Issues: (i) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand relating to rent received on sub-lease of premises; (ii) whether service tax was payable on electricity charges recovered from lessees as reimbursement; (iii) whether denial of CENVAT credit on services covered by the show cause notice was barred by limitation; and (iv) whether denial of CENVAT credit on the services covered by the statement of demand was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand relating to rent received on sub-lease of premises.

Analysis: The arrangement of sub-lease was held to be materially different from a subcontracting situation, and a mere back-to-back recovery without mark-up did not by itself make the dispute one of unresolved interpretation. The record did not establish a demonstrable ambiguity in the levy so as to justify invocation of the extended period. The normal distinction between the legal character of lease/sub-lease and the facts pleaded by the assessee was sufficient to reject the plea of interpretational doubt for time-bar purposes.

Conclusion: The demand on rent from sub-lease was set aside to the extent it rested on the extended period, and the assessee succeeded on limitation for this issue.

Issue (ii): whether service tax was payable on electricity charges recovered from lessees as reimbursement.

Analysis: Electricity was treated as goods and not as consideration for a taxable service in the context of mere recovery of actual consumption charges. The amounts collected towards electricity were found to be reimbursements of actual outgo and not a taxable component of the renting service. No sustainable basis was found to treat such collections as service consideration.

Conclusion: The demand on electricity reimbursements was held unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether denial of CENVAT credit on services covered by the show cause notice was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The extended period under the proviso to section 73 was held to be unavailable because the department failed to establish deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax. Mere non-disclosure in returns or audit-based detection, without a positive act of wilful suppression, was insufficient. The demand for the relevant period was also found to be time-barred on the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit covered by the show cause notice was set aside as time-barred and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iv): whether denial of CENVAT credit on the services covered by the statement of demand was sustainable.

Analysis: For the services covered by the statement of demand, the Tribunal held that the credit eligibility question was to be tested on the nexus between the input service and the output service, and the first appellate authority had correctly disallowed only the services found to be in the nature of welfare or personal use and allowed the balance. The challenge based on vagueness of the notice was not accepted in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Conclusion: The denial of CENVAT credit for the specified services under the statement of demand was upheld, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the rent, electricity reimbursement, and time-barred credit demands, but the restricted disallowance of CENVAT credit under the statement of demand was sustained, with all penalties set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent proven wilful suppression or a genuine unresolved legal ambiguity, and reimbursement of actual electricity charges is not taxable merely because it is recovered by a service provider; CENVAT credit remains admissible only where the input service bears the requisite nexus with the output service and is not excluded as welfare or personal expenditure.

Issues: Whether a tax registration can be cancelled under Section 29(2) where allegedly fraudulent documents were used only to obtain an amendment concerning the business premises, rather than to obtain the original registration.

Analysis: Section 29(2) permits cancellation where the registration was obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and also upon contravention of the Act or Rules. The impugned amendments were founded on untenable documents relating solely to the business premises; however, the original registration had been obtained earlier and was not shown to have been procured through fraud. The amendment did not concern the underlying business activity. Cancellation of the amendments, while preserving the original registration and allowing a future application supported by valid documents or orders, appropriately addressed the circumstances.

Conclusion: The original registration cannot be cancelled under Section 29(2) merely because fraudulent documents were allegedly used at the subsequent amendment stage; cancellation of the amendments while retaining the original registration is sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether interest paid on admitted bogus accommodation loans was allowable, including the amount deducted as tax at source; and (ii) Whether an addition for alleged commission on accommodation entries could be sustained without corroborative evidence.

Issue (i): Whether interest paid on admitted bogus accommodation loans was allowable, including the amount deducted as tax at source.

Analysis: The assessee had admitted that the unsecured loans were bogus accommodation entries and had offered the principal loan amounts as income. Interest attributable to such non-genuine loans was consequently not allowable. However, tax deducted at source from the interest payment did not constitute interest expenditure liable to disallowance.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance is sustainable except to the extent of tax deducted at source; the Assessing Officer shall exclude that amount. This issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition for alleged commission on accommodation entries could be sustained without corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The commission addition rested on a presumption that commission would necessarily have been paid for obtaining accommodation entries. No corroborative material established an actual commission payment or its quantum.

Conclusion: The commission addition cannot be sustained and is deleted. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Across all three assessment years, the interest claim remains disallowed subject to exclusion of tax deducted at source, while the estimated commission additions stand deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: An expenditure connected with admitted bogus accommodation loans may be disallowed, but tax deducted at source cannot be included in that disallowance; an addition for commission requires corroborative evidence and cannot rest solely on presumption.

Issues: (i) Whether product development expenditure for an unfinished product intended for the non-AE segment is operating expenditure in computing the assessee's margin under TNMM; (ii) Whether merger and acquisition expenditure unconnected with the AE software-development transactions is operating expenditure for transfer-pricing benchmarking; (iii) Whether internal TNMM based on domestic non-AE transactions may be adopted, and whether the AE segmental margin may be compared with external comparables.

Issue (i): Whether product development expenditure for an unfinished product intended for the non-AE segment is operating expenditure in computing the assessee's margin under TNMM.

Analysis: The product remained under development during the relevant year, had future commercial potential but generated no corresponding revenue, and was not connected with the revenue from AE transactions being tested. The available segmental data consistently did not allocate this expenditure to either the AE or non-AE segment. In these circumstances, treating the expenditure as operating cost for the relevant year's AE benchmarking was premature.

Conclusion: Product development expenditure is non-operating and must be excluded from the assessee's operating cost in computing its margin. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether merger and acquisition expenditure unconnected with the AE software-development transactions is operating expenditure for transfer-pricing benchmarking.

Analysis: The material established that the expenditure related to acquisition and integration of entities, including due diligence, regulatory and secretarial compliance, retention-linked compensation, and post-acquisition consolidation. These outlays were directed towards investment and business expansion in the non-AE vertical and had no nexus with the international software-development transactions with AEs. The mere timing of invoices after an acquisition did not establish that the expenditure was routine advisory cost.

Conclusion: The remaining merger and acquisition expenditure of Rs. 3,19,12,201 is non-operating and must be excluded from the assessee's operating cost. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether internal TNMM based on domestic non-AE transactions may be adopted, and whether the AE segmental margin may be compared with external comparables.

Analysis: Internal TNMM was unsuitable because the non-AE segment served the domestic market whereas the AE segment comprised export transactions, making them insufficiently comparable. However, the excluded product-development and merger-and-acquisition costs had no relation to the AE segment and required no allocation to it. The AE segmental margin could therefore be tested under TNMM against the external comparables selected for export-oriented transactions. On both the entity-level margin after the exclusions and the AE segmental margin, the international transactions were at arm's length.

Conclusion: Internal TNMM is not adoptable, but the AE segmental margin may be benchmarked against external comparables; the transfer-pricing adjustment is deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Exclusion of the identified non-operating expenses establishes that the international transactions satisfy the arm's-length standard and eliminates the transfer-pricing addition.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure on an unfinished non-AE product and acquisition-related expenditure having no nexus with the tested AE transactions must be excluded from operating cost under TNMM; where domestic non-AE and export AE segments are not comparable, the AE segment may nevertheless be benchmarked against suitable external comparables.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment and appellate orders should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication where the assessee did not reply to the show-cause notice or participate in the proceedings due to lack of proper information from the authorised representative/accountant; (ii) Whether the availability of an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal barred exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment and appellate orders should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication where the assessee did not reply to the show-cause notice or participate in the proceedings due to lack of proper information from the authorised representative/accountant.

Analysis: The assessee's non-participation at both adjudication and first-appellate stages was attributed to bona fide circumstances and inadequate information from the authorised representative. A justice-oriented approach required a further opportunity to file a reply, produce material and obtain a personal hearing. The prior deposit of 10% of the tax amount could be retained pending fresh adjudication, causing no prejudice to the revenue.

Conclusion: The assessment order, appellate order and recovery notice were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal barred exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The need to afford the assessee an opportunity to contest the demand on merits in conformity with principles of natural justice justified exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 notwithstanding the alternate appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The alternate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal did not bar writ jurisdiction in the circumstances. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh adjudication must be conducted after permitting the assessee to place pleadings, documents, replies and objections and after affording a personal hearing; the pre-deposit remains subject to that adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternate statutory remedy does not preclude writ jurisdiction where intervention is necessary to restore a meaningful opportunity of hearing and secure compliance with principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether an assessment order for non-filing of returns is deemed withdrawn upon belated filing of Form GSTR-3B with the prescribed late fee.

Analysis: Section 62(2) provides that an assessment order passed for failure to furnish returns is deemed withdrawn where the registered person furnishes the requisite returns within the stipulated framework; delayed filing entails payment of late fee. The returns for the relevant period were filed along with the requisite late fee. The benefit of the provision, consistently applied following the amendment to Section 62(2), was therefore applicable.

Conclusion: The assessment order stood deemed withdrawn, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A further appeal was available under the statutory framework. The petitioner was directed to pursue that remedy notwithstanding the stated non-constitution of the appellate tribunal, with protection regarding computation of limitation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal.

Issues: Whether an assessment order for non-filing of returns is deemed withdrawn upon subsequent filing of the prescribed return with late fee under Section 62(2) of the GST Act.

Analysis: Section 62(2) provides for deemed withdrawal of an assessment made for non-filing of returns where the requisite return is subsequently furnished within the stipulated framework. The return for the relevant period was filed with the prescribed late fee; therefore, the statutory benefit was available. The recovery action founded on the assessment could not continue after its deemed withdrawal.

Conclusion: The assessment order stood deemed withdrawn, and the assessee was entitled to cancellation of the consequential bank-account and immovable-property attachments.

Issues: Whether penalty for failure to maintain books of account and records may be imposed notwithstanding the levy of late fee for belated filing of returns.

Analysis: Section 47 concerns late fee for delayed furnishing of specified returns. Section 122(1)(xvi) separately penalises failure to keep, maintain or retain books of account and documents as required by the GST enactments and rules. The penalty was imposed for non-maintenance of production and manufacturing records, inward and outward supply records, stock records, input tax credit details and output taxable details, rather than for delayed return filing.

Conclusion: Penalty for non-maintenance of prescribed books and records is independently sustainable and is not barred by the levy of late fee for belated returns; the issue is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether expenditure incurred during the defect liability period after completion of projects was allowable as business expenditure; (ii) Whether the deduction for debts written off was allowable where the receipts had been offered to tax in earlier years; (iii) Whether employees' contributions to PF/ESIC were deductible when deposited within the prescribed statutory due dates.

Issue (i): Whether expenditure incurred during the defect liability period after completion of projects was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: Defect rectification formed an integral part of the assessee's continuing EPC business. The claimed expenditure was stated to arise only when defects were identified and the liability crystallised during the defect liability period, rather than being a provision or prior-period expense. As relevant documentary material was placed before the Tribunal and adequate opportunity had not been afforded at the first appellate stage, verification of the contractual and evidentiary basis of the crystallised liability was required.

Conclusion: The allowability of the defect-liability-period expenditure under Section 37(1) was restored for fresh merits adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deduction for debts written off was allowable where the receipts had been offered to tax in earlier years.

Analysis: The amount written off was embedded in the expenditure disallowed during assessment and was not a fresh appellate claim. The material established that the corresponding amounts had been recognised as income in earlier years and were subsequently written off in the books as unrecoverable. The first appellate authority was entitled to consider the additional evidence after calling for a remand report, and the statutory conditions for deduction stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The deduction for bad debts written off was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether employees' contributions to PF/ESIC were deductible when deposited within the prescribed statutory due dates.

Analysis: The tax-audit details and bank records established that the employees' contributions were deposited on or before the due dates under the relevant labour laws. The rule concerning delayed employee contributions was therefore inapplicable on the established facts.

Conclusion: The employees' PF/ESIC contribution was deductible, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The bad-debt and employees' contribution reliefs were sustained, while the defect-liability-period expenditure requires reconsideration on its supporting evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A debt written off is deductible where its corresponding income was previously offered to tax and the statutory conditions are met; employees' contributions deposited within the applicable statutory due date remain allowable.

Issues: Whether taxable turnover may be enhanced through best judgment assessment merely because books of account were unavailable during survey and loose papers were found, despite the papers being explained and absence of material showing purchases from unregistered dealers or suppression of transactions.

Analysis: The loose papers recovered during survey were explained and their entries were verifiable from the regular books. The accepted factual findings established that the assessee dealt in branded ready-made garments purchased from registered in-State dealers against tax invoices. Although non-production of books during survey could justify rejection of the books, it did not by itself furnish a basis to enhance turnover. No adverse material established unrecorded purchases from unregistered dealers, suppression, or concealment. A best judgment assessment and enhancement of turnover require cogent supporting material and cannot rest on presumptions or surmises.

Conclusion: The enhancement of turnover was unsustainable; the disclosed taxable turnover for the relevant assessment year was accepted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the loss from sale of listed shares, supported by demat, stock-exchange and banking records, could be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68; (ii) Whether the addition could be sustained under Section 69B despite the absence of evidence of unrecorded or excess investment.

Issue (i): Whether the loss from sale of listed shares, supported by demat, stock-exchange and banking records, could be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

Analysis: The share transactions formed part of a composite en-bloc acquisition of thirteen listed companies under a documented commercial arrangement. The acquisition, demat credit, banking trail, audited books and part sales from the same basket in the preceding year were not disputed. The sales were executed through recognised stock exchanges, supported by contract notes, broker records and Securities Transaction Tax payment. No independent enquiry or material established collusion, cash movement, manipulation, or a nexus between the assessee and alleged accommodation-entry operators. A general investigation report could initiate enquiry but could not displace uncontroverted primary evidence. Further, a trading loss is an outgo or depletion of funds, not an unexplained credit; the sale proceeds were explained by the corresponding sale of shares held in demat form.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition could be sustained under Section 69B despite the absence of evidence of unrecorded or excess investment.

Analysis: Section 69B requires material showing that the actual amount expended on an investment exceeded the amount recorded in the books. The recorded case concerned the alleged genuineness of loss on subsequent sale, not unrecorded investment. The purchase consideration, source of funds, demat holding and banking transactions were recorded and accepted, with no allegation of cash payment, excess consideration, on-money, or suppressed purchase price. The shares were acquired in the preceding year, whereas the year under consideration concerned their subsequent sale. Coterminous appellate powers could not sustain the addition by substituting a deeming provision whose statutory ingredients were absent.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained under Section 69B and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The claimed loss arose from genuine and documented share-trading transactions and could not be converted into deemed unexplained income under either provision.

Ratio Decidendi: A documented loss from sale of dematerialised listed shares through recognised stock exchanges cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit or unexplained investment without evidence satisfying the distinct statutory conditions of the relevant deeming provision.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority may impose penalty exceeding the amount proposed in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The statutory prohibition against confirming a tax or penalty liability beyond that proposed in the show-cause notice was applied. The notice proposed a penalty of Rs. 4,60,542, while the impugned order imposed Rs. 9,21,084; this excess was accepted as a jurisdictional defect. A fresh adjudication requires due opportunity of personal hearing and consideration of objections.

Conclusion: Penalty exceeding that proposed in the show-cause notice cannot be confirmed; the impugned adjudication was invalid to that extent.

Issues: (i) Whether the total income could be computed by taking a figure enhanced through an unmade adjustment for disallowance under section 14A as the base; (ii) Whether research and development expenditure not quantified by the prescribed authority for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) remained allowable as business expenditure; (iii) Whether corporate social responsibility contributions could be considered for deduction under section 80G.

Issue (i): Whether the total income could be computed by taking a figure enhanced through an unmade adjustment for disallowance under section 14A as the base.

Analysis: The intimation issued under section 143(1) accepted the returned income and did not make the proposed adjustment under section 14A. The assessment could not therefore adopt a higher figure attributable to that unmade adjustment as its starting point.

Conclusion: The total income shall be recomputed by adopting the returned income as the base. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether research and development expenditure not quantified by the prescribed authority for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) remained allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: Following the post-1 July 2016 framework of Rule 6(7A), weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) is confined to expenditure quantified by DSIR in Form 3CL. However, non-quantification in Form 3CL determines eligibility for weighted deduction only; it does not, by itself, establish that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The unapproved revenue expenditure could consequently be considered under section 37.

Conclusion: Weighted deduction is restricted to the expenditure approved in Form 3CL, but the balance revenue expenditure shall be allowed under section 37. This is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether corporate social responsibility contributions could be considered for deduction under section 80G.

Analysis: The exclusion of corporate social responsibility expenditure from business deduction under section 37(1) does not extend to deductions claimed while computing total income under Chapter VI-A. The express exclusions for specified CSR donations under section 80G indicate that other qualifying donations are not barred merely because they discharge CSR obligations, subject to fulfilment of section 80G conditions.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 80G cannot be denied merely because the donations constitute CSR expenditure; eligibility and quantum require verification by the Assessing Officer. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The computation base is corrected, unapproved R&D revenue expenditure is directed to be allowed as business expenditure, and the CSR-donation claim is restored for verification of statutory conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Restriction of a statutory weighted deduction to expenditure quantified by the prescribed authority does not preclude allowance of the underlying expenditure under the general business-deduction provision, and CSR status alone does not bar an otherwise qualifying deduction under section 80G.

Issues: Whether the petitioner-company's agent/authorized signatory could be permitted to appear pursuant to summons issued for investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The summons contemplated attendance by a Director or Authorized Signatory on behalf of the company. The company gave an undertaking through its Director that all directors would cooperate with the investigation and would personally appear whenever required. The investigating authority expressed no objection to accepting that undertaking and recording the statement of the authorized agent.

Conclusion: The authorized agent/signatory may appear in compliance with the summons, while the company and its directors must cooperate with the investigation and appear whenever required.

Issues: (i) Whether stock-in-difference determined through the trading account method was legally sustainable; (ii) Whether equal addition for probable omission was sustainable in the absence of a pattern of suppression in earlier or subsequent periods; (iii) Whether penalty for estimated stock difference was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether stock-in-difference determined through the trading account method was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The trading account method is a recognised mode of stock verification and may be adopted where other methods are not feasible. Although the method may not yield exact results, comparison of purchases, sales, book stock and physical stock can disclose stock suppression. The dealer had accepted the stock defect, did not satisfactorily explain the substantial variation, and had not challenged the tax levy on the suppressed turnover before the High Court.

Conclusion: The stock-in-difference determined through the trading account method was legally sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether equal addition for probable omission was sustainable in the absence of a pattern of suppression in earlier or subsequent periods.

Analysis: Equal addition cannot rest on guesswork alone and requires supporting material and reasons. Here, the failure to maintain purchase accounts and the prescribed Form-H stock register, coupled with a physical stock value nearly five times the book-stock value and absence of a satisfactory explanation, provided material establishing deliberate suppression. The Tribunal was justified in reversing the first appellate authority's deletion of the equal addition.

Conclusion: The equal addition for probable omission was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty for estimated stock difference was sustainable.

Analysis: Penalty requires recorded satisfaction that escaped turnover resulted from wilful non-disclosure. The omissions in maintaining purchase records and Form-H, the significant stock variation, and the lack of any supporting explanation established wilful suppression. The assessment order contained adequate reasons to impose penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty for wilful suppression of turnover was sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The restoration of the equal addition and penalty was sustained because the material established deliberate suppression beyond a mere notional or unsupported estimate.

Ratio Decidendi: A trading account method may support best judgment assessment where other verification methods are impracticable, and equal addition and penalty are sustainable when material establishes wilful suppression rather than mere estimated variation.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the record by not adjudicating the challenge to invocation of the extended period of limitation while deciding the appeal.

Analysis: Before the Tribunal, the appellant expressly did not contest the CENVAT credit demand or interest and confined its prayer to deletion of penalty. A limitation challenge concerns the sustainability of the demand and could not survive independently after the demand was conceded. The Tribunal granted the only live relief by setting aside penalty, as the credit issue was highly debatable during the relevant period and no mala fides were attributable to the appellant. Its omission to rule on limitation therefore did not constitute a mistake apparent on the record capable of rectification.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in not deciding the extended-limitation plea, and rejection of the rectification application disclosed no infirmity.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty, further interest, and proceedings concerning the short-paid central excise duty survived where duty and interest were paid before issuance of the show-cause notice; (ii) Whether duty could be demanded on final goods presumed to be manufactured from unaccounted raw materials lying in the factory; (iii) Whether the demand for wrongly availed credit of Swachh Bharat Cess could be sustained despite its prior payment and settlement in audit.

Issue (i): Whether penalty, further interest, and proceedings concerning the short-paid central excise duty survived where duty and interest were paid before issuance of the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 11AC(1)(a) applies where duty and interest are paid before issuance of the show-cause notice, and provides that no penalty is payable and proceedings concerning that duty and interest stand concluded. The duty and interest had been paid before the notice. The Department was also aware of the short-payment through prior correspondence; consequently, the extended period could not be invoked in a subsequent notice on an allegation of suppression. As the company incurred no penalty for the short-payment, the director's penalty under Rule 26 was also unsustainable, there being no finding that he dealt with goods liable to confiscation with the requisite knowledge.

Conclusion: The company was not liable for further interest or penalty on the short-paid duty, and the related proceedings, including the director's penalty, stood concluded in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether duty could be demanded on final goods presumed to be manufactured from unaccounted raw materials lying in the factory.

Analysis: Central excise duty is attracted upon manufacture and is payable at the time of clearance of final goods. The unaccounted raw materials were found lying in the factory, without evidence establishing manufacture and clearance of finished goods from them.

Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest, and penalty founded on presumed manufacture from the unaccounted raw materials was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for wrongly availed credit of Swachh Bharat Cess could be sustained despite its prior payment and settlement in audit.

Analysis: The credited amount had already been paid during audit, and the relevant audit objection had been treated as settled.

Conclusion: The demand for the credit, with interest and penalty, was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No further central excise duty, interest, or penalty remained payable by either appellant on the matters adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty and interest are paid before the show-cause notice in a case falling under the proviso to Section 11AC(1)(a), penalty is unavailable and proceedings concerning that duty and interest are deemed concluded.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the tax demand was maintainable despite the unavailed statutory appellate remedy and the allegation that the order was not communicated.

Analysis: An efficacious appeal was available under the GST enactments, but was not filed within the prescribed period. The writ petition was instituted substantially after expiry of that period. Uploading of the order on the GST portal was adequate in the circumstances, since the registered taxpayer remained registered notwithstanding cessation of business activity in the State. The record also showed issuance of notice and grant of hearing opportunity, which was not availed; hence, no breach of natural justice was established.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not maintainable; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether profits of a captive power-generation undertaking for deduction under Section 80-IA(4) are to be computed using the electricity tariff charged by the electricity board to industrial consumers rather than the tariff at which the undertaking supplies surplus power to the board.

Analysis: For determining the market value of electricity transferred by captive power plants to the assessee's industrial units, the relevant open-market benchmark is the rate charged by the electricity board to industrial consumers. The tariff for surplus power supplied by a generating company to the board is regulated by contractual and statutory constraints and does not represent the price at which an industrial consumer can procure electricity in the open market. The Tribunal's direction to compute eligible profits on the consumer tariff was consistent with the settled position.

Conclusion: The consumer tariff charged by the electricity board is the market value for computing the deduction; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.