Issues: (i) Whether refund claims may cover tax periods across financial years; (ii) whether the deemed export refund claim was within limitation; (iii) whether the required Form A prior intimation was furnished; (iv) whether the supplier was eligible for refund despite the alleged duplicate claim by the recipient.

Issue (i): Whether refund claims may cover tax periods across financial years.

Analysis: The circular governing refund applications permits clubbing successive tax periods, and the subsequent circular withdrew the restriction on bunching claims across financial years.

Conclusion: Claims may cover tax periods across financial years. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deemed export refund claim was within limitation.

Analysis: Section 54 prescribes a two-year period from the relevant date, which for deemed exports is the date of furnishing the return relating to the supplies. The application concerned supplies made between December 2023 and May 2024; the earlier period entered in the form did not add earlier supplies to the claim.

Conclusion: The claim was within limitation. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the required Form A prior intimation was furnished.

Analysis: The applicable circular requires prior intimation to the supplier and the jurisdictional officers. The record contained the recipient's Form A and an email forwarding it before the first supply; its filing was not disputed.

Conclusion: The required prior intimation was furnished. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the supplier was eligible for refund despite the alleged duplicate claim by the recipient.

Analysis: Rule 89 permits a supplier to claim deemed export refund where the recipient has not availed input tax credit and furnishes the requisite undertaking. The recipient's undertakings and declaration addressed the five invoices, while no recipient refund application or supporting material was identified.

Conclusion: The supplier was eligible for the refund, and the alleged duplicate claim did not justify rejection. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund of Rs. 77,188 is admissible, together with any statutory interest payable under Section 56.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for a deemed export refund is determined by reference to the return relating to the supplies claimed, not merely by the period entered in the application.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.

Issues: Whether the Revenue could pursue an appeal below the monetary limit under the exception for information received from law enforcement agencies.

Analysis: The applicable 2018 circular excepted certain cases based on information from external law enforcement agencies from the monetary limit for Revenue appeals. A binding ruling on identical facts treated the Sales Tax Department as outside that exception. The 2024 circular was issued after the Tribunal's decision and was not applicable.

Conclusion: The exception does not apply to information received from the Sales Tax Department, and no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi: Information received from the Sales Tax Department does not invoke the law enforcement agency exception to the monetary limit under the applicable 2018 circular.

Issues: (i) Classification of brown rice protein powder under tariff item 3504 0099 or 2106 1000; (ii) applicability of the extended limitation period; (iii) confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for the claimed misclassification.

Issue (i): Classification of brown rice protein powder under tariff item 3504 0099 or 2106 1000.

Analysis: Revenue bears the burden of proving a different classification. The technical opinion identified cereal proteins in the powder and was not rebutted by testing or a counter-expert opinion. The HSN explanatory notes distinguish cereal proteins from textured protein substances; the stated 90% protein content for vegetable isolates is a general observation, not a mandatory threshold for cereal proteins. Rule 3 prefers a specific description, while Rule 4 applies only where the preceding rules cannot determine classification. Foreign customs rulings are not binding under Indian customs law.

Conclusion: The classification analysis supports tariff item 3504 0099 in favour of the assessee, but a subsequent finding states tariff item 2106 1000 instead.

Issue (ii): Applicability of the extended limitation period.

Analysis: The goods were correctly described and the declared classification was known to the department. The dispute involved interpretation of tariff entries and explanatory notes, without suppression or wilful misstatement.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period is invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for the claimed misclassification.

Analysis: Confiscation and penalties were based on the declared tariff classification, not an incorrect description or value. The goods were unavailable for confiscation, and the classification dispute involved no mala fide conduct.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The differential duty demand, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the impugned determination do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue bears the evidential burden of displacing an importer's classification and cannot discharge it by substituting subjective assumptions for an unrebutted technical opinion.

Issues: Whether the court-directed deposit was refundable with interest or barred by the limitation applicable to customs duty refunds.

Analysis: The cash deposit and bank guarantee secured release of the goods before assessment by the proper officer. A bank guarantee is not a payment of customs duty, and the amounts secured were directed toward prospective duty liability. The adopted precedents distinguish deposits from duty payments for purposes of statutory refund limitation.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of Rs. 18,91,396 with applicable interest from the date of deposit until refund; the statutory time limit for duty refunds does not apply.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount deposited under court directions toward prospective customs duty liability, before assessment, is not a payment of customs duty subject to the statutory limitation for duty refunds.

Issues: (i) Whether reasonable belief existed for seizure and shifting the burden of proof; (ii) Whether the evidence established the smuggled character of the gold and justified confiscation and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether reasonable belief existed for seizure and shifting the burden of proof.

Analysis: Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires reasonable belief founded on objective material available at seizure, rather than suspicion. The gold bore no identifiable foreign markings, and its 99.5% purity was not distinctive of foreign origin. An unexplained possession of gold and its purity alone did not provide an objective basis for the belief.

Conclusion: Reasonable belief was absent, and the burden under Section 123 did not shift to the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established the smuggled character of the gold and justified confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The Department retained the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggling. The retracted statements lacked independent corroboration, follow-up searches yielded no incriminating material, and the statements omitted material details of the alleged smuggling. The requirements of Section 138B for reliance on statements were not met.

Conclusion: The alleged smuggling was not established; confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The Department remained responsible for establishing the foreign origin and smuggled character of the gold.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden under Section 123 cannot shift without reasonable belief based on objective material at seizure; where that burden remains with the Department, uncorroborated retracted statements cannot alone establish the smuggled character of unmarked gold.

Issues: Whether objections to a creditor's locus and the maintainability of an insolvency application against a personal guarantor can be adjudicated before appointment of a resolution professional.

Analysis: Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the resolution professional examines the application and submits a recommendatory report under Section 99. Judicial adjudication of objections, including jurisdictional and limitation objections, occurs at the Section 100 stage. The decision concerning a debtor's application under Section 94 was distinguished from a creditor's application under Section 95.

Conclusion: The objections to locus and maintainability cannot be adjudicated before the Section 100 stage. The creditor's substantive entitlement to initiate proceedings remains undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Objections to a creditor's locus or the maintainability of a Section 95 application are adjudicated at the Section 100 stage, after the resolution professional's report, rather than before appointment of the professional.

Issues: (i) Whether the insolvency application was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether non-compliance with the MSME revival framework precluded admission of the insolvency application.

Issue (i): Whether the insolvency application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation assessment took account of the instrument acknowledging the debt and multiple settlement proposals admitting liability.

Conclusion: The insolvency application was within limitation, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the MSME revival framework precluded admission of the insolvency application.

Analysis: The MSME revival framework requires a borrower seeking its benefit to substantiate its status and invoke the prescribed procedure. The corporate debtor's MSME status had expired, no response claiming the framework's benefit was given to the statutory demand notice, and no prescribed application was made. The status claim was raised belatedly without supporting registration evidence; letters produced for the first time on appeal did not establish compliance. The insolvency assessment concerned debt and default, with the recorded default exceeding the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The MSME revival framework did not preclude admission of the insolvency application, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor remains in insolvency resolution, with precise quantification of the claim left to the resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated and unsupported claim to MSME status, without invocation of the prescribed revival framework, does not bar insolvency proceedings founded on established debt and default.

Issues: Whether the remand order should be recalled for non-impleadment of the enforcement authority and for challenges concerning attached properties.

Analysis: The remand order directed reconsideration of the resolution plan without setting aside the provisional attachment or adjudicating the enforcement authority's rights. The authority learned of the order while a statutory appeal remained available but did not pursue it; the subsequent plan approval was also not challenged. Recall jurisdiction does not extend to rehearing the merits or granting a fresh substantive declaration, and an unchallenged approved resolution plan acquires finality.

Conclusion: No grounds for recall were established, and the declaration sought was outside recall jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall jurisdiction cannot be used to obtain a rehearing or a substantive declaration on merits, particularly where the order did not adjudicate the applicant's rights and a statutory appeal was available.

Issues: (i) Exemption for dam protection and flood security works; (ii) exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction; (iii) exemption for construction and improvement of public roads; (iv) exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office; (v) reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments; (vi) reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments; (vii) reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses; (viii) reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions; and (ix) invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Exemption for dam protection and flood security works.

Analysis: Entry 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers specified construction and repair services relating to canals, dams and other irrigation works supplied to government. The records connected the ghat construction with prevention of dam erosion and the flood protection work with the extended irrigation department contract.

Conclusion: Both works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction.

Analysis: The relevant exemption under Entry 12(a) had been withdrawn before the contract. A larger bench ruling established that payment of service tax by the main contractor does not itself exempt a subcontractor; earlier conflicting decisions were relevant to limitation.

Conclusion: The subcontract was not exempt and was taxable in principle, against the assessee, subject to the limitation finding.

Issue (iii): Exemption for construction and improvement of public roads.

Analysis: Entry 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers construction or repair of roads for use by the general public. The evidence addressed the public character of the riverfront pathway, neighbourhood and approach roads, and connected the other payments with road construction or improvement.

Conclusion: The road-related works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office.

Analysis: Entry 12A(a) covers specified work, including repair and renovation, on qualifying civil structures supplied to a governmental authority. The recipient was a governmental authority and the interior decoration was treated as repair of a civil structure.

Conclusion: The interior decoration qualifies for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments.

Analysis: Reverse charge applies to qualifying goods transport agency services. Supplier invoice amounts and loading and unloading expenses were distinguished from payments for those services; a payment to a freight carrier was identified as taxable.

Conclusion: The non-transport payments are not liable on that basis; the identified freight-carrier payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vi): Reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST provides for reverse charge on services supplied by an advocate to a business entity. Payments to other professionals and for incidental expenses were distinguished from the identified advocate payment.

Conclusion: The other professional and incidental payments are not liable as advocate services; the advocate payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vii): Reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses.

Analysis: The burden of proof rested on the revenue to establish that the payments were for manpower supply or works contract services. No corresponding contracts were identified, and the demands rested on assumptions drawn from accounting descriptions.

Conclusion: The demands on labour and subcontract expenses cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions.

Analysis: Government services were taxable under the applicable negative-list framework and reverse-charge notification. No transaction granting a right to use natural resources was identified, and one deducting authority was neither government nor a local authority.

Conclusion: The demand on royalty deductions cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): Invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The disputes involved interpretation of service tax provisions. Returns had been regularly filed, the information came from the assessee's books, and no fraud or suppression was established.

Conclusion: The extended period is unavailable and the entire demand is time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service tax demand or related penalty survives for the period, although the medical college subcontract and identified transport and advocate payments were taxable in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: A reverse-charge service tax demand cannot be sustained solely on accounting descriptions or assumptions without proof of the taxable service.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the special leave petition was disposed of with liberty to prefer a statutory appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents; (ii) Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Issue (i): Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Analysis: Inspection and verification are distinct from the powers to seize goods and impose penalties. Freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 informs the limits of transit-state penal jurisdiction. The goods originated and were destined outside the transit state, with no tax incidence arising there; a perceived documentary deficiency could be referred to the jurisdictional authorities in the origin or destination state.

Conclusion: No. The transit-state authorities lacked jurisdiction to seize the goods and impose the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Analysis: Section 129 addresses deliberate tax evasion during transit, including movement of untaxed or unaccounted goods and use of fake bills. Valid tax invoices and e-way bills covered the outward movement; the date mismatch concerned a revenue-neutral internal accounting sequence between registrations of the same business.

Conclusion: No. The internal invoice-date mismatch did not justify the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty demand is quashed, and any penalty or security collected is refundable with interest in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit-state authority may inspect an interstate consignment but cannot exercise penal jurisdiction under Section 129 where the supply originates and ends outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Issues: Whether fines and penalties in lieu of confiscation were sustainable for excess or unaccounted stock discovered during surveys of business premises.

Analysis: Section 35 of the GST Acts requires registered persons to maintain true and correct accounts and provides for determination of tax on unaccounted goods as though supplied, applying sections 73 or 74. Binding High Court decisions address excess stock discovered during surveys by reference to those assessment provisions rather than confiscation proceedings.

Conclusion: No. The confiscation proceedings and resulting fines and penalties were unsustainable, and their setting aside was upheld. The issue was decided in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess or unaccounted stock is found during a survey of business premises, tax is to be determined under sections 73 or 74 rather than through direct confiscation proceedings under section 130.

Issues: Whether transportation under an expired e-way bill justified the GST penalty.

Analysis: Section 129 of the GST enactments addresses detention and penalties, while Rule 138 governs e-way bills. The e-way bill had expired and recorded a vehicle registration different from the vehicle carrying the goods, although the goods and other documents matched. Repair slips for the alleged breakdown were produced during adjudication rather than at interception, the driver had not reported a breakdown, and no FASTag movement was shown. Fiscal penalties were treated as civil liabilities, while intention to evade tax under section 129 was stated to be ascertainable from the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The expired e-way bill amounted to no valid e-way bill, and the penalty was justified against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Transportation under an expired e-way bill may attract a GST penalty where the surrounding circumstances support an inference of intention to evade tax.

Issues: (i) Whether PS sheets, PVC sheets and PVC sheets (UV) are classifiable under heading 3921 and at which tariff items; (ii) whether PVC wall panels, PS wall panels, PS wall panel sheets, PU wall panels, PVS panels (foam) and PS mouldings are classifiable under heading 3925 and at which tariff items.

Issue (i): Whether PS sheets, PVC sheets and PVC sheets (UV) are classifiable under heading 3921 and at which tariff items.

Analysis: Chapter 39 Note 10 permits surface-working and rectangular cutting of plastic sheets without further working. The product descriptions indicated flat, cellular sheets, and the photograph of the UV sheet showed a printed surface without ribs, relief or shaped edges. Subheading classification depends on the constituent plastic.

Conclusion: PS sheets are classifiable under tariff item 3921 11 00; PVC sheets and PVC sheets (UV) are classifiable under tariff item 3921 12 00. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether PVC wall panels, PS wall panels, PS wall panel sheets, PU wall panels, PVS panels (foam) and PS mouldings are classifiable under heading 3925 and at which tariff items.

Analysis: Chapter 39 Note 10 and the explanatory notes distinguish permitted surface-working from shaping beyond rectangular cutting. The described panels and mouldings had profiled forms or shaped edges; the material supplied did not distinguish the two unphotographed panel products from the other panels. Note 11 includes ornamental architectural features in builders' ware. The products were designed to form decorative finished wall or ceiling surfaces, and removability did not by itself alter their character.

Conclusion: PU wall panels are classifiable under tariff item 3925 90 10. PVC wall panels, PS wall panels, PS wall panel sheets, PVS panels (foam) and PS mouldings are classifiable under tariff item 3925 90 90. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classifications apply only to goods matching the descriptions and photographs on which the ruling was based.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of plastic wall-covering goods as sheets or builders' ware depends on their form and extent of working and, where applicable, their character as ornamental architectural features; removability alone does not displace the latter character.

Issues: Whether proportionate Cenvat credit reversal is required when bagasse and related by-products are cleared without payment of duty.

Analysis: Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 governs reversal of credit attributable to exempted goods. The applicable Supreme Court decisions and the Board's circular treat bagasse as a non-excisable agricultural residue rather than a product of manufacture, and reject the contrary circular.

Conclusion: The demands for proportionate credit reversal were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Clearance of non-excisable bagasse without payment of duty does not require proportionate Cenvat credit reversal under Rule 6.

Issues: Whether eligible transitional input tax credit could be denied because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column in Form TRAN-1.

Analysis: Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 govern the transition of eligible credit through Form TRAN-1. The credit's eligibility and quantum were undisputed, and the declaration was filed within time. The revenue's objection concerned the category under which the credit was declared. The unutilised credit was treated as a vested right that could not be defeated on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The transitional credit was admissible and could not be denied merely because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column. The decision was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Admitted eligible transitional input tax credit cannot be denied solely because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column in Form TRAN-1.

Issues: (i) Whether GST paid under the CGST and SGST heads can be transferred to the IGST head; (ii) Whether payment of GST under the wrong head justified proceedings and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Issue (i): Whether GST paid under the CGST and SGST heads can be transferred to the IGST head.

Analysis: The revenue did not dispute payment under the CGST and SGST heads. Section 77 of the CGST Act provides for refund where a transaction treated as intra-State is subsequently held to be inter-State. Section 19 of the IGST Act provides that no interest is payable on the IGST in those circumstances. Rule 4 of the GST Refund Rules provides for adjustment of a refund against an outstanding demand. These provisions permit transfer of the amount paid under the wrong heads.

Conclusion: The amount paid under the CGST and SGST heads is to be transferred to the IGST head, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment of GST under the wrong head justified proceedings and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 74 requires satisfaction that fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression caused the relevant shortfall, with foundational facts apparent from the notice. Payment under the wrong head was not accompanied by a deliberate attempt to evade tax.

Conclusion: The Section 74 proceedings and penalty were not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transferred payment is to be credited towards IGST; the quantum of IGST and any liability beyond the amount already paid remain undetermined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST has been paid under an incorrect head without fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, the payment may be transferred to the correct head and does not by itself justify proceedings under Section 74.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond three years could be sustained through exclusion of time when the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh; (ii) Whether the approval for reassessment was valid without independent consideration of the material and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond three years could be sustained through exclusion of time when the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 distinguishes the ordinary three-year period from the extended period available where the prescribed escaped-income threshold is met. Its fifth and sixth provisos concern exclusion of specified time and extension of a short residual period. The assessing authority had quantified the alleged escaped income at Rs. 47.29 lakh, and no court order had stayed the proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation, and the provisos did not save it. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval for reassessment was valid without independent consideration of the material and limitation.

Analysis: Section 151 requires the sanctioning authority to apply its mind independently to the material, including the taxpayer's reply, the quantum involved and the applicable limitation. The record contained no such consideration or contemporaneous reasons invoking the exclusion of time; reasons supplied later could not supplement the approval.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment and penalty could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion provisions for reassessment limitation cannot be used to invoke the extended limitation period where the prescribed escaped-income threshold is not met.