Issues: (i) Whether the enhanced assessable value determined on the basis of departmental internal instructions was legally sustainable; (ii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable and, if so, the proper basis for determining fine and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the enhanced assessable value determined on the basis of departmental internal instructions was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Re-determination of import value must conform to the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and be based on contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Departmental internal instructions cannot support arbitrary enhancement or adoption of the highest available value. The evidence of comparable contemporaneous imports produced for lower values required consideration, with the lowest value of comparable goods forming the basis for re-determination.

Conclusion: The valuation method based on internal instructions was set aside. Value must be re-determined from the lowest value of similar contemporaneous imports, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable and, if so, the proper basis for determining fine and penalty.

Analysis: Excess quantity was found on examination and minor variations in thickness existed. However, the test results substantially corresponded with the declared GSM range, and no mala fide intent to evade duty was established. Confiscation remained attracted, but the redemption fine and penalty imposed were disproportionate and required recalculation with reference to the re-determined value and the limited nature of the infraction.

Conclusion: The goods remained liable to confiscation, against the assessee; however, redemption fine and penalty must be reduced proportionately and determined on the re-determined value, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessable value, redemption fine and penalty require fresh determination under the prescribed valuation framework and in proportion to the established contravention.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because the description of goods in the recipient's goods receipt notes differed from that in the first-stage dealer's invoices, despite documentary correlation of receipt and use of the goods.

Analysis: The invoices, purchase orders, transport documents and goods receipt notes corresponded in invoice particulars, purchase-order particulars, vehicle number and quantity. The differing description reflected that the goods were recorded as MS scrap after receipt for melting in the foundry. The identical statements attributed to two executives, without supporting documentary evidence, were insufficient to establish non-receipt of goods. Under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, credit on duty-paid goods received and used in manufacture cannot be denied solely on such mismatch in description.

Conclusion: The assessee correctly availed CENVAT credit; its denial was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid where it was founded on re-examination of material already available in the original scrutiny assessment.

Analysis: The recorded reasons showed that the Assessing Officer revisited the balance sheet, profit and loss account and other records already available during the original assessment. No fresh tangible material supported the formation of belief that income had escaped assessment. Since the reopening was beyond four years, the proviso to Section 147 required failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. The relevant land-sale and accounting particulars had been furnished during the original proceedings, and a reassessment based on their reappraisal amounted to a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 147; the reassessment was invalid. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: After four years from the relevant assessment year, reassessment cannot rest on a reappraisal of material already disclosed and examined in the original assessment without fresh tangible material and a demonstrated failure of full and true disclosure by the assessee.

Issues: Whether consideration received from sale of software licences to non-residents constitutes royalty taxable in India, requiring deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: The issue was governed by the binding principle that payment for acquisition of software without transfer of any right or interest in the copyright is not royalty. The same issue concerning the assessee had also been resolved consistently in earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: Software-sale consideration was not royalty and did not attract tax deduction at source; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Tribunal's order where the assessment order was passed by an Assessing Officer situated outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: An appeal against a Tribunal decision lies before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. The location of the assessee or subsequent centralisation of the case does not alter that appellate jurisdiction. As the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer at Coimbatore, the requisite jurisdiction did not vest in this High Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before this High Court; the appropriate jurisdictional High Court alone could entertain it.

Issues: (i) Whether the actual redemption consideration of preference shares could be substituted with the price paid for equity shares of the same company while computing capital gains; (ii) Whether an additional ground claiming a higher cost of acquisition, requiring verification of facts concerning capital reduction and consolidation of shares, could be admitted.

Issue (i): Whether the actual redemption consideration of preference shares could be substituted with the price paid for equity shares of the same company while computing capital gains.

Analysis: Section 48 requires computation on the full value of consideration actually received or accruing and does not equate that expression with fair market value. No evidence established receipt or accrual of an amount exceeding the face-value redemption amount. Section 50CA, which provides a deeming rule for certain transfers of unquoted shares, was not applicable for the relevant assessment year, while Section 50D did not apply because the consideration was ascertainable. Equity shares and preference shares carry materially different rights and could not be valued alike merely because they were issued by the same company.

Conclusion: The redemption consideration must be adopted at Rs. 100 per preference share, being the actual amount received. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an additional ground claiming a higher cost of acquisition, requiring verification of facts concerning capital reduction and consolidation of shares, could be admitted.

Analysis: The enhanced cost claim depended on facts not found or examined by the lower authorities, including original acquisition records, reduction of paid-up capital, consolidation, continuity of shares, and allocation of cost. It therefore required a fresh factual inquiry and was not a pure question of law arising from the existing record.

Conclusion: The additional ground seeking a higher cost of acquisition is not admitted and is rejected. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Capital gains computation must proceed on the actual and ascertainable redemption consideration in the absence of an applicable statutory deeming provision; a fresh factual claim for enhanced cost cannot be raised as an additional ground without an existing factual foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: Actual consideration received or accruing under Section 48 cannot be replaced by a notional value without an applicable statutory deeming provision, and an additional ground requiring investigation of new facts is not admissible as a pure question of law.

Issues: Whether a works contractor is entitled to directions for calculation and adjustment of differential tax consequent upon transition from the VAT regime to GST, including consideration of reimbursement by the employer.

Analysis: The Division Bench ruling governing the earlier guidelines confines disputes concerning the incremental GST burden to the contractor and the employer under their contractual arrangements. GST levy, assessment, recovery, interest, penalty and return filing remain governed by the applicable statutory scheme; consequently, directions affecting tax authorities or permitting revised returns contrary to statute cannot be sustained. The surviving directions require identification of pre-GST work and payments under the VAT regime, calculation of balance work after 1 July 2017, deduction of applicable VAT and service-tax components, addition of GST, submission of a comprehensive representation to the employer, and its time-bound consideration.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to pursue the prescribed representation-based process before the concerned employer for adjustment of the differential tax burden, while any challenge to the assessment order may be pursued separately in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the one-year limitation, prescribed by notification from the date of payment of Special Additional Duty, applies to claims for refund of such duty.

Analysis: Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes limitation for refund claims but does not encompass Special Additional Duty. The exemption mechanism under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus permits refund upon fulfilment of its conditions, including subsequent sale and payment of applicable sales tax or VAT. Introducing, through Notification No. 93/2008-Cus, a one-year limitation measured from payment of Special Additional Duty extends the statutory limitation regime to a duty not covered by Section 27 and affects a substantive refund right without statutory amendment.

Conclusion: The one-year limitation from the date of payment of Special Additional Duty is inapplicable to refund claims for such duty; the Tribunal's order allowing the refund claims is legally sustainable.

Issues: Whether a subcontractor providing approved taxable services for authorised operations of a Special Economic Zone unit is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 9/2009-Service Tax despite the certificate being issued in the main contractor's name and non-submission of Form A-1.

Analysis: Notification No. 9/2009-Service Tax exempts taxable services provided in relation to authorised SEZ operations. The services rendered were approved services for the authorised operations of the SEZ unit. The certificate issued to the main contractor through whom the services were supplied sufficiently established compliance with the requirement that the services be provided to an authorised person. The Form A-1 requirement was introduced only from 01.03.2011, while the demand covered a period commencing in 2009; in any event, that requirement was procedural. A minor procedural lapse could not defeat the substantive exemption.

Conclusion: The subcontractor was entitled to the SEZ service-tax exemption under Notification No. 9/2009-Service Tax, and the exemption could not be denied for non-compliance with the procedural Form A-1 requirement.

Issues: (i) Whether the sale proceeds from shares could be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A on allegations of penny-stock accommodation entries; (ii) Whether reassessment was validly initiated where the assessee had not filed a return disclosing exempt long-term capital gains.

Issue (i): Whether the sale proceeds from shares could be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A on allegations of penny-stock accommodation entries.

Analysis: The purchase and sale were through a registered broker, banking channels and the recognised stock exchange, and were supported by contract bills, bank records and demat statements. The shares were delivered through the clearing mechanism, securities transaction tax was paid on sale, and half the bonus-share holding remained unsold. No material established cash dealings, collusion with brokers or entry operators, or any link between the assessee and alleged manipulation. The assessment rested on investigation material and presumptions without independent enquiry or evidence discrediting the assessee's documents. Suspicion, however strong, could not replace legal evidence.

Conclusion: The sale proceeds could not be assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A; deletion of the addition was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment was validly initiated where the assessee had not filed a return disclosing exempt long-term capital gains.

Analysis: The undisputed non-filing of the return despite receipt of substantial long-term capital gains provided a valid basis for initiating reassessment. The exempt character claimed for the gains did not remove the obligation to disclose them in the return.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was valid; the finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition founded solely on uncorroborated allegations of accommodation entries does not survive, while the reassessment remains legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Documentary evidence of stock-exchange share transactions cannot be displaced by allegations of penny-stock manipulation without material linking the assessee to accommodation entries or cash circulation.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration should be reconsidered after a fresh show-cause notice and an effective opportunity of response.

Analysis: No merits determination was made. A fresh notice, a timely reply, consideration of that reply, and hearing where required were directed before a reasoned decision is made in accordance with law.

Outcome: The competent authority may initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a fresh show-cause notice and deciding the matter thereafter.

Issues: Whether an assessment order issued after cancellation of GST registration could be sustained where the show-cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal.

Analysis: Following cancellation of registration, the assessee had no obligation to monitor the GST portal. Service of a show-cause notice exclusively through that portal was inadequate; notice was required through an alternative mode to afford an effective opportunity of hearing. The resulting proceedings violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice invoked an incorrect statutory provision and was affected by limitation.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection and the possible applicability of a different statutory sub-clause were noted only prima facie. No final adjudication was made on the validity, jurisdiction, or limitation of the notice.

Outcome: The respondent was permitted to withdraw the impugned show-cause notice and issue a fresh notice within two weeks.

Issues: Whether a State-controlled conservation society performing sovereign environmental functions enjoys immunity from Union income taxation under Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 289(1) constitutionally exempts the property and income of a State from Union taxation, limiting the taxing field otherwise available under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The society was constituted and controlled by the State, chaired by the Chief Secretary, composed of State functionaries, and performed public conservation obligations connected with Article 48A. Its statutory conservation receipts and corpus were ring-fenced public funds, not commercial receipts, and the incidental interest was applied solely towards those public purposes. These features established the society as an instrumentality and administrative vehicle of the State; consequently, no valid charge to tax or statutory jurisdiction to treat it as an assessee arose.

Conclusion: The society is entitled to Article 289(1) immunity, and its statutory conservation receipts and related funds cannot be subjected to income tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the rejection of exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, prevented consideration of the application for attachment before judgment after the parties had unsuccessfully undergone mediation.

Analysis: The requirement for dispensation of pre-institution mediation on the ground of urgent interim relief was treated as distinct from the conditions governing attachment before judgment. The requirement of proof that the defendants intended to remove themselves or their assets from the jurisdiction pertains to the attachment application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and could not be conflated with the question of exemption from mediation. Since the parties had already been referred to mediation and the process failed to resolve the dispute, no further mediation-related impediment remained to consideration of the attachment application.

Conclusion: The Commercial Court may proceed to decide the application for attachment before judgment expeditiously and number the commercial suit if otherwise in order.

Issues: Whether the ex parte dismissal of the statutory appeal for non-appearance and the consequential garnishee notice warranted interference to enable adjudication of the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The petitioner substantiated the inability to attend the appellate proceedings by reference to the unavailability of the Chartered Accountant following a bereavement and the petitioner's subsequent hospitalisation. As factual contentions concerning input tax credit required consideration, a further opportunity to prosecute the appeal was warranted. The garnishee notice, being consequential to the dismissal of the appeal, could not continue.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate order and consequential garnishee notice were set aside, and the appeal was restored for further proceedings in accordance with law; all merits were kept open.

Issues: Whether a complainant at whose instance reassessment proceedings were initiated has locus standi to be impleaded in the writ petitions challenging those proceedings.

Analysis: The applicant was only a complainant. The challenged action was that of the Assessing Officer, who alone was required to defend it; the applicant therefore had no right to participate in the writ proceedings.

Outcome: The impleadment application was rejected; the writ petitions were directed to be listed for further hearing, with status quo on recovery and penalty proceedings maintained until replies are filed.

Issues: Whether penalty proceedings for concealment under section 271(1)(c) were validly initiated during the assessment proceedings where the reassessment accepted the returned income without addition or disallowance and the penalty notice was issued after completion of assessment.

Analysis: Section 271(1)(c) requires the Assessing Officer's satisfaction during the proceedings as the jurisdictional foundation for penalty. The deeming fiction under section 271(1B) applies only where an assessment or reassessment makes an addition or disallowance and contains a clear direction to initiate penalty. As the reassessments adopted the income returned under section 148 without any addition or disallowance, that fiction was unavailable. The statement that penalty proceedings "will be initiated separately" conveyed only a future intention, not a present satisfaction or a positive and unambiguous direction. The delayed issue of notices under section 274, after assessment proceedings had concluded, confirmed that no valid initiation occurred during those proceedings. Explanation 5A addresses deemed concealment for imposition of penalty but does not cure the absence of the anterior jurisdictional satisfaction and valid initiation.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were invalidly initiated and the penalties under section 271(1)(c) were unsustainable in law.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the orders-in-original should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy, and whether the attached bank accounts should be released pending appeal upon adequate security.

Analysis: As similarly placed noticees had been directed to pursue appeals, the petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal against the later order-in-original could be filed within one month without objection as to limitation. The Revenue's interests were treated as secured through appropriation of the statutory pre-deposit from the attached accounts and an unconditional bank guarantee for the balance amount, while permitting the petitioners to continue their business operations.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of; the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory appeal, with release of the attached bank accounts upon appropriation of pre-deposit and furnishing of bank guarantee.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge measures taken under the SARFAESI Act despite the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: Measures initiated through a demand notice and an order for assistance in taking possession are amenable to the statutory remedial mechanism before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Article 226 cannot ordinarily be used to bypass that remedy absent an extraordinary circumstance warranting writ intervention.

Conclusion: Writ jurisdiction was declined because an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.