Issues: Whether a writ challenge to cancellation of GST registration is maintainable after the statutory appeal period and the permitted extension have expired without an appeal being filed.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides a three-month appeal period and permits a further month on sufficient cause; it confers no power on the appellate authority to condone delay beyond that extension. The right of appeal is statutory. The petitioner did not use that remedy and attributed the omission to lack of familiarity with the GST portal. Allowing a writ challenge solely because the remedy had consequently been lost would undermine the statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The writ challenge to cancellation was not maintainable in these circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent the statutory appeal limitation merely because a party's own omission has resulted in loss of the appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether payment of the entire first-appeal pre-deposit through the electronic credit ledger rendered the appeal time-barred or required a further cash deposit. (ii) Whether input tax credit of integrated tax paid on imports could be denied for return mismatches, supplier reporting or misclassification of the credit.

Issue (i): Whether payment of the entire first-appeal pre-deposit through the electronic credit ledger rendered the appeal time-barred or required a further cash deposit.

Analysis: The special appeal notification prescribed a filing window and a pre-deposit of 12.5% of disputed tax, at least 20% of which was to be paid through the electronic cash ledger. The appeal was filed within that window and the full deposit was paid through the credit ledger. The notification's filing deadline was distinct from its payment-mode condition, and a payment defect could be cured without treating a timely appeal as time-barred. A further cash payment over the full deposit already made would increase the total deposit beyond 12.5%; an additional cash deposit had also been made at the Tribunal stage.

Conclusion: The appeal was timely, the deposit was sufficient in the circumstances, and no further cash deposit was required. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit of integrated tax paid on imports could be denied for return mismatches, supplier reporting or misclassification of the credit.

Analysis: Bills of entry are recognised documents for claiming import credit. The bills and corresponding return entries matched the credit claimed, and the customs assessment and clearance records supported actual payment of integrated tax. Import credit is reported separately from domestic-supplier credit, and no domestic supplier's return exists in the import chain. The supplier-reporting provision invoked in the demand was not in force during the relevant financial year. Reporting import credit under another return category affected its classification rather than its underlying eligibility.

Conclusion: The import credit was eligible, and the related tax, interest and penalty demands could not survive. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The first-appeal deposit was accepted for maintainability, and the assessee's import credit was restored without the related tax, interest and penalty liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Import credit supported by bills of entry and payment of integrated tax cannot be denied solely on domestic-supplier reporting grounds or because it was entered under the wrong return category.

Issues: Whether the earlier order rejecting condonation of delay could be recalled on the asserted ground of e-filing failure and a subsequent judicial decision.

Analysis: Recall is distinct from review and is available on recognised grounds including patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion, court mistake prejudicing a party, or failure to serve or represent a necessary party. A reasoned order deciding the delay application had remained unchallenged and attained finality. The subsequent decision did not alter the limits of recall jurisdiction. E-filing remained available on holidays, which did not explain the additional delay. The Tribunal declined to reassess the technical report in recall proceedings.

Conclusion: No recognised ground for recall was established; the application was an impermissible attempt to review the earlier order.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall cannot be used as a substitute for review or an unexercised appeal to reopen a final order when no recognised ground for recall is established.

Issues: Whether the corporate debtor can compel the financial creditor to produce the requested documents before the admission hearing of an insolvency application.

Analysis: Admission proceedings under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code are summary in nature, and the financial creditor bears the burden of establishing financial debt and default. An unrestricted inquiry before admission would resemble a civil suit. Under Rules 43 and 131 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, the adjudicating authority retains power to require documents necessary for effective adjudication and to draw an adverse inference concerning documents legally required to be produced.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor cannot as of right compel production of the requested documents before the admission hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In summary insolvency admission proceedings, document production is subject to the adjudicating authority's assessment of necessity and is not an automatic right of the corporate debtor.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax on the identified goods transport agency services was payable by the recipients under reverse charge; (ii) whether the identified transport services qualified for exemption; (iii) whether the extended limitation period was invocable; and (iv) whether the demand could be sustained solely on income-tax data without independent verification.

Issue (i): Whether service tax on the identified goods transport agency services was payable by the recipients under reverse charge.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST and Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 place the full liability on the recipient where the consignor or consignee falls within the specified categories. The consignment-wise and party-wise documents identified the relevant recipients; the lower authorities had declined relief for want of recipient-wise payment proof.

Conclusion: The identified services were subject to reverse charge, and the demand against the assessee was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the identified transport services qualified for exemption.

Analysis: The exemption under entry 21(e) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST applies to the identified transport of fertiliser, organic manure and oil cakes. The claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement; the consignee-wise chart and sample transport documents substantially discharged that burden.

Conclusion: The identified transport services were exempt, and the related demand was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended limitation period was invocable.

Analysis: The demand was based on differences between income-tax data and service-tax returns. The income-tax data was available to the department through the CBDT, and the Tribunal found no basis to allege suppression from that data.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period was not invocable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the demand could be sustained solely on income-tax data without independent verification.

Analysis: Form 26AS and income-tax returns reflect data maintained for income-tax purposes. The demand was raised from that third-party data without independent verification of the nature of the services or corroborative evidence establishing taxable services.

Conclusion: The demand based solely on the income-tax data was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand had no legal basis, and no consequential interest or penalty was payable.

Ratio Decidendi: Income-tax data alone, without independent verification of taxable services, cannot establish service-tax liability or justify invoking the extended limitation period on grounds of suppression.

Issues: (i) Whether book printing was excluded from service tax as manufacture or production of goods; (ii) Whether a service tax demand could be sustained solely on a difference between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether book printing was excluded from service tax as manufacture or production of goods.

Analysis: Book printing was a manufacturing or production process under the excise law, and printed books attracted a nil tariff rate. The Finance Act defined a process amounting to manufacture or production by reference to excise duties and placed such processes in the negative list of services.

Conclusion: Book printing was excluded from service tax as manufacture or production of goods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a service tax demand could be sustained solely on a difference between Form 26AS and ST-3 returns.

Analysis: The burden of establishing taxability lay on the department. The notices identified a difference in reported values but did not identify an untaxed service transaction or establish the statutory ingredients of a service.

Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained solely on the difference in returns, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked.

Analysis: The proviso governing the extended period addresses evasion-related grounds. Neither the notices nor the adjudication order identified a positive act of evasion.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The decision addresses the manufacturing exclusion and the evidentiary and limitation requirements for a service tax demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A service tax demand cannot rest solely on a discrepancy between tax-deduction and service-tax returns without identifying a taxable service and establishing the elements of the levy.

Issues: Whether removal of inputs as such after reversal of CENVAT credit constitutes trading attracting payment under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The inputs were removed to sister units or independent buyers after reversal of the credit originally taken, as provided under Rule 3(5). Rule 6(3) governs specified payments in respect of exempted activities, and trading was declared an exempted service from 1 April 2011. The reasoning applied precedents distinguishing removal of inputs as such from trading.

Conclusion: Removal of inputs as such on reversal of credit is not trading and does not attract Rule 6(3). The post-1 April 2011 demands, interest and penalties were set aside; the pre-1 April 2011 demands remained dropped.

Ratio Decidendi: Removal of inputs as such after reversal of the credit taken is not trading and does not attract payment under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Issues: (i) Whether the challenges to the interim arbitral award were maintainable before the final award. (ii) Whether the loan agreements were governed by Maharashtra or Delhi stamp law. (iii) Whether the facility schedules could be disregarded when determining if the agreements specified monetary values.

Issue (i): Whether the challenges to the interim arbitral award were maintainable before the final award.

Analysis: Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a rejected plea concerning the tribunal's jurisdiction is ordinarily challengeable after the final award, while an interim award conclusively deciding a preliminary issue may be challenged under Section 34. The arbitrator decided the preliminary stamping questions under the scope of the Supreme Court's directions, without deciding whether the earlier jurisdictional applications had been disposed of. Those determinations would not be revisited in the final award.

Conclusion: The challenges were maintainable before the final award.

Issue (ii): Whether the loan agreements were governed by Maharashtra or Delhi stamp law.

Analysis: The charging provisions of the stamp statutes must be strictly construed. For an instrument signed in different States, the applicable law depends on a real territorial nexus and the character of the instrument; the place of the first signature is not conclusively determinative. The agreements required the lender's signature as well as the borrowers' signatures. The lender signed in Delhi, completing the chargeable instruments there.

Conclusion: The agreements were executed in Delhi and are liable to be stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in Delhi.

Issue (iii): Whether the facility schedules could be disregarded when determining if the agreements specified monetary values.

Analysis: The agreements required the relevant facility schedules to be read with the loan terms, and the schedules recorded facility amounts. Treating the executed schedules as separate merely because their format differed from the booklet ignored material contractual terms.

Conclusion: The facility schedules could not be disregarded; the finding that the agreements specified no monetary value could not stand.

Final Conclusion: Delhi stamp law governs the agreements, and the relevant facility schedules form part of the contractual documentation for assessing their monetary terms.

Ratio Decidendi: For a multi-party instrument requiring all parties' signatures, the applicable stamp law depends on the real territorial nexus and completed execution, not conclusively on the place of the first signature.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in proceedings concerning an alleged GST offence.

Analysis: The bail application was made under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an alleged offence under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The accused had remained in judicial custody since arrest, his voluntary statement had been recorded, and the respondents accepted his release on conditions.

Conclusion: The accused is entitled to conditional bail on a personal bond with two sureties, attendance when called on notice, and abstention from similar offences.

Issues: Whether GST registration could be cancelled for non-deposit of input tax credit where returns were regularly filed.

Analysis: The alleged non-deposit concerned recovery of input tax credit, for which Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provide a procedure. The petitioner had regularly filed returns.

Conclusion: The cancellation was unjustified, and its revocation was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-deposit of input tax credit does not by itself justify cancellation of GST registration where returns are regularly filed; the applicable recovery procedure should be followed.

Issues: Whether failure to submit a reply to a GST show-cause notice deprives the assessee of an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: The show-cause notice required a reply but recorded the date, time and venue of personal hearing as not applicable. An oral opportunity could enable the assessee to present its position independently of a written reply.

Conclusion: Failure to submit a reply did not dispense with the opportunity of personal hearing. The substantive tax liability remains undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-submission of a written reply to a GST show-cause notice does not, by itself, dispense with the opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit for departmental appeals; (ii) whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for alleged excess stock detected by visual estimation.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit for departmental appeals.

Analysis: The litigation policy prescribed a monetary threshold but excluded matters involving interpretation of statutory provisions. The dispute concerned the application of the confiscation provisions as opposed to the regular demand and assessment provisions.

Conclusion: The monetary limit did not bar the departmental appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for alleged excess stock detected by visual estimation.

Analysis: Confiscation under the GST enactments requires proof of the applicable statutory prerequisites, including intent to evade tax. The stock quantities were visually estimated rather than physically weighed, and the verification sheets contained material inconsistencies. Accounts were available for comparison, returns were regularly filed, and there was no independent corroborative evidence of manipulation or evasion. Tax liability arising from stock discrepancies is to be determined under the appropriate demand and assessment provisions.

Conclusion: The alleged stock discrepancy did not sustain confiscation or penalty, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge was maintainable, but the confiscation and penalty remained set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A stock discrepancy alone cannot justify confiscation or penalty without proof of the applicable statutory prerequisites, including intent to evade tax.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable despite the monetary limit for departmental appeals; (ii) Whether the penalty for transporting goods without Part-B conveyance details was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable despite the monetary limit for departmental appeals.

Analysis: The departmental litigation policy excludes recurring issues from the monetary limit. The question concerning mobile-squad enforcement jurisdiction arises repeatedly during transportation checks.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty for transporting goods without Part-B conveyance details was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 138 provides an exemption from furnishing Part-B conveyance details for qualifying intrastate movements of up to 50 kilometres from a consignor to a transporter for onward transportation. An automated portal warning cannot override that exemption. The recorded movement was a local haul to the transporter's depot; the goods matched the invoices, and e-invoices had been generated before departure. The burden of proof of clandestine diversion rested on the Revenue, while the driver's statement and contemporaneous documents did not substantiate the alleged route deviation. A technical or minor infraction without evidence of intent to evade tax does not itself justify the penalty.

Conclusion: The exemption applied and the penalty was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The qualifying short-haul movement remained protected from the disputed penalty notwithstanding the maintainability of the departmental appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For a qualifying intrastate movement to a transporter within 50 kilometres for onward transportation, the statutory exemption dispenses with Part-B conveyance details and cannot be overridden by an automated portal warning.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and on merits.

Issues: Whether the tax demand used to determine the payment required for a stay of recovery was correctly computed on the footing that exemption was available for only one residential unit.

Analysis: Section 54F provides for a proportionate capital gains exemption where the cost of the qualifying residential house is less than the net consideration. The assessment added the entire cost of the second unit, while the computation sheet recorded capital gains exceeding the aggregate sale consideration. The Revenue did not dispute the alternative computation based on the statutory proportion.

Conclusion: The addition of the entire cost of the second unit was incorrect. The tax for determining the stay condition was Rs. 32,50,541, and 20% was Rs. 6,50,108. The assessee was directed to pay that amount, with recovery of the balance amount specified in the order stayed pending disposal of the statutory appeal and for four weeks thereafter. Entitlement to exemption for both units remains undecided. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the qualifying residential investment is less than the net consideration, the exemption is calculated as the corresponding proportion of capital gains; the cost of an excluded unit cannot simply be added as taxable income.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and Tribunal orders concerning transactions before 10 August 2016 should be set aside in light of an earlier decision.

Analysis: The transactions underlying the attachment under the amended Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, predated 10 August 2016. The case was treated as covered by an earlier decision, which both sides accepted applied.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and Tribunal orders were set aside.

Issues: Whether the delay in applying to recall the order directing ex parte proceedings warranted condonation.

Analysis: Article 122 of the Limitation Act was applied as prescribing a 30-day period from dismissal rather than knowledge. The appellants knew of the ex parte order on 16 October 2025 but sought recall only on 5 January 2026 and filed for condonation on 24 August 2026, despite earlier permission to do so. The explanation concerning former counsel lacked credible supporting material or evidence of diligence; no objection from that counsel was shown as contemplated by Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The time-bound character of insolvency proceedings was also relevant.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the ex parte order remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of an inordinate delay in seeking recall of an ex parte order may be refused where no plausible explanation establishes reasonable diligence.

Issues: (i) Whether coal transportation involving incidental loading is taxable as cargo handling service. (ii) Whether the earlier decision concerning the same activity governed its tax treatment for the subsequent period.

Issue (i): Whether coal transportation involving incidental loading is taxable as cargo handling service.

Analysis: Classification of a composite service depends on its substance and essential character. The statutory definition of cargo handling service excludes transportation of goods. The work orders concerned movement of coal between specified locations, with loading by pay loaders ancillary to that movement. The invoices and records treated the activity as transportation, and recipients, including a principal recipient, had paid service tax on that footing.

Conclusion: The activity was transportation of goods and was not taxable as cargo handling service. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision concerning the same activity governed its tax treatment for the subsequent period.

Analysis: The earlier decision concerning substantially the same activity and classification had attained finality. The subsequent proceedings disclosed no change in the nature of the activity or the governing legal position and identified no material distinction from the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The earlier decision governed the subsequent period. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The activity retained its transportation character for the disputed period, and the earlier ruling governed the unchanged activity.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite service whose essential character is transportation cannot be classified as cargo handling merely because loading is incidental to that transportation.

Issues: (i) Whether target-based incentives, discounts and customer-scheme reimbursements received by a principal-to-principal dealer are subject to service tax as consideration for a declared service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether target-based incentives, discounts and customer-scheme reimbursements received by a principal-to-principal dealer are subject to service tax as consideration for a declared service.

Analysis: The dealer purchased goods for its own inventory and sold them to customers on its own account. Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994 excludes a mere transfer of title in goods by sale from the definition of service, while Section 66D places trading in goods on the negative list. The incentives and reimbursements were commercial benefits linked to those sales. Sales targets, best-efforts obligations and implementation of customer discounts did not establish a separate activity undertaken for the manufacturer for consideration under Section 66E.

Conclusion: The incentives, discounts and reimbursements were not subject to service tax as consideration for a declared service. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The assessee filed returns and supplied records when requested. The dispute arose from the interpretation of taxability, and the investigation produced no material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment of disputed tax could not establish suppression with intent to evade.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand beyond the normal period was barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service tax demand and consequential interest and penalties against the assessee do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Performance-linked incentives or reimbursements arising from principal-to-principal sales are not consideration for a declared service where no independent service is identified.