Issues: (i) Whether written acceptance of reassessment and enhanced customs value waives the importer's statutory right to challenge it; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value can be rejected and reassessed solely on unparticularised contemporaneous-import data and an acceptance letter without compliance with the statutory valuation requirements.

Issue (i): Whether written acceptance of reassessment and enhanced customs value waives the importer's statutory right to challenge it.

Analysis: Written acceptance under Section 17(5) relieves the proper officer only of the obligation to issue a speaking order. It does not amount to waiver of the statutory right to challenge reassessment on the validity of the formation of opinion or on merits. The acceptance communications did not establish a voluntary abandonment of that statutory right.

Conclusion: Written acceptance of enhanced value does not bar the importer from challenging the reassessment; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value can be rejected and reassessed solely on unparticularised contemporaneous-import data and an acceptance letter without compliance with the statutory valuation requirements.

Analysis: Rejection of transaction value requires compliance with Section 14 and Rule 12(2), including formation and communication of reasonable doubt regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared value. A valuation addition based merely on NIDB or contemporaneous-import data requires independent and cogent supporting material. The acceptance letters did not identify the alleged comparable import data or supply substantiated grounds for rejecting the declared value.

Conclusion: The rejection of declared value and the enhanced reassessment were unsustainable; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Statutory valuation safeguards remain applicable notwithstanding an importer's written acceptance, and reassessment must rest on communicated grounds and substantiated material.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer's written acceptance under Section 17(5) waives only the requirement of a speaking order and does not waive the statutory right to challenge reassessment, while rejection of transaction value requires Rule 12(2)-compliant grounds supported by tangible material.

Issues: (i) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation for the subsequent demands was justified; (ii) Whether the demand under Construction of Residential Complex Service was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation for the subsequent demands was justified.

Analysis: The subsequent demands were founded on the earlier notice, whose resulting demand had already been set aside. No independent material established suppression, fraud, or intent to evade tax for the later periods. The extended period, being foundational to the demands, was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unjustified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand under Construction of Residential Complex Service was sustainable.

Analysis: The prior demand on the same basis had been set aside on the ground that the activity was a composite works contract after the assessee opted for the works contract composition scheme. No distinguishing material supported the subsequent demands under Construction of Residential Complex Service.

Conclusion: The demand under Construction of Residential Complex Service was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax demands fail for want of a valid basis to invoke the extended limitation period and for absence of sustainable liability under the stated taxable category.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent demand founded on the same allegations as an earlier notice cannot invoke the extended limitation period without fresh material establishing suppression, fraud, or intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the relevant date for the one-year limitation for a rebate claim on exported services is the export-invoice date or the date of full realisation of export proceeds.

Analysis: Receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange was a condition for treating the services as exported under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Notification No. 11/2005-ST also required receipt of such payment and documentary proof. The framework applicable to exported services therefore made full realisation of export proceeds material for computing limitation. The rule concerning goods exported out of India did not govern this determination for export of services.

Conclusion: The relevant date is the date of full realisation of export proceeds; the rebate claim was within limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of TMT rods/bars without payment of central excise duty was established on the basis of private records and statements.

Analysis: Clandestine removal must be established by positive evidence, with the burden resting on the Revenue. The Executive Diary, made-up file and statements indicated short accounting of MS ingots, which were captively consumed, but did not independently establish their conversion into unaccounted finished TMT rods/bars or their removal. There was no corroboration through electricity consumption, transport or dispatch records, or evidence identifying purchasers of the alleged clandestinely cleared goods. Conjecture arising from private records and uncorroborated statements was insufficient to prove clandestine removal.

Conclusion: The alleged clandestine removal was not proved; the excise-duty demand and the associated penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for commercial-tax evasion under the Bihar Finance Act warranted revisional interference.

Analysis: The documentary material disclosed deliberate discrepancies in the description and value of goods, indicating suppression of transactions to evade commercial tax. The appellate findings had specifically addressed the discrepancies. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to patent jurisdictional or legal error, findings based on no evidence, disregard of material evidence, or arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion; it does not permit routine reappraisal of concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and sentences under the Bihar Finance Act warranted no revisional interference.

Issues: (i) Whether retrospective cancellation of GST registration precludes an audit under Section 65 for the entire notified period, including the period after the effective cancellation date; (ii) Whether non-disclosure of a pending audit notice in earlier cancellation proceedings disentitles the taxpayer to discretionary writ relief.

Issue (i): Whether retrospective cancellation of GST registration precludes an audit under Section 65 for the entire notified period, including the period after the effective cancellation date.

Analysis: Section 2(13) defines audit as examination of records, returns and documents to verify past compliance, while Section 65(1), read with Rule 101, authorises audit for a specified period. Pending determination of a cancellation application, registration is deemed suspended under Rule 21A but is not brought to an end, and the person continues to be described as a registered person.

Analysis: The expression "registered person" requires contextual interpretation in light of the retrospective and record-based nature of an audit. A registration granted and subsisting during the proposed audit period provides the necessary factual nexus for scrutiny of records and conduct under that registration, notwithstanding its later retrospective cancellation. Section 29(3) preserves pre-cancellation liabilities and obligations, but the authority to audit arises from Sections 2(13) and 65 read with Rule 101. Audit neither determines tax liability nor validates post-cancellation returns or assumes post-cancellation taxable supplies.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation did not deprive the authority of jurisdiction to audit the full notified period, including the period after the effective cancellation date. The issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether non-disclosure of a pending audit notice in earlier cancellation proceedings disentitles the taxpayer to discretionary writ relief.

Analysis: The audit notice was material to the relief sought in the earlier cancellation proceedings and was known to the taxpayer, but was not disclosed. Delay by the department in processing the cancellation application did not excuse that material non-disclosure. Reliance on directions obtained without disclosing the pending audit proceedings was inconsistent with the clean hands requirement for equitable writ relief.

Conclusion: The material non-disclosure independently disentitled the taxpayer to discretionary writ relief. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Statutory audit jurisdiction survives retrospective cancellation in respect of records and conduct referable to the notified period, and material non-disclosure independently bars equitable intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of statutory audit, a person registered during the period under scrutiny remains amenable to examination of records and compliance referable to that registration despite its subsequent retrospective cancellation.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority could dismiss the rectification appeal on the ground of multiplicity of litigation without deciding its grounds and without disposing of the connected merits appeal in accordance with Section 107(11).

Analysis: Section 107(11) requires the Appellate Authority to confirm, modify, or annul the decision or order appealed against. Having taken the two appeals together, the Appellate Authority dismissed one appeal on multiplicity grounds without recording any finding on the connected appeal challenging the original demand and without addressing the grounds against rejection of rectification. The absence of an appellate finding on the demand also precluded determination of its merits in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The multiplicity-based dismissal was unsustainable, and both appeal proceedings require fresh reasoned adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit was reversible under Section 17(2) where cattle-feed supplies were exempt and no input tax credit had been availed on their purchase, subject to any common input or input-services credit; and (ii) Whether differential tax based on a disparity between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 could be determined without considering the claimed corrections and explanations in the annual return.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit was reversible under Section 17(2) where cattle-feed supplies were exempt and no input tax credit had been availed on their purchase, subject to any common input or input-services credit.

Analysis: Section 17(2) restricts credit where goods or services are used partly for taxable supplies and partly for exempt supplies, while Rules 42 and 43 prescribe the mechanism for reversal of common credit. Credit reversal can arise only where input tax credit has actually been availed on inputs, input services, or capital goods used for both taxable and exempt supplies. No reversal is warranted in respect of exempt traded goods on which no input tax credit was taken; however, common input-services credit, if any, requires verification and proportionate computation.

Conclusion: Reversal is confined to actual common input tax credit, if any, and its existence and quantum require verification.

Issue (ii): Whether differential tax based on a disparity between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 could be determined without considering the claimed corrections and explanations in the annual return.

Analysis: The annual return under Section 44 permits correction of figures declared in periodic returns. The asserted clerical explanation for the difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 requires consideration along with the relevant records before determining whether any differential tax remains payable.

Conclusion: The claimed corrections and explanation for the return difference must be considered before determining any differential tax liability.

Final Conclusion: The tax, interest, and penalty demands require fresh merits determination after verification of actual common input tax credit and consideration of the annual-return reconciliation, with an effective opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit reversal under Section 17(2) is limited to input tax credit actually availed on common inputs or input services attributable to exempt supplies.

Issues: Whether GST can be demanded from a job worker solely on the value shown in e-way bills without evidence that the job worker made undisclosed taxable supplies.

Analysis: Section 143 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises movement of a principal's goods for job work. Under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, an e-way bill may be generated by the registered person causing movement of goods; in an inter-State job-work movement, it may be generated by either the principal or the registered job worker. The identity of the person generating the e-way bill is therefore not determinative of taxable supply. The supporting records established that the goods belonged to the principal, moved under delivery challans for job work, and were returned after processing, while the job-work charges were separately invoiced and disclosed. A mismatch between return data and e-way-bill values, without investigation or independent evidence of supply of goods, receipt of consideration, or tax evasion, does not establish undisclosed taxable turnover.

Conclusion: GST cannot be demanded merely from the value declared in e-way bills in the absence of independent evidence establishing an undisclosed taxable supply. The tax demand and consequential interest and penalty are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether B2B supplies were erroneously reported as B2C supplies in Form GSTR-1 and re-reported in March 2020, resulting in duplicate reporting and artificial inflation of turnover and tax liability; (ii) Whether rectification of the erroneous classification in Form GSTR-1 for March 2020 in respect of preceding months of the same financial year was permissible under Section 39(9) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether B2B supplies were erroneously reported as B2C supplies in Form GSTR-1 and re-reported in March 2020, resulting in duplicate reporting and artificial inflation of turnover and tax liability.

Analysis: Verification of the Form GSTR-1 returns, recipient GSTINs, tax invoices and tabulated supply details established that supplies shown as B2C were actually made to registered recipients. Tax on the supplies made from June 2019 to February 2020 had already been discharged through the corresponding Form GSTR-3B returns. Their re-reporting as B2B supplies in the March 2020 Form GSTR-1, together with the March 2020 supplies, duplicated the entries and artificially increased the turnover and liability reflected in Form GSTR-1.

Conclusion: Yes. The actual supplies were B2B supplies, and duplicate reporting in Form GSTR-1 caused the apparent mismatch and inflated liability. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rectification of the erroneous classification in Form GSTR-1 for March 2020 in respect of preceding months of the same financial year was permissible under Section 39(9) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 39(9) permitted rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars in the return for the month or quarter in which the error was noticed, subject to the prescribed outer deadline and to the rectification not arising from scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity. The provision did not require rectification only in returns of the subsequent financial year. The correction was made voluntarily within the statutory outer time limit, while the tax on the underlying outward supplies had already been paid; the reporting errors were consequently revenue-neutral.

Conclusion: Yes. Rectification in the March 2020 Form GSTR-1 for errors in returns of preceding months of the same financial year was legally permissible under Section 39(9) of the Act. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The variance between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B arose from a timely permissible correction of supply classification and duplicate reporting, and did not establish an enforceable additional tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 39(9) permits a registered person to rectify omissions or incorrect particulars in a subsequent return of the same financial year when the error is noticed, provided the statutory conditions and outer time limit are satisfied; it does not confine rectification to returns of the following financial year.

Issues: Whether the penalty for transporting goods with an incomplete Part B and an expired e-way bill could be waived because the goods matched the invoices and intent to evade tax was not established.

Analysis: Section 68 and the e-way bill rules prescribe documentation for goods in transit, while Section 129 provides for penalty. At interception, vehicle particulars had not been entered in Part B and another e-way bill had expired two days earlier. No valid reason for the omissions or delay was established. The registered person's compliance duty was non-delegable; the transporter's negligence, matching invoices and subsequent return declarations did not cure the contravention at interception.

Conclusion: Waiver of the penalty was not justified; the penalty was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Transporting goods without updated vehicle particulars in an e-way bill or under an expired e-way bill, without a valid reason, is a substantive contravention attracting penalty. Matching invoices, subsequent declarations and transporter negligence do not cure the defect.

Issues: (i) Whether revision was justified in respect of the cash deposits and alleged deposit discrepancy; (ii) whether revision was justified in respect of liquidity and fixed investments; (iii) whether revision was justified in respect of possible cash payments for a property; (iv) whether revision was justified in respect of increased turnover and a declining net-profit ratio; (v) whether revision was justified in respect of the valuation of purchases, sales and inventory.

Issue (i): Whether revision was justified in respect of the cash deposits and alleged deposit discrepancy.

Analysis: Section 263 permits revision of an assessment that is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, including where necessary enquiries have not been made. The Assessing Officer had sought bank statements, the cash book, deposit details and explanations of cash sales. The deposit entries were supported by the cash book, and one deposit date had been incorrectly recorded in the revision notice. The Commissioner identified no specific deficiency in the sales details and did not provide the requested basis for the alleged discrepancy.

Conclusion: Revision on the cash deposits and alleged discrepancy was not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether revision was justified in respect of liquidity and fixed investments.

Analysis: The explanation linked the turnover to fast-selling goods and later payments to suppliers. The investment statement showed that the identified investments were opening balances, while the increase in fixed assets related to a car. No adverse finding was made on the explained liquidity or the audited accounts.

Conclusion: Revision on liquidity and fixed investments was not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether revision was justified in respect of possible cash payments for a property.

Analysis: The search-related observations did not identify how the material was relevant to the assessment year. The explanation that the property payments were made in earlier years was not contradicted by identified material.

Conclusion: Revision on the possible property-related cash payments was not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether revision was justified in respect of increased turnover and a declining net-profit ratio.

Analysis: The apparent decline in net profit reflected a GST amount and penalty charged to the accounts but added back in the income computation. Comparative expenses were not adversely addressed, and the increase in turnover was explained by the recovery following the COVID period.

Conclusion: Revision on turnover and the net-profit ratio was not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether revision was justified in respect of the valuation of purchases, sales and inventory.

Analysis: Section 145A requires inclusive valuation of purchases, sales and inventory for specified taxes, duties, cess and fees. The accounting explanation and auditor's note showed that GST and cess were separately recorded rather than included in those valuations.

Conclusion: Revision on the valuation issue was justified, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh assessment remains confined to the valuation issue; the other grounds for revision do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision for inadequate enquiry requires a substantiated assessment error prejudicial to revenue; an established breach of mandatory valuation rules can satisfy that requirement.

Issues: Whether credit for tax deducted at source should be granted for the corresponding income.

Analysis: The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without granting the disputed credit. Form 26AS reflected the corresponding income and tax deducted, and credit had also been granted to a co-owner.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to tax deducted at source credit to the extent it relates to corresponding income.

Issues: Whether the assessee's goods carriages attracted the presumptive income rate for heavy goods vehicles rather than the rate for other goods carriages.

Analysis: Section 44AE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 defines a heavy goods vehicle by reference to a gross vehicle weight exceeding 12,000 kilograms and prescribes a weight-based presumptive income rate. The framework applied, including the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the CBDT circular, treats unladen weight as relevant to tractors or road-rollers. The vehicles had an undisputed gross vehicle weight of 49,000 kilograms each and an unladen weight of 10,200 kilograms; they were not shown to be tractors or road-rollers.

Conclusion: The heavy-goods-vehicle rate applies, and the addition of Rs. 16,40,000 is sustained against the assessee.

Issues: Whether a late-filing fee and consequential interest could be levied on a TDS statement for assessment year 2013-14 processed after 1 June 2015.

Analysis: Section 234E provided for a late-filing fee, while Section 200A(1)(c), introduced with effect from 1 June 2015, supplied the mechanism for computing that fee during processing of TDS statements. The Tribunal applied High Court authority addressing assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15, including statements processed after the amendment. The statement in question related to assessment year 2013-14 and was processed after the amendment.

Conclusion: The fee and consequential interest were unlawful and the levy was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to compute late-filing fees during TDS statement processing cannot be applied to assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15 merely because processing occurred after the power was introduced.

Issues: Whether environmental preservation expenditure is deductible under the ordinary income-tax provisions where charitable trust registration has been denied.

Analysis: Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 governs qualifying expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business, while section 57 concerns expenditure for earning income from other sources. The claimed expenditure was treated as supported by evidence; the books had not been rejected and the ad hoc disallowance lacked cogent reasons.

Conclusion: The environmental expenditure must be allowed in computing income on the footing that the assessee is carrying on business, at the normal rate.

Issues: (i) Whether the business advance was assessable as unexplained money; (ii) Whether the estimated business-profit addition required fresh adjudication; (iii) Whether the penalty for audit default was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the business advance was assessable as unexplained money.

Analysis: The ledger, sale bill and bank statement supported the explanation that the advance was settled during the year through a partial supply of goods and repayment of the balance.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,59,00,000 as unexplained money was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimated business-profit addition required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The estimation under the presumptive taxation provision followed rejection of the books of account and an objection to the audit report available on the departmental portal. Evidence of electronic filing and subsequent furnishing of the report required verification, with an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication, in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty for audit default was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 271B requires failure to obtain an audit or furnish the report as required under section 44AB. The evidence established that the report had been obtained and furnished; the objection concerned the particulars in the report.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unexplained-money addition and audit penalty do not survive, while the estimated business profit remains open for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for audit default requires proof of the statutory failure to obtain an audit or furnish its report; objections to the report's particulars alone do not establish that failure.

Issues: (i) Whether amounts deposited under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 were benami property. (ii) Whether the 2016 amendments to the benami law apply retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether amounts deposited under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 were benami property.

Analysis: The statutory definition of a benami transaction requires property held by one person for the benefit of another who provided the consideration. The declarations underlying the deposits had been declared void for misrepresentation and suppression of facts, and the amounts remained with the department without meeting a tax liability. A request by another person to adjust the deposits against his own tax demand supported an inference that he provided the consideration and could benefit from the arrangement.

Conclusion: The attached amount of Rs. 5,30,10,000 was benami property; the declarants were benamidars and the person seeking adjustment was its beneficial owner.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2016 amendments to the benami law apply retrospectively.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court's distinction between declaratory, curative and procedural machinery provisions and penal provisions creating new offences or enhancing punishment. The amendments supplied machinery for attachment, adjudication and confiscation to give effect to the existing prohibition of benami transactions.

Conclusion: The procedural and machinery amendments, including the confiscation provisions, apply retrospectively; provisions creating new offences or enhancing punishment do not.

Final Conclusion: The attachment remains effective and the confiscation machinery applies, without retrospective imposition of new or enhanced penal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: The 2016 benami-law amendments operate retrospectively insofar as they are declaratory, curative, procedural or machinery-oriented, but provisions creating new offences or enhancing punishment operate prospectively.

Issues: (i) Whether an MSME promoter was exempt from the prescribed net-worth criterion or entitled to exceptional relaxation; (ii) whether the criterion was arbitrary and the expression of interest could be rejected without consideration of the proposal by the committee of creditors; (iii) whether directed recomputation of the creditor's claim invalidated the criterion or required a revised information memorandum and fresh invitation; and (iv) whether mala fides or bias were established against the resolution professional or committee of creditors.

Issue (i): Whether an MSME promoter was exempt from the prescribed net-worth criterion or entitled to exceptional relaxation.

Analysis: Section 240A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 removes specified disqualifications under section 29A but does not dispense with the separate positive eligibility criteria prescribed under section 25. A promoter submitting a plan participates as a resolution applicant through the same invitation process. MSME status, promoter status, earnest money, income records and an undertaking to prove funding did not establish the prescribed current net worth. No applicable notification extending the exemption was identified.

Conclusion: The promoter was neither exempt from the criterion nor entitled to exceptional relaxation. The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the criterion was arbitrary and the expression of interest could be rejected without consideration of the proposal by the committee of creditors.

Analysis: The net-worth threshold was approved with reference to the scale and value of the business and applied uniformly to applicants. The committee's commercial wisdom is subject to limited review. Regulation 36A requires the resolution professional to conduct due diligence on expressions of interest against the approved criteria; the applicant was given an opportunity to provide the certificate or explain its absence.

Conclusion: The criterion was not arbitrary, and the non-compliant expression of interest could be rejected without consideration of the proposal by the committee. The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether directed recomputation of the creditor's claim invalidated the criterion or required a revised information memorandum and fresh invitation.

Analysis: The threshold was based on the project's scale and asset value, rather than a percentage of the creditor's claim. The recomputed claim was not yet known. Revision of the information memorandum and any fresh invitation were matters for the resolution professional and committee of creditors, while the rejection was to be assessed against the criteria and facts existing when it occurred.

Conclusion: The recomputation direction did not invalidate the criterion or require the requested revisions on the record. The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether mala fides or bias were established against the resolution professional or committee of creditors.

Analysis: The criterion applied to all applicants, deficient submissions were handled under the same requirements, and the appellant was given an opportunity to respond. Existing disputes with the sole creditor did not by themselves establish improper conduct.

Conclusion: Mala fides and bias were not established. The issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: MSME promoter participation remained subject to the approved financial eligibility criteria, which were not displaced by the claim-recomputation direction.

Ratio Decidendi: The MSME exemption from specified resolution-applicant disqualifications does not displace committee-approved eligibility criteria, which the resolution professional must apply at the expression-of-interest stage, subject to the Code's limited review of commercial decisions.