Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab service used for authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone could be denied on the ground that the service was not an input service.

Analysis: Notification No. 17/2011-S.T. grants exemption by way of refund for taxable services received for authorised operations in a SEZ, subject to the conditions that the tax has actually been paid, the service is approved for the authorised operations, and no CENVAT credit has been taken. The disputed service was used for the authorised operations in the SEZ unit and the tax paid on it was not shown to have been credit availed. In that situation, the refund claim could not be rejected merely because the service was treated as not falling within the category of input services.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on Rent-a-Cab service was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee's refund claim was upheld with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the SEZ refund notification, a service tax refund cannot be denied for a specified service used for authorised SEZ operations when the tax has been paid and no CENVAT credit has been taken, merely on the ground that the service is not otherwise treated as an input service.

Issues: (i) whether collection charges retained by the assessee from PSF/UDF collections were taxable as income and outside Article 8 of the India-France DTAA; (ii) whether technical handling income from IATP members and non-IATP members was exempt under Article 8; (iii) whether interest earned on fixed deposits out of funds connected with aircraft operations was taxable as other sources or covered by Article 8(3); and (iv) whether commission received on the domestic leg of an international journey was directly connected with the operation of aircraft in international traffic and exempt under Article 8.

Issue (i): whether collection charges retained by the assessee from PSF/UDF collections were taxable as income and outside Article 8 of the India-France DTAA.

Analysis: The collection charges were treated as an incentive or discount for timely remittance of PSF/UDF and not as income arising from the assessee's operation of aircraft in international traffic. The reasoning followed the earlier view in the assessee's own case that such receipts had no direct nexus with the protected treaty activity under Article 8(1) and Article 8(4).

Conclusion: The collection charges were held taxable in India and the assessee's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether technical handling income from IATP members and non-IATP members was exempt under Article 8.

Analysis: The technical handling receipts were examined with reference to the IATP arrangements and the India-France DTAA. The Tribunal applied its earlier decisions and the treaty language on participation in a pool and held that the services, though rendered in India, were part of the pool-based aviation activity and directly linked with the assessee's business of operating aircraft in international traffic. The same reasoning was extended to services rendered to non-IATP members where the pool framework still governed the receipts.

Conclusion: The technical handling income was held exempt under Article 8 and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (iii): whether interest earned on fixed deposits out of funds connected with aircraft operations was taxable as other sources or covered by Article 8(3).

Analysis: The fixed deposits were found to have been made out of funds connected with the operation of aircraft in international traffic, and the factual foundation for the nexus was not disputed. Article 8(3) specifically treats such interest as profits derived from the operation of aircraft and excludes Article 12.

Conclusion: The interest income was held exempt under Article 8(3) and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (iv): whether commission received on the domestic leg of an international journey was directly connected with the operation of aircraft in international traffic and exempt under Article 8.

Analysis: The commission arose from the arrangement of the entire international journey, including the domestic segment performed by another carrier. The Tribunal held that the domestic leg formed part of the integrated international travel and that the commission was directly connected with the operation of aircraft in international traffic within Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4).

Conclusion: The commission income was held exempt under Article 8 and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee did not succeed on the collection-charges issue, but succeeded on the core treaty-based challenges to technical handling income, interest income, and commission income; both cross-appeals were ultimately dismissed in line with the earlier coordinate-bench view.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the India-France DTAA, receipts are exempt where they arise from or are directly connected with the operation of aircraft in international traffic or with treaty-recognised pool participation, whereas ancillary collection charges lacking such nexus remain taxable.

Issues: Whether the seized imported goods were liable to be provisionally released at the admission stage, subject to payment of enhanced duty, furnishing of bank guarantee, and without affecting the adjudication proceedings.

Analysis: The petition concerned only the seizure memo and a prayer for interim release of the imported consignment. Identical matters had earlier been entertained by the same Bench by granting provisional release on conditions, and the same course was followed here. The relief was structured to balance the importer's request for release with the Customs authority's power to continue adjudication in accordance with law. The order required quantification of the enhanced duty, payment thereof, release of the goods within the stipulated period, furnishing of a bank guarantee, and preservation of the petitioner's participation in adjudication. It was also made clear that the adjudicating authority would not be influenced by the conditional release order.

Conclusion: The seized goods were directed to be provisionally released on the specified conditions, and the writ petition was allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the denial of idle capacity adjustment in the EPC segment was sustainable; (ii) whether working capital adjustment under TNMM had to include all relevant operating current assets and liabilities.

Issue (i): Whether the denial of idle capacity adjustment in the EPC segment was sustainable.

Analysis: Under TNMM, comparability must account for functional differences, asset deployment, risk profile, and the effect of underutilization of capacity. In a ramp-up or first full year of operations, disproportionate fixed costs may depress margins unless idle capacity is adjusted. The assessee showed a clear operational ramp-up, a substantial improvement in revenue and cost absorption in the succeeding year, and a documented methodology for the adjustment. No material defect in the methodology or comparable material demonstrating superior capacity utilisation was established.

Conclusion: The denial of idle capacity adjustment was not sustainable, and the adjustment was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether working capital adjustment under TNMM had to include all relevant operating current assets and liabilities.

Analysis: Working capital adjustment must reflect the tested party's actual operating cycle and should include all material operating current assets and liabilities, while excluding only non-operating or financial items. Unbilled revenue, prepaid expenses, advances from customers, advance recoverables, and inventories materially affect liquidity and profitability and therefore form part of the working capital computation when relevant to business operations. The revised computation was supported by detailed workings and accepted practice.

Conclusion: Working capital adjustment was directed to be recomputed by including the relevant operating current assets and current liabilities, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was directed to be reworked after granting idle capacity adjustment and recomputing working capital adjustment on the correct operating base, leaving only consequential verification by the assessing authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Under TNMM, idle capacity and working capital effects must be neutralised through appropriate adjustments where a tested party demonstrates capacity underutilisation or material operating cycle differences, and such adjustments cannot be denied without a reasoned comparability basis.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit availed on service tax paid for settlement of lease cancellation relating to a proposed new premises qualifies as eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; and (ii) Whether the demand raised by the department in September 2015 in respect of credit availed in September 2010 is barred by limitation.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 defines "input service" with separate operative limbs, including services used in relation to setting up or expansion of premises and activities relating to business; satisfaction of any one limb entitles availment of credit. The invoice and payment relate to full and final settlement for the Chennai premises and therefore fall within services in relation to setting up/expansion of business as encompassed by Rule 2(l). Separately, the credit was disclosed in the ST-3 return for the period April-September 2010 (filed October 2010) and made available for departmental scrutiny; the department initiated adjudication in 2015 and issued the show cause notice on 24.09.2015. The delay in initiating scrutiny until shortly before expiry of the extended limitation period defeats a finding of suppression and renders the demand time-barred under applicable limitation principles.

Conclusion: (i) The CENVAT credit availed on service tax charged for the lease settlement qualifies as eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in favour of the assessee. (ii) The demand raised in September 2015 in respect of the credit availed in September 2010 is barred by limitation; the impugned order is set aside, appeal allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 2,81,87,500 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be sustained where the amount is recorded as sales in the assessee's books and the resultant profit is offered to tax and the books of account have not been rejected.

Analysis: The assessee sold booking rights and credited Rs. 2,81,87,500 as sales in the profit and loss account; the resultant profit of Rs. 2,57,50,000 was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68 treating the receipt as unexplained cash credit, but did not reject the assessee's books of account nor the sales recorded. The order under appeal relied on the principle that amounts already recorded as sales and taxed as part of business income are not to be treated as unexplained cash credits for the purposes of Section 68. The appellate authority also relied on coordinate bench precedent applying the same principle and found the AO's addition unsustainable in the absence of rejection of books or separate evidence displacing the recorded sales.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,81,87,500 is upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the respondent contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by failing to pass on the benefit of input tax credit to the applicant in respect of the sale of the specified residential unit.

Analysis: The matter was investigated under Rule 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 after reference by the Standing Committee on Anti-profiteering under Rule 128 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering concluded, following the approved methodology, that no additional benefit of input tax credit accrued to the respondent post-GST implementation and thus no contravention of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was established. The applicant informed the authority that the GST-related issue with the builder had been settled at the time of possession and gave written consent to the DGAP report. The applicant and respondent did not appear for the final hearing and the DGAP report together with submitted documents was accepted.

Conclusion: The DGAP report dated 09.01.2025 is accepted and it is concluded that the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not contravened; the proceedings are closed and the complaint is dismissed in respect of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an investigation under Rules 128-129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 establishes that no additional benefit of input tax credit has accrued to the supplier in a manner that would require passing on to recipients, Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is not contravened and anti-profiteering action is not warranted.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 25.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation and therefore the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the timeline of events including filing of return on 31.10.2015, the issuance of earlier notices in 2021 and the specific notice dated 25.07.2022. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and related coordinate bench and High Court authorities, the Tribunal analysed the interplay between the amended and unamended regimes of sections 148 and 149 and the effect of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The controlling test is whether the six-year period under the old regime subsisted on the date of issuance of the notice; for AY 2015-16 the six-year limitation expired on 31.03.2022. The notice under section 148 having been issued on 25.07.2022 fell after expiry of that six-year period. The Tribunal also noted the recorded concession by Revenue in Rajeev Bansal that notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after 01.04.2021 should be dropped and relied on consistent judicial decisions following that concession.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 dated 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 is time-barred, the reassessment proceedings initiated thereon are without jurisdiction and are quashed; the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: For assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021, a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is invalid if the six-year limitation under the unamended regime (section 149) has expired on the date of issuance of the notice; the amended ten-year limitation applies prospectively only.

Issues: (i) Whether the seized document relied upon by Revenue is admissible and reliable evidence or a "dumb" document; (ii) Whether additions under section 69C (and related provisions) in respect of alleged cash payments for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the seized document is admissible and reliable evidence or a dumb document.

Analysis: The seized document contains both cheque entries and cash entries. Cheque entries in the seized document match entries in the books/bank records of the assessee or a related entity, providing corroboration. Section 132(4A) raises a presumption as to seized documents unless rebutted. In tax proceedings the standard is preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt; corroborative matching entries shift the evidentiary burden to the assessee to rebut the seized entries.

Conclusion: The seized document is admissible and reliable evidence and is not a dumb document; the evidentiary weight of the document shifts the onus to the assessee to satisfactorily explain the cash entries.

Issue (ii): Whether additions under section 69C (and related provisions) in respect of alleged cash payments for AY 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are sustainable.

Analysis: Based on the seized document read as a whole and corroboration by matching cheque transactions in the assessee's or related books, the assessing officer treated unexplained cash payments as unexplained expenditure under section 69/69C and applied section 115BBE as appropriate. Precedents support sustaining additions where seized entries are corroborated and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source or genuineness of cash payments.

Conclusion: Additions are sustained to the extent of Rs. 40,00,000 for AY 2015-16, Rs. 20,00,000 for AY 2016-17, and Rs. 2,00,000 for AY 2017-18; appeals are dismissed accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed and the additions based on the seized document are confirmed, with the result that the Revenue's assessments for the specified years are upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a seized document contains intermingled cheque and cash entries and the cheque entries are corroborated by books/bank records, the seized document is admissible and, on a preponderance of probabilities and the presumption under section 132(4A), unexplained cash entries may be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69/69C unless the assessee satisfactorily rebuts them.

Issues: Whether the notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18 was validly issued where the alleged income escaping assessment shown in the notice was Rs. 35,00,000 which is below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000 for reopening assessments beyond three assessment years.

Analysis: The issue was determined on admitted facts in the notice and the approval proforma. The approval proforma records the escaped income as Rs. 35,00,000 and invokes reopening under Section 149(1)(b) and Section 149(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a period beyond three years but not exceeding ten years. The statutory framework requires that reopening beyond three years is permissible only where the alleged escaped income exceeds the prescribed monetary threshold. The Assessing Officer and the approving authority did not rely on any composite or cumulative calculation across multiple assessment years to justify invocation of the extended limitation; instead the recorded figure for the relevant assessment year falls below the statutory threshold. On these admitted facts, the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening is vitiated.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 read with Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is invalid insofar as the alleged escaped income for AY 2017-18 is Rs. 35,00,000 which is below the Rs. 50,00,000 threshold required to reopen assessments beyond three years; accordingly the assessment order is quashed and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in invoking revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to set aside the assessment completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B for A.Y. 2018-19 on the ground that the Assessing Officer erroneously allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) despite the assessee being a non-filer and thus ineligible under Section 80AC and CBDT Circular No.8/2018 dated 26.12.2018.

Analysis: Applicable legal framework includes Section 263 (revision of orders), the reopening provisions under Section 147 read with Section 144B, filing requirement under Section 139(1), the eligibility condition for Chapter VIA deductions introduced by Section 80AC effective from 01.04.2018, and the binding CBDT Circular No.8/2018 dated 26.12.2018. The factual matrix shows the assessee did not file the original return within the time prescribed by Section 139(1) but filed a belated return after issuance of notice under Section 148 and claimed deduction under Section 80P. The allowance of the deduction in the assessment order occurred without any query or verification of eligibility in light of the filing-time condition in Section 80AC. Precedents establish that revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 is exercisable where an assessing order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and where a claim has been allowed without due examination; mere existence of debatable views does not absolve the Assessing Officer from performing requisite verification. The Assessing Officer's failure to examine applicability of Section 80AC and the binding CBDT circular before allowing the Section 80P deduction rendered the assessment order susceptible to revision under Section 263.

Conclusion: Revision under Section 263 was justified and the order under Section 147 read with Section 144B granting deduction under Section 80P is set aside; the appeal challenging the revision is dismissed, which is against the assessee and in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessing officer allows a deduction without conducting necessary verification of eligibility conditions (including statutory filing-time conditions introduced by Section 80AC and related binding circulars), the order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue and amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued on 19.07.2022 (new regime) is time barred and whether the Tribunal should set aside the reassessment on the ground of limitation in view of the Supreme Court rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022.

Analysis: The issue arises from an original notice dated 17.06.2021 (old regime) which, by virtue of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal and subsequent CBDT instruction, was deemed to be a notice under Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal clarified that the period during which proceedings under Section 148A were stayed is excluded for computing limitation and that the assessing officer retains only the surviving time computed as the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30.06.2021. The surviving time begins to run only after the assessee's response to the deemed notice is received. Applying these principles to the facts, the original notice date of 17.06.2021 yields a surviving period of 14 days (up to 30.06.2021). The assessee submitted his reply on 26.06.2022, so the assessing officer had 14 days from that date, i.e. up to 09.07.2022, to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. The assessing officer issued the reassessment notice on 19.07.2022, which is beyond the computed surviving time and therefore barred by limitation under the framework laid down by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 19.07.2022 is time barred and set aside; the Revenue's appeal is dismissed (decision in favour of the assessee).

Issues: Whether the expenditure incurred on rollers and structures, scrap rails (railway track), conveyor belt and ventilation ducting in the course of execution of tunnel sub-contract works is capital expenditure (plant and machinery) giving enduring benefit or revenue expenditure (temporary/site-specific/consumable) and therefore allowable as revenue deduction.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the nature and use of the items (rail tracks, conveyor belt, ventilation ducting, rollers and related structures) in the context of the tunnel EPC turnkey contract executed using a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). The Tribunal considered whether the outlay brought into existence an asset or advantage of an enduring nature for the assessee's business or whether the items were temporary, site-specific tools used exclusively for executing a single contract and part of the profit-earning process. The Tribunal reviewed the facts that the items were acquired and deployed pro tempore within a site belonging to others, continually extended as the tunnel progressed, frequently damaged (in the case of conveyor belts and rollers), and did not form part of the assessee's permanent business infrastructure. The Tribunal applied the commercial-benefit tests and precedents (including principles articulated in Madras Auto Service and related authorities) to conclude that the expenditure did not create a capital asset for the assessee and produced no enduring capital advantage beyond the life of the contract.

Conclusion: Issue decided in favour of the assessee; the expenditure on rollers and structures, scrap rails, conveyor belt and ventilation ducting is revenue in nature (temporary/site-specific) and not capital expenditure, and the additions disallowing such expenditure are set aside; appeals allowed.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for CENVAT credit attributable to trading activity prior to 01.04.2011 (including invocation of extended period of limitation) is sustainable; (ii) Whether the various services on which CENVAT credit was disallowed are ineligible as input services; (iii) Whether penalties imposed on the appellant, its ISD and its Director are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for CENVAT credit attributable to trading activity prior to 01.04.2011 and the invocation of extended period of limitation are sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined divergent authorities on inclusion of trading in turnover and the temporal effect of the amendment; considered principles that value of traded goods should be excluded when determining value of non-taxable trading services for apportionment; noted that the appellant had dealer registration, filed returns and that disputes existed on the legal interpretation, and found persuasive precedents holding that extended period cannot be invoked where facts were in departmental knowledge or where complex disputed questions exist.

Conclusion: Demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is unsustainable; the apportionment for the normal period must exclude the value of goods and be recomputed by the adjudicating authority following the principles indicated. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the various services on which CENVAT credit was disallowed are ineligible as input services.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed coordinate decisions and held that the categories of services claimed by the appellant are covered as eligible input services under the Cenvat Credit framework, and that the authorities' disallowance was contrary to the Tribunal precedents requiring eligibility for a broad set of business-related input services and appropriate apportionment rules.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the impugned input services is unsustainable; the services are eligible for CENVAT credit. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties imposed on the appellant, the ISD and the Director are sustainable.

Analysis: Given the existence of conflicting decisions, the complexity of legal questions on apportionment and eligibility, and the Tribunal precedents indicating that penalties are not imposable where reasonable controversy and legal uncertainty exist, the Tribunal found penalty imposition inappropriate in the circumstances and noted the requirement for recomputation and re-adjudication for the normal period.

Conclusion: Penalties imposed on the appellant, the ISD and the Director are set aside. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order is modified by setting aside demands raised by extended limitation, directing recomputation for the normal period excluding value of traded goods and remanding for verification on the basis of a CA-certified worksheet; penalties are quashed and the appeals are partly allowed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: For apportioning CENVAT credit in relation to trading activity prior to 01.04.2011, the value of the traded goods must be excluded from the value of non-taxable trading services when computing attributable common input service credit; invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties are not sustainable where facts were in departmental knowledge or where bona fide legal disputes and divergent authorities exist.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could direct the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147 after deleting additions made under section 153A, and whether such a direction was within the scope of sections 150 and 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appellate power under section 251 authorises the Commissioner (Appeals) to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but it does not extend to conferring jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment. Section 150 does not enlarge that appellate power; it only regulates the time limit for reassessment where a valid finding or direction already exists. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that reassessment must be initiated on the Assessing Officer's own statutory satisfaction and cannot rest on a blanket direction from the first appellate authority. Since the additions under section 153A had been deleted for want of incriminating material, the further direction to invoke section 147/148 went beyond the appellate authority's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The direction to initiate reassessment proceedings was held to be without authority of law, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the activity of agreeing not to compete amounted to a supply of service and, in respect of the recipient in the United States, whether the place of supply was outside India and the service qualified as export of service. (ii) Whether the portion of the non-compete fee attributable to activities linked to entities operating in India was liable to GST and, if so, in what manner.

Issue (i): Whether the activity of agreeing not to compete amounted to a supply of service and, in respect of the recipient in the United States, whether the place of supply was outside India and the service qualified as export of service.

Analysis: Agreeing to refrain from an act falls within paragraph 5(e) of Schedule II and is treated as a supply of services. For the non-compete obligation relating to the purchaser located outside India, the recipient was outside India, the place of supply was outside India under section 13(2) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, payment was received in convertible foreign exchange, and the parties were not merely establishments of the same person. All statutory conditions for export of services were satisfied.

Conclusion: Yes. The service, to the extent rendered in favour of the purchaser located outside India, constituted export of services and was a zero-rated supply attracting nil GST.

Issue (ii): Whether the portion of the non-compete fee attributable to activities linked to entities operating in India was liable to GST and, if so, in what manner.

Analysis: The non-compete obligation also extended to entities carrying on business in India. That part of the service had its place of supply in India and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of export of services. Depending on the location of supplier and place of supply, the supply would be treated as inter-State or intra-State supply under the IGST Act, 2017 and GST would apply accordingly.

Conclusion: Yes. The portion attributable to the Indian operations was taxable under GST as applicable, with the exact levy depending on whether the supply was inter-State or intra-State.

Final Conclusion: The ruling bifurcates the consideration: the foreign-linked non-compete service is outside the GST net as export of services, while the India-linked portion remains taxable under the applicable GST regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-compete covenant is a supply of service, but it is export of service only when the recipient is outside India, the place of supply is outside India, consideration is received in foreign exchange, and the parties are not merely distinct establishments of the same person; the domestic component remains taxable under GST.

Issues: (i) Whether the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 together with an attachment stating determination of tax can substitute for a Show Cause Notice required under Section 73(1) of the Central/State GST Act; (ii) Whether the attachments and orders lacking authentication by the Proper Officer and denial of opportunity of hearing in terms of Rule 26(3) and Section 75(4) render the proceedings and order invalid.

Issue (i): Whether the Summary in Form GST DRC-01 and its attachment can be treated as the Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1).

Analysis: Section 73(1) requires the Proper Officer to issue a Show Cause Notice specifying reasons for invoking Section 73. Rule 142(1)(a) mandates that a summary in Form GST DRC-01 be served along with the notice, and Section 73(3) separately requires a statement of determination. The provisions distinguish between a Show Cause Notice, the statement of determination and the summary; the summary is additional and does not replace the substantive Show Cause Notice required by Section 73(1). Authorities cited by the Court support that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute for the mandatory Show Cause Notice.

Conclusion: The Summary in Form GST DRC-01 together with the attached statement of determination does not substitute for the Show Cause Notice required under Section 73(1). The initiation of proceedings under Section 73 without issuance of a proper Show Cause Notice is invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether attachments and orders lacking authentication by the Proper Officer as required by Rule 26(3), and failure to grant opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), invalidate the proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 26(3) prescribes electronic issuance and authentication by digital signature or e-signature for notices and orders; Section 2(91) identifies the Proper Officer as the competent authority to issue notices, statements and orders under Section 73. Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing when an adverse decision is contemplated or requested in writing. The attachments to the DRC-01 and DRC-07 lacked the Proper Officer's authentication on their face and the petitioner, having opted for personal hearing, was not granted one. The Court held that absent authentication in the manner contemplated and without hearing where mandated, the notices, statements and the order are ineffective.

Conclusion: The attachments and impugned order lacking authentication by the Proper Officer and passed without affording the statutory opportunity of hearing are invalid; the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication under Section 73 was vitiated by (a) absence of a proper Show Cause Notice distinct from the DRC-01 summary, (b) lack of required authentication by the Proper Officer, and (c) failure to afford statutory opportunity of hearing; accordingly the impugned order is quashed and parties are permitted re-initiation of proceedings de novo, with exclusion of the period from issuance of the DRC-01 summary to service of certified copy of the judgment for limitation computation under Section 73(10).

Ratio Decidendi: A Form GST DRC-01 summary and an attached statement cannot substitute the mandatory Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1); notices, statements and orders under the Act must be authenticated by the Proper Officer as required by Rule 26(3), and statutory rights to hearing under Section 75(4) must be respected; failure on these counts renders proceedings and orders invalid.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant is a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity in terms of explanation to Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; (ii) Whether the services provided by the appellant constitute "pure services"; (iii) Whether the services supplied by the appellant are entitled to exemption under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant is a Governmental Authority or a Government Entity in terms of explanation to Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The appellant was established by the State Government to implement the Free Medical Distribution Scheme and was incorporated with government equity and control to carry out functions entrusted by the State, including procurement, warehousing and distribution of medicines and maintenance of medical equipment. The nature and purpose of the governmental resolution and the extent of government participation were considered in light of the definitions in the explanation to Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Conclusion: In favour of Appellant on the question of being a Government Entity; negative on the question of being a Governmental Authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the services provided by the appellant constitute "pure services".

Analysis: The appellant procures goods on funds allocated by the Government, does not treat amounts paid to suppliers as its revenue or expenditure, and retains only a government-authorised service charge reflected in its accounts. The functions performed (procurement, inventory management, distribution, maintenance) are integral parts of the public health scheme and the use of Rule 33 (which concerns valuation for a pure agent) was assessed as misplaced for defining "pure services"; the character of supply was determined from the contractual/functional mandate and accounting treatment.

Conclusion: In favour of Appellant; the services constitute pure services.

Issue (iii): Whether the services supplied by the appellant are entitled to exemption under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: Entry Sl. No. 3 grants nil rate to pure services provided to government in relation to functions entrusted to Panchayats or Municipalities under Articles 243G/243W. The appellant's mandated activities are integrally linked to public health functions expressly enumerated in the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules and arise from the State's policy to provide essential medicines free of cost; therefore the services fall within the scope of the notified exemption.

Conclusion: In favour of Appellant; the services are entitled to exemption under Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and the corresponding State notification.

Final Conclusion: The appellant qualifies as a Government Entity, its supplies are pure services, and those services are covered by the nil-rate exemption at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; the earlier AAR conclusions to the contrary are set aside to the extent inconsistent with these rulings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an entity is established and controlled by the Government to perform functions entrusted under Articles 243G/243W and performs procurement and related services on government funds while retaining only an authorised service charge (not treating supplier payments as its revenue), such activities constitute pure services and fall within the nil-rate exemption at Sl. No. 3 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issues: (i) Whether the services of transporting goods ordered through e-commerce portals by road on issue of a consignment note qualify as Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services; (ii) Whether GTA services provided to unregistered customers ordering through electronic commerce operator portals are eligible for exemption under Entry Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).

Issue (i): Whether the described transportation services qualify as Goods Transport Agency services.

Analysis: The definitional requirement for GTA under Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 requires (a) provision of service in relation to transport of goods by road and (b) issuance of a consignment note. Issuance of a consignment note evidences receipt of goods for transport, transfer of custody, creation of lien and assumption of responsibility for safe delivery. Ancillary activities integral to road transportation may form part of the composite GTA service as clarified by Board Circular No. 234/28/2024-GST dated 11.10.2024 and prior clarifications on the distinction between GTA and courier services.

Conclusion: The described activity of transporting goods by road to customers on the basis of a consignment note qualifies as Goods Transport Agency services.

Issue (ii): Whether such GTA services provided to unregistered customers through electronic commerce operator portals are exempt under Entry Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).

Analysis: Entry Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 exempts services provided by a goods transport agency to an unregistered person, subject to the specified exceptions. Where the recipient is unregistered and the service is classifiable as GTA (including ancillary services forming part of the composite supply), the exemption under Sl. No. 21A applies. The payment mechanism through the electronic commerce operator, privity of contract with the end-customer, and disclosure of transport charges in invoices do not detract from the identity of the recipient as unregistered for purposes of the entry.

Conclusion: GTA services provided to unregistered customers ordering through electronic commerce operator portals are eligible for exemption under Entry Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).

Final Conclusion: The applicant's road transportation activity on issuance of a consignment note is classified as Goods Transport Agency services and such services provided to unregistered customers through e-commerce operator portals qualify for exemption under Entry Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended).

Ratio Decidendi: Issuance of a consignment note together with provision of transport of goods exclusively by road is determinative of classification as Goods Transport Agency services, and where the recipient is unregistered, such GTA services fall within Entry Sl. No. 21A of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended) and are exempt from GST.

Issues: (i) Whether repair and maintenance services provided by the Head Office in Maharashtra through Field Service Engineers (FSEs) for AMC/CMC with customers in Odisha constitute a 'place of business' in Odisha under Section 2(85) of the CGST Act; (ii) Whether temporary storage of spare parts and tool kits at the Appellant's location in Odisha constitute a 'place of business' under Section 2(85) or a 'fixed establishment' under Section 2(50) of the CGST Act; (iii) Whether the Appellant is required to obtain separate GST registration in Odisha solely on account of activities performed in Odisha.

Issue (i): Whether repair and maintenance services provided by the Head Office in Maharashtra through FSEs for AMC/CMC with customers in Odisha constitute a 'place of business' in Odisha under Section 2(85) of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 2(85) is inclusive and identifies (a) a place from where business is ordinarily carried on (including warehouses/godowns), (b) a place where books of account are maintained, or (c) a place where business is carried on through an agent. Section 2(71) defines the location of supplier of services as the place of business or fixed establishment most directly concerned with the supply. The facts show that contracts, invoicing, receipt of consideration and inventory control are effected from the Head Office in Maharashtra; FSEs in Odisha are employees deployed for operational execution and do not enter into contracts, maintain books or act as independent agents. The minimal, incidental post-service holding of spare parts by FSEs is operational and not evidence of a place from which business is ordinarily carried on.

Conclusion: No. The repair and maintenance services provided through FSEs do not constitute a 'place of business' in Odisha. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether temporary storage of spare parts and tool kits at the Appellant's location in Odisha constitute a 'place of business' under Section 2(85) or a 'fixed establishment' under Section 2(50) of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 2(50) requires a sufficient degree of permanence and a suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources for supply of services. The retained spare parts are minimal, transient (returned within a short period), incidental to execution of service visits, and there is no separate administrative or inventory control in Odisha. The absence of permanence, independent structure or autonomous inventory management indicates no fixed establishment. Similarly, temporary incidental storage does not satisfy the circumstances envisaged in clause (a) of Section 2(85) as a place from which business is ordinarily carried on.

Conclusion: No. The temporary storage of spare parts and tool kits does not constitute a 'place of business' or a 'fixed establishment'. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Appellant is required to obtain separate GST registration in Odisha solely on account of the activities performed in Odisha.

Analysis: Sections 22 and 24 prescribe registration where a person makes taxable supplies from a State or falls within specified categories requiring compulsory registration. Given that supplies, invoicing, consideration and inventory control are effected from the Head Office in Maharashtra and the Odisha presence is limited to operational execution by employees without creating place of business or fixed establishment, supplies are made from Maharashtra. Consequently, the statutory criteria for separate registration in Odisha are not met on the basis of the activities described.

Conclusion: No. The Appellant is not required to obtain separate GST registration in Odisha solely due to the described activities. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling has concluded that the Head Office's provision of AMC/CMC services through deployed employees and incidental temporary retention of spare parts in the State do not create a place of business or fixed establishment in that State and do not trigger a requirement for separate GST registration there; the Appellant's supplies are treated as made from the Head Office location.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contracts, invoicing, receipt of consideration and inventory control are effected from the principal place of business and local personnel merely execute those contracts with transient incidental storage of parts, such presence does not constitute a 'place of business' under Section 2(85) or a 'fixed establishment' under Section 2(50) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and therefore does not mandate separate State registration under Sections 22/24.