Issues: Whether services of recovery agents (including repossession activities) qualify as "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 after the amendment effective 01.04.2011, and whether CENVAT credit availed on such services is admissible.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines "input service" as any service used by a provider of taxable/output service for providing an output service; the amendment effective 01.04.2011 altered the illustrative "includes" list but did not change the principal definition. The decisive test is whether the service is used for providing the output service - in practical and functional terms - i.e., whether the output service could be provided without the contested service. For a non-banking financial company, timely loan recovery (including repossession and recovery agent activities) is integral to providing the lending service: delays or inability to recover affect borrower liability, collateral value, income and the lender's viability. External collection and repossession services directly facilitate the lending/output service and therefore satisfy the statutory "used for providing an output service" criterion. Tribunal precedents (including Bajaj Finance Ltd. (Tri. Mum) and other cited decisions) applying the same test have held recovery/repo services to be input services; those authorities support applying the principal definition to allow credit where a direct and integral nexus with the output lending service exists.

Conclusion: The services of recovery agents, including repossession activities, qualify as "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2011; the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on such services. The appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee and consequential relief shall follow as per law.

Issues: Whether expenses recovered by a customs house agent from clients (reimbursable expenses/overseas/local expenses) are required to be included in the gross value charged for CHA services by invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.

Analysis: Legal framework includes Section 66 and Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 (valuation and charging provisions), Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and CBEC Circular No. 119/13/2009-ST. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt Ltd has held that Rule 5(1) insofar as it seeks to include reimbursable expenses within the value of taxable services is ultra vires Section 67, and that valuation must be limited to the gross amount charged as consideration 'for such service'. The CBEC circular contemporaneously clarifies conditions where reimbursements may be excluded (e.g., actual reimbursement without markup, nexus to activity, separate invoicing). The adjudicating authority made fact findings that the amounts in question were reimbursements tied to overseas billing and that the primary overseas services were not taxable; it also held that many recovered expenses (air/sea freight, port/airport charges, local transportation) fall outside the core CHA activities taxable under the CHA definition. The combined legal authority and the Adjudicating Authority's findings support exclusion of genuine reimbursements from taxable value for the periods in question.

Conclusion: Rule 5(1) cannot be applied to include the reimbursable expenses in the taxable value for CHA services for the periods under consideration; therefore the impugned demands are not sustainable and the result is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the services provided by the appellant (assignment of employees to foreign group companies on on-site basis) were "used outside India" and therefore qualify as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005.

Analysis: The Court examined the applicability of export of service rule 3(1)(iii) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 and relevant administrative guidance (Circular No. 111/5/2009-ST) and noted that the statutory scheme and the explanatory circular treat export status as determined by the location of the service recipient and the accrual of benefit to a recipient located outside India. The Court observed that the absence of a written agreement is not determinative and that an oral understanding, supporting invoices and receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange establish the contractual relationship. The Court found that mere physical performance of services in India or on-site working does not by itself show that services were used in India, and that Revenue failed to demonstrate that the services were consumed within India. The Bench relied on earlier Tribunal decisions involving identical facts including Glaxo Smithkline Asia Pvt Ltd and authorities emphasising that service tax is a destination-based consumption tax and that the critical factor is the recipient's location and where the benefit accrues.

Conclusion: The services rendered by the appellant were used outside India and qualify as export of service; the impugned order confirming service tax is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be relied upon for revoking a customs broker's licence without compliance with Section 138B of that Act.

Analysis: Section 138B makes statements recorded during inquiry relevant in adjudication only where the circumstances under clause (a) are established or, otherwise, where the maker is examined before the adjudicating authority, the statement is admitted in the interests of justice, and the affected party receives an opportunity to cross-examine. The asserted non-cooperation of an employee who was said to be capable of contradicting another witness did not satisfy any exception under Section 138B(1)(a). Neither the witness whose statement was relied upon nor the employee was shown to be unavailable, incapable of giving evidence, kept away by the adverse party, or incapable of being produced without unreasonable delay or expense.

Conclusion: The statements could not be relied upon without following Section 138B; the persons whose statements are proposed to be relied upon must be examined, and cross-examination must be afforded if their statements are admitted in evidence.

Issues: Whether late fee under section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be levied through intimation under section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for belated TDS statements relating to periods prior to 01.06.2015.

Analysis: Section 234E provides for levy of fee for delay in filing TDS statements, but the machinery for computing such fee while processing statements under section 200A was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015 through section 200A(1)(c). For TDS statements pertaining to periods before that date, the enabling provision was not available, and the levy could not be sustained through processing under section 200A. The view was supported by the jurisdictional High Court decision relied upon by the assessee.

Conclusion: The levy of fee under section 234E for TDS statements relating to the period prior to 01.06.2015 was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether interest paid on borrowed funds invested in venture capital funds was deductible against income from other sources; (ii) Whether expenditure incurred for assessing the feasibility of new windmill power projects was allowable as a business expense.

Issue (i): Whether interest paid on borrowed funds invested in venture capital funds was deductible against income from other sources.

Analysis: The borrowed funds were used for investments that generated income offered under the head income from other sources. The increase in investments exceeded the borrowed amount, establishing the requisite nexus. The interest claim on the same loan had also been accepted in the assessment year of investment and in subsequent years, with no material change in facts. The absence of an outstanding loan at the relevant year-end was explained by its repayment before that date.

Conclusion: The interest expenditure was deductible under Section 57 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether expenditure incurred for assessing the feasibility of new windmill power projects was allowable as a business expense.

Analysis: The professional expenditure was incurred in connection with exploring new projects in the windmill sector in which the assessee was already carrying on business. No material established that it was personal expenditure or unrelated to the business.

Conclusion: The forecasting expenditure qualified as allowable business expenditure. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both disputed disallowances were deleted, recognising the deductibility of the interest and project-feasibility expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where borrowed funds are demonstrably deployed in income-yielding investments and the claim has consistently been accepted on unchanged facts, interest thereon is deductible; expenditure connected with expansion or feasibility of an existing business is allowable absent evidence of personal use.

Issues: (i) whether the arm's length interest on the loan advanced to the associated enterprise was to be benchmarked at a fixed rate of 6.5% with credit for interest already offered; (ii) whether deduction under section 80-IA could be curtailed by setting off losses of other eligible units against profits of the profitable unit; and (iii) whether the arm's length price of captive power supplied to associated enterprises had to be determined with reference to the selling rate of the distribution company.

Issue (i): whether the arm's length interest on the loan advanced to the associated enterprise was to be benchmarked at a fixed rate of 6.5% with credit for interest already offered

Analysis: The transaction involved a long-standing intra-group loan where the contractual terms were repeatedly amended and interest had remained unpaid for a prolonged period. The Tribunal followed its earlier orders in the assessee's own case and applied the safe harbour framework as a guiding benchmark, holding that a floating LIBOR-based rate was not workable on the facts. The fixed rate of 6.5% was treated as a reasonable approximation of arm's length interest, with credit to be given for interest already offered in return of income.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the Revenue's adjustment on this count was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether deduction under section 80-IA could be curtailed by setting off losses of other eligible units against profits of the profitable unit

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim was to compute deduction on a unit-wise basis, whereas the Revenue required losses from other eligible units to be adjusted against the profits of the eligible unit before allowing deduction. Relying on its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the interpretation of section 80-IA(5), the Tribunal held that the eligible business had to be computed by treating it as the only source of income for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction, and the contrary plea could not be accepted on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the arm's length price of captive power supplied to associated enterprises had to be determined with reference to the selling rate of the distribution company

Analysis: The additional ground concerned sale of power to associated enterprises for captive consumption under long-term power purchase arrangements, where the assessee benchmarked the price using the tariff mechanism under the CERC regulations and alternatively by reference to the rate charged by the State electricity board. The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own earlier orders and by the Third Member view, under which the selling rate of the distribution company could be taken as the valid comparable for determining the arm's length price of power supplied by the captive power plant.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the transfer pricing adjustment on captive power sales was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the transfer pricing interest issue and the power-sale pricing issue, but failed on the section 80-IA deduction issue, resulting in a partly favourable outcome for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material facts remain unchanged, earlier appellate findings on transfer pricing can be followed for subsequent years; however, for section 80-IA the eligible business is to be computed as the only source of income for determining the deduction, and captive power pricing may be benchmarked by the distribution company's selling rate where that represents the appropriate market value.

Issues: (i) Whether the GST applicable to the work contracts executed in the relevant period was 18% and not 12%; (ii) whether the main contractor was liable to reimburse the subcontractor the differential tax amount; and (iii) whether the assessee could seek reconciliation and refund of any excess tax payment under the GST law.

Issue (i): Whether the GST applicable to the work contracts executed in the relevant period was 18% and not 12%?

Analysis: The question of rate of tax had already been decided in the connected proceedings. The Court followed that determination and treated the contracts as taxable at 18% for the relevant years.

Conclusion: The GST rate applicable to the contracts was 18%.

Issue (ii): Whether the main contractor was liable to reimburse the subcontractor the differential tax amount?

Analysis: Since the main contractor had already been held liable to bear the differential tax burden in the earlier proceedings, the subcontractor was held entitled to the same benefit and consideration. The Court directed the main contractor to reimburse the differential amount claimed by the subcontractor, with the subcontractor remaining liable to discharge its tax liability before the GST authorities.

Conclusion: The main contractor was held liable to reimburse the subcontractor the differential tax amount.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessee could seek reconciliation and refund of any excess tax payment under the GST law?

Analysis: The Court permitted the assessee to raise the plea that tax had been paid twice over. It directed reconciliation of the account with the department and ordered that any excess payment found be refunded in accordance with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court also referred to Circular No. 160/16/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021 in relation to debit notes issued after 01.01.2021.

Conclusion: The assessee was permitted to seek reconciliation and refund of any excess tax payment in accordance with Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the higher GST rate, granted reimbursement-related relief to the subcontractor against the main contractor, and allowed the assessee to pursue reconciliation and refund of any excess tax payment under the GST framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a higher GST rate is judicially affirmed for the underlying contract, the corresponding tax burden may be shifted by way of reimbursement between contracting parties, while any excess tax payment must be dealt with under the refund mechanism of the GST law.

Issues: (i) Whether receipts from product analytics services rendered under a SaaS model were taxable as equipment royalty or as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the Act and the India-USA DTAA; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to TDS credit and consequential recomputation of interest and exemption-related adjustments.

Issue (i): Whether receipts from product analytics services rendered under a SaaS model were taxable as equipment royalty or as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the Act and the India-USA DTAA.

Analysis: The receipts arose from access to a standard automated cloud-based platform, with the customers obtaining only a subscription-based right to use the service and not any right to possess, control, or commercially exploit the underlying equipment, software, or intellectual property. The agreement restricted reverse engineering, copying, and transfer, and the services were found to be rendered through the provider's own infrastructure without transfer of technology or enabling the customers to perform the services on their own. In view of the jurisdictional precedents relied on, the nature of the receipts did not satisfy the requirements of royalty or the make available test for FIS/FTS.

Conclusion: The receipts were not taxable as equipment royalty or as FTS/FIS, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to TDS credit and consequential recomputation of interest and exemption-related adjustments.

Analysis: The matter of TDS credit required verification, and the other adjustments relating to interest and exemption followed the outcome on the main taxability issue and were consequential in nature.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow the due TDS credit and to recompute the consequential adjustments accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The additions on account of royalty or FTS/FIS did not survive, and the appeals were allowed with directions for verification of credit and consequential recomputation.

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is maintainable before the adjudicating authority passes an order under Section 8 of the Act.

Analysis: The attachment under Section 5(1) is only provisional in nature. The challenge to such attachment matures only after the adjudicating authority proceeds under Section 8. Since the impugned action had not reached that stage, the writ petition sought premature interference with ongoing proceedings and could not be used to set aside the provisional attachment at that stage.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable at this stage and was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the orders-in-original challenging the service tax demand should be set aside and the matter remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The adjudication was found to have proceeded on the basis of inputs received from the income tax side, and the matter was covered by an earlier order in similar proceedings where petitions challenging show-cause notice stage and orders-in-original had been relegated for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the relevant objections, including whether the services fall outside the levy under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, whether they fall within the negative list or exemption notifications, whether service tax is payable under the reverse charge mechanism, and whether the demand is barred by limitation, had to be considered afresh by the competent authority. The earlier directions were required to be taken into account by the authority while reconsidering the matter.

Conclusion: The orders-in-original were set aside and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh reply and with all contentions kept open.

Issues: Whether the blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could be sustained when the electronic credit ledger had a negative balance and the statutory preconditions for invocation of the power were not satisfied.

Analysis: The power under Rule 86-A is confined to blocking use of credit available in the electronic credit ledger, and its exercise depends on satisfaction of the prescribed conditions, including formation of the requisite opinion on fraudulently availed or ineligible credit. On the facts, the ledger reflected a negative balance, so there was no available credit to block. In those circumstances, the impugned blocking exceeded the scope of Rule 86-A and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The blocking of input tax credit was invalid and the negative balance was directed to be restored to the extent of Rs. 1.42 crores.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 86-A permits blocking only of credit available in the electronic credit ledger, and the power cannot be exercised where no such available credit exists.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order and recovery notice issued by the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate were liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the competence of the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate to proceed against the petitioner for the relevant financial years. The respondent accepted the jurisdictional objection. The dispute therefore turned on whether the impugned order and consequential recovery notice could survive when issued by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction, notwithstanding the liberty of the proper jurisdictional authority to continue proceedings.

Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order and recovery notice were set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was disposed of by annulling the impugned actions of the Bengaluru North West Commissionerate, while leaving the competent authority free to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed by an authority without territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained, and any consequential recovery notice founded on such order must also fall.

Issues: Whether a single composite assessment order covering more than one assessment year was legally sustainable under the GST framework, and whether the assessment had to be set aside with liberty to initiate separate proceedings year-wise.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the legality of passing one assessment order for multiple financial years. The Court followed the previously decided view that a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot be issued in relation to more than one tax period in the manner contemplated by the GST provisions. Since the petitioner pressed only this primary ground, the Court did not adjudicate the remaining grounds and disposed of the writ petition on this basis.

Conclusion: The composite assessment order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded with liberty to the respondents to commence fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, and the period specified by the Court was excluded for limitation purposes.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded on the challenge to the composite nature of the assessment, while the Department was permitted to proceed afresh year-wise.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite assessment or show-cause proceeding covering multiple tax periods is impermissible where the statutory scheme requires period-specific proceedings, and such an order is liable to be set aside with remand for separate year-wise action.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for supply of the inspection material and for consideration of the application seeking revocation of cancellation of GST registration, along with adjudication of the pending show cause notice.

Analysis: The cancellation of registration had been challenged after the petitioner filed a revocation application. The records referred to inspection material and related correspondence that had not been furnished to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner was required to be supplied the material gathered during inspection and the connected documents, and the revocation application had to be considered after giving the petitioner an opportunity to supplement the reply. The pending proposal under the show cause notice was also required to be adjudicated on merits after considering the reply already filed.

Conclusion: The petitioner obtained a direction for disclosure of the relevant material and for consideration of the revocation application and the pending tax notice, after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by issuing procedural directions that enabled reconsideration of the cancellation and adjudication of the pending tax proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: When cancellation of GST registration is under challenge and a revocation application is pending, the affected person must be furnished the material relied upon and given an effective opportunity before the application and connected proceedings are decided.

Issues: (i) Whether comparables could be excluded on the basis of persistent loss filter and functional dissimilarity for transfer pricing purposes; (ii) whether foreign exchange fluctuation gain was operating in nature for computing the profit level indicator; (iii) whether risk adjustment required reconsideration; and (iv) whether credit of self-assessment tax and tax collected at source was to be allowed.

Issue (i): Whether comparables could be excluded on the basis of persistent loss filter and functional dissimilarity for transfer pricing purposes.

Analysis: The comparables excluded by the lower authorities did not suffer continuous losses in the relevant three-year period, as profit was recorded in one of the years, and therefore they could not be rejected merely on the basis of a persistent loss filter. The comparables introduced by the transfer pricing authorities were found to be functionally dissimilar to the assessee, to have significant turnover differences or extraordinary events, and to lack segmental information for software development services.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the two loss-year comparables was set aside and they were directed to be included, while the functionally dissimilar comparables were directed to be excluded. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether foreign exchange fluctuation gain was operating in nature for computing the profit level indicator.

Analysis: Foreign exchange gains arose from realization of receivables connected with the core export of services and were directly linked to the assessee's business operations. Such gains were therefore part of operating income for transfer pricing computation.

Conclusion: Foreign exchange fluctuation gain was held to be operating in nature. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether risk adjustment required reconsideration.

Analysis: The claim for risk adjustment was not finally adjudicated on merits and required examination by the lower tax authorities in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration.

Issue (iv): Whether credit of self-assessment tax and tax collected at source was to be allowed.

Analysis: The assessee was entitled to credit of tax paid and tax collected at source subject to verification as per law.

Conclusion: The credit claims were directed to be granted after due verification. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was reduced on the identified issues, certain comparables were excluded while others were restored or included as directed, and the assessment was required to be modified accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A comparable cannot be excluded on a persistent loss filter unless it has incurred losses in all the relevant successive years, and foreign exchange gains arising directly from export/service receivables constitute operating income for transfer pricing purposes.

Issues: (i) Whether certain companies selected as comparables were liable to be excluded on the ground of functional dissimilarity and failure to satisfy the applied filters; (ii) Whether the final assessment order was time-barred under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether certain companies selected as comparables were liable to be excluded on the ground of functional dissimilarity and failure to satisfy the applied filters.

Analysis: The transfer pricing adjustment was examined in the context of the assessee's back-office support services under the transactional net margin method. The challenged comparables were found either to be engaged in highly specialised research and development or in activities materially different from the assessee's functions. Two other comparables were also found to have failed the filters applied in the transfer pricing analysis, including the related party transactions filter and the employee cost or service income filters. Comparable selection had to reflect functional similarity and compliance with the filters used in benchmarking.

Conclusion: The impugned comparables were directed to be excluded, and the transfer pricing grounds were allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the final assessment order was time-barred under section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel triggered the statutory timeline for completion of the final assessment. The Assessing Officer was required to pass the order within one month from the end of the month in which the directions were received. The final order was passed beyond that period. The statutory timeline was treated as mandatory, and an order passed in breach of that limitation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was held to be barred by limitation and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment could not be sustained on the comparability objections, and the assessment itself failed on the independent ground of limitation, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer pricing matters, comparables must be functionally similar and satisfy the applied filters, and an assessment order under section 144C(13) must be completed within the prescribed statutory time limit, failing which it is invalid.

Issues: Whether the appellant could claim bona fide belief and avoid invocation of the extended period of limitation for non-payment of service tax on commission income after the amendment of the exemption notification with effect from 09.07.2004.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-ST was narrowed by Notification No. 08/2004-ST with effect from 09.07.2004, and only commission agents dealing in sale or purchase of agricultural produce continued to remain exempt. The appellant was not covered by that carve-out. In these circumstances, the statutory position was held to be clear and not susceptible to ambiguity. Non-payment of tax on the ground that tax had not been charged, and the plea that tax was paid only on receipt of consideration, were held insufficient to establish bona fide belief. The plea that the extended period could not be invoked was rejected.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked and the plea of bona fide belief failed, against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification is expressly restricted by amendment and the assessee falls outside the exempted class, ignorance of the clear tax liability does not constitute bona fide belief and can sustain invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issues: Whether the delay of 84 days in filing the GST appeal should be condoned and the appeal directed to be heard on merits.

Analysis: The Appellate Authority was bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the delay was found to have occurred due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. The Court followed its earlier coordinate bench decisions on similar facts and noted that refusal to consider the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The delay of 84 days was condoned, the appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be entertained and decided on merits in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: Whether writ relief should be granted against the GST demand and consequential attachment order when no appeal was filed and the petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioner had been served with a GST demand order under section 74 of the GST enactment and no appeal was preferred against it. Instead of pursuing the appellate remedy, the petitioner sought rectification and later approached the Court after the bank account was attached. The Court found the plea of non-communication and lack of knowledge unconvincing, noting that the petitioner continued to hold a GST registration and was required to file periodic returns and annual returns. On those facts, the Court held that the reliance on an earlier decision permitting delayed appeals was misplaced, as the present matter involved no attempt to file an appeal at all.

Conclusion: The Court declined to grant any indulgence and held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the GST demand and attachment failed, and the proceedings were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not grant relief against a finalized GST demand where the petitioner bypasses the appellate remedy and the plea of lack of knowledge is not credibly established on the record.