Issues: (i) whether coercive steps for recovery of the tax demand arising from the assessment and demand notices should be stayed pending the assessee's appeal in view of the alleged clerical error in Form 3CD and the corrected figures; (ii) whether a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending tax appeal was warranted.

Issue (i): whether coercive steps for recovery of the tax demand arising from the assessment and demand notices should be stayed pending the assessee's appeal in view of the alleged clerical error in Form 3CD and the corrected figures.

Analysis: The assessee placed on record a tax auditor's certificate and the revised Form 3CD showing that the figures originally uploaded contained a technical or typographical error. The appeal against the assessment order was already pending. In the peculiar facts, the dispute regarding the corrected figures required consideration in appeal, and recovery during pendency could prejudice the assessee.

Conclusion: Coercive recovery steps were stayed during the pendency of the appeal, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether a direction for expeditious disposal of the pending tax appeal was warranted.

Analysis: Since the core dispute turned on corrected audit figures already placed before the appellate authority, early adjudication was necessary to avoid prolonged uncertainty and to enable the appellate forum to examine the controversy on merits.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and interim protection against recovery was granted while requiring speedy disposal of the assessee's pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee shows a plausible clerical or typographical error in audit reporting and the statutory appeal is pending, the Court may protect the assessee against coercive recovery pending appellate adjudication and may direct expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Issues: Whether the enhancement of assessable value of the imported Christmas lights by relying on NIDB data and re-determination of value was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The declared transaction value was rejected without valid basis or supporting evidence. There was no material to show that any amount over and above the invoice value had been paid, nor any indication that the buyer and seller were related or that the declared price was not the sole consideration. The valuation exercise was found to have been undertaken by selectively adopting data without following the proper valuation procedure under the governing customs valuation framework.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was not sustainable and the declared value was liable to be accepted. The appeal was without merit and was dismissed, with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice demanding service tax on reimbursable expenditure and alleged losses for the period prior to 14.05.2015 could be sustained by invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and the amended Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The dispute related to the period from Financial Year 2012-13 to 2014-15, when the valuation of taxable services was governed by the unamended regime. The settled position, as applied by the Court, is that Rule 5(1) cannot enlarge the scope of Section 67, since subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the parent statute. The later amendment to Section 67, which expressly brought reimbursable expenditure or cost within consideration, was treated as a substantive change operating prospectively from 14.05.2015. As the impugned notice proceeded on a basis held to be ultra vires for the relevant period, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled, in writ proceedings, to reimbursement of GST allegedly paid in respect of works contracts entered into prior to the GST regime, and whether such claim could be adjudicated on the facts pleaded.

Outcome: The petition was dismissed as the claim was held to be a contractual issue involving disputed questions of fact, and no adjudication on the reimbursement claim was undertaken in these proceedings.

Issues: Whether the addition made on account of cash deposits in the assessee's bank account could be deleted by treating the deposits as business receipts and estimating income at 8% of the disclosed turnover, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The assessee had made substantial cash deposits in the bank account, but no material was produced to establish that the deposits were sourced from travel agency receipts. The first appellate authority itself found deficiencies in the books and receipts-and-payments account, including the absence of proper audit and statutory compliance, yet proceeded to infer that the deposits formed part of business turnover and that the income element was already covered by estimating profit at 8%. The absence of reliable evidence linking the deposits to business receipts made the deletion of the addition unsustainable. The record also did not show whether the deposits were passed on to principals or travel operators in the normal course of business, which was a material factual enquiry.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. If the assessee establishes that the cash deposits formed part of business receipts, the addition is to be confined only to the income element of those receipts.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded to the extent that the appellate deletion was vacated and the issue was restored for fresh decision, with the assessee given an opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: Cash deposits cannot be treated as business turnover and the corresponding addition cannot be deleted on a mere estimated-profit basis unless the assessee produces reliable evidence establishing that the deposits are in fact business receipts.

Issues: Whether the transfer of the assessee's case from one Assessing Officer to another within the same city, without prior notice or hearing, was valid under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessment order passed by the transferee officer was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 127 permits transfer of a case from one Assessing Officer to another and sub-section (3) dispenses with the requirement of prior opportunity of hearing where the transfer is between officers situated in the same city, locality or place. The transfers in question were made within the same city, and the assessment proceedings were continued after valid notices had already been issued. Section 127(4) also clarifies that transfer at any stage does not require re-issue of notices already issued or invalidate proceedings already undertaken.

Conclusion: The transfer orders were valid and in conformity with Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment order passed by the transferee officer was not without jurisdiction, and the writ petition failed.

Issues: (i) Whether a return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the stipulated time remains a valid return for reassessment proceedings; (ii) whether notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before framing reassessment after such return is filed; (iii) whether the reassessment framed without issuing notice under section 143(2) can be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether a return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 beyond the stipulated time remains a valid return for reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: A return filed pursuant to notice under section 148 is to be treated as a return required to be furnished under section 139 for the purposes of further assessment proceedings. Delay in filing such return does not, by itself, render it non est when the reassessment proceedings are still pending in the statutory hierarchy.

Conclusion: Yes. The delayed return filed in response to notice under section 148 remained a valid return for the reassessment proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before framing reassessment after such return is filed.

Analysis: Once a return is furnished in response to notice under section 148, the assessing authority must apply the reassessment machinery in the same manner as a return filed under section 139. The requirement of notice under section 143(2) is therefore attracted and is not a mere procedural formality. Failure to issue such notice deprives the assessment of valid jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Yes. Issuance of notice under section 143(2) was mandatory.

Issue (iii): Whether the reassessment framed without issuing notice under section 143(2) can be sustained.

Analysis: In the absence of the mandatory notice under section 143(2), the reassessment was framed without valid assumption of jurisdiction. The assessment could not be saved by the revenue's objection regarding delayed return in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: No. The reassessment was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge, the reassessment was annulled, and the remaining grounds were left open without adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A return filed in response to notice under section 148 must be treated as a return for assessment purposes, and the Assessing Officer must issue notice under section 143(2) before completing reassessment; omission of that notice vitiates the reassessment for want of valid jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant for GCPL amounted to manufacture or a taxable service and, if manufacture, whether service tax could be demanded under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The activity was carried out under an arrangement where raw material, machinery and technical know-how were provided by GCPL, while the appellant used its own labour and factory premises and raised charges on a per piece basis. The manufactured goods were cleared on payment of central excise duty by GCPL. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical Godrej-related processing/manufacturing arrangements and held that the substance of the transaction was manufacture and not provision of business support service. Once the activity fell within manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it could not be taxed again as a service, including under the negative list regime.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax was unsustainable and was set aside; the appeal succeeded.

Issues: (i) Whether a service tax demand could be sustained when it was founded on Form 26AS and the adjudicating authority did not independently examine the nature of the services rendered or record the statutory preconditions for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (ii) Whether the consequential interest, penalties and bank account attachment notices could survive after the principal demand was found unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a service tax demand could be sustained when it was founded on Form 26AS and the adjudicating authority did not independently examine the nature of the services rendered or record the statutory preconditions for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The demand was based only on information reflected in Form 26AS. The record showed that the petitioner was engaged as a sub-contractor in infrastructure works and relied on exemption available to such works contract services. The adjudicating authority did not record any finding of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax, which are necessary for invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1). Without those preconditions, the assumption of jurisdiction to raise the demand was unauthorized.

Conclusion: The service tax demand was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential interest, penalties and bank account attachment notices could survive after the principal demand was found unsustainable.

Analysis: Once the foundational demand failed, the connected levy of interest and penalties also could not stand. The recovery notices attaching the petitioner's bank accounts were only consequential to the impugned demand and therefore lacked an independent basis after the demand was quashed.

Conclusion: The interest, penalties and recovery notices were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order-in-original and the recovery notices were annulled, and the attached bank accounts were directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot be sustained on the basis of Form 26AS alone unless the adjudicating authority independently determines taxability and records the statutory conditions required to invoke the extended limitation period; absent such findings, the demand and all consequential levies are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether GST registration cancelled for non-filing of returns could be restored on the petitioner furnishing all pending returns and paying the tax dues, interest and late fee in terms of the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Analysis: The cancellation had been made for continuous non-filing of returns under Section 29(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court followed the coordinate bench view that where the registered person cures the default by filing the pending returns and making full payment of the tax dues along with applicable interest and late fee, the proper officer may drop the cancellation proceedings and consider restoration of registration in accordance with law. The Court treated the present case as covered by that earlier decision and extended the same relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to apply for restoration of GST registration within 60 days, and upon compliance with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, the authority was required to consider restoration and take necessary steps in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 was required to be issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 after the declarant had filed declarations, received Form 3, and made payment within time, despite the payment being wrongly clubbed against Assessment Year 2014-15 because of a portal error.

Analysis: The petitioner had filed declarations for both assessment years and had paid the amounts computed in Form 3. The respondents accepted that the payment for Assessment Year 2015-16 was reflected against Assessment Year 2014-15 due to a technical error in the portal, and also conceded that the petitioner remained eligible for issuance of Form 5 for Assessment Year 2015-16. Once the conditions of the scheme were satisfied, issuance of Form 5 was not discretionary. The Department could not rely on its own technical error to deny the benefit of the scheme to an otherwise eligible declarant.

Conclusion: The respondents were bound to rectify the payment mismatch, delink the payment for Assessment Year 2015-16 from Assessment Year 2014-15, and issue Form 5 for Assessment Year 2015-16 on verification of the challan.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2020-21 was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a); (ii) Whether the notice could be sustained under the extended period under Section 149(1)(b) on the basis that the escaped income amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2020-21 was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a).

Analysis: The outer limit for issuance of notice for the relevant assessment year had expired, and the notice was issued after the period permitted by Section 149(1)(a) read with the applicable proviso. The validity of the notice therefore depended entirely on whether the case fell within the extended time-limit regime.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(a).

Issue (ii): Whether the notice could be sustained under the extended period under Section 149(1)(b) on the basis that the escaped income amounted to or was likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer quantified the alleged escaped income at Rs. 36,78,000/- and Rs. 6,04,295/-, making a total of Rs. 42,82,295/-. The jurisdictional threshold under Section 149(1)(b) was not met on the basis of the material and quantification recorded in the order under Section 148A(3), and the revenue could not rely on figures beyond the recorded reasons to enlarge jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The extended period under Section 149(1)(b) was unavailable, and the notice could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the order under Section 148A(3) were set aside, and all consequential proceedings stood quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction to issue a reassessment notice beyond the normal limitation period must be founded on the income quantified in the recorded reasons, and the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) is unavailable unless the recorded material itself shows escaped income meeting the statutory threshold.

Issues: Whether Supro XT 40, an isolated soy protein product containing calcium phosphate and lecithin, is classifiable under tariff item 3504 00 91 or 3504 00 99, or whether it falls under tariff item 2106 10 00 as a protein concentrate or textured protein substance.

Analysis: The tariff classification was determined by applying the General Rules for Interpretation, the relevant Chapter Notes, and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The product was found to be a formulated protein-based preparation designed for nutritional fortification of food and beverages, and not a protein isolate in the sense required for Heading 3504. The protein content criterion for protein isolates was held not to be satisfied on the material accepted in the record, and the added calcium phosphate was treated as a functional ingredient that gave the goods the character of a prepared nutritional product. Heading 2106 was held to specifically cover protein concentrates and textured protein substances, and the goods were considered more appropriately described by that heading than by Heading 3504.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under tariff item 2106 10 00 and not under tariff item 3504 00 91 or 3504 00 99.

Issues: (i) whether the disputes relating to transfer of the deceased's shares in the company should be pursued before the National Company Law Tribunal and whether the maintainability objection under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 would be raised; (ii) whether the reliefs concerning the deceased's shares in the two partnership firms required fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge; and (iii) whether the Court Receiver should continue and be extended to the balance shares and estate properties.

Issue (i): whether the disputes relating to transfer of the deceased's shares in the company should be pursued before the National Company Law Tribunal and whether the maintainability objection under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 would be raised.

Analysis: The dispute concerning transfer and legality of the deceased's shareholding was permitted to be agitated before the National Company Law Tribunal in the pending company petition. It was clarified that the tribunal would decide the relevant prayer and any interim reliefs notwithstanding the objection based on the appellant's alleged failure to satisfy the threshold shareholding requirement. Contentions on merits were kept open.

Conclusion: The share-transfer dispute was directed to be pursued before the National Company Law Tribunal, and the maintainability objection under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013 was not to obstruct consideration of the relevant prayer.

Issue (ii): whether the reliefs concerning the deceased's shares in the two partnership firms required fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of the plaintiff's contentions regarding the two partnership firms was found to be insufficiently reasoned, as the disputes had been disposed of by reference to other pending proceedings. The matter was therefore considered fit for rehearing, and the proposed amendment concerning subsequent developments was also to be taken into account.

Conclusion: The reliefs relating to the two partnership firms were directed to be decided afresh by the learned Single Judge after allowing the amendment and considering the amended pleadings.

Issue (iii): whether the Court Receiver should continue and be extended to the balance shares and estate properties.

Analysis: The Court Receiver already stood appointed over part of the shareholding in one company, and the deceased's remaining personal shareholding in that company was undisputed. The Receiver was therefore extended to the balance shares, and the Receiver's continuance over the identified estate properties was maintained with the plaintiff acting as agent as directed.

Conclusion: The Court Receiver was appointed over the balance shares, and the Receiver's continuance over the specified estate properties was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with limited substantive modifications, including referral of the share-transfer controversy to the tribunal, remand of the partnership-firm reliefs for fresh decision, and extension of receivership over the remaining shares and identified estate assets.

Ratio Decidendi: Where competing proceedings can lead to inconsistent findings, the proper forum should determine the share-transfer controversy, while inadequately considered ancillary reliefs may be remitted for fresh adjudication and protective receivership may be extended over undisputed estate assets.

Issues: Whether the service tax demand, interest and penalties confirmed against the petitioner on the basis of Form 26AS and by invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable in law, and whether the impugned orders were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The petition was treated as covered by an earlier coordinate Bench decision on similar facts. The demand had been founded solely on Form 26AS without independent examination of the nature of services rendered or the applicability of the exemption claimed under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The invocation of the extended period also required the statutory preconditions of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax, and the record did not disclose any conclusive finding establishing those jurisdictional facts. On that basis, the assumption of jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 73(1) was held unsustainable, and the consequential levy of interest and penalties could not survive.

Conclusion: The service tax demand, interest and penalties were held unsustainable and the impugned orders were set aside and quashed.

Issues: Whether a service tax demand and consequential interest and penalties could be sustained when the adjudication was founded solely on Form 26AS and the preconditions for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 were not recorded.

Analysis: The demand was raised for the relevant financial year on the basis of information reflected in Form 26AS, without independent examination of the nature of the services rendered or a finding that the statutory conditions for invoking the extended period existed. The record disclosed no conclusive finding of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax, which are mandatory for enlargement of limitation under Section 73. The impugned adjudication therefore amounted to an unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction. Once the demand itself was unsustainable, the consequential levy of interest and penalties also could not survive. The earlier coordinate Bench decision on identical facts was followed.

Conclusion: The service tax demand, interest, and penalties were held unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments and the consequent demand could be interfered with, and whether any procedural irregularity vitiated the impugned orders.

Analysis: The orders were based on inspection material, the seigniorage fee paid, and the disparity between the quantity/value of boulders allegedly extracted and the value declared in GSTR-1. The Court found that the record disclosed sufficient foundational facts to form a prima facie view of suppression of turnover, justifying action under Section 74. It also found no procedural irregularity warranting interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the invocation of Section 74 and to the impugned orders failed.

Issues: Whether, pending disposal of the second appeal under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999, the demand for tax, interest and penalty could be protected by granting instalment relief and by staying recovery of the penalty.

Analysis: The writ challenge arose from rejection of stay of demand during pendency of the second appeal. The Court declined to enter upon the merits of the assessment dispute and instead proceeded on the statutory scheme under Section 7(5) read with Section 16(4) of the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999. In the interest of justice, it found it appropriate to secure the revenue by directing payment of the quantified tax and interest in three equal instalments, while keeping the penalty component under protective restraint until the appeal is decided.

Conclusion: The assessee was granted partial relief by way of instalment payment for tax and interest, and recovery of penalty was stayed till disposal of the second appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether cash receipts from close family members and related entities attracted penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged violation of section 269SS; and (ii) whether cash repayments to close relatives attracted penalty under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged violation of section 269T.

Issue (i): Whether cash receipts from close family members and related entities attracted penalty under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged violation of section 269SS.

Analysis: The receipts were found to be from close family members and related entities, and the Revenue did not dispute the relationship. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court decision holding that transactions between close family members do not assume the character of loans or deposits for the purposes of sections 269SS and 269T.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271D was held to be unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether cash repayments to close relatives attracted penalty under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for alleged violation of section 269T.

Analysis: The repayments were likewise made to close relatives, and the same legal principle governing family transactions applied. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment under section 143(3) was completed without any adverse finding on the impugned transactions.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271E was held to be unsustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: Both penalties were set aside, and the assessee succeeded in both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Cash transactions between close family members, when not shown to be loans or deposits in substance, do not attract penalty under sections 271D and 271E for breach of sections 269SS and 269T.