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement to submit an e-way bill did not apply during the period from 1 February to 31 March 2018.

Issues: Whether the deadline for replying to a show cause notice and the date of personal hearing could be fixed on the same day.

Analysis: The procedural requirement adopted from the governing precedent places the deadline for a reply before the date of personal hearing. The order was made on consent and expressly declared not to be a precedent. Entitlement to input tax credit was left for fresh determination.

Conclusion: Fixing the reply deadline and personal hearing on the same day was procedurally irregular.

Issues: Whether a penalty for belated filing of returns was justified.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed under the general penalty provisions of the Central and Uttar Pradesh GST enactments. The statutory late fee had been paid, and there was no finding of a deliberate attempt to file the returns late.

Conclusion: The penalty was unjustified and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable late fee has been paid, a penalty for belated filing of returns is unjustified in the absence of a finding of deliberate delay.

Issues: Whether the assessee qualified as an infrastructure developer for the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than as a works contractor or subcontractor.

Analysis: Section 80-IA(4) provides a deduction for eligible enterprises developing infrastructure facilities under agreements with government or specified authorities; a mere works contractor is not entitled to the benefit. The work orders were issued directly to the assessee or its consortium. The assessee invested funds, carried out development work, deployed technical personnel and equipment, and assumed entrepreneurial and investment risks. It also undertook maintenance during the defect liability period.

Conclusion: The assessee qualified as a developer, not a works contractor or subcontractor, and was entitled to the deduction. The question was answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An enterprise that itself invests in and executes infrastructure development under a government agreement, assuming entrepreneurial and investment risks, qualifies as a developer rather than a mere works contractor for the infrastructure development deduction.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 4,35,68,678 for alleged bogus purchases was sustainable.

Analysis: The disputed purchase amount had not been shown to appear in the assessee's books. The assessing officer had not resolved the assessee's claim that purchases amounted to Rs. 15,150 and did not furnish the requested remand report. The Tribunal referred to a 6% restriction in comparable accommodation-entry cases and noted that no distinguishing facts had been identified. The first appellate authority regarded the smaller purchase amount as insignificant in the diamond trade.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 4,35,68,678 does not survive.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice was valid when it was dated 31 March 2021 but received by email on 1 April 2021.

Analysis: The email evidence recorded receipt after expiry of the applicable limitation period, while the assessing officer's report did not establish earlier delivery. The adopted precedent addressed the change in the reassessment notice procedure under the Income-tax Act, 1961, effective from 1 April 2021.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and the reassessment was void ab initio.

Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imports from a related supplier could be rejected and customs duty redetermined.

Analysis: The Customs Valuation Rules require sequential application of transaction value and comparable-goods methods before resort to later valuation methods. A relationship between buyer and seller does not by itself establish that the declared price was influenced. Prices of identical or similar goods imported from unrelated suppliers had been accepted, while no impact of the relationship on the prices of the imports in question was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The declared values are accepted and the differential duty demand is set aside, in favour of the assessee. The confiscation and penalties are also set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A related-party relationship alone does not justify rejection of a declared customs transaction value without evidence that it influenced the price; alternative valuation methods must be applied sequentially.

Issues: (i) Whether deliberate contempt of the direction governing operation of the company's bank accounts was established. (ii) Whether an appeal lies against dismissal of a contempt petition.

Issue (i): Whether deliberate contempt of the direction governing operation of the company's bank accounts was established.

Analysis: Section 425 of the Companies Act attracts the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Punishment for contempt requires deliberate disobedience to be established beyond doubt. The account direction permitted specified persons to continue operating the accounts. The evidence did not establish issuance of the disputed cheques after that direction or their encashment or cash withdrawal; other transactions concerned post-dated cheques presented by the applicant.

Conclusion: Deliberate contempt was not established.

Issue (ii): Whether an appeal lies against dismissal of a contempt petition.

Analysis: Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act governs appeals in contempt proceedings. An applicant who informs the Tribunal of alleged contempt does not control its subsequent decision whether to continue or drop the proceedings.

Conclusion: No appeal lies under Section 19 against dismissal of the contempt petition.

Final Conclusion: The evidence did not establish contempt, and rejection of the contempt complaint did not give rise to a statutory right of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act lies against an order of punishment for contempt, not against dismissal of a contempt petition.

Issues: (i) Whether activities performed in mining areas, including composite contracts, were taxable as mining services; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation applied to the demands; (iii) whether penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether activities performed in mining areas, including composite contracts, were taxable as mining services.

Analysis: Classification depends on the essential character of the activity, not its location or the recipient's business. Auxiliary civil, mechanical, maintenance and transport activities lack the necessary operational connection with mineral extraction merely because they occur within a mining area. Composite contracts involving labour and transfer of goods fall under the works contract service entry. Work orders, invoices and VAT returns evidenced materials supplied alongside labour and VAT paid on the material component as a deemed sale. The notice did not invoke the works contract service category.

Conclusion: The composite contracts are classifiable as works contract services, and the mining-service demand is set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation applied to the demands.

Analysis: The extended period requires specified conduct, such as suppression of facts, with intent to evade tax. The transactions appeared in service-tax returns and statutory accounts, and tax had been paid under works contract service. No corroborative evidence established an intent to evade, and the payment supported a bona fide belief about the classification.

Conclusion: The extended period cannot sustain the challenged demands, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Analysis: The circumstances necessary for a penalty under section 78, including conduct with intent to evade tax, were not established. The payment already made, bona fide belief and concession of other tax liabilities were relevant to the penalty under section 77.

Conclusion: The penalties under sections 77 and 78 are set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The mining-service demand and penalties no longer subsist; the uncontested service-tax liabilities and interest remain to be appropriated against tax already paid.

Ratio Decidendi: Service-tax classification depends on the essential character of the activity, not its location or the recipient's business.

Issues: Whether the penalty for transporting goods with an incomplete Part B and an expired e-way bill could be waived because the goods matched the invoices and intent to evade tax was not established.

Analysis: Section 68 and the e-way bill rules prescribe documentation for goods in transit, while Section 129 provides for penalty. At interception, vehicle particulars had not been entered in Part B and another e-way bill had expired two days earlier. No valid reason for the omissions or delay was established. The registered person's compliance duty was non-delegable; the transporter's negligence, matching invoices and subsequent return declarations did not cure the contravention at interception.

Conclusion: Waiver of the penalty was not justified; the penalty was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Transporting goods without updated vehicle particulars in an e-way bill or under an expired e-way bill, without a valid reason, is a substantive contravention attracting penalty. Matching invoices, subsequent declarations and transporter negligence do not cure the defect.