Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the tax appeal was liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether the Tribunal could make remand following a breach of natural justice conditional upon payment of costs and provide for automatic confirmation of the ex parte appellate order on default; (iii) Whether the addition under Section 68 required fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the tax appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The explanation concerning corporate formalities, internal approvals, court vacation and legal consultation established sufficient cause. The delay was neither deliberate nor contumacious, warranting a liberal and justice-oriented application of limitation law.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could make remand following a breach of natural justice conditional upon payment of costs and provide for automatic confirmation of the ex parte appellate order on default.

Analysis: The Tribunal's power under Section 254(1) and Rule 32 to regulate proceedings and award costs is discretionary and cannot defeat the substantive statutory right of appeal. Having found that the first appellate order was passed without adequate hearing, an unconditional remand was required. A cost condition coupled with automatic confirmation on default would validate an invalid ex parte order without merits adjudication and render the appellate remedy illusory. The first appellate authority was also required under Section 250(6) to issue a reasoned order stating the points for determination, decision and reasons.

Conclusion: The automatic-confirmation clause was quashed, and the conditional remand was held unsustainable to that extent in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition under Section 68 required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: Section 68 requires the assessee to establish the lender's identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. The banking and corporate material placed on record required proper factual evaluation, whereas the revenue authorities relied on generalized third-party information without independent inquiry or effective consideration of the evidence.

Conclusion: The merits of the Section 68 addition require fresh, unhindered de novo adjudication by the first appellate authority, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cost was reduced and the matter was restored for a reasoned merits determination, with protection against coercive recovery pending the fresh appellate decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal may impose procedural costs, but it cannot condition the survival of a statutory appeal or remand on payment of costs by providing for automatic confirmation of an order found to violate natural justice.

Issues: Whether the assessee's appeal under Section 260A was maintainable in the absence of a substantial question of law where the challenge concerned refusal to condone delay based on medical evidence and adoption of stamp-duty valuation under Section 56(2).

Analysis: Section 260A permits a High Court appeal only where a substantial question of law arises. The sufficiency of cause for delay, evaluation of medical material, and determination of property value are factual matters. The proposed grounds sought reappreciation of those facts and raised no issue concerning statutory interpretation, conflicting legal views, or perversity capable of converting the factual disputes into a substantial question of law. The monetary-tax-effect restrictions applicable to Revenue litigation under Section 268A do not dispense with the statutory requirement for an assessee to establish a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The appeal raised no substantial question of law and was not maintainable under Section 260A, against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal under Section 260A lies only on a substantial question of law; disputes requiring reassessment of evidence on delay or factual valuation do not satisfy that jurisdictional threshold.

Issues: (i) Whether the stay of proceedings under one show-cause notice barred adjudication of another notice arising from the same investigation; (ii) Whether the challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an efficacious statutory appeal; (iii) Whether the Court should decide the limitation and validity issues concerning the pending adjudication under the second show-cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the stay of proceedings under one show-cause notice barred adjudication of another notice arising from the same investigation.

Analysis: The two notices concerned distinct subject matters and had separate statutory foundations, notwithstanding their origin in a common investigation, assignment to a common adjudicating authority, and common hearings. The interim order expressly stayed only proceedings under the second notice. Its scope could not be enlarged by implication to restrain adjudication under the first notice. Administrative convenience of common hearings did not merge the independent proceedings or require a composite order.

Conclusion: The stay concerning the second show-cause notice did not bar adjudication of the first show-cause notice; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an efficacious statutory appeal.

Analysis: The objections regarding denial of hearing, non-supply of relied-upon documents, justification for adjournments, appreciation of evidence, and legality of the adjudication findings involved matters suitable for examination on the adjudication record. The statutory appellate forum was competent to examine all such grounds. No exceptional circumstance justified bypassing that remedy under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication order was not entertained in writ jurisdiction, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Court should decide the limitation and validity issues concerning the pending adjudication under the second show-cause notice.

Analysis: The limitation, Call Book, extension, and communication questions arose directly in an adjudication that remained pending and had not attained finality. A determination by the Court could affect the adjudicating authority's decision. The matters were therefore left for consideration in the statutory proceedings, with an effective hearing to be afforded before a final order.

Conclusion: No ruling was made on the merits of the pending second show-cause notice; all factual and legal contentions were kept open.

Final Conclusion: The first adjudication remains subject to the statutory appellate process, while adjudication under the second notice may proceed afresh in accordance with natural justice and without any merits determination in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate show-cause notices retain independent legal character notwithstanding a common investigation or joint hearings, and writ jurisdiction ordinarily will not displace an efficacious statutory appellate remedy absent exceptional circumstances.

Issues: Whether a refund claim for interest paid under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, filed after one year from payment, is maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 27 requires a claim for refund of duty or interest to be made within one year from the date of payment, except where payment was under protest. No written protest was established; payment to generate electronic challans and complete clearance did not constitute payment under protest. A claim presented before customs authorities remains governed by the statutory refund mechanism, including limitation, even where the amount is alleged to have been collected without authority of law. Statutory authorities and the Tribunal lack power to extend the prescribed period on grounds of technical difficulty, bona fides, hardship, or late awareness of procedure. Administrative waiver orders could not override the statutory limitation in the absence of an express statutory exclusion.

Conclusion: The refund claim filed on 20.06.2024 for interest paid on 18.04.2023 and 22.04.2023 was time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order relating to gold chains imported as passenger baggage is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The goods were admittedly brought by the passenger from Kuwait in checked-in baggage, and the proceedings concerned their seizure, confiscation and penalty for alleged non-declaration and improper importation. Questions concerning the place of interception, eligibility to import gold on payment of duty, declaration, confiscation and penalty concern the merits and cannot overcome the statutory exclusion. The prescribed remedy lies before the competent Revisional Authority under Section 129DD.

Conclusion: The appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal; the statutory remedy is revision before the competent Revisional Authority.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, without examining its merits, warranted interference where the delay arose from genuine inability to comply with online GST requirements and lack of notice of the cancellation proceedings.

Analysis: Cancellation of GST registration has severe consequences for a business. The stated circumstances of the proprietor's lack of technical competence, reliance on an accountant or local advocate for statutory compliance, failure of that representative to file returns or communicate the proceedings, and absence of awareness of the show-cause notice and original order were accepted as genuine. Consistent with the applicable coordinate-bench decisions, the appeal required consideration on merits rather than rejection solely on limitation.

Conclusion: The time-bar dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be considered and decided on merits in accordance with law, upon payment of admissible late fee, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: (i) Whether a fresh notice under Section 74 could be issued within two years of the earlier writ direction despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period; (ii) Whether the impugned notice was vitiated by prejudicial observations of the issuing adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether a fresh notice under Section 74 could be issued within two years of the earlier writ direction despite expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Analysis: The earlier writ order, having attained finality, expressly left it open to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 74 if the jurisdictional ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax existed. That direction could not be diluted at the implementation stage. Section 75(3), read with that direction, preserved two years from communication of the earlier order for consequential fresh adjudicatory action; a literal construction confined only to cases where an adjudication order had been set aside would defeat the binding direction.

Conclusion: The fresh notice was not barred by limitation; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notice was vitiated by prejudicial observations of the issuing adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The notice included unnecessary allegations that the assessee had misled the High Court. Those remarks were unrelated to the required statutory inquiry and disclosed prejudice, particularly because they stemmed from the assessee having obtained relief in the earlier writ proceedings. An adjudicatory notice must be issued through a neutral application of mind.

Conclusion: The notice was unsustainable for prejudice and was set aside; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh proceedings under Section 74 may be initiated only by a different officer, neutrally and upon the existence of jurisdictional facts, with the assessee afforded the prescribed opportunity to respond and obtain relevant documents.

Ratio Decidendi: A final judicial direction permitting fresh statutory proceedings preserves the consequential period for action, but a notice issued with demonstrable adjudicatory prejudice cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could continue where transaction information linked to the petitioner's PAN was disputed on the ground of identity theft and denial of the underlying business activity.

Analysis: Under the amended reassessment framework, the determination at the stage of Section 148-A is whether the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148, rather than the former test of reasons to believe. Information concerning substantial transactions linked to the petitioner's PAN constituted relevant material. The GST communication did not conclusively establish that the petitioner had not undertaken the transactions, since no conclusive GST enquiry had determined identity theft. Acceptance of that defence required evidence, examination of documents and enquiry in reassessment proceedings. Nevertheless, once the petitioner substantiates the plea that he did not undertake the transactions, the Revenue must lead primary positive evidence establishing that the transactions were undertaken by the petitioner; the onus does not shift merely on the basis of the disputed information.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were permitted to continue; the petitioner may establish the identity-theft defence in those proceedings, and the Revenue must prove the petitioner's involvement in the disputed transactions.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification that came into force after the bill of lading could be relied upon to decline consideration of provisional release of imported goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The bill of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and cannot govern imports covered by a bill of lading issued before its commencement. The request also concerned provisional release of similar imported goods and no distinguishing feature justified a different approach.

Conclusion: The post-import amendment could not be used to refuse consideration of provisional release; the authorities were required to consider the request under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, impose lawful conditions, and release the goods upon compliance, without affecting independent merits adjudication.

Issues: Whether omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving clause applies to pending proceedings concerning refund of integrated tax on exports.

Analysis: Rule 96(10), which restricted refund claims where supplies were received after availing specified benefits, was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024. The governing principle is that omission of a rule ordinarily obliterates it unless a saving provision or statutory device expressly preserves pending proceedings. The omission contained no saving or sunset clause. The advisory recommendation for prospective omission could not bind the rule-making authority. The stated purpose of removing unnecessary complications further supported application of the omission to pending refund claims.

Conclusion: The omission of Rule 96(10) applies to pending proceedings; refund claims must be considered without applying the omitted restriction, in favour of the assessees.

Issues: Whether a fresh show-cause notice could be issued on allegations already conclusively determined through the advance-ruling and earlier proceedings, despite the binding prior decision on the same controversy.

Analysis: The earlier Division Bench decision had determined that the product remained unmanufactured tobacco notwithstanding the use of machines, lime, aroma or menthol; it had also found no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression and held that the jurisdictional requirements for invoking Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were absent. The same issue having been adjudicated between the parties, and the respondents accepting that the controversy was identical, the prior determination remained binding unless displaced in accordance with law. A subordinate revenue authority cannot revive concluded allegations merely because review of the earlier decision is under consideration.

Conclusion: The fresh notice founded on the previously settled allegations was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether rejection of the refund claim for unutilised input tax credit accumulated due to an inverted duty structure was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The rejection order was found to be palpably erroneous, legally infirm, irregular and perverse. The material placed with the writ petition, including the claim that the applicants were manufacturers and had supplied supporting documents, warranted interference. The refund claim requires fresh consideration after a comprehensive reply and relevant evidence concerning the applicants' manufacturing status, business details and earlier refund claims are furnished, with an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was quashed; the claim is to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the challenge to GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting and gambling transactions survived in view of the binding Supreme Court judgment.

Analysis: The Supreme Court ruling, adopted as governing the petition, upheld the GST levy on actionable claims arising from betting and gambling, including online gaming and fantasy sports involving pooled stakes. It sustained the relevant charging, supply and valuation provisions and Rules 31A, 31B and 31C; held the 2023 amendments clarificatory and retrospective; and required pending proceedings to be determined under the applicable valuation framework. All substantive prayers in the writ petition stood covered by that ruling, leaving no issue for independent determination.

Conclusion: The GST challenge failed; the petitioners must pursue the show-cause-notice proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Issues: Whether GST on actionable claims arising from online gaming, fantasy sports, betting, gambling and casino transactions, including the statutory valuation framework and the retrospective operation of the 2023 amendments, is valid.

Analysis: The binding Supreme Court ruling covered all substantive challenges raised. It treats participation involving stakes on uncertain outcomes as betting and gambling; recognises the resulting contingent beneficial interests as actionable claims and taxable supplies; and validates the charging, valuation and machinery framework. The 2023 amendments, including the valuation provisions for online gaming and casino transactions, were held clarificatory and retrospective. Pending show-cause notices and adjudication are required to proceed under the applicable valuation framework.

Conclusion: The GST levy and the challenged statutory and valuation framework are valid; the challenge fails against the assessee.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the GST appeal solely on limitation, despite genuine reasons for non-compliance and lack of awareness of cancellation proceedings, warranted interference.

Analysis: Cancellation of registration had serious consequences for the petitioner's business. The explanation that compliance had been entrusted to an accountant or local advocate, who failed to inform the petitioner of the requirement to file returns and of the show-cause notice and subsequent proceedings, was found genuine. The appeal had not been examined on merits, and comparable matters had been directed for merits consideration upon fulfilment of statutory payment requirements.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection could not stand; the petitioner's appeal is to be considered on merits in accordance with law upon payment of admissible late fees, penalty and statutory deposits.

Issues: Whether service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order solely by uploading it on the common portal is sufficient to bind the assessee and trigger consequential proceedings.

Analysis: The respondents could not distinguish the principles laid down in the relied-upon Division Bench decision concerning portal-only service. Those principles treat uploading of a show-cause notice on the common portal, without acknowledgment of receipt or a response, as insufficient service; consequential ex parte proceedings and appellate limitation consequences must be addressed consistently with that position.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were governed by the principles applicable to portal-only service, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue consequential steps.

Issues: (i) Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service; (ii) Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal; (iii) What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Issue (i): Whether uploading a show-cause notice on the common portal alone constitutes sufficient service.

Analysis: Portal uploading, without acknowledgement of receipt or a reply by the assessee, does not establish sufficient service of the show-cause notice. The adopted ruling was found applicable to the writ petitions.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of a show-cause notice is insufficient service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading an order-in-original on the common portal alone triggers limitation for an appeal.

Analysis: Where an order-in-original passed after contest is served only through the common portal, such uploading does not commence the limitation period for appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Portal-only uploading of an order-in-original does not trigger the limitation period for appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What consequential relief follows where ex parte adjudication or dismissal of appeal on limitation resulted from portal-only service.

Analysis: Where portal-only service led to an ex parte order for want of reply, proceedings must revert to the show-cause-notice stage, with four weeks to file a reply and a fresh opportunity of hearing. Where an appeal was dismissed as time-barred because the order was served only on the portal, the appellate order is liable to be set aside and the appeal restored for decision on merits. If both ex parte adjudication and dismissal of appeal on delay followed portal-only service, both orders are to be set aside and the matter restored to the show-cause-notice stage.

Conclusion: The affected proceedings or appeals are to be restored to enable the assessee to avail a reply or appellate remedy with an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions receive the benefit of the principles governing defective portal-only service and the corresponding restorative relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere uploading on the common portal, without acknowledgement or response, is not sufficient service to sustain ex parte consequences or to commence appellate limitation.

Issues: Whether the assessee had a permanent establishment in India under Article 5 of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, making its offshore activities taxable in India.

Analysis: The alleged permanent establishment was founded on survey statements concerning expatriates employed by the Indian affiliate and their remuneration from the Japanese parent. No cogent material established that any employee acted for the assessee, that the assessee had deputed personnel to India, or that it had a fixed place of business at its disposal in India. The assessee supplied goods and rendered services offshore from Thailand. The materially identical issue in the assessee's own earlier assessment years had already been decided on the basis that no permanent establishment existed, and those findings were applicable to the present years.

Conclusion: The assessee had no permanent establishment in India; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the earlier order directing disposal of the petitioner's SEIS-related claim stood complied with.

Analysis: The respondents placed an Office Memorandum recording the treatment of the petitioner's applications. The material demonstrated compliance with the prior directions. Any grievance against the respondents' subsequent decision was left available to be pursued independently in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The prior order stood duly complied with.

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within the statutory limitation period when the Department did not establish delivery of the Order-in-Original dispatched by speed post.

Analysis: Service through speed post requires proof that the order was properly received by the intended recipient or authorised agent. Dispatch alone, without evidence of delivery, does not establish valid service. Since proof of delivery of the order allegedly dispatched in December 2022 was absent, the date on which a copy was supplied to the assessee, namely 03.02.2025, was treated as the date of receipt. The appeal filed on 31.03.2025 was consequently within the two-month limitation period.

Conclusion: The appeal was filed within limitation; the contrary finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.