Issues: (i) Whether redemption fine and penalties for attempted export of misdeclared restricted goods were excessive or unsustainable; (ii) Whether Customs could proceed with e-auction of the confiscated goods after disposal of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether redemption fine and penalties for attempted export of misdeclared restricted goods were excessive or unsustainable.

Analysis: The goods were found to be natural garnet, whose export was canalised through the designated agency under Notification No. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 issued under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. Having regard to the redetermined value and the misdeclaration of the goods as refractory bed material, the redemption fine of approximately 13.5% of the value and the penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 were found reasonable. Appellate interference with discretionary fine or penalty requires mala fides, statutory violation, or extreme arbitrariness, including Wednesbury unreasonableness; none was established. The contention against redemption fine applicable to re-export of imported goods was inapplicable to an attempted export of restricted goods by misdeclaration.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalties are sustained; conclusion against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Customs could proceed with e-auction of the confiscated goods after disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the applicable notifications authorised disposal of seized goods where provisional release had not been availed within the stipulated period. As the appeal was being finally decided, the proposed auction could not be regarded as taking place during its pendency. The auction process nevertheless required prior proper notice allowing at least 30 days for objections and compliance with the applicable statutory requirements and instructions.

Conclusion: E-auction is legally authorised and may proceed only after due notice and statutory compliance; conclusion in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The customs consequences flowing from the misdeclared attempted export remain operative, while disposal of the confiscated goods is governed by the prescribed auction safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: Discretionary customs redemption fine and penalty warrant appellate interference only upon mala fides, statutory violation, or extreme arbitrariness, and the rule concerning re-export of imported goods does not apply to an attempted export of restricted goods by misdeclaration.

Issues: (i) Whether imported unflavoured supari is classifiable under CTI 2106 90 30 rather than CTI 0802 80 20; (ii) Whether concessional basic customs duty is available on the basis of the unchallenged Certificate of Origin; (iii) Whether the declared transaction value must be accepted; (iv) Whether confiscation, differential duty, interest, redemption fine and penalties are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether imported unflavoured supari is classifiable under CTI 2106 90 30 rather than CTI 0802 80 20.

Analysis: Classification is governed principally by Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, the tariff descriptions, and the relevant Chapter Notes. Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21 specifically covers a betel nut product known as supari and does not mandate the addition of ingredients other than betel nut. The burden lay on Revenue to establish, through cogent evidence, that the goods did not answer that statutory description. The FSSAI reports and NOC were relevant evidence of the goods' identity as unflavoured supari, though not conclusive on tariff classification. The CRCL reports only recorded physical characteristics of split betel nuts and did not test or determine the material parameters concerning processing, composition, or whether the goods were not supari. Inconclusive CRCL evidence could not displace the FSSAI findings or establish classification as split areca nuts under Chapter 8.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under CTI 2106 90 30 as betel nut product known as supari, not under CTI 0802 80 20; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether concessional basic customs duty is available on the basis of the unchallenged Certificate of Origin.

Analysis: The Certificate of Origin did not independently determine Indian tariff classification, but it was material evidence supporting the declared commercial identity and preferential-duty claim. The certificate, issued by the competent foreign authority, was neither cancelled nor invalidated through the prescribed verification mechanism. No adequate factual foundation was established to deny the exemption or to invoke confiscation for breach of a condition of concessional import.

Conclusion: The benefit of concessional basic customs duty under the valid Certificate of Origin is available; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the declared transaction value must be accepted.

Analysis: The proposed valuation proceeded on the rejected classification of the goods as raw areca nuts, for which tariff-value provisions were sought to be applied. Once the goods were classifiable as supari, and no valid basis or prescribed procedure was established to reject the declared transaction value, valuation had to proceed under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value is to be accepted; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether confiscation, differential duty, interest, redemption fine and penalties are sustainable.

Analysis: The alleged import prohibition, misdeclaration, and ineligibility for concessional duty rested on the unsustainable reclassification under Chapter 8. The factual prerequisites for confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(m), and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 were not established, particularly in view of the correct classification, the unchallenged Certificate of Origin, and the absence of cogent contrary evidence.

Conclusion: Confiscation and all consequential demands, interest, redemption fine and penalties are unsustainable; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The specific statutory entry for supari, read with the unrebutted material evidence, governs the imported goods; the preferential-duty claim and declared value consequently remain valid, without customs enforcement consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: In a customs classification dispute, Revenue must adduce cogent evidence to displace the claimed specific tariff entry, and inconclusive contrary testing cannot override material statutory certification of the goods' identity.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the retracted statement and unverified attribution of foreign-origin cigarettes to third parties; (ii) Whether the seized foreign-origin electric rice cookers and ceramic stoves should be released on redemption fine.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained on the retracted statement and unverified attribution of foreign-origin cigarettes to third parties.

Analysis: The statement identifying only 15 cartons as belonging to the appellant was retracted shortly after it was recorded. The details of the alleged owners of the remaining cigarettes, as well as those of the landlord, were supplied but were not verified. The retracted statement could not therefore be treated as reliable confessional evidence. The invoice also supported the claim regarding the 15 cartons of Indian-made cigarettes. In the absence of verification or other material, the requirements of dealing with goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and knowledge or belief of such liability were not established for imposing penalty under Section 112(b).

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 10 lakh is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized foreign-origin electric rice cookers and ceramic stoves should be released on redemption fine.

Analysis: Neither side established a sufficient case on confiscation or release of these goods, and their assessed value was based on assumptions. Having regard to their value, release on a reduced redemption fine was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The electric rice cookers and ceramic stoves are to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No personal penalty survives, and the non-cigarette goods remain redeemable on payment of the specified fine.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement unsupported by follow-up verification cannot establish the knowledge or belief required for penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: (i) Whether receipts for hiring hot-mix plants, paver machines and accessories qualified for exemption as construction or road-maintenance services; (ii) Whether the threshold exemption was available for the relevant financial year; (iii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty for the surviving demand were valid.

Issue (i): Whether receipts for hiring hot-mix plants, paver machines and accessories qualified for exemption as construction or road-maintenance services.

Analysis: The agreements characterised the services as supply of tangible goods for mutually agreed consideration, rather than construction, repair, or maintenance of roads, drains or other public works. Such equipment-rental services did not fall within Entry Nos. 12(e) or 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Since service tax had not been separately collected, the cum-tax benefit under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was applicable in computing the surviving taxable value.

Conclusion: The equipment-rental receipts were taxable and were not eligible for the claimed exemption, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the threshold exemption was available for the relevant financial year.

Analysis: The taxable turnover from supply of tangible goods during the preceding financial year was Rs. 39,34,204, exceeding the prescribed threshold of Rs. 10,00,000. The condition for claiming the threshold exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-ST was therefore not met.

Conclusion: The threshold exemption was unavailable, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty for the surviving demand were valid.

Analysis: The earlier appellate finding that the demand for 2015-16 was time-barred remained undisturbed. For the surviving demand, the assessee had neither obtained registration nor filed returns despite providing taxable services above the exemption threshold, and offered no plausible explanation or bona fide belief for the non-compliance. These circumstances established suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax, justifying the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty under Section 78 consequently followed.

Conclusion: The extended period and the equal penalty on the surviving service-tax demand were valid, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reduced service-tax liability for the taxable equipment-rental services, together with applicable interest and equal penalty, remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to obtain registration or file returns despite taxable turnover exceeding the exemption threshold constitutes suppression permitting extended limitation and the consequential penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issues: Whether omission to reproduce Exhibit A, which formed part of the written submissions acknowledged in the final order, warranted rectification.

Analysis: Exhibit A was part of the record and had already been considered during the original hearing. Its non-reproduction was found to be a clerical and typographical omission. Incorporation of the material merely records what was already tendered and does not alter the reasoning, findings, or operative directions of the final order; it consequently does not constitute a review.

Conclusion: Exhibit A was directed to be inserted in the final order, while all other findings and directions remained unchanged.

Issues: (i) Whether transportation of goods by road without consignment notes, and therefore not rendered as a goods transport agency service, was taxable to Service Tax; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invokable on the basis of CBDT/Income Tax data without independent evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether transportation of goods by road without consignment notes, and therefore not rendered as a goods transport agency service, was taxable to Service Tax.

Analysis: Under the negative-list regime, transportation of goods by road was excluded from the levy except where provided by a Goods Transport Agency or courier agency. A Goods Transport Agency requires issuance of a consignment note. The record established that the activity was transportation by road and that no consignment notes were issued; it was also expressly found that the services could not be treated as Goods Transport Agency services. Such road transportation consequently fell within the negative-list exclusion. The mere adoption of gross receipts as taxable consideration, without identifying another taxable service, could not sustain the levy.

Conclusion: The road-transportation services, not being Goods Transport Agency services, were not liable to Service Tax; the demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invokable on the basis of CBDT/Income Tax data without independent evidence of suppression or intent to evade tax.

Analysis: CBDT/Income Tax receipt data could justify an inquiry but, without independent investigation identifying taxable services, did not establish taxability or deliberate concealment. The burden remained on the Department to prove suppression of facts or contravention with intent to evade tax. The available records and the appellant's bona fide understanding did not disclose affirmative evidence meeting that threshold.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not validly invoked, rendering the demand barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed tax liability, together with consequential interest and penalties, lacked a sustainable legal foundation.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked for recovery of service tax for October 2014 to June 2017.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires demonstrable deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax; mere non-payment, short-payment, discrepancy between statutory returns and financial records, or a subsequently disputed exemption claim is insufficient. The assessee was registered, filed ST-3 returns, furnished agreements, financial statements and other records during investigation, and maintained a bona fide understanding that the services were exempt. The substantial reduction of the original demand also did not support an inference of deliberate concealment. Further, the demand for October 2014 to September 2015 was beyond the maximum five-year period preceding the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable and the service-tax demand was time-barred; the consequential interest and penalties could not survive. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether packing bought-out LPG/CNG conversion components in a box, with branding, MRP and vehicle-model identification, amounts to manufacture; (ii) Whether a penalty on the employee under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 survives where no excise duty is leviable on the company.

Issue (i): Whether packing bought-out LPG/CNG conversion components in a box, with branding, MRP and vehicle-model identification, amounts to manufacture.

Analysis: Manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires cumulative satisfaction of the transformation test and the marketability test. The bought-out components retained their individual character and underwent no processing or transformation; their collection and packing as a vehicle-specific kit did not produce a new article with a distinct name, character or use. Although the kit had commercial identity in trade, the absence of transformation was decisive. The settled principle applicable to identical packing of CNG-kit components was followed, while authorities involving transformation of components into a completed product were distinguished.

Conclusion: The activity does not amount to manufacture and no excise duty is leviable; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a penalty on the employee under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 survives where no excise duty is leviable on the company.

Analysis: As the company's activity was not liable to excise duty, the alleged contravention forming the basis of the employee's penalty was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Rule 26 penalty is unsustainable and is set aside in favour of the appellant employee.

Final Conclusion: Mere selection, grouping, branding and packing of bought-out conversion-kit components without any transformative process remains a non-manufacturing activity, and the consequential personal penalty cannot stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere packaging and marketing of bought-out components as a kit does not amount to manufacture unless the process transforms them into a distinct article with a new name, character or use; marketability alone cannot satisfy the requirement of manufacture.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised to interfere with GST demand orders despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but ordinarily warrants restraint where the statutory forum can adjudicate the objections. The notice concerning the first demand contained detailed allegations regarding the alleged invoicing network, transactions and modus operandi; therefore, the contention that it lacked material particulars for invoking Section 74 was not sufficient for writ interference. The principle that statutory expressions such as fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression cannot replace disclosure of factual particulars remained intact, but its application depended on the contents of the individual notices. The challenge to penalty required examination of the notice, reply, investigation material, adjudication findings and applicable provisions, which could appropriately be undertaken in appeal. No merits determination was made regarding the demands, applicability of Section 74, sufficiency of evidence or legality of the penalty.

Conclusion: Writ intervention was declined, as the statutory appellate process is the appropriate forum to determine the challenges to the demands and penalty.

Issues: (i) Whether retrospective cancellation of the supplier's GST registration alone permits denial of input tax credit; (ii) Whether input tax credit may be denied without examining the genuineness of supplies and compliance with Section 16 conditions; (iii) Whether denial of cross-examination violates natural justice where the report of supplier non-existence is the sole basis for denying input tax credit; (iv) Whether a notice under Section 74(1) is valid without foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts; (v) Whether the invalid Section 74(1) notice is to be treated as a deemed Section 73(1) notice under Section 75(2).

Issue (i): Whether retrospective cancellation of the supplier's GST registration alone permits denial of input tax credit.

Analysis: Retrospective cancellation under Section 29(2) concerns the supplier's registration status and does not, by itself, establish that supplies were fictitious, that goods were not received, or that the recipient participated in wrongdoing. The recipient's transaction records and compliance with statutory conditions require independent scrutiny.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration alone cannot justify denial of input tax credit. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit may be denied without examining the genuineness of supplies and compliance with Section 16 conditions.

Analysis: Input tax credit is conditional upon compliance with Section 16(2), including actual receipt of goods, and the burden of proof under Section 155 initially lies on the claimant. Upon production of invoices, transport records, stock records, payment evidence, and other primary material, the departmental authorities must verify that material against the statutory conditions; a supplier non-existence report cannot replace such verification.

Conclusion: Input tax credit cannot be rejected without an independent examination of the evidence concerning actual receipt of goods and statutory compliance. The entitlement requires fresh determination on the evidence. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether denial of cross-examination violates natural justice where the report of supplier non-existence is the sole basis for denying input tax credit.

Analysis: Section 75(4) ensures an opportunity of hearing but does not create an absolute right of cross-examination. Where the genuineness of supplies can be established or rebutted through invoices, e-way bills, transport documents, stock records, and payment records, documentary proof is the primary means of resolving the dispute.

Conclusion: Denial of cross-examination does not, by itself, violate principles of natural justice in a dispute capable of resolution through independent documentary evidence. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether a notice under Section 74(1) is valid without foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

Analysis: Section 74(1) applies only where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax is supported by material foundational facts. The allegation that the supplier was non-existent, without a reasoned inquiry or evidence showing the recipient's deliberate wrongful availment of credit, is insufficient to invoke the fraud-based provision.

Conclusion: The Section 74(1) notice was invalid for want of foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the invalid Section 74(1) notice is to be treated as a deemed Section 73(1) notice under Section 75(2).

Analysis: Section 75(2) requires a notice under Section 74(1), found unsustainable only because the fraud-based ingredients are not established, to be treated as a notice under Section 73(1), subject to the limitation under Section 73. For financial year 2017-18, the notice issued on 27.12.2021 was within the extended limitation applicable to a Section 73 notice.

Conclusion: The notice shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 73(1), and the proper officer must determine input tax credit eligibility afresh in accordance with law after considering the evidence and granting hearing. This issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The input tax credit claim must be determined afresh under the non-fraud statutory regime on the basis of evidence and applicable conditions, without treating the supplier's retrospective cancellation as conclusive proof of non-receipt of goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A recipient's input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; where a fraud-based notice lacks foundational facts establishing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression, a timely notice must be dealt with under the deemed non-fraud procedure prescribed by Section 75(2).

Issues: (i) Whether the entire unavailed CENVAT credit on pre-GST capital goods, where no credit had been availed in the erstwhile regime, could be transitioned through TRAN-1 under Section 140(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether transitional credit of Rs. 1,54,400 relating to 81 invoices could be denied because TRAN-1 recorded only one invoice number owing to clerical oversight.

Issue (i): Whether the entire unavailed CENVAT credit on pre-GST capital goods, where no credit had been availed in the erstwhile regime, could be transitioned through TRAN-1 under Section 140(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 140(2) permits transition of unavailed CENVAT credit on capital goods that was not carried forward under the existing law, provided it was admissible under both the existing and GST regimes. The Explanation defines unavailed credit as the aggregate eligible credit less the credit already availed. Rule 117(2)(a) requires disclosure of credit availed and credit yet to be availed, but does not require that some credit must previously have been availed. The provision does not restrict transitional credit to fifty per cent merely because capital-goods credit was ordinarily availed in instalments under the erstwhile regime.

Conclusion: The entire credit of Rs. 2,13,593 on the capital goods is allowable as transitional credit through TRAN-1.

Issue (ii): Whether transitional credit of Rs. 1,54,400 relating to 81 invoices could be denied because TRAN-1 recorded only one invoice number owing to clerical oversight.

Analysis: The entry recorded one invoice number, but that invoice contained an annexure referring to 81 invoices. The explanation that the aggregate credit of those invoices was entered against the first invoice number due to clerical oversight, coupled with the stated availability of all underlying invoices, warranted verification rather than denial without examination of the documents.

Conclusion: The claim of Rs. 1,54,400 shall be verified by the original authority on production of all 81 invoices and allowed if otherwise in order.

Final Conclusion: Full unavailed eligible credit on capital goods can transition notwithstanding nil prior availment, while the invoice-specific component remains subject to documentary verification.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 140(2) permits transition of the whole unavailed CENVAT credit on capital goods, including where no part was availed under the erstwhile law, if the credit is admissible under both regimes.

Issues: (i) Eligibility for the concessional rate under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017; (ii) Sustainability of tax demand and penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for disclosed supplies and the supply for which no intimation was given; (iii) Whether the impugned order was non-speaking; (iv) Liability for interest and penalty after regular-provision determination; (v) Entitlement to cum-tax benefit.

Issue (i): Eligibility for the concessional rate under Notification No. 41/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 23.10.2017.

Analysis: The notification grants the concessional rate subject to compliance with all stipulated conditions. Condition (vi) requires direct movement of the goods from the registered supplier either to the export point or to a registered warehouse for subsequent export. The expressions "directly" and "shall" make this a mandatory substantive condition. Movement of the goods to third-party premises before export did not satisfy either prescribed route. Exemption conditions require strict fulfilment by the claimant.

Conclusion: The concessional-rate benefit is unavailable and this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of tax demand and penalty under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for disclosed supplies and the supply for which no intimation was given.

Analysis: Section 74(1) requires non-payment or short-payment by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The purchase orders and proposed dispatch of the goods to third-party premises had been disclosed to the tax authorities through letters treated as relied-upon documents. Mere incorrect availment of an exemption benefit does not, by itself, establish the statutory ingredients of fraud or wilful suppression, and the burden to establish those ingredients was not discharged for such disclosed supplies. For the separate supply made without the required intimation, the non-disclosure was admitted and remained uncontroverted.

Conclusion: Section 74 demand and equivalent penalty are sustained for the supply for which no intimation was furnished. For the disclosed supplies, Section 74 proceedings are unsustainable; tax is to be determined under Section 75(2) as if the notice had been issued under Section 73(1). This issue succeeds for the assessee only in respect of the disclosed supplies.

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

Analysis: The impugned order recorded reasons for denying the notification benefit, including the failure to comply with the direct-movement condition. It did not, however, address the material submissions concerning the absence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression required for Section 74.

Conclusion: The order was speaking on notification eligibility but deficient on the Section 74 issue; it was not liable to be wholly set aside as non-speaking.

Issue (iv): Liability for interest and penalty after regular-provision determination.

Analysis: Interest under Section 50 is compensatory and follows where tax remains unpaid beyond the prescribed period. Where tax is determined under Section 73 for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression, Section 73(9) provides for penalty equal to ten per cent of the tax determined.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 50 is payable on tax determined as due. For the disclosed supplies, any tax determined under Section 73 attracts the statutory penalty under Section 73(9), and this issue is decided against the assessee to that extent.

Issue (v): Entitlement to cum-tax benefit.

Analysis: Section 15(2) read with Rule 35 requires the tax liability to be recalculated by allowing cum-tax valuation where applicable.

Conclusion: Cum-tax benefit is available and the tax payable must be re-determined accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The concessional-rate claim fails, but fraud-based demand treatment is confined to the undisclosed supply; liability for the remaining supplies requires determination under the regular provisions with cum-tax valuation.

Ratio Decidendi: Compliance with the direct-movement requirement of a concessional-rate notification is a mandatory substantive prerequisite to the concession.

Issues: (i) Validity of a consolidated show cause notice and order-in-original covering multiple financial years; (ii) Territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh GST authorities to demand tax on rental income from immovable property situated in Punjab; (iii) Invocation of Section 74(1) for rental income, freight charges, excess input tax credit, and blocked credit; (iv) Liability for late fee and interest; (v) Admissibility of excess and blocked input tax credit.

Issue (i): Validity of a consolidated show cause notice and order-in-original covering multiple financial years.

Analysis: A consolidated show cause notice and adjudication order spanning more than one financial or tax year are not, by themselves, prohibited. The adoption of the applicable legal position rejected the challenge based solely on the consolidated form of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The consolidated show cause notice and order-in-original are legally valid. This is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh GST authorities to demand tax on rental income from immovable property situated in Punjab.

Analysis: Under Section 12(3) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the place of supply for services directly connected with immovable property is the property's location. However, Section 2(71) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 2(15) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 make the registered place of business the location of the supplier of services. The Punjab location of the property consequently made the supply inter-State and attracted IGST, but did not displace the jurisdiction of the authorities administering the supplier's Chandigarh registration.

Conclusion: Chandigarh GST authorities had jurisdiction to raise the rental-income demand. This is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Invocation of Section 74(1) for rental income, freight charges, excess input tax credit, and blocked credit.

Analysis: The extended limitation and penalty mechanism under Section 74(1) requires foundational facts demonstrating fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax; a mechanical recital of those expressions is insufficient. The freight reverse-charge amount, the alleged excess input tax credit, and the blocked credit were discernible from statutory returns and audit material, with no adequate allegation establishing the requisite suppression. The finding that the excess-credit exercise was revenue neutral also negated recourse to Section 74 for that amount. In contrast, rental receipts detected through Form 26-AS had not been declared in GST returns. Such non-declaration falls within suppression under Explanation 2 to Section 74.

Conclusion: Section 74(1) was validly invoked for the undisclosed rental income, including equal penalty and interest, but could not be invoked for the freight, excess-credit, and blocked-credit components. The ruling is against the assessee for the rental-income component and in favour of the assessee for the remaining components; any tax liability on those remaining components must be determined under Section 75(2) as if notice had been issued under Section 73(1).

Issue (iv): Liability for late fee and interest.

Analysis: Section 74 concerns demand of tax and imposition of penalty and does not govern late fee or interest. Its inapplicability therefore did not affect the independently payable late fee and related interest.

Conclusion: The late fee and interest are upheld. This is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Admissibility of excess and blocked input tax credit.

Analysis: Subject to fulfilment of the conditions in Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the invoices are not reflected in Form GSTR-2A. The claimed blocked credit also required merits examination where the relevant invoice was asserted to have subsequently become available.

Conclusion: The admissibility of the excess and blocked input tax credit requires fresh merits determination by the adjudicating authority. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The rental-tax liability, equal penalty, interest, and late fee remain enforceable, while the extended-period demands and penalties relating to freight and the disputed credits cannot stand; the disputed credit claims require adjudication on their substantive eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended-period mechanism under Section 74 cannot rest on a mechanical allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression; undisclosed information required to be furnished in GST returns constitutes suppression, whereas matters evident from statutory returns without supporting foundational facts do not.

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated input tax credit for zero-rated export supplies is admissible where export invoices were issued during the relevant refund period but the goods were exported after that period.

Analysis: Under the refund mechanism for zero-rated supplies made without payment of tax under bond or letter of undertaking, the turnover of zero-rated supply is determined by invoices issued during the relevant period. The statutory scheme concerning time of supply and issuance of invoices treats the supply of export goods as occurring upon their removal for export and invoicing. Actual export remains a condition for grant of refund, but the date of the shipping bill does not exclude invoice value from the relevant period's zero-rated turnover where the goods have subsequently been exported.

Conclusion: Refund is admissible in respect of invoices issued during the relevant period notwithstanding that the corresponding goods were exported after that period, provided actual export is established.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed input tax credit was admissible despite documentary and banking records when actual receipt and physical movement of goods were not established; (ii) Whether penalty under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be imposed together with proceedings under Section 74 without reasoned findings and compliance with Section 75(13).

Issue (i): Whether the disputed input tax credit was admissible despite documentary and banking records when actual receipt and physical movement of goods were not established.

Analysis: Section 16(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires actual receipt of goods, while Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility to input tax credit upon the claimant. Invoices, e-way bills, stock records and banking-channel payments do not by themselves establish actual receipt when reliable contrary material exists. The suppliers were found to be bogus and non-existent, and the vehicle-verification reports disclosed untraceable vehicles, inadequate carrying capacity, invalid permits, and missing insurance or fitness records. The material was not substantively rebutted and established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the transactions were paper transactions without physical movement of goods. Compliance with Section 16(2)(c) cannot substitute the antecedent requirement of actual receipt under Section 16(2)(b).

Conclusion: The disputed input tax credit was inadmissible, and recovery of the tax and consequential interest under Section 74 was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be imposed together with proceedings under Section 74 without reasoned findings and compliance with Section 75(13).

Analysis: Section 75(13) bars imposition of another penalty for the same act or omission where penalty is imposed under Section 74. The orders did not provide reasons for invoking Section 122 alongside Section 74, and the enhanced penalty was imposed without addressing the statutory bar and the requirements of natural justice identified in the applicable circular.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed under Section 122 read with Section 74 were set aside for fresh determination in accordance with Section 75(13), in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax and interest liability arising from inadmissible input tax credit remains undisturbed, while the penalty component requires redetermination under the statutory bar against multiple penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for input tax credit is conditional upon the claimant proving actual receipt and genuineness of supplies; invoices, e-way bills and banking records alone are insufficient where reliable evidence establishes absence of physical movement of goods.

Issues: Whether a mismatch in the place of dispatch shown in transport records and e-way bills, without intent to evade tax, attracts penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: The consignments were accompanied by valid e-invoices and e-way bills, were accounted for in the statutory returns, and the applicable tax had been discharged. The difference arose because the goods moved by rail from the supplier's location to Kolkata and thereafter by road to the recipient, with the road transport receipt reflecting Kolkata as the dispatch point. A merely technical discrepancy in the dispatch location, without discrepancy in the goods or evidence of tax evasion, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive contravention warranting penalty.

Conclusion: A technical mismatch in the place of dispatch, where the goods and transactions are duly documented and taxed and no intent to evade tax exists, does not attract penalty under Section 129; decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether participation and consent waived the contractual requirement of a three-member arbitral tribunal and precluded objection to the sole arbitrator; (ii) Whether the special purpose vehicle undergoing corporate insolvency could pursue the arbitral claim and seek extension of mandate; and (iii) Whether the High Court acting under Section 11 could extend the arbitral mandate under Section 29A.

Issue (i): Whether participation and consent waived the contractual requirement of a three-member arbitral tribunal and precluded objection to the sole arbitrator.

Analysis: Although the arbitration agreement stipulated a three-member tribunal, consent was recorded for appointment of successive sole arbitrators, and the relevant appointment orders were never challenged. Continued participation in the proceedings, consent to an earlier time extension, and filing of counterclaims constituted acquiescence. Section 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deems waiver where a known non-compliance with an arbitration agreement is not promptly objected to, while Section 16(2) requires a jurisdictional plea within the prescribed stage.

Conclusion: The requirement of a three-member tribunal stood waived by conduct, and the challenge to the sole arbitrator was barred by acquiescence, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the special purpose vehicle undergoing corporate insolvency could pursue the arbitral claim and seek extension of mandate.

Analysis: The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 restrains proceedings against a corporate debtor but does not prevent it from pursuing recovery claims that may improve its financial position. The special purpose vehicle was a separate party to the tripartite agreement and had been formed for implementation of that agreement. Its participation in the arbitration was authorised by the resolution professional with approval of the committee of creditors under Section 28(1)(h) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: The special purpose vehicle was competent to continue the arbitral proceedings and seek extension of the arbitral mandate, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court acting under Section 11 could extend the arbitral mandate under Section 29A.

Analysis: For domestic arbitration, the court competent to exercise powers under Section 29A is the court defined by Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, namely the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in the district or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The appointing authority under Section 11 is not such a court merely because it constituted the arbitral tribunal, and Section 42 does not confer continuing jurisdiction upon it. The authority to extend the mandate under Section 29A(4) and (5) therefore rests with the court so defined.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice of the High Court or a Section 11 designate lacked authority to extend the mandate under Section 29A; the contrary determination was set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The sole-arbitrator proceedings remain valid, the restraint on pronouncement of the award stands lifted, and the arbitral proceedings are to be concluded within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: An extension of an arbitral mandate under Section 29A can be granted only by the court defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; a High Court or its designate exercising appointment power under Section 11 has no residual authority to grant that extension.

Issues: (i) Whether removal of earth, laying of gravel and metal, compact rolling and formation of granular sub-base constituted an integral part of road construction rather than an independent Site Formation Service, and alternatively whether it was exempt under Notification No. 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005; (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether removal of earth, laying of gravel and metal, compact rolling and formation of granular sub-base constituted an integral part of road construction rather than an independent Site Formation Service, and alternatively whether it was exempt under Notification No. 17/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005.

Analysis: The work order expressly connected the earthwork, gravel and metal laying, rolling and granular sub-base formation with the proposed paver-road project. A granular sub-base is a foundational and essential stage of road construction, and subsequent laying of paver blocks by another person does not permit artificial severance of that integrated activity into a separate site-formation service. The Board's clarification also treats laying of a new road and changing a road surface as construction activities. Independently, Notification No. 17/2005-ST exempts site-formation and similar services undertaken in the course of construction of roads, without imposing a Government ownership, public-use or non-commercial-premises condition.

Conclusion: The activity was integral to road construction and was not separately taxable as Site Formation Service; alternatively, it was exempt under Notification No. 17/2005-ST. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period and imposition of penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were sustainable.

Analysis: The material relied upon in the notice consisted of the work order, bill, correspondence and audit material forming part of the assessee's regular records. The dispute concerned classification, taxability and exemption of road-related work. Discovery during audit and a contrary departmental view did not establish wilful suppression with intent to evade tax, which is required for extended limitation. The assessee's reliance on the statutory exclusion, exemption and Board clarifications also constituted reasonable cause for purposes of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable, the demand was time-barred, and the associated interest and penalties could not survive. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service-tax liability, consequential interest or penalty was legally sustainable in respect of the road-related granular sub-base work.

Ratio Decidendi: Foundational and preparatory works contractually undertaken in the course of road construction cannot be artificially severed and taxed as a standalone site-formation service, and an exemption for such work admits no unstated public-use limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether construction undertaken for educational and health-care institutions during 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2012 was taxable as commercial or industrial construction; (ii) Whether the construction activities during 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015 were composite works contracts and could be taxed on the entire consideration under Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994; (iii) Whether extended limitation, consequential interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether construction undertaken for educational and health-care institutions during 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2012 was taxable as commercial or industrial construction.

Analysis: Sections 65(25b) and 65(105)(zzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 required the buildings to be used or intended to be used primarily for commerce or industry. Circular No. 80/10/2004-S.T. required examination of the purpose and actual use of the construction rather than the institutional form or source of income. The Revenue bore the burden of proof in classification to establish the requisite primary commercial or industrial use. Applying the Predominant Object Test, generation of educational surplus alone did not establish a profit-making or commercial character. The available material did not establish that the educational buildings or hospital building were used or intended primarily for commerce or industry.

Conclusion: The pre-01.07.2012 demand was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the construction activities during 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2015 were composite works contracts and could be taxed on the entire consideration under Section 66E(b) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Section 65B(54) of the Finance Act, 1994 covers construction contracts involving a taxable transfer of property in goods as Composite Works Contracts. The agreements, construction schedules and VAT records showed procurement and incorporation of materials, and did not support treatment of the activities as pure labour contracts. Under Section 66E(h) and Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, only the Service Portion of Works Contract could be valued under the prescribed mechanism. The show-cause notice instead proposed tax under Section 66E(b) on the entire consideration. Adjudication Beyond the Show Cause Notice by converting that demand into one under Section 66E(h) and Rule 2A was impermissible. Denial of the notification benefit did not permit taxation of the entire composite consideration.

Conclusion: The post-01.07.2012 demand under Section 66E(b) on the entire consideration was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether extended limitation, consequential interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: Extended Limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) required Wilful Suppression or misstatement with intent to evade tax. Registration, maintained agreements and VAT records, payments made for the later period, and a bona fide belief founded on the operative departmental circular were inconsistent with such suppression. Belated filing of returns alone did not establish the statutory ingredients. Consequential Interest under Section 75 could not survive after failure of the substantive demands.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; consequential interest and penalties under Sections 77(2) and 78 were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed tax demands, interest and penalties lacked a sustainable basis under the applicable classification, valuation and limitation framework.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the assessee's VCES declaration under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 on the ground that it was substantially false was sustainable; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether invocation of the extended period, interest and penalty was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the assessee's VCES declaration under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 on the ground that it was substantially false was sustainable.

Analysis: The Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme concerned historical unpaid tax dues, and eligibility was to be tested with reference to the prescribed date. An investigation initiated after that date could not retrospectively disqualify the declaration. Section 111 required proof that the declaration was substantially false; a higher tax computation based on accounts, returns, Form 26AS, contracts, invoices and other contemporaneous records did not by itself establish substantial falsity. The differences arose from identifiable disputes concerning taxability, valuation, classification, exemption and the treatment of works-contract receipts. The Revenue did not discharge its burden of proof to show that the declaration was substantially false.

Conclusion: The VCES declaration was not established to be substantially false, and its rejection under Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013 was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee. The amount paid under the Scheme remained non-refundable under Section 109 of the Finance Act, 2013.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether invocation of the extended period, interest and penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant date under Section 73 had to be determined return-period-wise. The show-cause notice was issued after expiry of the normal limitation period, including for the final return period. The legal fiction in Section 111(3) of the Finance Act, 2013 only attracted the recovery machinery under Section 73 and did not substitute the VCES declaration date for the relevant date or restart limitation. Invocation of the extended period required proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. Since the transactions were traceable from documentary and statutory records and the dispute concerned their legal treatment, the requisite deliberate suppression was not established.

Conclusion: The entire demand was time-barred because the extended period was not invocable; the consequential interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The VCES rejection and the confirmed fiscal liabilities could not be sustained, while the remittance already made under the VCES remained unavailable for refund.