Issues: Whether the show cause notice and consequential penal action were barred by limitation after rescission of the exemption notification, and whether the saving provision could sustain proceedings initiated beyond the statutory period.

Analysis: The appellant had imported a CT scanner under Notification No. 64/88-Cus., which carried post-import obligations. Those obligations were later rescinded by Notification No. 99/1994 with effect from 01.03.1994. The demand and penal proceedings were initiated only on 27.12.1999. Although the obligation was stated to be continuous, coercive action after rescission still had to satisfy the saving provision and remain within the limitation prescribed by the statute. The limitation for action under Section 28 of the Customs Act had expired on 28.02.1999, and the notice issued thereafter was beyond time.

Conclusion: The proceedings were barred by limitation, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether Electric Vehicle Communication Controllers are classifiable under CTI 8517 62 90 or under CTI 8708 90 99; (ii) Whether mismatch between the tariff classification shown in the Proof of Origin and the Bill of Entry bars customs duty exemption under Notifications No. 151/2009-Customs and No. 152/2009-Customs.

Issue (i): Whether Electric Vehicle Communication Controllers are classifiable under CTI 8517 62 90 or under CTI 8708 90 99.

Analysis: Classification was determined by the General Rules of Interpretation, the terms of Heading 8517, the relevant Section XVI notes, and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The product was found to function as a communication apparatus that receives, converts, and transmits data over a wired network between the vehicle and charging equipment. Heading 8517 specifically covers apparatus for transmission or reception of data, and sub-heading 8517 62 covers machines for reception, conversion, and transmission of data. Chapter 87 was held inapplicable because electrical machinery or equipment of Chapter 85 is excluded from Section XVII, and a specific tariff entry prevails over a general parts-and-accessories entry.

Conclusion: The Electric Vehicle Communication Controllers are classifiable under CTI 8517 62 90 and not under CTI 8708 90 99.

Issue (ii): Whether mismatch between the tariff classification shown in the Proof of Origin and the Bill of Entry bars customs duty exemption under Notifications No. 151/2009-Customs and No. 152/2009-Customs.

Analysis: Preferential duty under the India-Korea arrangement was held to depend on compliance with the rules of origin and the procedural requirements under Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreement) Rules, 2020. The ruling concluded that a mismatch in the tariff classification stated in the Proof of Origin and the Bill of Entry prevents the benefit from being extended, as the discrepancy affects verification of the origin claim and the proper officer may refuse preferential treatment in such a case.

Conclusion: The customs duty exemption is not admissible where there is a mismatch between the tariff classification in the Proof of Origin and the Bill of Entry.

Final Conclusion: The ruling settles the classification of the imported communication controller in Chapter 85, but denies preferential duty benefit where the origin document and import declaration do not match on classification.

Ratio Decidendi: A goods classification that is specifically covered by Chapter 85 cannot be shifted to Chapter 87 as motor-vehicle parts, and preferential tariff benefit under a trade agreement depends on a valid origin claim supported by consistent import documentation.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether reopening of the assessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid for assessment year 2012-13.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation showed that the appeal was delayed due to a bona fide mistake on the part of the tax consultant. The Tribunal applied the settled approach that the expression "sufficient cause" calls for a liberal construction so that substantial justice is not defeated by a non-deliberate delay.

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

Issue (ii): Whether reopening of the assessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid for assessment year 2012-13.

Analysis: The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and the reopening was attempted after expiry of four years. In such a situation, the first proviso to section 147 required the Revenue to show not only reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, but also failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The recorded reasons showed only reappraisal of the existing material, particularly the revenue records, and did not reveal any new tangible material or any specific allegation of failure of disclosure.

Conclusion: The reopening was held to be invalid and the reassessment was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the delay stood condoned, and the reassessment was set aside, leaving no surviving tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay may be condoned on a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation of sufficient cause when the default is bona fide, and reassessment beyond four years cannot rest on mere reappraisal of existing material unless failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts is shown.

Issues: Whether, on the facts of a FOR destination contract, freight, insurance and allied transport-related expenses incurred up to delivery at the buyer's premises were includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The factual matrix and the contractual terms showed that the sale was not concluded at the factory gate but only when the goods reached the buyer's premises in deliverable condition. Where the transaction is on FOR basis and ownership passes at the destination, the place of removal is the buyer's premises, and the expenses incurred for transportation and insurance up to that point form part of the assessable value. The earlier order in the appellant's own case had already applied the same principle on substantially identical facts.

Conclusion: The includability of freight, insurance and related charges in the assessable value was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte order passed under the goods and services tax law should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte order passed under the goods and services tax law should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The order was passed without the petitioner's reply on record, while the disputed demands arose from factual discrepancies concerning mismatch of turnover and input tax credit data, delayed payment of tax, and related interest. As the issues required a merits-based response and adjudication, continuation of the ex parte order was likely to cause prejudice. The petitioner was therefore to be afforded an opportunity to place its stand before the authority.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with liberty to the petitioner to appear and contest the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were reopened for de novo adjudication after restoring the petitioner's opportunity to respond on merits.

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternate statutory remedy when the reassessment notice was asserted to be time-barred and without jurisdiction; and whether the notice under section 148 and the consequential assessment order were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The impugned reassessment was founded on a notice issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. A jurisdictional objection on this very ground had been raised before the Assessing Officer but was not addressed. In such circumstances, the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because the challenge went to the root of the authority's power to initiate proceedings. The availability of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar, and it yields where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the reassessment notice as well as the consequential assessment order were quashed.

Issues: Whether the demand raised under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the recoveries made pursuant to it could survive after approval of the resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: Once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims covered by the plan stand frozen and are binding on all stakeholders, including governmental authorities. Claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished, and no proceedings can be initiated or continued in respect of such claims. The demand in question was not included in the approved resolution plan, and the subsequent recoveries were therefore inconsistent with the statutory effect of approval of the resolution plan.

Conclusion: The demand notice was unsustainable and was set aside. The recoveries already made were directed to be refunded with applicable interest.

Issues: Whether ad hoc additions made to purchases, expenses, and current liabilities could be sustained when the books of account were not rejected and the same liabilities were already reflected in the accounts.

Analysis: The assessment made ad hoc additions of 25% of purchases, 10% of expenses, and 25% of current liabilities without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition relating to current liabilities also covered creditors arising from purchases that had already been subjected to addition, resulting in duplication. The liabilities included opening balances and other business or statutory dues, which could not be brought again to tax merely on a presumptive basis. In these circumstances, the additions lacked a sustainable basis.

Conclusion: The ad hoc additions were not justified and the additions relating to current liabilities and creditors were liable to be deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Presumptive additions to purchases, expenses, or liabilities cannot be sustained without rejection of books of account, and the same amount cannot be taxed twice under different provisions.

Issues: Whether reopening of the assessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid when the original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), the share capital issue had already been examined, and the reopening was based on information from the Investigation Wing.

Analysis: The original assessment had been framed after scrutiny and inquiry into the share capital receipts, including verification from the share applicants. The reasons recorded for reopening were founded on information from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries through the Himanshu Verma group, but the reasons did not disclose any independent inquiry or fresh tangible material linking the assessee to escapement of income. The record showed that the material regarding the search and the alleged beneficiary list was already available when the original assessment was completed. In such circumstances, reopening on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion and reflected borrowed satisfaction rather than an independently formed belief based on a live link between material and escapement.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the reassessment could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) has already examined the relevant issue, reassessment under sections 147 and 148 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction or unverified investigation information unless the Assessing Officer records an independent belief founded on tangible material showing a live nexus with escapement of income.

Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment were valid in law.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on information from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged client code modification, but the recorded reasons did not show any specific failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts. The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and reopening beyond four years required satisfaction of the proviso to section 147. The Tribunal found that the case rested on borrowed information, without independent application of mind, and that the reasons did not establish a live link between the material and any escapement of income in the assessee's hands. It also noted procedural infirmities, including non-furnishing of complete reasons and material, absence of the sanction material, and denial of effective opportunity in the reassessment process.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and the consequential assessment was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessment additions and disallowances were liable to be set aside for breach of the mandatory requirement of a show cause notice under section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The assessment was originally proposed on an ad hoc basis at 8% of turnover, but the final assessment was completed on different grounds by making additions under section 68 and disallowances under section 37 without issuing a further show cause notice specifically proposing those variations. In faceless assessment, the statutory requirement is to intimate the assessee of variations prejudicial to its interest and give an opportunity to explain them. Since the final additions were not covered by the proposed variation, the earlier notice did not satisfy the mandatory procedure. The breach of section 144B(1)(xii) also attracted the consequence under section 144B(9).

Conclusion: The procedural challenge succeeded, and the additions and disallowances were rightly held unsustainable for want of compliance with section 144B(1)(xii) and the principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: In faceless assessment, final variations prejudicial to the assessee cannot be made without a specific show cause notice covering those variations, and an assessment made in breach of that mandatory procedure is invalid.

Issues: Whether the order-in-original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act required interference on the ground that the petitioner's reply and the legal effect of the explanation to Entry 5 of Schedule II had not been properly considered, warranting remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The impugned order did not deal appropriately with the petitioner's contention that transfer of title occurred only upon execution of the registered sale deed after the completion certificate, and that the agreement to sell and the completion certificate needed proper legal examination. The reasoning recorded in the impugned order was found to be insufficient, and the interpretation of the explanation to Entry 5 of Schedule II required fresh consideration on the basis of the reply to the show cause notice and the legal contentions raised.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the authority for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief by way of setting aside of the adjudication order and a fresh decision by the authority on merits.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, insofar as it dealt with mismatch in Input Tax Credit on import of goods and the related bill of entries issue, required reconsideration.

Analysis: The order disclosed a reference to the taxpayer's reply, but the challenge regarding reversal of Input Tax Credit of Rs. 13,07,324.84/- was not specifically dealt with. The finding that the bill of entries did not match the address of the additional place of business also required reconsideration in light of the pleaded explanation that the business premises had been shifted and the IEC amendment was made later. On these facts, the impugned conclusion on the disputed mismatch issues was found to warrant fresh examination.

Conclusion: The order was set aside to the limited extent of the mismatch in Input Tax Credit relating to import of goods for financial year 2020-21 and the consequential interest and penalty, and that aspect was remitted for reconsideration.

Issues: (i) whether the Managing Director, who had no GST registration, could be enabled to pursue the statutory appellate remedy by obtaining a temporary registration/identification number and a fresh DRC-07; (ii) whether the composite liability notice and order required separation into distinct DRC-07s for the company and its Managing Director so that each could independently challenge the demand.

Issue (i): whether the Managing Director, who had no GST registration, could be enabled to pursue the statutory appellate remedy by obtaining a temporary registration/identification number and a fresh DRC-07.

Analysis: The order records that the proper officer is empowered under Rule 16A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2025 to grant a temporary identification number and issue an order in Part B of Form GST REG-12. On that basis, the Managing Director was held entitled to apply for a temporary registration/identification number so that he could avail the appellate remedy and raise all factual and legal grounds available to him. The Court also directed that the limitation for appeal would run only from the issuance of the fresh DRC-07.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner Managing Director.

Issue (ii): whether the composite liability notice and order required separation into distinct DRC-07s for the company and its Managing Director so that each could independently challenge the demand.

Analysis: The impugned adjudication had fastened liabilities in a composite manner on both the company and its Managing Director. The Court accepted that separate DRC-07 forms were necessary, one for the company and one for the Managing Director, to enable each aggrieved person to prefer a separate appeal. Directions were issued for issuance of the revised forms within a fixed time frame, while leaving the merits of the challenge open.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions securing the petitioners' appellate remedy, including temporary registration for the Managing Director and issuance of separate demand summaries, while the merits of the adjudication were left untouched.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a composite GST demand affects persons who require separate appellate standing, the authority must facilitate independent appellate access through separate demand summaries and, where necessary, temporary registration or identification so that limitation runs from the fresh demand summary.

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under the WBGST/CGST Act, the petitioners were entitled to inspection and extracts, and where necessary copies, of the records relied upon in the show cause notice issued after search and seizure.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued after a substantial lapse of time from the search and seizure, and it rested on documents forming part of the seized material. In that situation, fairness required that the petitioners be given inspection and/or extracts of all relied upon records, and where particular accounting records from the computer hard drive such as excel and tally data were relied upon, copies thereof had to be supplied. The Court also left open other issues raised in the writ petition and granted time for the respondents to furnish the documents and for the petitioners to answer the notice.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to inspection and extracts of the relied upon records, and to copies of specified records where demanded, in favour of the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be disposed of by remanding the matter to the appellate authority for decision on merits in view of the pendency of the appellate tribunal and the need for reconsideration of the limitation-based rejection.

Analysis: The writ petition had been entertained when the appellate tribunal was not yet functional and remained pending for a considerable period. The order under challenge had rejected the appeal as time-barred, but the Court found that the appellate machinery was better equipped to examine the factual issues on the available records. In these circumstances, and without entering into the merits, the Court held that the matter should be sent back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the appellate authority, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously on merits.

Issues: Whether the notice for reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable when the seized material did not establish a live link with the petitioner and the information was vague and non-specific.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on a loose paper recovered in search proceedings and a statement recorded from a broker. The entry relied upon mentioned a survey number, a rate and a third party name, but did not refer to the petitioner or establish any direct connection with the petitioner's earlier sale of the land. The land had already been sold in 2018 and later converted into non-agricultural use by the purchasers, while the loose paper was dated much later. At the stage of issuing notice, the material must at least prima facie connect the assessee with escapement of income; a vague or retrospective linkage based only on a survey number and an unconnected name is insufficient.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 could not be sustained and was quashed; the reopening was held invalid and the petition succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the notices and reassessment under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 were barred by limitation and invalid for want of timely acceptance and communication of the self-assessment returns. (ii) Whether the Revenue could sustain the reassessment by invoking Section 10(3) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 or by importing Section 49(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 read with Rule 34 of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999.

Issue (i): Whether the notices and reassessment under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 were barred by limitation and invalid for want of timely acceptance and communication of the self-assessment returns.

Analysis: The assessment period related to 01.04.2005 to 28.02.2006. The Court held that reassessment under Section 10(1) could be initiated only within the statutory limitation counted from the end of the relevant year, and that the pre-amendment period was five years. It further held that the self-assessment returns had not been formally accepted and communicated in time, and that the belated communication of acceptance in 2023 could not cure the jurisdictional defect or extend an already expired limitation period. The reassessment notices issued in 2023 were therefore beyond time.

Conclusion: The reassessment under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2) was time-barred and invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could sustain the reassessment by invoking Section 10(3) of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 or by importing Section 49(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 read with Rule 34 of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999.

Analysis: The Court held that the case did not fall within Section 10(3), and the Revenue itself had abandoned that route. It further held that Rule 34 could not be used to import Section 49(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 into a situation where the Odisha Entry Tax Act already contained a specific reassessment mechanism under Section 10 and Rule 15D. The later change in the stated basis of reassessment could not validate the proceedings, and the impugned notices were inconsistent on their face.

Conclusion: The reassessment could not be justified under Section 10(3) or by reliance on Section 49(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and Rule 34 of the Odisha Entry Tax Rules, 1999, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notices and the consequential assessment were quashed because the proceedings were not lawfully initiated within the applicable statutory framework and limitation period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes a specific reassessment procedure and limitation period, reassessment cannot be sustained by belatedly asserting acceptance of self-assessment, changing the stated basis of jurisdiction, or importing a different statute through a general rule-making clause.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 68 in respect of sales recorded in the books of account was sustainable in full, or only the profit element embedded in such sales could be brought to tax.

Analysis: The assessed sales were recorded in the audited books and the books were not rejected. The addition was founded mainly on third-party information and a doubt about the seller's VAT registration, without adequate verification. The authorities relied on settled principle that where sales are accepted as recorded, the entire sales turnover cannot be assessed as income and only the profit element embedded in the sales may be taxed. On the facts, a gross profit rate of 9% was considered reasonable for recomputation.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was not sustained in full. The matter was directed to be recomputed by adopting a gross profit rate of 9%, which is in favour of the Assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether additions on account of alleged unaccounted purchases and related protective additions could be sustained in full, or were liable to be restricted to an estimated profit element; (ii) Whether additions arising from alleged unaccounted sales, cash advances, unexplained expenditure and cash found during search could be sustained in full, or were liable to be restricted or deleted on the basis of recorded cash availability and telescoping.

Issue (i): Whether additions on account of alleged unaccounted purchases and related protective additions could be sustained in full, or were liable to be restricted to an estimated profit element.

Analysis: The additions were founded on seized material and statements suggesting unaccounted purchases and associated transactions. The record also showed that the assessee carried on retail liquor business with substantial cash sales, and the factual matrix indicated a nexus between alleged unaccounted purchases and unaccounted sales. For the earlier years, the protective additions in the hands of the legal heir were not sustainable, while the substantive additions in the firm's hands required estimation of income rather than full taxation of the purchase figures. For the later years, the unaccounted purchases were held to be linked to unaccounted sales and could not be separately assessed in full where the sales already exceeded the purchase figures and no stock discrepancy was found.

Conclusion: The protective additions on alleged unaccounted purchases were deleted, and the substantive additions were restricted to profit at 3% of the relevant turnover or collections. The assessee succeeded partly on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether additions arising from alleged unaccounted sales, cash advances, unexplained expenditure and cash found during search could be sustained in full, or were liable to be restricted or deleted on the basis of recorded cash availability and telescoping.

Analysis: The additions on alleged out-of-book sales were based on seized diaries, day books and related documents, but the recorded bank deposits showed that a substantial part of the cash collections had already entered the regular books. The balance collections alone could be subjected to an estimated profit rate. The additions for cash advances and cash payments were treated as sourced from unaccounted sales and therefore did not warrant separate addition once the income stream was estimated. As regards cash found during search, the cash book furnished by the assessee demonstrated availability of cash and the benefit of telescoping against estimated additions in the relevant years was also available.

Conclusion: The additions on alleged out-of-book sales were restricted to estimated profit on the unrecorded balance, the separate additions for cash advances and cash expenditure were deleted, and the addition for cash found was deleted by accepting availability of cash and telescoping. The assessee succeeded on this issue as well, subject to the restricted additions sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining only restricted additions based on estimated profit and by deleting the remaining substantive and protective additions that were not independently sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged unaccounted purchases and sales are interlinked and the surrounding material shows no separate stock discrepancy or independent source, the income embedded in the transactions alone can be brought to tax by estimating profit, while redundant protective and separate additions for the same circulating cash cannot be sustained; cash availability shown from regular books may also justify deletion of additions for cash found through telescoping.