Issues: (i) Whether an anticipatory-bail application is premature solely because the applicant has been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and no formal arrest authorization under Section 69 has been issued; (ii) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted on the facts of the investigation.

Issue (i): Whether an anticipatory-bail application is premature solely because the applicant has been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and no formal arrest authorization under Section 69 has been issued.

Analysis: Section 69 concerns the power of arrest, whereas Section 70 permits summoning a person to give evidence or produce material in an inquiry. A summons does not by itself establish arrest or confer an automatic right to pre-arrest protection. Equally, the absence of an existing arrest authorization is not an absolute bar where tangible circumstances disclose a real, genuine and reasonable apprehension of arrest. The searches, seizure of material, substantial alleged revenue implications and arrest of a connected accused provided an objectively founded apprehension in this matter.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable and was not premature; this issue was decided in the applicant's favour.

Issue (ii): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted on the facts of the investigation.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail protects personal liberty but remains an exceptional remedy requiring a balance with effective investigation. The gravity and organized nature of the alleged evasion, the material collected, the investigation into machinery, raw materials, manufacturing, clearances and financial and electronic trails, the arrest of a connected accused, repeated summons and alleged non-cooperation supported the stated need for further interrogation. Custodial interrogation was not treated as an end in itself, but could not be ruled out at the existing stage of investigation. An undertaking to cooperate could not by itself displace the investigating authority's lawful powers.

Conclusion: The circumstances did not warrant extension of pre-arrest protection; this issue was decided against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: A genuine apprehension of arrest permits invocation of anticipatory-bail jurisdiction before a formal arrest order, but relief depends on a fact-specific balance between personal liberty and the legitimate requirements of effective investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere issuance of a summons under Section 70 does not make an anticipatory-bail application premature where a reasonable apprehension of arrest is objectively established; however, such apprehension alone does not justify pre-arrest protection when investigation-specific factors support the need for further interrogation.

Issues: (i) Whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue the arbitral reference; (ii) Whether rejection of the joint venture constituent's application for intervention and termination of arbitration warranted supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue the arbitral reference.

Analysis: Sections 5 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 require minimal judicial intervention and recognise the Tribunal's competence to rule on jurisdictional questions. The arbitration agreement and its invocation on behalf of the joint venture were undisputed, and the arbitral proceedings had commenced under Section 21. A dispute concerning the authority of the liquidator to represent the joint venture concerns representation and continuation of the reference, not the existence of the arbitration agreement or the Tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction. Such questions require determination within the arbitral process.

Conclusion: The Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue the reference; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the joint venture constituent's application for intervention and termination of arbitration warranted supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 227 intervention in an ongoing arbitration is confined to exceptional cases involving a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction apparent without detailed argument. No such defect arose from the Arbitrator's determination. The constituent had notice of the liquidator's assertion of authority and the proposed arbitral proceedings, but did not promptly object or seek appropriate relief when called upon to clarify its position. Its later request was directed to extinguishing the joint venture's claim after the evidentiary stage had concluded. This conduct supported findings of acquiescence, bad faith, and an attempt to derail the arbitral process, rather than exceptional circumstances warranting supervisory relief.

Conclusion: Supervisory interference under Article 227 was not warranted; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral reference remains subject to the statutory arbitral framework, with disputes concerning representation and authority to be addressed through that framework rather than interlocutory supervisory review.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, Article 227 cannot be invoked to review an interlocutory arbitral determination under Section 16; a dispute concerning authority to represent a joint venture is for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Issues: (i) Whether contractual service-tax reimbursement covered service tax directly paid under the reverse charge mechanism on input services availed for the project; (ii) Whether an award in an international commercial arbitration could be set aside for patent illegality or as contrary to public policy for allowing such reimbursement.

Issue (i): Whether contractual service-tax reimbursement covered service tax directly paid under the reverse charge mechanism on input services availed for the project.

Analysis: The contractual clauses excluded service tax from the contractor's ordinary tax liabilities and provided for its reimbursement upon actual and genuine payment to the concerned department. Services such as manpower, transport, security and other input services availed for execution of the project formed an integral part of the project contract. The expression "in respect of this contract" confined reimbursement to project-related services, but did not exclude services obtained through subcontractors. The arbitral finding allowed only the amount directly deposited by the contractor under the reverse charge mechanism on proof of payment, while rejecting the component paid through vendors where proof of actual deposit was unavailable.

Conclusion: The directly paid service tax on project-related input services was reimbursable under the contract; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an award in an international commercial arbitration could be set aside for patent illegality or as contrary to public policy for allowing such reimbursement.

Analysis: Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confines the ground of patent illegality to arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations. Further, the arbitral interpretation permitting reimbursement of proven service tax paid for project-related input services was reasonable and did not conflict with the express contractual terms. It therefore did not offend the public policy of India.

Conclusion: Patent illegality was unavailable as a ground of challenge, and the reimbursement finding did not conflict with public policy; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award granting reimbursement of the proven service-tax amount for project-related input services remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: In an international commercial arbitration, patent illegality is not an available ground to set aside an award, and a reasonable contractual interpretation allowing reimbursement of proven project-related service tax does not conflict with public policy.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on an allegation of suppression where the Department already possessed the material facts and had issued an earlier show-cause notice on the same or similar facts.

Analysis: The assessee had regularly filed ST-3 returns, and the information forming the basis of the subsequent demand was already available to the Department when the earlier show-cause notice was issued. The same or similar facts could not subsequently constitute suppression of facts; the subsequent notice ought to have been confined to the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable because no suppression of facts could be alleged against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether verification of the conveyance contravened Rule 138B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; (ii) Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether verification of the conveyance contravened Rule 138B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Rule 138B permits physical verification by a proper officer authorised by the Commissioner or an empowered officer. The record established that the physical verification was undertaken by an authorised proper officer. Following the earlier remand, a fresh notice was issued, relevant materials were supplied, an opportunity of personal hearing was given, and the reply was considered before the confiscation order was made.

Conclusion: The verification did not contravene Rule 138B, and no jurisdictional defect or breach of natural justice was established.

Issue (ii): Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not absolutely bar writ jurisdiction, but its exercise requires exceptional circumstances, including breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to the validity of legislation. None of those circumstances was established. The grievance regarding supply of relied-upon documents and the assessment of the adjudicatory record required factual examination within the appellate framework.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction was declined, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the confiscation adjudication remains amenable to examination by the competent appellate authority under the statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a GST adjudication follows notice and opportunity of hearing and no exceptional ground for writ intervention is established, factual or procedural grievances must be pursued through the statutory appellate remedy rather than under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: Whether an erroneously entered respondent on the Tribunal portal may be corrected after registration of the appeal.

Analysis: Rule 26 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 permits rectification of clerical and similar errors, while Rule 32(1) permits amendment of a defective appeal form upon sufficient cause. The record showed that the respondent was incorrectly selected on the portal although the proper State tax authority was identified in the original appeal memorandum and the impugned order. The erroneous portal entry was a curable and non-fatal procedural defect, and the proper respondent required service. As the portal did not provide a post-registration correction mechanism, re-upload of the corrected appeal documents and Registry action for portal correction were required.

Conclusion: Substitution of the correctly described respondent was permitted, with consequential correction of the portal record.

Issues: Whether a departmental GST appeal involving disputed tax below the prescribed monetary limit could be admitted without the Revenue pleading and proving a recognised exception.

Analysis: Section 120 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits litigation-control instructions regulating departmental appeals. The applicable circulars fixed a monetary threshold of Rs. 20,00,000 for appeals before GSTAT, subject to specified exceptions. The disputed tax of Rs. 7,36,272 was below that threshold. Authorisation under Section 112(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was distinct from compliance with the monetary-limit policy. The Revenue was required to identify and substantiate a specified exception or produce a case-specific recorded opinion of the Commissioner under the residual exception. No such material was produced.

Conclusion: The departmental appeal was not maintainable for admission and could not proceed to adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether use of the consignee's former address in two tax invoices and corresponding e-way bills, despite an otherwise documented movement of goods, justified imposition of a transit penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: Section 129 permits a transit penalty only where the established contravention attracts that provision. Invoice and transit-document requirements under Section 31, Rule 46, Section 68 and Rules 138 and 138A remain mandatory; however, strict civil liability does not dispense with proof of a breach warranting the particular penalty. The applicable legal approach requires an assessment whether a documentary address discrepancy is technical and bona fide or evidences an intent to evade tax. Section 126(6) does not authorise reduction of a valid percentage-based penalty under Section 129; applicability of Section 129 must first be established.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by invoices, e-way bills and bilty documents, and physical verification confirmed their description, quantity and quality. The purchaser was identified, and the former address was supported by its historical connection with the purchaser and retention of outdated customer data. No different purchaser, fictitious transaction, diversion, clandestine unloading, repeated use of documents, or suppression of value was established. The address mismatch alone, in those circumstances, did not establish a substantive transit violation. Proportionality supported distinguishing the explained documentary error from conduct concealing a taxable movement.

Conclusion: The explained use of the former consignee address did not attract Section 129, and the disputed transit penalty was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the initial intra-State movement from the consignor's place of business to the transporter's place of business for onward transport qualified under the third proviso to Rule 138(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, such that leaving Part B unfilled did not contravene the Rules or attract penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether mens rea is an essential requirement for a penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the initial intra-State movement from the consignor's place of business to the transporter's place of business for onward transport qualified under the third proviso to Rule 138(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, such that leaving Part B unfilled did not contravene the Rules or attract penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Rule 138 generally requires conveyance details in Part B, but its third proviso creates an express statutory exception for movement, within the same State and up to 50 km, from the consignor's place of business to the transporter's place of business for further transportation. Explanation 2 preserves that exception. Section 129 applies only where goods move in contravention of the Act or Rules. The recorded movement was from the consignor's depot to the transporter's warehouse within Uttar Pradesh, over a distance below 30 km, for consolidation before onward dispatch. The final consignee's location did not alter the character of this initial journey.

Conclusion: The movement fell within the third proviso to Rule 138(3); leaving Part B unfilled was permitted and did not constitute a contravention attracting penalty under Section 129. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether mens rea is an essential requirement for a penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Mens rea may be material where the statutory scheme makes intention, fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression relevant, but Section 129 does not expressly make an intent to evade tax an indispensable element. A strict civil penalty may therefore follow upon proof of an actual contravention. Section 126 does not supply a general power to reduce or waive the fixed percentage penalty under Section 129. However, the threshold requirement remains an established breach of the Act or Rules; a statutory exception cannot be disregarded to create such a breach.

Conclusion: Mens rea is not invariably required for a penalty under Section 129, but no penalty can arise without an actual contravention. As the omission was expressly permitted, absence of mens rea was not determinative and the penalty could not be sustained. This issue operates in favour of the assessee in the present case.

Final Conclusion: The express exception governing the initial stage of transportation precluded treating the unfilled Part B as a statutory violation, leaving the imposed fiscal liability without legal foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Section 129 cannot be imposed where the third proviso to Rule 138(3) permits conveyance details in Part B to remain unfilled during the qualifying initial intra-State movement from the consignor's premises to the transporter's premises for further transportation.

Issues: (i) Whether goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the Revenue could, for the first time before the High Court, invoke the restriction under the fifth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether goodwill arising on amalgamation is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) treats goodwill as an asset for depreciation purposes. The question stood settled by the binding determination that goodwill is an asset within that Explanation and is eligible for depreciation.

Conclusion: Goodwill is a depreciable intangible asset and depreciation thereon is allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could, for the first time before the High Court, invoke the restriction under the fifth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The proposed restriction had neither been specifically raised before nor decided by the appellate authorities. It did not constitute an independent substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The Revenue cannot raise the fifth-proviso restriction for the first time before the High Court; no substantial question of law arises on that basis, against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to depreciation on goodwill remains undisturbed, and the unraised statutory restriction cannot be introduced at the appellate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Goodwill falls within the statutory category of depreciable assets, and a new issue not raised or adjudicated before the lower appellate authorities cannot be made the basis of a substantial question of law.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the NCLT's observations could be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The NCLT's observations proceeded on the settled position that claims relating to the period preceding approval of a resolution plan stand extinguished. Those observations fell within the NCLT's jurisdiction under the insolvency framework. The asserted conflict with State tax legislation did not establish a jurisdictional error, as permitting State tax claims to bypass the corporate insolvency resolution process would undermine the statutory effect of an approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: No jurisdictional infirmity was established to bypass the statutory appellate remedy before the NCLAT.

Issues: (i) Whether the employees' dismissals without an inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and were illegal; (ii) Whether approval of a corporate insolvency resolution plan extinguished the employees' rights under pre-CIRP labour awards and barred withdrawal of the court deposits.

Issue (i): Whether the employees' dismissals without an inquiry violated the principles of natural justice and were illegal.

Analysis: The employees were dismissed through composite charge-sheet-cum-dismissal orders after they had reported at their transferred locations, without a disciplinary inquiry. The employer did not establish any perversity in the labour awards finding that the dismissals had been effected in gross breach of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The terminations were illegal, and the finding in the labour awards was affirmed in favour of the employees.

Issue (ii): Whether approval of a corporate insolvency resolution plan extinguished the employees' rights under pre-CIRP labour awards and barred withdrawal of the court deposits.

Analysis: The labour awards had adjudicated the employees' claims and granted compensation before commencement of the corporate insolvency resolution process. Their entitlement under the awards had therefore crystallised before the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and approval of the resolution plan. This was distinguishable from an unadjudicated employment claim pending when the resolution plan was approved. The deposits were made to secure compensation awarded to the employees during the challenge proceedings; their continued deposit in court did not, by itself, entitle the new management to recover them. The general question whether court deposits constitute assets of the corporate debtor was not decided.

Conclusion: The resolution plan did not defeat the employees' crystallised entitlement under the labour awards. The employees were entitled to withdraw the deposited amounts with accrued interest as compensation, in full settlement of their service-related claims.

Final Conclusion: The labour awards remain operative, and the court deposits with accrued interest are to satisfy the compensation payable to the employees, with no further service-related benefits remaining payable.

Issues: (i) Whether scrutiny under Section 39(1) could be initiated against a continuously registered dealer without a valid notice under Section 35; (ii) Whether the five-year limitation in Section 57 applied to Section 39 scrutiny; (iii) Whether the Superintendent of Taxes had lawful delegated authority to commence Section 39 proceedings; and (iv) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 65.

Issue (i): Whether scrutiny under Section 39(1) could be initiated against a continuously registered dealer without a valid notice under Section 35.

Analysis: Section 35(2) mandates registered dealers to file returns, whereas Section 35(3) permits notice to dealers other than registered dealers. Section 39(1) confines scrutiny to returns furnished by a registered dealer to whom a notice under Section 35 has been issued. The notice requirement is a condition precedent to the exercise of scrutiny jurisdiction. A harmonious construction did not permit the statutory qualification to be disregarded; a dealer that was always registered and filed returns under Section 35(2) could not be subjected to Section 39 scrutiny without the prescribed notice.

Conclusion: The Section 39(1) scrutiny was without jurisdiction for want of the mandatory Section 35 notice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the five-year limitation in Section 57 applied to Section 39 scrutiny.

Analysis: The statutory limitation governing completion of assessments could not be circumvented through recourse to the scrutiny mechanism under Section 39. Section 57 was applied to Section 39 proceedings, and scrutiny commenced in 2023 for returns relating to 2007 to 2017 fell beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The impugned Section 39 scrutiny proceedings were barred by statutory limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Superintendent of Taxes had lawful delegated authority to commence Section 39 proceedings.

Analysis: Section 26 read with Rule 3 requires delegation of the Commissioner's powers through notification in the Official Gazette. No gazette notification delegating Section 39 powers to the Superintendent of Taxes was produced. Internal orders or circulars could not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirement for delegation.

Conclusion: The Superintendent of Taxes lacked lawful delegated authority to initiate the Section 39 proceedings, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy under Section 65.

Analysis: The challenge disclosed a jurisdictional error arising from non-fulfilment of the statutory notice requirement and absence of valid delegation. This brought the matter within the recognised exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme did not permit scrutiny against the assessee without fulfilment of the express jurisdictional preconditions, compliance with limitation, and lawful delegation of power.

Ratio Decidendi: A fiscal scrutiny power conditioned by statute may be exercised only upon strict compliance with its express jurisdictional preconditions, prescribed limitation, and lawful delegation.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions; (ii) Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Issue (i): Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Analysis: Input tax credit is a statutory concession, and actual payment of tax to the Government is integral to the credit mechanism. Section 16(2)(c) operates subject to Section 41 and forms part of an integrated statutory framework governing eligibility, reversal, recovery from the supplier, and subsequent re-availment. The earlier matching and reconciliation framework under Sections 42 and 43 was not operationalised, but the resulting difficulty concerns the manner of enforcement rather than the constitutional validity of the condition itself.

Analysis: The possibility of arbitrary or mechanical action in individual cases does not invalidate Section 16(2)(c). The condition cannot be restricted only to fraud, collusion, or fictitious transactions by reading down its text; instead, it must be applied harmoniously with the statutory safeguards and recovery mechanisms available against the defaulting supplier.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, is constitutionally valid and is not read down to limit its operation exclusively to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Issue (ii): Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Analysis: The non-operationalisation of the original matching mechanism, the phased substitution of Section 41, and the subsequent introduction of Rule 37A require the statutory regime applicable to the relevant tax period to be applied. For periods before Rule 37A, the absence of a re-availment mechanism is material. The statutory power to recover tax collected but not deposited by the supplier, including under Section 76, remains a relevant part of the scheme and cannot be rendered ineffective.

Analysis: Subsequent or retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration, a nil or short tax declaration, or an alert concerning the supplier may justify an inquiry but cannot alone justify denial or reversal of ITC. The notice must disclose the relevant supplier, invoices, tax periods, nature of the default, material relied upon, and the status of recovery proceedings against the supplier. The purchaser may discharge the burden of proof through invoices and evidence of actual receipt and movement of goods or services. A notice invoking fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression must itself state the foundational facts connecting the purchaser to such conduct. Personal hearing, reasoned consideration of the purchaser's material, and examination of the grounds for retrospective cancellation are required.

Conclusion: ITC cannot be denied or reversed mechanically merely because the supplier defaulted or its registration was subsequently cancelled. Reversal may follow where the purchaser fails to establish eligibility or where fraud, collusion, non-receipt of goods or services, or other grounds rendering the credit inadmissible are established in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Pending notices and completed adjudications must be dealt with afresh in conformity with the prescribed safeguards, after adequate opportunity to furnish material and be heard. Amounts already reversed, deposited, or recovered shall be adjusted or refunded as warranted by the fresh determination, and no fresh coercive recovery may be undertaken until that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Actual payment of tax is a valid statutory condition for input tax credit, but Section 16(2)(c) must be enforced as part of the integrated GST scheme and cannot be used to impose mechanical reversal upon a bona fide purchaser without a fact-based inquiry, procedural fairness, and consideration of recovery from the defaulting supplier.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order under Section 148A(3) and the consequent notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2020-21 warranted writ interference where the materially identical reassessment challenge for the preceding assessment year had already been decided against the assessee.

Analysis: The information and allegations underlying the impugned reassessment action were identical to those involved in the preceding assessment year. The earlier decision had found that determining whether the amount disclosed by the assessee arose from a spurious transaction resulting in escaped income required factual examination by the Assessing Officer. Judicial discipline required adherence to the coordinate bench decision rendered in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and consequential notice did not warrant writ interference; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable; (ii) Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable.

Analysis: The assessee was eligible for exemption under Clause (21)(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended, but paid service tax under reverse charge despite no liability. Such payment, made under a mistake of law, is a revenue deposit rather than tax or duty. Consequently, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not govern the refund claim, and retention of the amount would be without authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The refund of the amount paid under mistake of law is admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Analysis: Since the payment retains the character of a revenue deposit and is outside the statutory refund mechanism for duty, the interest regime under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is inapplicable. The applicable principle supports compensatory interest at 12% per annum for wrongful retention of the deposit.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until payment of the refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption is given full effect by treating the erroneous payment as a refundable revenue deposit, with compensation for its retention.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made under a mistake of law where no tax liability exists is a revenue deposit outside Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and its unlawful retention warrants refund with compensatory interest.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could withhold the refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when an anti-evasion investigation concerning alleged fraudulent input tax credit was pending.

Analysis: Section 54(11) permits withholding where the refund-generating order is subject to an appeal, further proceedings, or any other pending proceeding under the Act, and the Commissioner, after hearing the taxable person, forms an opinion that release would adversely affect revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. The expression concerning other pending proceedings extends beyond a formally instituted appeal and includes a pending statutory investigation. The anti-evasion investigation had commenced before the refund-withholding order and was supported by contemporaneous material indicating non-existent or cancelled suppliers, absence of established movement of goods, and absence of the claimant from the manufacturer's supply chain. Those circumstances bore directly on actual receipt of goods for input tax credit purposes and supported the requisite opinion of fraud or malfeasance. A subsequently issued show-cause notice merely crystallised the ongoing investigation; the absence of a pending appellate proceeding or separate judicial stay did not invalidate the statutory withholding.

Conclusion: The refund was validly withheld under Section 54(11); the issue was decided against the assessee.