Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order is sustainable where the taxpayer's written reply to the show cause notice was not considered.

Analysis: The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the show cause cum demand notice. The adjudicating authority passed the ex parte adjudication without considering that reply, notwithstanding the opportunities afforded for personal hearing. Non-consideration of the reply was contrary to the principles of natural justice and rendered the adjudication infirm.

Conclusion: The adjudication cannot stand; the reply must be considered and a fresh reasoned decision taken after an effective hearing. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order made while objections to the draft assessment order were pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel, and subsequently found inconsistent with its directions, could be sustained notwithstanding the assessee's failure to intimate the Assessing Officer of those objections.

Analysis: An eligible assessee that timely files objections to a draft assessment order invokes the statutory procedure under Section 144C. The Dispute Resolution Panel's directions are binding, and the assessment must thereafter be completed in conformity with those directions. The failure to intimate the Assessing Officer, though a lapse, was bona fide and caused no gain to the assessee. Further, the transfer-pricing order forming the sole basis of the assessment had been revised pursuant to the Panel's directions.

Conclusion: The final assessment order and consequential demand and penalty-initiation notices were invalid because they were contrary to the Dispute Resolution Panel's binding directions; a fresh assessment must be made in conformity with those directions and the revised transfer-pricing order.

Issues: Whether exemption under Section 11 can be denied solely because Form 10B was furnished after the prescribed time but was available with the processing authority before processing of the return.

Analysis: The audit report in Form 10B accompanied the return and was available with the Centralised Processing Centre before the return was processed. Delay in furnishing the audit report does not by itself defeat the exemption claim where the report is available at the stage of assessment or return processing. Further, denial of exemption does not permit treatment of the entire receipts as income without computation on commercial principles.

Conclusion: Exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied solely for delayed furnishing of Form 10B where the report was available before processing of the return; the claim is allowable upon fulfilment of the remaining statutory conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural delay in furnishing an audit report does not disentitle a charitable institution to exemption when the report is available to the assessing authority before assessment or return processing.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification effective from 15.06.2026 could be relied upon to deny consideration of provisional release of imported goods covered by bills of lading issued before its commencement.

Analysis: The amendment could operate only prospectively because it contained no express provision conferring retrospective effect. It could therefore not govern imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment took effect. The request for provisional release was also governed by the established approach applicable to similar imported goods, with no distinguishing feature identified.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be used to refuse consideration of provisional release; the importer's request must be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: Whether penalty for non-accompaniment of Form 38 could be sustained under Section 54(1)(14) where the imported sugar was exempt from VAT and no VAT was ultimately levied.

Analysis: Sugar was exempt under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, whereas entry tax was levied under the separate entry-tax regime. The goods had been disclosed at import. Although classification or rate-of-tax concerns may justify seizure during transit, penalty required justification of VAT liability on the goods. Since no tax was imposed under the VAT Act in assessment, Form 38 was not required for the exempt goods and the VAT penalty lacked legal basis.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under Section 54(1)(14) was unsustainable; the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for payment under the work order should be directed to be paid.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to verify the claim and take a reasoned decision within two months.

Issues: Whether a provisional attachment of bank accounts continues beyond one year from the date of its issuance.

Analysis: Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes that a provisional attachment ceases to have effect upon expiry of one year from its issuance. The attachment in question had exceeded that period, and no subsisting basis for continuing the freezing of the accounts remained. Directions were also issued requiring attachment orders to record their maximum one-year operation, banks and financial institutions to de-freeze accounts on expiry unless served with a valid fresh attachment order, and regulatory communication to ensure compliance.

Conclusion: A provisional attachment automatically ceases after one year; the attached bank accounts were required to be de-frozen.

Outcome: The delay-condonation applications were rejected and the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay.

Issues: (i) Whether a six-digit tariff-classification mismatch between the country-of-origin certificate and the classification determined on import justified denial of the SAFTA preferential-duty benefit; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced using NIDB data for allegedly branded goods.

Issue (i): Whether a six-digit tariff-classification mismatch between the country-of-origin certificate and the classification determined on import justified denial of the SAFTA preferential-duty benefit.

Analysis: The origin of the imported goods was undisputed, and the examination disclosed no misdeclaration of their description. The reclassified tariff headings remained within the scope of the exemption. A preferential claim may be denied without verification only in the specified circumstances under the origin-administration rules, none of which was established. The applicable origin rules also require verification and inter-governmental consultation in a dispute and provide that minor discrepancies between the certificate and customs documents do not ipso facto invalidate the certificate.

Conclusion: The country-of-origin certificate remained valid for preferential treatment, and denial of the exemption, differential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced using NIDB data for allegedly branded goods.

Analysis: The alleged brands were not registered under the intellectual-property enforcement framework, and no intellectual-property infringement or investigation establishing counterfeit or genuinely branded goods was shown. The enhancement was based only on NIDB description-based data without examining material factors affecting textile value, including fabric quality, and without evidence discrediting the supplier's invoice or declared price. The prescribed valuation procedure was therefore not followed.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected, and the redetermined assessable value was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The imports retain the claimed SAFTA preferential treatment and must be assessed on the declared transaction value; the provisional-release bank guarantee is liable to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff-classification discrepancy in an undisputed country-of-origin certificate does not by itself defeat preferential treatment where the goods remain eligible and no statutory ground for denial is established; declared transaction value cannot be enhanced solely on unsubstantiated NIDB comparisons.

Issues: (i) Whether interest on the customs-duty refund was rightly granted despite the communication stating that the importer could pursue a remedy before a higher forum; (ii) Whether interest on the refund was payable at 12% per annum instead of 6%, and whether it could run from the date of payment of duty.

Issue (i): Whether interest on the customs-duty refund was rightly granted despite the communication stating that the importer could pursue a remedy before a higher forum.

Analysis: The importer had continuously pursued reassessment and refund since 2018, while its refund claims were earlier rejected because assessment had not been finalised. The appellate direction granting interest accounted for these facts and afforded relief consistently with principles of natural justice. Interest was subsequently sanctioned pursuant to that direction.

Conclusion: Interest on the refund was rightly granted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the refund was payable at 12% per annum instead of 6%, and whether it could run from the date of payment of duty.

Analysis: The applicable decisions, including the jurisdictional High Court view followed by the Tribunal, supported 12% interest for refund of sums deposited during investigation where no statutory rate governed the claim. However, the period already determined for interest was not challenged by Revenue and did not warrant extension to the date of duty payment.

Conclusion: Interest is payable at 12% per annum, with Revenue liable to pay the additional 6% for the previously determined period; the claim for interest from the date of duty payment is not accepted. This is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The entitlement to interest on the refund is sustained and the applicable rate is enhanced, while the temporal scope of the interest remains confined to the period already fixed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a governing statutory rate for refund of deposits made during investigation, a claimant is entitled to 12% interest where that rate is mandated by binding jurisdictional precedent; enhancement of the rate does not by itself enlarge the established period of entitlement.

Issues: (i) Whether goods imported as Polyester Quilt Covers can be re-characterised merely because they are capable of subsequent conversion into bed sheets? (ii) Whether valuation can be enhanced solely on the basis of contemporaneous imports without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Customs Valuation Rules? (iii) Whether confiscation under Section 111(m) and redemption fine imposed under Section 125 can survive when mis-classification and undervaluation are not legally established? (iv) Whether penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable?

Issue (i): Whether goods imported as Polyester Quilt Covers can be re-characterised merely because they are capable of subsequent conversion into bed sheets?

Analysis: Classification must be determined from the condition of goods at importation. The imported articles were folded and stitched quilt covers, constituting made-up articles; possible conversion into bed sheets by removing stitches could not govern classification. De-stitching was not equivalent to separation by cutting dividing threads under Note 7 to Section XI. The Textile Committee's expert opinion supporting classification as polyester woven printed quilt covers was material and had been ignored.

Conclusion: The goods are Polyester Woven Printed Quilt Covers classifiable under CTH 6302, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether valuation can be enhanced solely on the basis of contemporaneous imports without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Customs Valuation Rules?

Analysis: Rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 required reasonable doubt founded on objective evidence. There was no evidence of additional remittance, relationship, fabricated invoices, or falsity of the declared price. The alleged contemporaneous imports were bed sheets and had not been shown comparable regarding manufacturer, quality, GSM, construction, brand, finish, commercial level, or quantity; hence Rule 5 could not support enhancement.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced on the stated basis, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation under Section 111(m) and redemption fine imposed under Section 125 can survive when mis-classification and undervaluation are not legally established?

Analysis: Since neither misclassification nor undervaluation was established, the necessary basis for confiscation for misdeclaration was absent. Further, no market enquiry had been conducted for determining market price before fixing redemption fine.

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

Issue (iv): Whether penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable?

Analysis: The allegations of misclassification and undervaluation having failed, the ingredients required for imposition of penalty were not established.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The declared classification and transaction value stand restored, and the consequential confiscatory and penal liabilities cannot be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported goods must be classified in their condition as presented, and transaction value cannot be rejected merely on unverified comparisons with non-comparable imports without objective grounds satisfying the valuation rules.

Issues: Whether LED modules comprising multiple LEDs mounted on a PCB, without driver or control circuitry, are classifiable under CTH 8539 or under CTH 9405 as lamps, lighting fittings or parts thereof.

Analysis: Classification is governed sequentially by the General Rules for Interpretation, beginning with the tariff headings and relevant Section and Chapter Notes. HSN Explanatory Notes provide binding guidance where aligned with the tariff. CTH 9405 is confined to lamps, lighting fittings and parts not elsewhere specified or included, whereas CTH 8539 specifically covers LED lamps. The imported modules lacked active circuitry, driver or control gear and were not complete street lamps or lighting fixtures. Their intended use in manufacturing street lights could not determine classification; classification depends on the goods' essential character and condition at importation. Since the modules could function as LED lamps upon connection to an electrical supply and were specifically covered elsewhere, resort to the residuary CTH 9405 was impermissible.

Conclusion: The LED modules are classifiable under CTH 8539 and not under CTH 9405; no differential customs duty was payable. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether bulk drugs/Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients imported for manufacture of formulations, testing, examination, analysis, clinical research, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies qualify as drugs under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and attract IGST at 5%.

Analysis: IGST on imports is governed by Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, while Serial No. 226 covers all drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The inclusive definition of drug in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 includes substances intended for use as components of a drug. Read with the definition of bulk drug/API under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013, APIs are drugs because they are pharmaceutical substances used as such or as ingredients in formulations.

Analysis: Regulatory licences for import under Forms 10, 11 and CT-17 treat the APIs as drugs. Their intended use for examination, testing, analysis, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies does not change their essential statutory character. The description-based entry in Serial No. 226 applies to drugs falling under any Chapter and, being specific to drugs, prevails over the general entries for inorganic and organic chemicals under Chapters 28 and 29. The entry is a rate notification and not an exemption notification.

Conclusion: Bulk drugs/APIs, including those imported for manufacture, testing, analysis, clinical research, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies, qualify as drugs under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I and are chargeable to IGST at 5%, provided they are not covered by the nil-rated Serial No. 113 entry.

Issues: (i) Whether the Limitation Act applies to an application by a personal guarantor under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether rejection of a Section 94 application at the maintainability stage requires prior appointment of a Resolution Professional and a report; (iii) Whether the Section 94 application, filed after conclusion of auction proceedings, was liable to be rejected as an abuse of process.

Issue (i): Whether the Limitation Act applies to an application by a personal guarantor under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Section 238A applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to proceedings under the Code. The applicable precedent treating limitation as applicable to Section 94 proceedings had not been stayed. The guarantee was invoked in September 2016, whereas the fresh application was instituted in January 2025, long after expiry of the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The Limitation Act applies to Section 94 applications, and the application was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of a Section 94 application at the maintainability stage requires prior appointment of a Resolution Professional and a report.

Analysis: The requirement relating to appointment of a Resolution Professional and report under Sections 97 and 99 was not treated as mandatory where a debtor-filed Section 94 application is ex facie not maintainable. The authorities relied upon concerning creditor-initiated proceedings under Section 95 were held inapplicable to this factual setting.

Conclusion: Prior appointment of a Resolution Professional was not necessary before rejecting the time-barred and non-maintainable Section 94 application.

Issue (iii): Whether the Section 94 application, filed after conclusion of auction proceedings, was liable to be rejected as an abuse of process.

Analysis: The personal guarantor had knowledge of recovery proceedings since 2016, had earlier obtained liberty to file a fresh application, and filed the present application only after the secured-assets auction had concluded and the successful bidder had deposited the earnest money and part sale consideration. This timing showed that the insolvency mechanism was invoked to impede matured recovery proceedings rather than for genuine insolvency resolution.

Conclusion: The application was not bona fide and amounted to an abuse of process; its rejection was justified.

Final Conclusion: A personal guarantor cannot invoke the insolvency process through a stale and non-bona-fide application to obstruct substantially completed secured-creditor recovery and auction proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An Adjudicating Authority may reject a debtor-filed Section 94 application at the threshold without appointing a Resolution Professional where admitted facts establish that it is barred by limitation or otherwise not maintainable.

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be denied for non-quarterly filing, lack of nexus between input services and exported output services, limitation, and grounds allegedly beyond the show cause notice; and whether the matter should be remanded or the refund sanctioned.

Analysis: It was found that Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) dated 14.03.2006 does not bar refund of accumulated credit of an earlier period in a subsequent quarter, subject to limitation. The relevant date for credit arising from service tax paid under reverse charge was treated as the actual tax-payment date, rendering the claim within time. One Member considered that the refund rejection travelled beyond the show cause notice, that eligibility of already-availed credit could not be re-examined at the refund stage, and that refund with interest should be sanctioned. The other Member considered that factual issues concerning credit, reverse-charge payment, premises and statutory compliance required fresh examination by the original authority and favoured limited remand.

Outcome: Owing to the difference of opinion on remand versus sanction of refund with interest, the matter and records were directed to be placed before the President for determination by a Third Member.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of inadmissible CENVAT credit was validly invoked.

Analysis: Credit was taken on input-service invoices relating to the period during which the manufactured goods enjoyed area-based exemption. Although the Department had been informed that CENVAT credit would be availed after expiry of the exemption, the disclosure did not identify credit relating to services received during the exempted period. The credit was also spread across ER-1 returns instead of being disclosed in full in the return for November 2016 despite the invoices being available. These circumstances established deliberate concealment of the material fact affecting eligibility, rather than a bona fide error. The earlier single-member decision was inapplicable because it did not address these material circumstances concerning pre-cut-off input-service invoices and their non-disclosure.

Conclusion: The statutory conditions for invocation of the extended period were satisfied; recovery of the inadmissible credit was not time-barred.

Issues: Whether rejection of the statutory appeal for failure to respond to notice concerning delay was sustainable when the appeal was filed within the condonable period and the petitioner asserted medical circumstances as sufficient cause.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the ordinary limitation period but within the period in which delay may be condoned under Section 107 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The rejection followed non-response to the notice seeking an explanation for delay. The asserted medical circumstances were not refuted by material from the department, and sufficient cause existed for allowing the petitioner an opportunity to explain the delay and be heard.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal was set aside in favour of the assessee, who was entitled to submit an explanation for delay before the appellate authority and receive an opportunity of hearing.