Issues: (i) Whether the importer's letter relinquishing the SAFTA preferential-duty claim precluded a challenge to reassessment; (ii) Whether the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin entitled the imported goods to concessional duty; (iii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the importer's letter relinquishing the SAFTA preferential-duty claim precluded a challenge to reassessment.

Analysis: The relinquishment letter followed prolonged customs detention, mounting demurrage and the urgent need to clear goods required for manufacture. The contemporaneous replies and prompt appellate challenge established that the importer had consistently maintained its eligibility and had not voluntarily abandoned the preferential claim. A letter obtained under those circumstances did not amount to relinquishment contemplated by Section 28DA(4).

Conclusion: The relinquishment letter did not bar the importer from appealing the reassessment or pursuing the SAFTA benefit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin entitled the imported goods to concessional duty.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by a Certificate of Origin issued by Bangladesh's designated authority, certifying them as wholly produced or obtained there. Its authenticity was not disputed, it complied with the prescribed format and was produced within validity. The prescribed SAFTA verification procedure, including a retrospective check by the exporting State where doubt existed, was not followed. The Certificate therefore supported entitlement to preferential treatment.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to the SAFTA concessional rate under Notification No. 99/2011; the differential duty and interest arising from denial of that benefit were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Physical examination revealed no mismatch in quality, classification or valuation, and the goods were not seized. Since the preferential claim was valid and no misdeclaration or fraud was established, the basis for confiscation and the consequential monetary sanctions failed.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The importer retained its preferential-duty entitlement on the strength of the valid SAFTA Certificate of Origin, and the reassessment and associated sanctions founded on denial of that entitlement could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A preferential-duty claim supported by an undisputed and valid Certificate of Origin cannot be denied without following the applicable origin-verification procedure, and an involuntary relinquishment obtained under coercive clearance circumstances does not extinguish the importer's right to challenge the assessment.

Issues: Whether service tax could be demanded on receipts reflected in Form 26AS where the underlying road-construction works were exempt and the Department had not independently established taxability.

Analysis: Road-construction works executed for the Public Works Department for general public utility fell within the exemption under Serial No. 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The demand was founded solely on third-party Form 26AS data, without enquiry into the nature of the receipts, available exemption, or the appellant's supporting records. The taxing authority bore the burden to establish taxable activity and could not presume that every receipt reported in Form 26AS represented taxable consideration.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable; the associated interest and penalties were consequently liable to be set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether sale of packaged information technology software was liable to service tax merely because the conditions of Notification No. 11/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 were not established; (ii) Whether late fee for delayed filing of service tax returns for three quarters was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether sale of packaged information technology software was liable to service tax merely because the conditions of Notification No. 11/2016-ST dated 01.03.2016 were not established.

Analysis: Software recorded on media and marketed possesses the attributes of goods under Article 366(12) of the Constitution of India. A transaction involving its sale is a deemed sale and falls outside the definition of service under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. The notification conditions concerning valuation, duties and invoice declaration could not convert an otherwise sale-of-goods transaction into a taxable service.

Conclusion: The packaged software sale was not liable to service tax; the duty demand, consequential interest and penalty relating to that transaction were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether late fee for delayed filing of service tax returns for three quarters was sustainable.

Analysis: The returns for three quarters were not filed within the prescribed period after registration. The late fee was imposed under the applicable return-filing provisions.

Conclusion: The late fee of Rs.60,000 was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal liability on the software-sale component does not survive, while the statutory consequence for delayed return filing remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A marketed copy of information technology software on media, constituting goods and a deemed sale, is excluded from taxable service; non-fulfilment of an exemption notification's conditions does not alter that character.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand founded on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns; (ii) Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation; (iii) Whether penalty for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand founded on differences between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns.

Analysis: The demand was based exclusively on statutory records available to the Revenue, without an independent investigation into the nature or taxability of the differential receipts. A mere variance between Form 26AS and ST-3 Returns did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax. The delayed filing of returns did not, in the absence of cogent evidence of conscious concealment, satisfy the jurisdictional conditions for invoking the extended period. Once that period was unavailable, the notice issued on 30.12.2020 was beyond the normal thirty-month limitation period, which had expired by 05.03.2020 even for the last relevant return. Pandemic-related limitation extensions could not revive an already time-barred demand.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the entire service-tax demand, interest under Section 75, and penalty under Section 78 were barred by limitation and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation.

Analysis: At the date of the notice, the applicable Board instructions required pre-show cause notice consultation for demands exceeding Rs.50 lakhs, except preventive or offence-related matters. The proceedings did not fall within an exception, and no consultation was afforded. The later circular dispensing with consultation in specified suppression-related cases could not retrospectively validate a notice issued contrary to the instructions then in force. Non-compliance with this mandatory procedural safeguard vitiated the initiation of proceedings.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and consequential proceedings were independently unsustainable for failure to undertake mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was sustainable.

Analysis: Timely filing of statutory returns is an independent procedural obligation. The delays in filing the ST-3 Returns were admitted and established on record. Although those delays did not prove suppression or intent to evade tax for limitation purposes, they constituted a default attracting the distinct penalty provision.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs.10,000 under Section 77 for delayed filing of ST-3 Returns was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal demand and its tax-evasion consequences fail as time-barred and procedurally vitiated, while the separate penalty for delayed statutory compliance remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based solely on statutory return data and Form 26AS cannot attract the extended limitation period without affirmative evidence of fraud, wilful suppression, or intent to evade tax; mandatory pre-show cause notice consultation applicable when the notice was issued cannot be retrospectively dispensed with.

Issues: Whether grouping, pinning and plugging imported photocopier modules in a warehouse according to customer specifications amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Note 6 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: Manufacture requires transformation resulting in a new and distinct marketable article having a distinctive name, character or use; labour, skill, value addition, or mere processing is insufficient where the commodity remains commercially the same. Note 6 applies only where an incomplete or unfinished article having the essential character of a finished article is converted into the complete article. The imported goods had been classified and assessed as complete machines and were cleared from the warehouse in sets and original packing. The evidence did not establish physical assembly at the warehouse: the alleged components were factory-fitted abroad, and the activity was confined to unpacking, grouping, pinning and plugging modules for customer-specific dispatch. Rule 2(a) is a classification rule and does not determine whether a subsequent process constitutes manufacture. The Revenue also failed to produce evidence displacing the Tribunal's factual findings.

Conclusion: The warehouse activity did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Note 6 to Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was inapplicable.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to seek rectification of the impugned assessment order under the statutory rectification mechanism.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to seek rectification before the Proper Officer.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-existence at the declared principal place of business should be restored where the address discrepancy resulted from a genuine mistake and no GST demand was outstanding.

Analysis: The registered-address discrepancy concerned different offices in the same building and was attributed to redevelopment of the earlier premises. No GST dues were outstanding. Restoration, conditional upon payment of applicable charges, late fees and penalty, would enable lawful business operations while protecting revenue interests.

Conclusion: The cancelled GST registration is to be restored upon payment of applicable charges, late fees and penalty.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek interest on the refund released pursuant to the appellate order.

Analysis: Section 56 provides interest where a refund ordered under Section 54(5) is not made within sixty days of receipt of the refund application. Its proviso also covers a refund arising from a final order of an adjudicating authority, appellate authority, appellate tribunal or court, where the consequential refund application is not processed within sixty days.

Conclusion: The petitioner may apply to the competent authority for interest under Section 56, which must decide the application in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand and appellate order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The MGST/CGST statutory scheme provides a complete appellate mechanism. Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily inappropriate where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, particularly where resolution requires detailed examination of evidence. No established denial of natural justice, jurisdictional defect, or material indicating bias arose merely because the officer authorising inspection later acted as appellate authority; authorisation of inspection was distinct from adjudicatory functioning. The controversies concerning whether seized records represented suppressed sales or estimates, the applicable tax rate, and reconciliation of bank deposits and returns with the seized material were disputed factual matters requiring evidentiary appreciation.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the absence of exceptional grounds warranting bypass of the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether proceeds from sale of flats held by the assessee were taxable as capital gains or as business income.

Analysis: The asset was acquired and consistently reflected in audited accounts as an investment; the memorandum indicated an object of holding and leasing the flats; a broker was engaged to locate tenants; and the first sale occurred after a substantial holding period. The isolated project, absence of other similar projects, staggered sales over several years, and absence of volume, frequency, continuity or regularity characteristic of real-estate trading supported the assessee's investment intent. Although book treatment is not conclusive, it is a relevant factor when evaluated with the overall conduct and duration of holding. Further, the Revenue had accepted capital-gains treatment in earlier assessments, which had attained finality, and no material change in facts or incriminating material justified a different treatment for the relevant year. The principles governing adventure in the nature of trade require assessment of intention and the totality of circumstances; the burden to establish a trading character rested on the Revenue.

Conclusion: The sale proceeds were assessable under the head capital gains and not as business income, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether revisionary jurisdiction could be exercised over purchase disallowances already forming the subject matter of a pending first appeal; (ii) Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the Assessing Officer estimated profit on disputed purchases rather than adding the entire amount as unexplained expenditure, and did not treat an outstanding supplier balance as ceased liability.

Issue (i): Whether revisionary jurisdiction could be exercised over purchase disallowances already forming the subject matter of a pending first appeal.

Analysis: The disallowance relating to purchases from the two suppliers, including the genuineness of such purchases and the estimation of profit embedded therein, was already under challenge before the first appellate authority. Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 263 confines revisionary power, where an assessment is the subject of an appeal, to matters not considered and decided in that appeal. The subject of the revision was part of the larger purchase-disallowance issue pending in appeal; the authorities relied upon for the contrary position concerned matters not appealed or a period preceding the relevant statutory amendment.

Conclusion: Revision under Section 263 in respect of the disputed purchases was barred and the revisionary order was invalid to that extent, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the Assessing Officer estimated profit on disputed purchases rather than adding the entire amount as unexplained expenditure, and did not treat an outstanding supplier balance as ceased liability.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had called for and considered invoices, ledger accounts, transport and e-way bill records, bank-payment details, confirmations, and GST-related material before estimating the profit element on the purchases. A detailed inquiry followed by adoption of a legally plausible view cannot be revised merely because the Principal Commissioner prefers addition of the entire purchase amount under Section 69C. The decision supporting full addition on different facts was distinguishable. Further, the alleged non-genuineness of the supplier did not by itself establish remission or cessation of the outstanding trading liability; no material showed a write-back, waiver, remission, or cessation during the relevant year.

Conclusion: The assessment was not amenable to revision on either the purchase addition or the outstanding liability; the Principal Commissioner could not substitute a different view under Section 263, and no addition under Section 41(1) was warranted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary action failed both because it intruded into an issue pending in first appeal and because the original assessment reflected inquiry and a sustainable view, with no factual basis for treating the creditor balance as ceased.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisionary power cannot be used to revisit an issue pending in appeal or to substitute the revisional authority's view for a plausible view adopted after inquiry; a trading liability cannot be taxed as ceased without material establishing remission or cessation.

Issues: Whether interim stay of the order declaring the earlier advance ruling void ab initio should be granted pending final adjudication of the appeal.

Analysis: The questions concerning the scope of the power to declare an advance ruling void ab initio, the alleged misrepresentation of material facts, and procedural fairness require detailed examination at the final hearing. At the interim stage, staying the impugned order would revive the earlier ruling despite the finding of misrepresentation recorded in the impugned order.

Outcome: The appeal was admitted for final hearing, and the interim-stay application was dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported powdered Pelargonium sidoides root extract containing Maltodextrin as a carrier is classifiable as a vegetable extract under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 19 or as a medicament under Customs Tariff Item 3003 90 90; (ii) Whether the goods qualify for the exemption under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the imported powdered Pelargonium sidoides root extract containing Maltodextrin as a carrier is classifiable as a vegetable extract under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 19 or as a medicament under Customs Tariff Item 3003 90 90.

Analysis: Classification is governed by Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, read with the relevant heading terms, Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes. Heading 1302 covers vegetable extracts, including solid extracts produced by removal of extraction solvent; the addition of an inert material for handling, drying or standardisation does not alter the extract's classification. The manufacturing process comprised hydro-ethanolic extraction, filtration, vacuum drying and addition of Maltodextrin, without chromatographic purification, ultrafiltration, additional extraction cycles or other high-refinement processes. Vacuum drying was merely removal of solvent and did not constitute concentration or purification.

Analysis: The product consisted of one botanical extract and Maltodextrin functioning as an inert carrier, rather than two or more active therapeutic constituents mixed for therapeutic or prophylactic use. It was imported in bulk as raw material, not in measured doses or retail packs. Its intended use in pharmaceutical manufacture could not determine classification where the tariff description at import governed. The prior finding that the extract underwent concentration was unsupported by the record and was an apparent error of fact.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 19 as other vegetable extracts, and not under Customs Tariff Item 3003 90 90, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods qualify for the exemption under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025.

Analysis: Upon classification under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 19, the goods fell within the relevant exemption entry. Availability of the concession remains dependent upon compliance with the notification conditions and assessment-stage verification.

Conclusion: The goods are eligible for the exemption under Serial No. 37 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The earlier advance ruling was modified by correcting the erroneous factual premise concerning concentration and by recognising the product as a simple vegetable extract with an inert carrier.

Ratio Decidendi: A single botanical extract remains classifiable as a vegetable extract where solvent removal and addition of an inert carrier do not amount to purification or create a medicinal mixture; downstream pharmaceutical use does not itself render it a medicament.

Issues: Whether the security-service provider could pursue its unpaid service claim in the ongoing corporate insolvency proceedings before the NCLT.

Analysis: The company is now undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the NCLT. The claim for payment for security services may therefore be placed before that forum for consideration in the insolvency proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner may join the NCLT proceedings and submit its claim for unpaid security-service charges.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the applications seeking replacement of the interim resolution professional and consequential restraint on further Committee of Creditors proceedings warranted appellate interference.

Analysis: Appointment, continuation, or replacement of an interim resolution professional or resolution professional is governed by the statutory process under Sections 22 and 27 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which entrusts the decision primarily to the requisite voting majority of the Committee of Creditors. The interim resolution professional is required to receive, verify and collate claims and maintain the creditor list; admission of claims of homebuyers resulting in reduction of other creditors' voting share, or admission of a claim for less than the amount claimed, does not by itself establish lack of integrity or justify removal. The professional entity's appointment and fees had been approved by the Committee of Creditors, and the resolution concerning the contract terms had not been acted upon pursuant to the earlier protective direction.

Analysis: Although conflict existed among creditor groups, the creditors in a class holding the majority voting share supported the interim resolution professional. The subsequent appointment of the interim resolution professional as resolution professional was not adjudicated because it arose after the impugned order, leaving parties to pursue available remedies before the appropriate forum. Replacement of the insolvency professional remains a Committee of Creditors-controlled process, and tribunal intervention is warranted only in exceptional circumstances; such circumstances were not established.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with rejection of the applications for replacement of the interim resolution professional or the consequential interim restraint.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order could be sustained where, after cancellation of registration, the show-cause notice was served only through the common portal and the assessee consequently remained unaware of the proceedings.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled before issuance of the show-cause notice, which was uploaded solely through electronic mode more than three years later. The applicable departmental circular required physical service of notices where adjudication proceedings are initiated after cancellation of registration. Electronic portal service alone in those circumstances did not afford the assessee an effective opportunity to respond. A fresh opportunity was required to submit a reply, seek relied-upon documents or cross-examination, and participate in a personal hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order was unsustainable for want of effective service and adequate opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Challenge to prohibition orders sealing the petitioner's premises pending GST search proceedings.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by consent, without adjudicating the merits; the premises were directed to be de-sealed in the petitioner's presence and any search was to proceed in accordance with the applicable statutory procedure.

Outcome: Delay condoned and the Special Leave Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.