Issues: (i) Whether an assessee that replied to a show-cause notice but received the demand order only through the Common Portal could pursue a statutory appeal without limitation objection; (ii) Whether an ex parte demand order following portal-only service of the show-cause notice, without any reply by the assessee, required restoration of proceedings to the show-cause-notice stage.

Issue (i): Whether an assessee that replied to a show-cause notice but received the demand order only through the Common Portal could pursue a statutory appeal without limitation objection.

Analysis: A reply to the show-cause notice constituted acknowledgment of its service and participation in adjudication; consequently, restoration to the notice stage was unavailable. However, where the contested demand order was served only by upload on the Common Portal, such service did not trigger the period for filing an appeal.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: a statutory appeal against the demand order may be filed within four weeks and must be entertained on merits without objection as to limitation, subject to other statutory requirements.

Issue (ii): Whether an ex parte demand order following portal-only service of the show-cause notice, without any reply by the assessee, required restoration of proceedings to the show-cause-notice stage.

Analysis: Portal-only upload of the show-cause notice, without acknowledgment or a reply, was insufficient service. The resulting ex parte adjudication warranted restoration so that the assessee could respond and receive a personal hearing.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the ex parte demand order is set aside, and proceedings are restored to the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice; the assessee may file a reply within four weeks, followed by fresh adjudication after personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: Portal-only communication does not deprive an assessee of an effective appellate remedy where the demand order was contested, and requires fresh adjudication where it resulted in an unreplied-to notice and ex parte demand.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere uploading of a show-cause notice or adjudication order on the Common Portal, without acknowledgment or response, is not effective service for imposing ex parte consequences or commencing appellate limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether the written grounds of arrest were adequately communicated and whether the Commissioner's reasons to believe were required to be supplied to the petitioner; (ii) Whether discrepancies in the recorded time of arrest rendered the arrest illegal; (iii) Whether the judicial remand was mechanically authorised without compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards.

Issue (i): Whether the written grounds of arrest were adequately communicated and whether the Commissioner's reasons to believe were required to be supplied to the petitioner.

Analysis: Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India requires communication of grounds of arrest in writing within reasonable time and at least two hours before production for remand. The five-page intimation identified the petitioner's role, wrongful input tax credit, relevant period, dummy suppliers, amounts of fraudulent credit and particulars relating to those entities. The recorded refusal to receive the intimation did not make the document vague or deficient. No requirement was established that the Commissioner's recorded reasons to believe must also be furnished to the arrested person.

Conclusion: The grounds of arrest were sufficiently and timely communicated; non-supply of the Commissioner's reasons to believe did not invalidate the arrest. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether discrepancies in the recorded time of arrest rendered the arrest illegal.

Analysis: The differing times in the arrest authorisation, grounds of arrest and arrest memo did not establish illegality. The CCTV material required proof in accordance with law and could not support factual findings in writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on the same day, no prejudice from the discrepancies was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The discrepancies in the recorded arrest time did not render the arrest illegal. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the judicial remand was mechanically authorised without compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards.

Analysis: The remand record showed that the petitioner was represented by legal-aid and private counsel, that written grounds of arrest were communicated, and that intimation of arrest was given to his wife. The Magistrate recorded satisfaction regarding the justification for arrest and compliance with Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, having regard to the serious non-bailable allegations and continuing investigation.

Conclusion: The remand was not mechanically authorised and was legally sustained. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arrest and judicial remand fails, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying tax-evasion allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: An arrest is not invalidated by immaterial discrepancies in arrest records where written grounds are adequately communicated, the arrestee is promptly produced for remand, and no resulting prejudice is established.

Issues: Whether delay in filing a corrected return to rectify the assessee-firm's nomenclature could be condoned under Section 119(2)(b).

Analysis: The original return was filed within time, and the proposed correction was confined to adding the prefix "M/s." to the firm's name. There was no change in the permanent account number, constitution of the assessee, returned income, tax liability, or any substantive claim. The correction was purely clerical and caused no prejudice to the Revenue. The power to condone delay is intended to advance substantial justice where genuine hardship would otherwise result, and should not be refused on a hyper-technical procedural ground.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause and bona fides existed for condoning the delay; the corrected return is required to be treated as validly filed and processed in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether profits from offshore supply of equipment, integrated designs and spares were taxable in India through a fixed place or supervisory permanent establishment, including under the force of attraction rule; (ii) Whether receipts for onshore supervisory activities were taxable as business profits or fees for technical services; (iii) Whether consideration for designs and drawings for indigenous equipment and civil works constituted royalty or fees for technical services.

Issue (i): Whether profits from offshore supply of equipment, integrated designs and spares were taxable in India through a fixed place or supervisory permanent establishment, including under the force of attraction rule.

Analysis: The offshore contracts had distinct scopes and consideration, with manufacture, fabrication and design undertaken outside India. The supplies were made on FOB terms; title passed upon shipment outside India, consideration was received abroad, and the Indian customers bore customs clearance and insurance. Retention of part of the price, performance warranties, acceptance tests and a right to reject defective goods did not displace the offshore transfer of title.

Analysis: The Indian associated entity was not shown to have secured or concluded contracts, or to have performed functions establishing that its premises were at the assessee's disposal. Nor was the customer site shown to be under the assessee's dominant control. The supervisory permanent establishment had no role in offshore supplies and arose for onshore supervisory activities after the offshore supply operations. Article 7(1) could not attract offshore business profits in the absence of a relevant permanent establishment through which those supplies were carried on.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. Offshore supply profits, including integrated drawings and designs, were not taxable in India and could not be attributed to a fixed place or supervisory permanent establishment.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts for onshore supervisory activities were taxable as business profits or fees for technical services.

Analysis: Supervisory activities at the Indian project sites exceeded the six-month threshold under Article 5(2)(j). The supervisory receipts were directly connected with the supervisory permanent establishment. The treaty treatment applicable to fees for technical services did not apply where the receipts were effectively connected with that permanent establishment; such receipts were assessable as business profits under Article 7 on a net basis. The completed-contract method adopted for recognition of the supervisory profit had been accepted in assessment, and gross taxation in the years of receipt would result in double taxation.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. Supervisory receipts were taxable as business profits under Article 7 on a net basis and not as fees for technical services under Article 13.

Issue (iii): Whether consideration for designs and drawings for indigenous equipment and civil works constituted royalty or fees for technical services.

Analysis: The designs were customised for integration of indigenous equipment and civil works with the imported plant, and were supplied for completing, operating and maintaining the plant. The customers obtained no right to commercially exploit the intellectual property embedded in the designs; their use was confined to their own projects. The transaction was therefore a sale of a copyrighted article/product, not a grant of a right to use a design or intellectual property and not a service.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee. Receipts from designs and drawings for indigenous equipment and civil works were neither royalty nor fees for technical services; they constituted business income not taxable in India in the absence of attribution to a permanent establishment.

Final Conclusion: Offshore supplies and project-specific designs remained outside Indian tax jurisdiction, while onshore supervisory income was assessable only under the business-profits provisions applicable to the supervisory permanent establishment.

Ratio Decidendi: Offshore supply income cannot be taxed or attributed to an Indian permanent establishment where title and supply operations are completed abroad and the alleged permanent establishment has no real role in those supplies; supervisory receipts effectively connected with a qualifying supervisory permanent establishment are taxable as business profits, not as fees for technical services.

Issues: Whether the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the purchase of preform silica from the associated enterprise, and whether the transfer-pricing adjustment made by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method was sustainable.

Analysis: Internal and external comparable uncontrolled price data were available for the identical raw material. The prices paid to the associated enterprise were lower than or equal to prices paid to an independent supplier and lower than the average import prices reflected in customs data. The Comparable Uncontrolled Price method had also been accepted in preceding years, with no change in the nature of transactions, business profile, assets or relevant facts to justify departure from that method. The rejection of that method and adoption of the Transactional Net Margin Method therefore violated the rule of consistency.

Analysis: Even under the Transactional Net Margin Method, the sole comparable selected was functionally dissimilar. The assessee manufactured only optical fibre, whereas the comparable undertook diversified manufacturing and service activities, including optical fibre cables and other products, and lacked segmental financial data. Its enterprise-level margins could not validly be compared with those of the assessee.

Conclusion: The Comparable Uncontrolled Price method was accepted as the most appropriate method, the assessee's arm's length price determination was upheld, and the transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reliable internal and external comparable uncontrolled price data establish arm's length pricing and the method has consistently been accepted on unchanged facts, it cannot be replaced by the Transactional Net Margin Method; a diversified entity without segmental data is not a functionally comparable benchmark.

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was required to adjudicate the assessee's claim for CENVAT credit on construction services used for setting up its factory; (ii) Whether the issue of penalty required adjudication in light of the earlier finding that the dispute was interpretational.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was required to adjudicate the assessee's claim for CENVAT credit on construction services used for setting up its factory.

Analysis: The record showed that the disputed credit was asserted to comprise, in part, construction-service credit rather than solely Goods Transport Agency service credit. The assessee had raised the claim before the original authority, the first appellate authority and in the remand proceedings. Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as relied on, included services used in relation to setting up of a factory during the relevant period. The lower authorities did not determine the claim on merits, including the contention that the denial travelled beyond the show-cause notice. As the final fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was required to decide all issues arising from the record; its omission to determine the claim constituted failure to exercise jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The claim for CENVAT credit on construction services must be freshly adjudicated by the Tribunal after allowing all legally available grounds and hearing both sides, without any conclusion on entitlement being predetermined.

Issue (ii): Whether the issue of penalty required adjudication in light of the earlier finding that the dispute was interpretational.

Analysis: In the earlier round, the Tribunal had found the dispute to be interpretational and had stated that no penalty was imposable. Notwithstanding that finding, an equivalent penalty was imposed in the remand proceedings and sustained by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal did not render a finding on the penalty issue, while the parties disputed whether it had been properly pursued before the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal must also freshly examine the penalty issue, with all contentions of both sides remaining open.

Final Conclusion: The denial of the disputed construction-service credit and its consequential interest and penalty cannot stand without a complete adjudication of the claims and issues raised from the record.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory final fact-finding authority must adjudicate material grounds arising from the record; failure to determine them is a failure to exercise jurisdiction requiring fresh consideration.

Issues: Whether rejection of the application for revocation of GST registration cancellation warranted fresh consideration after the taxpayer filed pending returns, paid taxes and deposited late fees.

Analysis: The cancellation of registration was found capable of causing civil death to the taxpayer's business. Since the pending returns were filed within fifteen days of cancellation, taxes were paid and late fees were subsequently deposited, the request for revocation required reconsideration by the competent authority. Remitting the matter to that authority, rather than the appellate authority, was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The rejection of revocation and the appellate order were set aside, and the revocation application was remitted to the competent authority for fresh decision. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether uploading a notice or order-in-original under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST common portal constitutes valid service under Sections 169 and 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Service by uploading on the common portal alone is not sufficient unless the assessee acknowledges receipt or responds to the notice. The retrospective amendment concerning functions performable on the common portal does not alter this position, since the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 do not prescribe the common portal as a mode for formal service of a show-cause notice or order. A mode of communication producing serious civil consequences cannot substitute statutory service merely through portal uploading.

Conclusion: Uploading the notice or order-in-original only on the common portal does not amount to valid service on the assessee; the writ petition was governed by the relief framework applicable to such defective service.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order is sustainable where the taxpayer's written reply to the show cause notice was not considered.

Analysis: The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the show cause cum demand notice. The adjudicating authority passed the ex parte adjudication without considering that reply, notwithstanding the opportunities afforded for personal hearing. Non-consideration of the reply was contrary to the principles of natural justice and rendered the adjudication infirm.

Conclusion: The adjudication cannot stand; the reply must be considered and a fresh reasoned decision taken after an effective hearing. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order made while objections to the draft assessment order were pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel, and subsequently found inconsistent with its directions, could be sustained notwithstanding the assessee's failure to intimate the Assessing Officer of those objections.

Analysis: An eligible assessee that timely files objections to a draft assessment order invokes the statutory procedure under Section 144C. The Dispute Resolution Panel's directions are binding, and the assessment must thereafter be completed in conformity with those directions. The failure to intimate the Assessing Officer, though a lapse, was bona fide and caused no gain to the assessee. Further, the transfer-pricing order forming the sole basis of the assessment had been revised pursuant to the Panel's directions.

Conclusion: The final assessment order and consequential demand and penalty-initiation notices were invalid because they were contrary to the Dispute Resolution Panel's binding directions; a fresh assessment must be made in conformity with those directions and the revised transfer-pricing order.

Issues: Whether exemption under Section 11 can be denied solely because Form 10B was furnished after the prescribed time but was available with the processing authority before processing of the return.

Analysis: The audit report in Form 10B accompanied the return and was available with the Centralised Processing Centre before the return was processed. Delay in furnishing the audit report does not by itself defeat the exemption claim where the report is available at the stage of assessment or return processing. Further, denial of exemption does not permit treatment of the entire receipts as income without computation on commercial principles.

Conclusion: Exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied solely for delayed furnishing of Form 10B where the report was available before processing of the return; the claim is allowable upon fulfilment of the remaining statutory conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural delay in furnishing an audit report does not disentitle a charitable institution to exemption when the report is available to the assessing authority before assessment or return processing.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification effective from 15.06.2026 could be relied upon to deny consideration of provisional release of imported goods covered by bills of lading issued before its commencement.

Analysis: The amendment could operate only prospectively because it contained no express provision conferring retrospective effect. It could therefore not govern imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment took effect. The request for provisional release was also governed by the established approach applicable to similar imported goods, with no distinguishing feature identified.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be used to refuse consideration of provisional release; the importer's request must be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issues: Whether penalty for non-accompaniment of Form 38 could be sustained under Section 54(1)(14) where the imported sugar was exempt from VAT and no VAT was ultimately levied.

Analysis: Sugar was exempt under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, whereas entry tax was levied under the separate entry-tax regime. The goods had been disclosed at import. Although classification or rate-of-tax concerns may justify seizure during transit, penalty required justification of VAT liability on the goods. Since no tax was imposed under the VAT Act in assessment, Form 38 was not required for the exempt goods and the VAT penalty lacked legal basis.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under Section 54(1)(14) was unsustainable; the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's claim for payment under the work order should be directed to be paid.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to verify the claim and take a reasoned decision within two months.

Issues: Whether a provisional attachment of bank accounts continues beyond one year from the date of its issuance.

Analysis: Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes that a provisional attachment ceases to have effect upon expiry of one year from its issuance. The attachment in question had exceeded that period, and no subsisting basis for continuing the freezing of the accounts remained. Directions were also issued requiring attachment orders to record their maximum one-year operation, banks and financial institutions to de-freeze accounts on expiry unless served with a valid fresh attachment order, and regulatory communication to ensure compliance.

Conclusion: A provisional attachment automatically ceases after one year; the attached bank accounts were required to be de-frozen.

Outcome: The delay-condonation applications were rejected and the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay.

Issues: (i) Whether a six-digit tariff-classification mismatch between the country-of-origin certificate and the classification determined on import justified denial of the SAFTA preferential-duty benefit; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced using NIDB data for allegedly branded goods.

Issue (i): Whether a six-digit tariff-classification mismatch between the country-of-origin certificate and the classification determined on import justified denial of the SAFTA preferential-duty benefit.

Analysis: The origin of the imported goods was undisputed, and the examination disclosed no misdeclaration of their description. The reclassified tariff headings remained within the scope of the exemption. A preferential claim may be denied without verification only in the specified circumstances under the origin-administration rules, none of which was established. The applicable origin rules also require verification and inter-governmental consultation in a dispute and provide that minor discrepancies between the certificate and customs documents do not ipso facto invalidate the certificate.

Conclusion: The country-of-origin certificate remained valid for preferential treatment, and denial of the exemption, differential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced using NIDB data for allegedly branded goods.

Analysis: The alleged brands were not registered under the intellectual-property enforcement framework, and no intellectual-property infringement or investigation establishing counterfeit or genuinely branded goods was shown. The enhancement was based only on NIDB description-based data without examining material factors affecting textile value, including fabric quality, and without evidence discrediting the supplier's invoice or declared price. The prescribed valuation procedure was therefore not followed.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected, and the redetermined assessable value was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The imports retain the claimed SAFTA preferential treatment and must be assessed on the declared transaction value; the provisional-release bank guarantee is liable to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff-classification discrepancy in an undisputed country-of-origin certificate does not by itself defeat preferential treatment where the goods remain eligible and no statutory ground for denial is established; declared transaction value cannot be enhanced solely on unsubstantiated NIDB comparisons.