Issues: (i) Whether recipients claiming input tax credit could seek relief under the specified GST circulars upon establishing payment of tax by their suppliers; (ii) whether the time for furnishing the September return and claiming input tax credit for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2022 must be treated as 30 November; (iii) whether Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): Whether recipients claiming input tax credit could seek relief under the specified GST circulars upon establishing payment of tax by their suppliers.

Analysis: The circulars were issued to address bona fide claims and implementation-related errors during the initial GST period, when GSTR-2A was unavailable. They permit examination of claims where the supplier's payment of tax to the Government is established.

Conclusion: Eligible recipients may have their claims examined and processed under Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the time for furnishing the September return and claiming input tax credit for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.11.2022 must be treated as 30 November.

Analysis: The amendment extending the September-return deadline was held procedural and intended to alleviate initial GST compliance difficulties. It was therefore applied retrospectively for the relevant period.

Conclusion: For eligible persons who furnished the September return on or before 30 November, the input tax credit claim must be processed and cannot be rejected merely because the return was not furnished by 20 October. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The challenge to the validity of these input tax credit conditions was rejected.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are constitutionally valid. This is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Input tax credit claims falling within the circular-based relief or the retrospectively applied September-return deadline require consideration on their individual merits, while the statutory validity challenge fails.

Issues: Whether the writ petition was entertainable despite the statutory remedy under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; whether the Authorized Officer had valid "reason to believe" on the basis of material in possession to issue the provisional attachment order; and whether property acquired before the scheduled offence could nevertheless be attached as equivalent value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The Court held that though an alternative remedy existed before the Adjudicating Authority and appellate forums under the Act, writ jurisdiction could still be exercised where the challenge went to the root of jurisdiction. On the materials referred to in the provisional attachment order, the Court found that the Authorized Officer had before him relevant investigation material, statements, seized documents, GST records and financial trail evidence sufficient to form the requisite belief that proceeds of crime were in possession of the persons concerned and were likely to be dealt with in a manner frustrating confiscation. The Court also found that the attached immovable properties, though purchased before the scheduled offence, could be brought within attachment because the attachment was directed against the value of proceeds of crime already traced into the formal financial system and not confined only to the original asset in its first form. On the contention that the recorded reasons could not form part of the attachment order, the Court held that the statute and rules did not prohibit disclosure of such reasons in the order and that inclusion of the reasons did not by itself vitiate jurisdiction.

Outcome: The Court found no merit in the challenge to the provisional attachment order on the issues considered, but, to maintain judicial consistency, referred two questions concerning the confidentiality and disclosure of the recorded reasons to a larger bench and directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of that bench.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice proposing cancellation of GST registration should be considered and decided expeditiously.

Outcome: Direction issued to the Proper Officer to consider the reply and pass an order under the applicable statutory provisions.

Issues: Whether DGCA-recognised Aircraft Maintenance Engineering training conducted by a registered training centre was liable to service tax as commercial training and coaching service before and after 2012.

Analysis: Rule 133B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 recognises the institute as a registered training centre. Under Rule 61 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, candidates completing AME certification from a recognised training institute receive a one-year relaxation in the prescribed practical-training requirement. The AME programme and certification were therefore recognised by law as an educational qualification.

Conclusion: The DGCA-recognised AME training was exempt from service tax, and the demand under commercial training and coaching service was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand.

Analysis: Extended limitation requires fraud, collusion, wilful suppression, or misstatement of facts. The regular ST-3 and ER-1 returns disclosed the trading activity, the abatement claimed under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, service-tax payments, and excise-duty payments. The necessary facts were therefore available to the Department, and the allegation of suppression or misstatement was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable and the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether demand based on a show-cause notice served after the limitation period, including the applicable pandemic-related extension, is sustainable; (ii) Whether the difference between the VAT return and ST-3 returns established an unreported taxable receipt.

Issue (i): Whether demand based on a show-cause notice served after the limitation period, including the applicable pandemic-related extension, is sustainable.

Analysis: The notice, though signed on 31.12.2020, was shown by postal records to have been booked on 15.01.2021. The operative service was treated as beyond the permissible limitation period, even after accounting for the relevant pandemic-related extension.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was time-barred and the demand founded upon it was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference between the VAT return and ST-3 returns established an unreported taxable receipt.

Analysis: The receipts reflected in the VAT return for the financial year were found to correspond with payments disclosed through the two ST-3 returns covering the relevant financial periods. The financial records therefore did not support the alleged differential taxable value.

Conclusion: No unreported taxable receipt or sustainable differential demand was established, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of service-tax demand, interest and penalties could not survive because the initiating notice was barred by limitation and the alleged discrepancy in receipts was not borne out by the returns.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand initiated through a show-cause notice served beyond the applicable limitation period is unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the disputed engineering, testing, recruitment, training, information technology, professional, travel and captive-power-plant related services qualified as input services for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: For the period before 1 April 2011, the definition of input service contained distinct and independent limbs. A service satisfying the inclusive limb could not be denied credit merely because it lacked a direct nexus with manufacture. The disputed services facilitated and were integrally connected with the manufacturing business, including pre-manufacturing, manufacturing and post-manufacturing operations. For the post-amendment period, the services continued to have a direct or indirect nexus with manufacture and clearance, and none fell within the exclusion clause.

Analysis: Services connected with the captive power plant remained linked to manufacture where nearly all electricity generated was used in manufacturing operations and only a minimal portion was supplied to the workers' colony. The ground relating to such supply was also absent from the show cause notice. The adverse inference regarding ISD invoices was inapplicable because credit had not been taken on ISD invoices. Further, a denial based on invalid or non-co-relatable documents could not be sustained where that allegation was not contained in the show cause notice and no invoice-wise particulars were identified.

Conclusion: The disputed services qualified as input services, and CENVAT credit was admissible.

Issues: Whether the ex parte GST assessment should be set aside to enable the dealer to substantiate its claim for margin-based taxation of second-hand goods.

Analysis: The claim that only the margin on sales of second-hand mobile phones was taxable under Rule 32(5) required examination on supporting records. In the circumstances, a fresh opportunity to file a reply and produce documents was warranted. The usual requirement of depositing a portion of the disputed tax was not imposed in view of the margin-taxation contention.

Outcome: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal after permitting the dealer to file a reply and supporting documents.

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged excess availment of CENVAT credit required fresh verification after accounting for the opening credit balance, import-of-service tax credit and correct ST-3 figures; (ii) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on the disputed input services; (iii) Whether reimbursable expenses received during April 2010 to September 2011 were includible in the taxable value; (iv) Whether service tax could be demanded solely on the difference between turnover in financial statements and ST-3 returns; (v) Whether penalty for delayed payment of service tax on services supplied to an SEZ unit was sustainable; and (vi) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged excess availment of CENVAT credit required fresh verification after accounting for the opening credit balance, import-of-service tax credit and correct ST-3 figures.

Analysis: The computation omitted the opening balance of credit and did not account for tax paid on imported services that was claimed as credit. The ST-3 credit figure for February 2011 also required verification. These matters required reconciliation with the appellant's supporting records.

Conclusion: The excess-credit demand is remanded for fresh verification and may be confirmed, if any remains, only for the normal period. This is in favour of the assessee to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on the disputed input services.

Analysis: Professional, housekeeping, security, maintenance and repair services bore the required nexus with the output service and were covered by the applicable input-service principles. General insurance and health-check-up services for employees were eligible for the period before 01.04.2011. The Singapore group-booking claim required supporting evidence to establish that the expenditure formed part of business-promotion activity.

Conclusion: Credit on the other disputed services, including general insurance and health check-up before 01.04.2011, is admissible; the Singapore group-booking credit is remanded for verification. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reimbursable expenses received during April 2010 to September 2011 were includible in the taxable value.

Analysis: For the relevant pre-amendment period, reimbursable expenses could be excluded from the service-tax liability.

Conclusion: The demand on reimbursable expenses is unsustainable. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether service tax could be demanded solely on the difference between turnover in financial statements and ST-3 returns.

Analysis: Financial statements reflected turnover on accrual basis, whereas service-tax returns reflected receipts. In the absence of classification and other material establishing taxable receipts, a mechanical comparison of figures under the two distinct accounting bases could not sustain a demand.

Conclusion: The turnover-difference demand is unsustainable. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalty for delayed payment of service tax on services supplied to an SEZ unit was sustainable.

Analysis: The delayed payment arose from a bona fide belief regarding the SEZ exemption. Upon the service recipient's failure to furnish necessary documents, the tax and interest were paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, constituting reasonable cause.

Conclusion: Penalty is not sustainable under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable.

Analysis: Regular ST-3 filings and prior departmental audit established departmental awareness of the appellant's activities. Most substantive demands failed, while the remaining excess-credit issue required verification.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period and the associated penalties are unsustainable. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The SEZ service-tax liability and appropriation of tax and interest already paid remain intact, while the remaining surviving credit questions require fresh adjudication confined to the normal period.

Ratio Decidendi: Reimbursable expenses in the pre-amendment period cannot be included in taxable value, and differences between accrual-based financial accounts and receipt-based service-tax returns alone cannot found a service-tax demand.

Issues: Whether interim protection against coercive recovery should operate pending the petitioner's recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: As the impugned order was appealable and an efficacious remedy before the GSTAT was available, the petitioner was directed to file a statutory appeal within the stipulated period. The period during which the writ petition remained pending was directed to be excluded in computing limitation. Pending disposal of that appeal, protection against coercive recovery was granted. No final adjudication on the validity of the impugned order took place.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to pursue the statutory appeal, accompanied by interim restraint on coercive recovery until disposal of that appeal.

Issues: Whether the municipal certificate dated 11.06.2010 validly established completion of the construction project before 01.07.2010 for determining service-tax liability.

Analysis: The certificate was issued after site verification by a technical person authorized by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and recorded that the building had been completed in all respects. The municipal authorities subsequently issued a formal completion certificate on the basis of that certification. The later formal approval was treated as procedural certification and did not displace the actual completion recorded on 11.06.2010.

Conclusion: The certificate dated 11.06.2010 was valid evidence of completion of the project; the service-tax demand, interest and penalty based on its rejection were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a single composite assessment order covering more than one financial year is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017.

Analysis: A composite show-cause notice or assessment order cannot cover more than one tax period where assessment is undertaken before the annual-return due date, or more than one year where that due date has been reached. The assessment in question covered April 2019 to March 2024 through a single order and was therefore contrary to this requirement.

Conclusion: The composite assessment order was invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee; fresh proceedings may be initiated separately for each assessment year.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration should be set aside and the registration revived.

Analysis: The matter was governed by the conditions prescribed for revival of cancelled GST registrations. Revival required filing pending pre-cancellation returns and payment of outstanding tax, interest, penalty, fine and late fee in cash; any input tax credit could be utilised only after scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. Returns and GST liability for the post-cancellation period were also required to be discharged in cash.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside in favour of the assessee, with revival of registration upon compliance with the prescribed conditions.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could dismiss an assessee's appeal because its authorised representative was not dressed in accordance with the standard operating procedure for virtual hearing.

Analysis: Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 required the Tribunal, upon non-appearance of the appellant, to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent. The Rules contained no provision authorising dismissal merely because the authorised representative was not in proper dress for a virtual hearing.

Conclusion: The dismissal on the stated ground was impermissible; the appeal was restored to the Tribunal for disposal on merits.

Issues: Whether execution and operation of the sentences imposed for contravention of securities-law requirements should be suspended pending the appeals.

Analysis: The applications raised arguable questions concerning repeated prosecution on the basis of the same summons, the applicable punishment at the time of the alleged 1998 violation, the permissible quantum of fine where no maximum is prescribed, and whether the applicants were directors of the company. The pre-2002 statutory punishment and the disputed status of the applicants warranted interim protection; a fine without a prescribed maximum could not be exorbitant.

Conclusion: Suspension of the sentences pending appeal was warranted, in favour of the appellants.

Issues: Whether the levy and computation of interest under sections 234A and 234B can be challenged in appeal, and whether an appellate authority may dismiss such appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating it on merits.

Analysis: Interest under sections 234A and 234B is statutory and mandatory, but its levy and computational correctness remain open to appellate challenge. The appellate authority has jurisdiction to determine both chargeability and computation; rectification is not the exclusive remedy. An appellate order must comply with section 250(6) by identifying the points for determination, recording the decision and giving reasons. Dismissal for non-appearance without examining the assessment record or independently deciding the issue on merits is unsustainable, notwithstanding the assessee's failure to respond to notices.

Conclusion: The appellate authority's ex parte dismissal was invalid; the matter was restored for fresh merits adjudication of the interest issue after affording both sides an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained on the ground of non-furnishing of consecutive returns when that ground was not stated in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The show-cause notice alleged fraudulent registration, issuance of invoices without supply, and non-conduct of business from the declared premises. The cancellation order, however, proceeded on non-furnishing of six consecutive returns, a distinct ground under Rule 21(h) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Cancellation on a ground for which no prior notice was given denied the registered person an opportunity to respond to the case proposed against it.

Conclusion: The cancellation founded on an unnotified ground was invalid; the cancellation order and show-cause notice were quashed and the GST registration stood restored, without prejudice to issuance of a fresh, properly particularised notice in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the Assessing Officer could reject the registered valuer's estimate of the cost of improvement and compute capital gains without referring the valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer.

Analysis: The assessee's claim for indexed cost of improvement was supported by a registered valuer's report. Section 55A permits a reference to the Valuation Officer where the Assessing Officer considers the value claimed on the basis of such report to be at variance with fair market value. Having disputed the estimate as excessive and unsupported, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain a valuation reference rather than reject the claimed improvement cost outright. The rejection without such reference was inconsistent with the applicable valuation mechanism.

Conclusion: The rejection of the registered valuer's report and the treatment of the cost of improvement as nil without a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer were invalid; the claimed cost of improvement as per the report must be allowed and capital gains recomputed accordingly.

Issues: Whether exemption under Notification No. 85/2004-Cus dated 31.08.2004 could be denied by disbelieving the Certificate of Origin for gold jewellery imported from Thailand without following the prescribed verification procedure.

Analysis: The preferential tariff treatment required production of a Certificate of Origin issued by Thailand's designated authority. The applicable origin rules permitted the importing customs authority to seek retroactive verification where it entertained doubt about the certificate's authenticity or the stated origin, with a response to be obtained from the issuing authority within the stipulated period. The Revenue did not follow that procedure and instead independently rejected the certificate on its own assessment of value addition.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied without following the prescribed verification procedure; denial of the notification benefit and the penalty on the partner were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the money-laundering prosecution for want of prima facie material connecting her with the alleged offence.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the assessment is confined to whether the record discloses a prima facie case and raises strong suspicion; it does not permit a roving enquiry or weighing of evidence as at trial. The materials showed that, notwithstanding the claimed resignation from the trust, the petitioner signed the loan-sanction documents as a trustee, mortgaged property for the loan, and was linked to the alleged diversion and laundering of loan proceeds. These materials justified continuation of the prosecution.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge; prima facie material supported the charge of money laundering.