Issues: Whether the demand of differential customs duty and penalties could survive where the differential duty had been paid before issuance of the show cause notice and the requirements of Section 28(5) stood satisfied.

Analysis: The admitted payment of the entire differential customs duty before issuance of the show cause notice attracted the statutory consequence under Section 28(6). On satisfaction of the payment requirements under Section 28(5), the proceedings were deemed conclusive. The facts were identical to those previously decided concerning the same show cause notice.

Conclusion: The proceedings stood concluded before issuance of the show cause notice; the demand and penalties could not be sustained. The issue was decided in favour of the assessees.

Issues: (i) Whether the foreign visa-processing services were intermediary services and their place of provision was outside India; (ii) Whether visa fees paid to the UAE Government through the foreign service provider were includible in taxable value; (iii) Whether invocation of the extended limitation period and the penalty consequences were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the foreign visa-processing services were intermediary services and their place of provision was outside India.

Analysis: Rule 3 fixes the place of provision at the recipient's location, while application of Rule 9 depended on the services being intermediary services. Intermediary status requires facilitation of a supply between two distinct parties. The service arrangement was bilateral: the UAE Government was not a party to it, the foreign provider performed services for the assessee, and consideration was paid by the assessee to that provider. The agreement also prohibited assignment to a third party without consent.

Conclusion: The services were not intermediary services; their place of provision was in India and service tax was payable under reverse charge. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether visa fees paid to the UAE Government through the foreign service provider were includible in taxable value.

Analysis: Only the amount paid as remuneration for the foreign provider's services constituted consideration for those services. Visa fees paid to the UAE Government through that provider were not consideration for the provider's service.

Conclusion: Visa fees paid to the UAE Government are excluded from taxable value; tax is chargeable only on the service charges paid to the foreign service provider. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of the extended limitation period and the penalty consequences were sustainable.

Analysis: Receipt of the foreign services had not been disclosed and was detected only during audit. The cross-border service transaction would not otherwise have come to the department's notice.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period is sustainable; interest and the penalty under Section 78 are to be recalculated on the revised tax liability. Against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxable base is confined to the service charges paid for the foreign provider's services, and the consequential fiscal liability is to be recalculated on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Intermediary status requires facilitation between two distinct parties in a tripartite supply; a bilateral arrangement under which a provider performs services for its recipient is not an intermediary service.

Issues: Whether the relevant date for the two-year limitation for refund of Kerala Flood Cess mistakenly paid through Form GSTR-3B is the date of the original erroneous payment or the date of payment into the correct cess account.

Analysis: Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes a two-year limitation for refund claims. Where Kerala Flood Cess was initially paid through Form GSTR-3B instead of the prescribed Form KFC-A, the relevant date for limitation is the date on which the cess was subsequently remitted into the correct account. The refund application was filed within two years of that payment.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the refund application was within limitation, and its rejection as time-barred was unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the 10-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was valid; (iii) Whether approval under Section 151 was validly granted; (iv) Whether the land's status as a capital asset could be determined using the existing distance certificate; (v) Whether indexed cost of acquisition was allowable; and (vi) Whether the claimed residential-investment deduction under Section 54F required fresh verification.

Issue (i): Whether the 10-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The short delay was supported by medical material, advanced age, illiteracy, and absence of mala fides or gross negligence. Substantial justice outweighed technical considerations.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was valid.

Analysis: Information showing sale of immovable property for a substantial amount, coupled with non-filing of a return and an unsubstantiated exemption claim, supplied a live link for forming a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment. Conclusive evidence was not required at the stage of reopening, and the notice was issued within the applicable six-year period. The burden to establish a capital-gains exemption rested on the assessee.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings under Sections 147 and 148 were valid, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether approval under Section 151 was validly granted.

Analysis: Detailed reasons for reopening had been recorded before the sanctioning authority granted approval. The material demonstrated due application of mind to those reasons.

Conclusion: The approval under Section 151 was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the land's status as a capital asset could be determined using the existing distance certificate.

Analysis: Agricultural land outside the prescribed distance from municipal limits is excluded from the definition of capital asset. The municipal limits of Gurgaon stood expanded before the relevant transfer. The Tehsildar's certificate, founded on a private report measuring distance from the former municipal-council limits of 1996 rather than the municipal-corporation limits prevailing on the transfer date, was not reliable for this determination.

Conclusion: The existing distance certificate was rejected; the Assessing Officer must determine the relevant distance from the expanded municipal limits on the transfer date and decide the land's taxability afresh after admitting and evaluating the evidence.

Issue (v): Whether indexed cost of acquisition was allowable.

Analysis: An indexed-cost claim in respect of inherited or ancestral land is admissible in principle, but requires supporting material regarding acquisition and cost.

Conclusion: The indexed-cost claim must be verified and allowed by the Assessing Officer on merits in accordance with law, to the extent established by evidence.

Issue (vi): Whether the claimed residential-investment deduction under Section 54F required fresh verification.

Analysis: The asserted investment in a residential plot and construction required verification against the statutory conditions for the claimed exemption, with the burden of proof resting on the assessee.

Conclusion: The Section 54F claim must be examined and allowed by the Assessing Officer on merits in accordance with law, if the statutory conditions are proved.

Final Conclusion: The validity of reopening and sanction remains undisturbed, while the land's capital-asset status and taxability, together with the indexed-cost and Section 54F claims, require fresh merits determination on admissible evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where capital-asset status of agricultural land depends on its distance from municipal limits, the distance must be assessed with reference to the municipal boundaries in force on the date of transfer; evidence founded on superseded boundaries is insufficient.

Issues: Whether cash deposits in bank accounts during the demonetization period could be treated as unexplained money where the Revenue accepted other credits in the same accounts as business turnover.

Analysis: Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only where its statutory ingredients are established. The admitted business activity and the acceptance of other credits in the same bank accounts as business turnover constituted an apparent source for the cash deposits. No independent source, abnormality in the business, or positive material was identified to establish that the deposits were unconnected with the business. Deposit during the demonetization period, by itself, did not change the character of a business receipt or establish unexplained money. Where turnover is accepted as business receipts, ordinarily only the profit embedded in it can be assessed; the gross receipts cannot additionally be assessed as unexplained money without evidence of an independent source. An assessment under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must remain fair and based on relevant material, rather than conjecture or presumption.

Conclusion: The cash deposits formed part of business receipts and could not be assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the separate addition was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether notices of personal hearing were served upon the appellant so as to afford a valid opportunity of hearing under Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Issuance of hearing notices, without any acknowledgement or other material proving their service, did not establish service upon the appellant. The appellant's appearance through counsel before the same appellate authority in another matter between the same parties on the same date corroborated that it had not received notice in this matter. The Tribunal decided the interest dispute on merits without addressing the appellant's challenge to the denial of hearing.

Conclusion: The hearing notices were not served and the appellant was denied an opportunity of hearing. The appellant's claim is to be reconsidered afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issues: Whether sales tax subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010, through VAT/CST challans, is includible in the assessable value of excisable goods.

Analysis: The assessee paid the entire VAT/CST collected from customers to the State exchequer. The subsidy was subsequently sanctioned as VAT challans for discharge of future VAT/CST liability and did not reduce the sale price or amount to retention of tax collected. Such subsidy was not an additional consideration for the sale and could not form part of transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act.

Conclusion: The sales tax subsidy is not includible in the assessable value; no excise duty or penalty is payable by the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition for undervaluation of closing stock, based on the difference between the assessee's stated net realisable value and the market realisable value, was sustainable despite the plea of consistent adoption of the net realisable value method.

Analysis: Closing stock is required to be valued at cost or market value, whichever is lower. The rate adopted by the assessee as net realisable value was unsupported by material establishing its basis, whereas the rate adopted by the Assessing Officer was derived from market realisation data and was lower than cost. The dispute concerned the appropriate realisable-value rate, not a change in the valuation method. The plea of consistency was therefore unavailable. The findings on valuation by the appellate authorities were concurrent findings of fact and disclosed no substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The addition for undervaluation of closing stock was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Validity of the service-tax demands where the show cause notice did not provide a year-wise or category-wise break-up and cable-laying alongside or under roads was treated as taxable erection, commissioning and installation service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the alleged non-payment of service tax.

Issue (i): Validity of the service-tax demands where the show cause notice did not provide a year-wise or category-wise break-up and cable-laying alongside or under roads was treated as taxable erection, commissioning and installation service.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not disclose the basis, taxable value, or year-wise and category-wise bifurcation of the demands, rendering the proposed demands vague. Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU clarifies that an activity not resulting in erection, installation or commissioning of the specified plant, machinery, equipment or structure falls outside erection, commissioning and installation service; it specifically treats laying of cables under or alongside roads as non-taxable.

Conclusion: The service-tax demands were unsustainable and were decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the alleged non-payment of service tax.

Analysis: The transactions were recorded in regular books, undertaken through banking channels, and reflected in financial statements disclosed to governmental authorities. The non-payment was disclosed at the inspection stage as arising from a bona fide understanding of taxability, supported by the subsequent departmental clarification. No suppression, fraud, mala fides, concealment, or misstatement was established, and the dispute was interpretational.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal liabilities founded on the vague notice and time-barred extended-period allegation could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned where the order-in-original was uploaded on the common portal without the petitioner acquiring knowledge of it within the prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 binds the Appellate Authority to the prescribed limitation. However, the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, namely absence of knowledge of the ex parte order uploaded on the portal. Denial of adjudication on merits in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The principles concerning portal-only service and restoration of the appellate remedy were adopted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the petitioner is entitled to have its appeal entertained and adjudicated on merits.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal could be condoned where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were not effectively served through the designated portal tab.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 restricts the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay. However, the notice and order were stated to have been uploaded under an incorrect portal tab, and recovery action was initiated only much later. The circumstances supported the assessee's plea that it lacked effective knowledge of the proceedings and could not timely pursue its statutory remedy. Non-adjudication on merits in those circumstances would cause serious prejudice.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the assessee is entitled to have its appeal entertained and adjudicated on merits if filed within the stipulated period.

Issues: Whether delay in filing a GST appeal could be condoned where the assessee lacked effective knowledge of the show-cause notice and adjudication order due to their uploading under a non-designated portal tab.

Analysis: The statutory appellate authority was bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the GST enactments and could not condone delay beyond the prescribed extent. However, the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the assessee's control: the show-cause notice was uploaded under 'Additional Notices and Orders' rather than the designated 'Notices and Orders' tab, resulting in absence of effective knowledge and an ex parte demand. Consistent with the adopted view that portal uploading alone does not constitute sufficient service in the absence of acknowledgement or response, denial of a merits adjudication would cause grave prejudice.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeal was directed to be entertained and adjudicated on merits. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether revaluation surplus received by a retiring partner was exempt as the partner's share in the total income of the firm and, if not, whether it was taxable in the partner's hands.

Analysis: Section 10(2A) applies only to a partner's share in the total income of the firm. The revaluation surplus credited and received on retirement did not qualify as such share of total income. For the relevant assessment year, the revaluation and consequent distribution of enhanced asset value attracted Section 45(4), under which the resulting capital gains were chargeable in the hands of the partnership firm. The CBDT circular also clarified that a firm's income is taxable in the hands of the firm and not its partners.

Conclusion: The exemption under Section 10(2A) was unavailable; however, the revaluation surplus was not taxable in the hands of the partner/assessee, and the addition was deleted.

Issues: Whether construction work undertaken for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited is taxable as construction of residential complex service.

Analysis: The established decisions on the identical issue were applied. The departmental circular relied upon for confirming the demand did not support a result contrary to those decisions.

Conclusion: Such construction work is not taxable as construction of residential complex service; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Delay condoned; notice issued; High Court judgment and order stayed pending final disposal.

Issues: (i) Whether receipts of Rs. 14.50 crore and Rs. 6.50 crore under land-related MoUs were taxable income or non-taxable advances; (ii) Whether Rs. 82.50 lakh represented unexplained credits; (iii) Whether a separate addition of Rs. 1 crore for cash received from the developer was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether receipts of Rs. 14.50 crore and Rs. 6.50 crore under land-related MoUs were taxable income or non-taxable advances.

Analysis: An amount claimed to be an advance received for co-owners must be supported by material establishing the co-owners' entitlement, the arrangement with them, and the character of the receipt. No evidence established the alleged other successors or any agreement with them; the receipts were not distributed and were used exclusively by the assessee. The MoU further provided that the amount would not be repayable even if title was determined adversely.

Conclusion: The receipts were income and not advances; the additions were sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Rs. 82.50 lakh represented unexplained credits.

Analysis: The additions comprised bank credits for which the stated sources and confirmations did not fully reconcile. No material was produced to controvert the assessment findings or substantiate the explanation for the credits.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 82.50 lakh as unexplained credits was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a separate addition of Rs. 1 crore for cash received from the developer was sustainable.

Analysis: The cash receipt of Rs. 1 crore was acknowledged as having been received from the developer under the same MoU, while the entire Rs. 14.50 crore received under that MoU had already been separately assessed. There was no finding that the cash was received over and above that amount.

Conclusion: The separate Rs. 1 crore addition constituted a double addition and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The land-MoU receipts and unexplained bank credits remain taxable, but the cash component already forming part of the assessed MoU receipt cannot be separately taxed.

Ratio Decidendi: A receipt already included in an assessed amount cannot be subjected to a separate addition unless it is established to be over and above that assessed amount.

Issues: (i) Whether jewellery disclosed in Schedule AL could be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A; (ii) Whether brokerage paid to an HUF, in addition to identical brokerage paid to its Karta/coparcener for the same transaction, qualified as deductible cost of investment under Section 54.

Issue (i): Whether jewellery disclosed in Schedule AL could be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A.

Analysis: The addition rested on the inference that non-filing of wealth-tax returns after an earlier year established disposal of the jewellery. The assessee produced a consistent historical documentary record comprising wealth-tax returns, valuation reports, wealth-tax workings of ancestral estates and HUF, a family-distribution declaration, and a registered valuer's certification based on physical verification and past records. Non-filing of wealth-tax returns establishes at most that taxable wealth was below the applicable threshold; absent independent material of sale or disposal, it does not establish that particular jewellery was no longer held. Historical records may satisfactorily explain jewellery acquired or inherited decades earlier where contemporaneous purchase documents are unavailable. An addition under Section 69A cannot rest on suspicion or surmise where the explanation of nature and source is supported by such evidence.

Conclusion: The jewellery stood satisfactorily explained and the addition under Section 69A was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether brokerage paid to an HUF, in addition to identical brokerage paid to its Karta/coparcener for the same transaction, qualified as deductible cost of investment under Section 54.

Analysis: Brokerage for identifying property, arranging visits and negotiating terms is inherently a service based on personal skill and exertion. Income from such service belongs to the individual rendering it unless it is, in substance, a return derived from deployment or detriment of HUF funds or assets. No HUF fund or asset was shown to have been employed in earning the brokerage. The Karta/coparcener who performed the personal services had already been separately compensated for the identical transaction. Confirmation that the HUF received the further amount and offered it to tax did not establish that the HUF independently rendered additional services, and treatment of the receipt in the HUF's hands did not determine deductibility in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: The payment to the HUF was not established as genuine brokerage qualifying for deduction under Section 54, and the disallowance was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disclosed jewellery could not be assessed as unexplained money, whereas the additional brokerage routed through the HUF remained non-deductible.

Ratio Decidendi: A documented and consistent historical record can satisfactorily explain the source of jewellery for purposes of Section 69A, while remuneration for inherently personal services cannot be attributed to an HUF without a real nexus to deployment or detriment of HUF funds or assets.

Issues: Whether excess late presentation charges collected beyond the statutory cap are refundable, and whether a refund claim for such excess is maintainable under the Customs Act.

Analysis: Regulation 4(4) of the Bill of Entry (Electronic Integrated Declaration and Paperless Processing) Regulations, 2018 limits late presentation charges to the amount of duty payable. The excess collection beyond that limit could not be retained merely because the electronic system reflected a higher amount. Since late fee is levied under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, a refund claim under Section 27 is maintainable where no other refund mechanism is available. The principle of restitution requires return of an amount collected contrary to law.

Conclusion: The excess late presentation charges are refundable, and the refund application is maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of service tax paid pursuant to a demand that was subsequently set aside, in view of the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is conditional upon the claimant establishing that the burden of duty was not passed on to another person. The auditor's certificate was relevant evidence, but its contents showed that Rs. 9,09,717 had already been recovered from members, whereas Rs. 6,41,369 remained uncollected. The duty incidence stood passed on only to the extent of the amount recovered from members.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of Rs. 6,41,369, being the portion for which the duty burden had not been passed on, together with applicable interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issues: Whether a reassessment is valid where notice under Section 143(2) is issued before, rather than after, the return furnished in response to notice under Section 148.

Analysis: A notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for completing a reassessment after a return is furnished in response to Section 148. A notice issued before such return does not satisfy that requirement. Section 292BB cures defects in service, timing or manner of service of an issued notice, but does not cure the absence of a valid notice issued after the return. Non-issuance of the required notice is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was invalid for want of a valid notice under Section 143(2) issued after the return filed in response to Section 148; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.