Issues: (i) Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions; (ii) Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Issue (i): Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Analysis: Input tax credit is a statutory concession, and actual payment of tax to the Government is integral to the credit mechanism. Section 16(2)(c) operates subject to Section 41 and forms part of an integrated statutory framework governing eligibility, reversal, recovery from the supplier, and subsequent re-availment. The earlier matching and reconciliation framework under Sections 42 and 43 was not operationalised, but the resulting difficulty concerns the manner of enforcement rather than the constitutional validity of the condition itself.

Analysis: The possibility of arbitrary or mechanical action in individual cases does not invalidate Section 16(2)(c). The condition cannot be restricted only to fraud, collusion, or fictitious transactions by reading down its text; instead, it must be applied harmoniously with the statutory safeguards and recovery mechanisms available against the defaulting supplier.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, is constitutionally valid and is not read down to limit its operation exclusively to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Issue (ii): Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Analysis: The non-operationalisation of the original matching mechanism, the phased substitution of Section 41, and the subsequent introduction of Rule 37A require the statutory regime applicable to the relevant tax period to be applied. For periods before Rule 37A, the absence of a re-availment mechanism is material. The statutory power to recover tax collected but not deposited by the supplier, including under Section 76, remains a relevant part of the scheme and cannot be rendered ineffective.

Analysis: Subsequent or retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration, a nil or short tax declaration, or an alert concerning the supplier may justify an inquiry but cannot alone justify denial or reversal of ITC. The notice must disclose the relevant supplier, invoices, tax periods, nature of the default, material relied upon, and the status of recovery proceedings against the supplier. The purchaser may discharge the burden of proof through invoices and evidence of actual receipt and movement of goods or services. A notice invoking fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression must itself state the foundational facts connecting the purchaser to such conduct. Personal hearing, reasoned consideration of the purchaser's material, and examination of the grounds for retrospective cancellation are required.

Conclusion: ITC cannot be denied or reversed mechanically merely because the supplier defaulted or its registration was subsequently cancelled. Reversal may follow where the purchaser fails to establish eligibility or where fraud, collusion, non-receipt of goods or services, or other grounds rendering the credit inadmissible are established in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Pending notices and completed adjudications must be dealt with afresh in conformity with the prescribed safeguards, after adequate opportunity to furnish material and be heard. Amounts already reversed, deposited, or recovered shall be adjusted or refunded as warranted by the fresh determination, and no fresh coercive recovery may be undertaken until that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Actual payment of tax is a valid statutory condition for input tax credit, but Section 16(2)(c) must be enforced as part of the integrated GST scheme and cannot be used to impose mechanical reversal upon a bona fide purchaser without a fact-based inquiry, procedural fairness, and consideration of recovery from the defaulting supplier.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order under Section 148A(3) and the consequent notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2020-21 warranted writ interference where the materially identical reassessment challenge for the preceding assessment year had already been decided against the assessee.

Analysis: The information and allegations underlying the impugned reassessment action were identical to those involved in the preceding assessment year. The earlier decision had found that determining whether the amount disclosed by the assessee arose from a spurious transaction resulting in escaped income required factual examination by the Assessing Officer. Judicial discipline required adherence to the coordinate bench decision rendered in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and consequential notice did not warrant writ interference; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable; (ii) Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable.

Analysis: The assessee was eligible for exemption under Clause (21)(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended, but paid service tax under reverse charge despite no liability. Such payment, made under a mistake of law, is a revenue deposit rather than tax or duty. Consequently, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not govern the refund claim, and retention of the amount would be without authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The refund of the amount paid under mistake of law is admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Analysis: Since the payment retains the character of a revenue deposit and is outside the statutory refund mechanism for duty, the interest regime under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is inapplicable. The applicable principle supports compensatory interest at 12% per annum for wrongful retention of the deposit.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until payment of the refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption is given full effect by treating the erroneous payment as a refundable revenue deposit, with compensation for its retention.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made under a mistake of law where no tax liability exists is a revenue deposit outside Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and its unlawful retention warrants refund with compensatory interest.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could withhold the refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when an anti-evasion investigation concerning alleged fraudulent input tax credit was pending.

Analysis: Section 54(11) permits withholding where the refund-generating order is subject to an appeal, further proceedings, or any other pending proceeding under the Act, and the Commissioner, after hearing the taxable person, forms an opinion that release would adversely affect revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. The expression concerning other pending proceedings extends beyond a formally instituted appeal and includes a pending statutory investigation. The anti-evasion investigation had commenced before the refund-withholding order and was supported by contemporaneous material indicating non-existent or cancelled suppliers, absence of established movement of goods, and absence of the claimant from the manufacturer's supply chain. Those circumstances bore directly on actual receipt of goods for input tax credit purposes and supported the requisite opinion of fraud or malfeasance. A subsequently issued show-cause notice merely crystallised the ongoing investigation; the absence of a pending appellate proceeding or separate judicial stay did not invalidate the statutory withholding.

Conclusion: The refund was validly withheld under Section 54(11); the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be exercised to quash an input-tax-credit adjudication order despite an available statutory appeal, on the asserted bar under Section 6(2)(b), variance from the show-cause notice, and denial of an effective hearing.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction does not ordinarily substitute the statutory appellate process where the challenge requires examination of the adjudication record and disputed facts. The bar under Section 6(2)(b) depends upon identity of the precise subject matter, including the relevant tax period, transactions, invoices, ITC liability and allegations; a common supplier or general connection with ITC is insufficient. Whether the State and Central proceedings concerned identical liabilities required examination of their respective notices, orders and transaction-wise material. The impugned order disclosed an independent finding of ITC availment on goods-less invoices with reference to Section 16(2)(b), and therefore did not facially rest on a wholly new basis. The recorded grant of hearing opportunities, notwithstanding an apparent date discrepancy, and objections regarding evidence, limitation, clubbing of periods, replies and invocation of Section 74 required scrutiny of the underlying record in appeal.

Conclusion: An efficacious appellate remedy was required to be pursued because no ex facie lack of jurisdiction or undisputed breach of natural justice was established; all objections, including the applicability of Section 6(2)(b), remained open for appellate determination.

Issues: (i) Whether GST dues for Financial Year 2021-22, including related interest and penalty, which were not lodged in the CIRP, stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, rendering subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction; and (ii) Whether the availability of a statutory appeal precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether GST dues for Financial Year 2021-22, including related interest and penalty, which were not lodged in the CIRP, stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, rendering subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 binds governmental authorities to an approved resolution plan, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. Statutory claims relating to a pre-effective-date period that were not submitted during the CIRP are extinguished on approval of the plan. The approved plan expressly extinguished pre-effective-date governmental claims, whether assessed or unassessed, known or unknown. The distinction between tax adjudication and recovery was unavailable because initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in respect of an extinguished claim are themselves barred. Section 88 of that Act concerns liquidation and could not revive an extinguished liability; its general adjudicatory provisions also yield to the Code. The departmental circular and instruction recognised that unfiled or belated claims are extinguished on approval of the resolution plan.

Conclusion: The GST dues, interest and penalty for the relevant period stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, and the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to initiate or continue proceedings concerning them. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of a statutory appeal precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: A statutory appellate remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the authority has acted without jurisdiction or contrary to binding law. The admitted facts raised a pure legal question concerning the power to initiate proceedings after extinction of the claim under the approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: The statutory appellate remedy did not preclude writ jurisdiction. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Statutory tax claims omitted from the CIRP cannot be revived through post-resolution-plan adjudication, including demands of related interest and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved resolution plan extinguishes statutory tax claims not submitted in the CIRP, and the overriding effect of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevents revenue authorities from initiating or continuing proceedings to determine or recover such claims.

Issues: Whether a notice issued under Section 153C for assessment year 2010-11 was within the applicable limitation period.

Analysis: The satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2024-25. Under Section 153A read with Section 153C, the extended ten-year period, applicable where escaped income exceeds Rs. 50 lakh, could extend only up to assessment year 2015-16 when computed backwards from assessment year 2024-25. Assessment year 2010-11 consequently fell outside the permissible period.

Conclusion: The notice for assessment year 2010-11 was time-barred and invalid.

Issues: (i) Whether the predicate allegations disclosed scheduled offences under the PMLA; (ii) Whether the attached properties could be retained as value equivalent to proceeds of crime notwithstanding claimed licit sources or pre-dating acquisition; (iii) Whether the confirmation order was non-speaking; (iv) Whether use of guideline or current market value invalidated the attachment; and (v) Whether valid reasons to believe existed for attachment and adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the predicate allegations disclosed scheduled offences under the PMLA.

Analysis: The charge sheet included offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. These offences fall within the relevant parts of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The fact that alleged mining-law violations were not themselves scheduled offences did not displace the scheduled offences disclosed in the predicate proceedings.

Conclusion: The predicate allegations disclosed scheduled offences and furnished a valid basis for proceedings under the PMLA.

Issue (ii): Whether the attached properties could be retained as value equivalent to proceeds of crime notwithstanding claimed licit sources or pre-dating acquisition.

Analysis: Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 placed the burden on the appellants to establish licit sources. The claimed granite-quarrying income, agricultural income, interest, cash holdings and real-estate income remained unsupported by reliable documentary material and were not substantiated by the income-tax returns produced. Independently, the attachment was of property representing the value equivalent of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u). For such equivalent-value attachment, the independent source and the date of acquisition of the substitute properties were immaterial.

Conclusion: The attached properties were liable to attachment as value equivalent to proceeds of crime.

Issue (iii): Whether the confirmation order was non-speaking.

Analysis: The confirmation order addressed the rival material concerning the predicate offences, quarrying licences, claimed sources of income, absence of reliable evidence for the acquisitions, recorded reasons to believe, and the applicable standard for attachment. It contained findings responsive to the material objections raised.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was a speaking order and was not vitiated for want of application of mind.

Issue (iv): Whether use of guideline or current market value invalidated the attachment.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(zb) defines value with reference to the fair market value on the date of acquisition, or the date of possession where acquisition date cannot be determined. Guideline value or current market value was therefore not the proper statutory measure. However, the alleged proceeds of crime were quantified from the value of illegally extracted granite rather than from the valuation of the attached properties. The valuation error did not affect the legal basis for attachment, particularly where the attached assets represented only a fraction of the alleged proceeds.

Conclusion: The use of guideline or current values was erroneous but did not invalidate the attachment.

Issue (v): Whether valid reasons to believe existed for attachment and adjudication.

Analysis: The recorded reasons linked the scheduled offences and alleged proceeds of crime to the listed assets, and identified the risk of their transfer, disposal or encumbrance frustrating confiscation proceedings. The reported sale of certain attached properties reinforced the apprehension of alienation. Section 5(1) required material supporting a prima facie belief, not conclusive proof. A separate communication or recording of reasons was not required under Section 8(1) before the adjudicatory process was commenced.

Conclusion: The reasons to believe under Section 5(1) were legally sufficient, and no separate requirement under Section 8(1) was breached.

Final Conclusion: The statutory prerequisites for attachment of assets as value equivalent to alleged proceeds of crime were satisfied, and the confirmed attachment remains legally sustainable notwithstanding the valuation error.

Ratio Decidendi: Property equivalent in value to proceeds of crime may be attached under the PMLA irrespective of its independent source of acquisition or whether it was acquired before the predicate offence.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Business Support Services received from a group company is admissible.

Analysis: Business Support Services comprising common corporate and operational support provided to group entities were taxable services, and the service tax charged through invoices had been paid and accepted by the revenue authorities. Allocation of the provider's expenses among group entities, without a separate profit element, did not alter the character or taxable value of the services. The services had a direct nexus with the recipient's manufacturing business. Where the service provider's tax assessment had not been revised, credit could not be denied by recharacterising the invoiced services at the recipient's end. Identical disputes for earlier and subsequent periods had also been decided consistently on this basis.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the Business Support Services was admissible; its disallowance and the consequential demand and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether sale outside the factory of electricity generated from bagasse attracts the 6% payment obligation under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Bagasse is agricultural waste or residue and is not the outcome of manufacture. Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 consequently does not apply to electricity generated from bagasse. The settled position consistently excludes electricity wheeled to a State electricity distribution authority from the requirement to pay 6% of its value.

Conclusion: No amount under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is payable on electricity generated from bagasse and cleared outside the factory.

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could block input tax credit exceeding the pecuniary limit prescribed under the Commissioner's administrative order.

Analysis: The Commissioner's administrative order prescribed a pecuniary limit of Rs. 1 crore for blocking input tax credit. The personal affidavit acknowledged that input tax credit exceeding that limit had been blocked and was subsequently unblocked. Exercise of statutory power requires adherence to the jurisdictional limits fixed by the competent administrative authority.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner had no pecuniary jurisdiction to block input tax credit exceeding Rs. 1 crore.

Issues: Whether rejection of an appeal for non-response to a notice could be sustained when the appellant asserted that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond control and fell within the condonable period.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the ordinary limitation period but within the period in which delay could be condoned under Section 107(4). The asserted medical circumstances preventing a response to the notice were not shown to be ungenuine. A fair opportunity was therefore required for the appellant to explain the delay and for the appellate authority to consider that explanation after hearing the appellant.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to an opportunity to establish sufficient cause for the delayed appeal; the rejection without such consideration could not stand.

Issues: (i) Whether failure to pay part of the invoiced consideration within 180 days contravened the second proviso to Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether a financial/commercial credit note for a value discount permitted retention of input tax credit under the Board clarifications; and (iii) Whether invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and imposition of penalty were sustainable, and what interest liability survived.

Issue (i): Whether failure to pay part of the invoiced consideration within 180 days contravened the second proviso to Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The second proviso required a recipient availing input tax credit to pay the supplier the value of supply and tax within 180 days, failing which proportionate credit was required to be added to output tax liability with interest. The ledger established that part of the invoice value remained unpaid beyond 180 days. No contemporaneous agreement or evidence established that the discount had been agreed and the reduced consideration settled within that period.

Conclusion: The 180-day payment condition was breached in respect of the unpaid value until its subsequent waiver, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a financial/commercial credit note for a value discount permitted retention of input tax credit under the Board clarifications.

Analysis: A financial/commercial credit note did not reduce the original transaction value or the supplier's tax liability, and the supplier had borne tax on the undiscounted invoice value. The Board clarifications provided that the recipient need not reverse input tax credit attributable to a discount settled through such a note. Section 168(1) made these directions binding on departmental officers, and the later clarification was beneficial and clarificatory of the earlier circular. Upon waiver of the unpaid balance, no further consideration remained payable by the recipient; the third proviso to Section 16(2) and Rule 37(4) consequently enabled retention or re-availment of the credit.

Conclusion: The recipient was entitled to retain the input tax credit based on the original invoices after accounting for the financial/commercial credit note, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and imposition of penalty were sustainable, and what interest liability survived.

Analysis: Section 74(1) required fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Detection in audit alone did not establish suppression where the unpaid balance and its write-back were recorded in the audited accounts, and the view that reversal was unnecessary was bona fide. Section 75(2) required the matter to be treated as one under Section 73(1) where the ingredients of Section 74 were not established. Nevertheless, proportionate credit had remained unreversed after expiry of 180 days until receipt and accounting of the credit note, attracting interest under Section 50 for that intervening period.

Conclusion: The Section 74 charge and penalty were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee; interest on proportionate credit for the intervening period remained payable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The commercial settlement preserved the credit entitlement but did not retrospectively extinguish interest arising from retention of proportionate credit during the earlier period of non-payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A financial or commercial credit note that leaves the supplier's original tax liability unchanged and settles unpaid consideration permits the recipient to retain or re-avail input tax credit, though statutory interest remains payable for the period during which proportionate credit was retained after the 180-day limit.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority's failure to address the cited precedent and statutory amendment affected its conclusion; (ii) Whether the resort building and civil structures qualified as plant and machinery under Section 17(5)(d), including under the unamended functionality test; (iii) Whether the resort was constructed on the assessee's own account despite its accommodation, event and photo-shoot activities; (iv) Whether any balance input tax credit fell outside Section 17(5)(d); and (v) Whether the interest and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority's failure to address the cited precedent and statutory amendment affected its conclusion.

Analysis: Sections 75(6) and 107(12) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require reasoned orders that address the points for determination and the basis of decision. The cited precedent, the retrospective amendment and the claim concerning residual credit ought to have been addressed by the appellate authority. However, Section 113(1) permitted complete adjudication of the issues on the existing record after both sides were heard, and all contentions were determined afresh.

Conclusion: The omission did not invalidate the conclusion, and no prejudice was caused to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the resort building and civil structures qualified as plant and machinery under Section 17(5)(d), including under the unamended functionality test.

Analysis: Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2025 retrospectively substituted "plant and machinery" for "plant or machinery" in Section 17(5)(d) from 01.07.2017. Explanation 1 to Section 17 expressly excludes land, buildings and other civil structures from plant and machinery. The resort building and associated civil structures consequently cannot qualify for the exception. Even under the earlier wording, the functionality test did not extend to hotel or resort buildings, which remain premises in which the hospitality business is conducted rather than the business apparatus.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on goods and services used to construct the resort building and its civil structures was blocked, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the resort was constructed on the assessee's own account despite its accommodation, event and photo-shoot activities.

Analysis: Section 17(5)(d) applies even where construction inputs are used in the course or furtherance of business. Construction on own account includes a building used as the setting for the taxable person's own business, whereas construction intended for sale, lease or licence to another stands differently. The resort was used to provide the assessee's accommodation, restaurant and event services; no evidence identified any portion as constructed for sale, lease or licence to a third party. Section 155 placed the burden of proving credit eligibility upon the assessee.

Conclusion: The resort was constructed on the assessee's own account, and the construction-related credit was blocked, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether any balance input tax credit fell outside Section 17(5)(d).

Analysis: Section 17(5)(d) does not bar credit on every purchase made for establishing a resort; applicability depends on the nature and purpose of each item, rather than its accounting classification. Credit on the invoice-wise items identified by the assessee as electrical equipment, air-conditioners and expensed purchases had already been allowed. No further invoice, supplier, category or evidence established that the remaining credit related to movable assets or qualifying plant and machinery rather than construction of civil structures.

Conclusion: No part of the balance input tax credit was shown to fall outside Section 17(5)(d), against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the interest and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Under Section 50(3) and Rule 88B(3), interest arises only on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit, measured by the extent to which the electronic credit ledger balance falls below the disputed credit. Interest was confined to the extent of actual utilisation, with no interest imposed where the ledger balance remained sufficient. Section 73(8) relieved penalty only upon payment of tax and interest within thirty days of the notice; otherwise, Section 73(9) required the prescribed penalty.

Conclusion: The interest and penalty were correctly computed and sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The retrospective statutory exclusion of buildings and civil structures from plant and machinery, together with construction on own account and failure to establish any additional eligible item, sustained the denial of the disputed credit and the consequential liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: From 01.07.2017, Section 17(5)(d) excludes input tax credit on goods and services used to construct a building or civil structure on the taxable person's own account, because such property cannot qualify as defined plant and machinery merely because it is used to provide taxable hospitality services.

Issues: Whether detention, tax demand and penalty under Section 129 for an un-updated Part-B of an e-way bill, where the vehicle had reached the consignee's premises and the omission was immediately cured, were legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 129 applies to goods while in transit. The vehicle had completed its journey and was stationary at the consignee's registered premises when it was intercepted; hence, the jurisdictional condition of goods being in transit was absent. Valid tax invoices and Part-A of the e-way bill accompanied the goods, and the Part-B omission was promptly rectified, establishing substantive compliance and a curable procedural defect without revenue loss or mens rea. Section 126, the applicable circular, and the doctrine of proportionality required moderation rather than punitive action for such a bona fide technical lapse. The adjudication was also vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice, since the personal hearing was conducted after the date borne by the adjudication order, offending audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The detention, tax demand and penalty under Section 129 were illegal and unsustainable; the amounts recovered under protest were directed to be refunded with applicable statutory interest.

Issues: (i) Whether the re-investigation was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the investigative authority was functus officio and a fresh Standing Committee reference was required before re-investigation; (iii) Whether the re-investigation was barred by limitation under Rule 129(6), including the validity of the extension; (iv) Whether the revised methodology and re-investigation denied the respondent natural justice; (v) Whether failure to pass on the additional input tax credit benefit contravened Section 171(1), and the consequential relief.

Issue (i): Whether the re-investigation was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: A binding jurisdictional precedent found the earlier real-estate profiteering methodology legally unsustainable because input tax credit and buyer collections do not correlate uniformly during a project's life cycle. The applicable methodology requires project-wide GST savings to be apportioned across the total saleable area on a per-square-foot basis. Remitting pending matters to correct that legal infirmity ensured conformity with binding precedent and did not amount to an impermissible review of a concluded adjudication. No fundamental statutory prohibition or jurisdictional defect was established.

Conclusion: The re-investigation was valid and was not void ab initio, against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the investigative authority was functus officio and a fresh Standing Committee reference was required before re-investigation.

Analysis: The doctrine of functus officio did not apply because the original report, founded on a flawed methodology, had not culminated in a final adjudicatory order. Rule 133(4) permitted remand for re-investigation, while the original reference under Rule 128 remained operative. The fresh exercise was undertaken pursuant to remand within the same proceedings rather than through a suo motu reopening.

Conclusion: The investigative authority was not functus officio, and no fresh Standing Committee reference was required, against the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the re-investigation was barred by limitation under Rule 129(6), including the validity of the extension.

Analysis: Rule 129(6) does not prescribe a consequence of abatement upon expiry of the reporting period. Its time limit is directory, not mandatory, particularly having regard to the beneficial and consumer-welfare character of the anti-profiteering framework. Complete documents were furnished only in August 2025, and the respondent could not rely on delay attributable to its own non-production of records.

Conclusion: The re-investigation was not barred by limitation, and the extension was valid, against the respondent.

Issue (iv): Whether the revised methodology and re-investigation denied the respondent natural justice.

Analysis: The revised methodology followed binding law and was not an arbitrary alteration of standards. Notice of re-investigation, an opportunity to supply documents, service of the report, and repeated opportunities to file objections were provided. The respondent elected to confine its defence to preliminary objections and did not contest the computation on merits.

Conclusion: There was no violation of the principles of natural justice, against the respondent.

Issue (v): Whether failure to pass on the additional input tax credit benefit contravened Section 171(1), and the consequential relief.

Analysis: Section 171(1) requires actual transmission of input tax credit benefit through commensurate reduction in price and is a beneficial provision requiring purposive construction. Once records establish an accrued benefit, the evidential burden lies on the supplier to show that it was passed on. The uncontroverted computation showed an increase in credit ratio from 2.37% to 8.42%, producing a per-square-foot benefit of Rs. 40.33 and an aggregate unpassed benefit of Rs. 31,20,542 for 66 eligible homebuyers. No evidence of price reduction, adjustment, credit note, refund, or other transmission of the benefit was produced. The contravention period ended before Section 171(3A) came into force.

Conclusion: The respondent contravened Section 171(1) by failing to pass on Rs. 31,20,542 to 66 eligible homebuyers; the amount is payable with interest at 18% per annum, and no penalty is imposable.

Final Conclusion: The remand and corrected project-wide methodology were sustained, and the additional input tax credit saving was required to be restored to the eligible homebuyers with interest; the pre-effective-date period excluded penal liability.

Issues: Whether the Revenue appeals warranted consideration despite the low tax effect and the claimed exception to the monetary-limit policy for proceedings under section 263.

Analysis: The claimed exception for revision proceedings does not require the tax effect to be disregarded in every case. The tax difference was approximately Rs. 7 lakhs, substantially below the Union policy threshold of Rs. 2 crores for Revenue litigation before the High Court, and the transactions did not indicate recurring or multiple disputes.

Outcome: The appeals were dismissed as below the monetary limit; the questions of law were left open.

Issues: (i) Whether an Assessing Officer may issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in reassessment proceedings before disposing of the assessee's objections to reopening; (ii) Whether an Assessing Officer may issue a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 within four weeks after rejecting the assessee's objections to reopening.

Issue (i): Whether an Assessing Officer may issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in reassessment proceedings before disposing of the assessee's objections to reopening.

Analysis: Under the pre-1 April 2021 reassessment framework, a return filed pursuant to a notice under Section 148 is processed as a return under Section 139. Scrutiny of that return commences with a notice under Section 143(2). Recorded reasons must be furnished on request, and objections to reopening must be determined by a speaking order before the assessment is proceeded with. Since such objections may establish that jurisdictional requirements for reopening are absent, initiating scrutiny before their disposal reverses the mandatory sequence. The notice under Section 143(2) was issued even before the recorded reasons were furnished.

Conclusion: A notice under Section 143(2) cannot be issued before the assessee's objections to reopening are disposed of by a speaking order. The impugned notice was invalid and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an Assessing Officer may issue a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 within four weeks after rejecting the assessee's objections to reopening.

Analysis: Where objections to reopening are rejected, the reassessment procedure requires a four-week interval from service of the order rejecting those objections before further assessment steps may be taken. The notice under Section 142(1) was issued before expiry of that mandatory interval and therefore breached the prescribed procedural safeguard.

Conclusion: A notice under Section 142(1) cannot be issued within the mandatory four-week interval following rejection of objections to reopening. The impugned notice and consequential action were invalid and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Reassessment scrutiny cannot validly commence until reopening objections have been decided by a speaking order and the mandatory interval for challenging that decision has expired.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the pre-2021 reassessment scheme, notices initiating scrutiny or calling for assessment details constitute proceeding with the assessment and may be issued only after a speaking disposal of reopening objections and completion of the required four-week interval.