Issues: (i) Whether contractors executing pre-GST works contracts were entitled to reimbursement of the additional tax burden arising from the shift from the earlier VAT/service tax regime to the GST regime under the contract conditions and the Government Order; (ii) Whether retention amounts could be withheld merely on the basis of pending audit objections; (iii) Whether claims for price escalation/price adjustment under the contract could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether contractors executing pre-GST works contracts were entitled to reimbursement of the additional tax burden arising from the shift from the earlier VAT/service tax regime to the GST regime under the contract conditions and the Government Order.

Analysis: The contracts were entered into before introduction of GST, when the governing tax regime was under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Finance Act, 1994. Clause 43.2 of the General Conditions of Contract required adjustment of the contract price where taxes, duties or levies changed between the bid reference date and the last completion certificate, provided the change was not already reflected in the contract price. The Government Order dated 09.10.2017 also stated that post-GST the tax component was to be borne by the purchaser. The Court treated this contractual mechanism as embodying the principle akin to Section 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The service tax exemption notifications relied on by the petitioners were found inapplicable, but that did not displace the contractual entitlement to tax adjustment after 01.07.2017.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of the GST-related tax differential under Clause 43.2 read with the Government Order; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether retention amounts could be withheld merely on the basis of pending audit objections.

Analysis: The impugned orders justified non-release of retention money on the ground of pending audit objections. The Court held that retention amounts must be refunded unless there were reasons to appropriate them on account of the executed works. Mere existence of audit objections was held insufficient to deny refund, and any such objections, if relied upon, had to be properly communicated.

Conclusion: Retention amounts could not be withheld solely because audit objections were pending and were liable to be refunded with interest; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether claims for price escalation/price adjustment under the contract could be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The claim for price adjustment under Clause 45 involved factual disputes regarding execution-stage billing, interim payment certificates, and the contractual method of computation. Since the contract itself contained a dispute resolution mechanism through adjudicator and arbitration, and the controversy required factual examination, the writ court declined to pronounce on the merits of price escalation.

Conclusion: The claim for price escalation/price adjustment was not adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and was left to the contractual or other legal remedy; this issue was against the assessee in the writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of GST differential reimbursement and retention refund could not stand, while the price escalation dispute was relegated to the contractually prescribed dispute resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a pre-GST works contract contains a clause for adjustment of contract price on change in taxes and the post-GST regime increases the tax burden during the subsistence of the contract, the employer must reimburse the differential tax not already built into the contract price; however, claims involving fact-intensive price escalation disputes may be relegated to the agreed dispute resolution mechanism.

Issues: Whether the order rejecting objections to reopening of assessment was liable to be set aside for fresh consideration in light of subsequent material furnished by the assessee regarding the source of funds for purchase of shares.

Analysis: The challenge arose from a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2014-15 and the subsequent order rejecting objections to reopening. The objections asserted that the assessee, being a non-resident, had funded the acquisition of shares through loans from HSBC Geneva and own funds, and that the belief of escapement was unsustainable. The rejection order had treated those objections as unsupported and left verification to reassessment proceedings. However, detailed material and annexures were later furnished by the assessee in response to notices under Section 143(2) and Section 142(1). In these peculiar facts, although the earlier reasoning in the objection-disposal order was not prima facie faulted on the material then available, fairness required that the subsequently furnished material be considered before objections to reopening were finally dealt with. The merits of the reopening, including the validity of the recorded belief and other objections, were not finally adjudicated and were expressly kept open.

Conclusion: The order disposing of objections was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order on the objections after considering the assessee's letter dated 8 March 2022 and its annexures; the substantive challenge to reopening was left open for fresh consideration. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether the additional ground challenging the reassessment as barred by limitation could be admitted on the existing record; (ii) whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.08.2022 was beyond the surviving period and consequently invalid.

Issue (i): whether the additional ground challenging the reassessment as barred by limitation could be admitted on the existing record.

Analysis: The challenge to limitation arose from dates and documents already forming part of the record, including the original notice, the deemed notice under the post-Ashish Agarwal regime, the assessee's reply dated 15.06.2022, the later notice dated 21.07.2022, and the reply dated 26.07.2022. Since adjudication of the objection did not require investigation into fresh facts, the procedural objection to validity of reassessment was treated as capable of being raised at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The additional ground was rightly admitted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 27.08.2022 was beyond the surviving period and consequently invalid.

Analysis: The original notice under Section 148 was issued on 05.05.2021, leaving a surviving limitation period of 56 days up to 30.06.2021. After the transition mandated by the new reassessment regime, the assessee furnished its reply on 15.06.2022 and sought dropping of the proceedings. The later notice dated 21.07.2022 did not arise from any request by the assessee for further time. The subsequent reply dated 26.07.2022 merely reiterated the earlier objection and requested personal hearing. In these circumstances, the relevant date for recommencement of the surviving period was 15.06.2022, not 26.07.2022. On that basis, the 56-day period expired on 10.08.2022, rendering the fresh notice under Section 148 issued on 27.08.2022 beyond limitation. Once the reopening notice was time-barred, the order under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) could not survive.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued on 27.08.2022 was barred by limitation, and the consequential reassessment order was invalid; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17 were set aside on limitation, the additional ground succeeded, and the remaining grounds were left without surviving effect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has already furnished its reply to a deemed notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and has not sought further time, the surviving limitation period for issuance of notice under Section 148 runs from the date of that reply; a later notice granting further opportunity does not extend limitation, and a notice issued after expiry of that surviving period is void.

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 13(1) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 2010, notwithstanding the availability or availing of representation before the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2) of those Regulations.

Analysis: The Order-in-Original revoking the appellant's authorisation as a courier, forfeiting the security deposit and imposing penalty was passed by the Commissioner of Customs while exercising adjudicatory powers under the statutory scheme framed under the Customs Act, 1962. The existence of a representation remedy before the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2) does not displace the appellate remedy provided by Section 129A against an order of the adjudicating authority. The issue was distinguished from a challenge to an order passed by the Chief Commissioner under Regulation 13(2), and the view that the appeal remains maintainable was adopted.

Conclusion: The appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to be maintainable and the contrary view of the Tribunal was set aside.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount recovered pursuant to the appellate order after filing the appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal beyond the prescribed time, in view of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Circular No. 224/18/2024-GST dated 11.07.2024.

Analysis: The recovery guidelines under the circular contemplate stay of the remaining confirmed demand only when the taxpayer, within the timeline prescribed under section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, pays the amount equivalent to pre-deposit and furnishes the requisite undertaking to file the appeal before the Tribunal as and when it becomes operational. The petitioner filed the Tribunal appeal about seven months after the appellate order and did not follow the prescribed procedure. On that footing, the recovered tax amount could not be treated as refundable, since granting refund would in substance amount to waiver of the statutory pre-deposit mechanism.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund, and the challenge to the recovery failed.

Final Conclusion: The recovery made pursuant to the appellate order was sustained, and the writ petition stood rejected for non-compliance with the statutory and circular-based procedure governing appeals and stay of recovery.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of recovered demand is not available where the taxpayer does not comply with the prescribed pre-deposit, undertaking, and limitation requirements for appeal under the governing GST regime.

Issues: Whether reassessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13, initiated after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, was valid in the absence of fresh tangible material and where the issues had already been examined in the original scrutiny assessment.

Analysis: The return had been subjected to scrutiny under Sections 142(1), 143(2) and 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment record showed that the very matters relied upon for reopening, including the deductibility of tax at source under Section 194C and the claim of advance/deposit written off, had already been called for, disclosed, examined and dealt with in the original proceedings. No new material was shown to have come to the Assessing Officer after completion of the assessment. In such circumstances, reopening beyond four years could not be sustained, as it amounted to a mere change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reopening notice and the order disposing of objections were invalid and were quashed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether amendment of the shipping bills to change the scheme code from Drawback to RoSCTL could be permitted after export, and whether the time limit in the circular could bar such amendment.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the scope of amendment under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the manner in which the procedural requirement for conversion of shipping bills was to be applied. The Tribunal noted that the respondent's claim was supported by the decisions relied upon and that the subsequent issuance of the Export Entry (Post Export Conversion in relation to Instrument Based Scheme) Regulations, 2025 reinforced the view that the earlier circular-based restriction was not ative of the exporter's entitlement. On the facts, the amendment had been allowed by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The amendment of the shipping bills was held to be permissible and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing conversion of the shipping bills was sustained and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be denied on a rigid circular-based time limit where the statutory power permits amendment on the basis of existing documentary evidence and the claim is otherwise legally maintainable.

Issues: Whether the impugned notification could be applied to deny or reduce input tax credit in respect of goods which were both purchased and sold as declared goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce; and whether the show cause notice founded on such denial was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notification could be applied to deny or reduce input tax credit in respect of goods which were both purchased and sold as declared goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce.

Analysis: The earlier judgment upholding the notification was treated as not governing this specific controversy because the aspect of section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in the context of both purchase and sale of declared goods, had not been consciously decided there. Article 286(3) of the Constitution of India read with section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 requires reimbursement of the State tax levied on declared goods sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Section 11(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits specification of goods for partial or full credit denial, but it cannot override the Central Act so as to curtail the extent of reimbursement mandated by section 15(b).

Conclusion: The notification could not operate to reduce input tax credit for goods which were both purchased and sold as declared goods, and it had to be read down to that extent.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice founded on such denial was sustainable.

Analysis: Once the notification was held inapplicable to the petitioners' declared goods transactions, the basis of the notice disappeared.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was quashed and set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent that the notification could not be enforced against declared goods purchased and resold in inter-State trade, while its general validity was maintained; the consequential notice was invalidated.

Ratio Decidendi: A State notification issued under a VAT law cannot curtail the reimbursement of tax mandated by section 15(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for goods that are both purchased and sold as declared goods in inter-State trade or commerce.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were liable to be quashed for want of hearing, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The petition challenged provisional attachment of bank accounts and flats under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 159(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner had filed objections and was ready to appear before the adjudicating authority, while the respondents did not oppose grant of hearing. The Court noted that the petitioner had not been heard before the impugned orders were passed. The issue relating to summons and the ongoing investigation was expressly left open for the authorities to act in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment orders were quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be given a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority, which was then required to pass a reasoned order on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional attachment order passed without affording hearing, where hearing is subsequently conceded and sought, can be set aside and the matter remitted for a fresh reasoned decision after personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file objections to the impugned show cause notices and have the competent authority consider those objections along with supporting documents.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of by directing the competent authority to consider any objections and documents filed in response to the notices within the stipulated time and to pass a speaking and reasoned order thereafter. If no objections are filed within the stipulated period, the competent authority may proceed in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings and assessment order were rightly invoked and concluded under Section 74 of the applicable GST enactments, or whether they ought to have been proceeded with under Section 73; (ii) Whether rejection of the application under Section 128A was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings and assessment order were rightly invoked and concluded under Section 74 of the applicable GST enactments, or whether they ought to have been proceeded with under Section 73.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued under Section 73 and dealt with defects relating to excess input tax credit. The notice contained a comparison of ITC claimed in GSTR-3B with available ITC as per GSTR-2A, and did not disclose fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or an intent to evade tax. The summary order also described itself as an order under Section 73, while the detailed order relied on failure to establish the ITC claim and did not expressly or impliedly contain the ingredients of Section 74. In light of Section 75(2), the proceedings were required to be initiated and concluded under Section 73.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 74 was unsustainable, and the assessment order was set aside with a direction for fresh proceedings under Section 73.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the application under Section 128A was sustainable.

Analysis: Since the impugned assessment was found to have been wrongly treated as one under Section 74, the rejection of the application under Section 128A, which had followed that characterization, could not stand. The petitioner was also left at liberty to file a fresh application after the fresh order under Section 73.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the application under Section 128A was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication under Section 73, and the petitioner was permitted to pursue a fresh application under Section 128A in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the show cause notice and order disclose a demand for reversal of input tax credit without the elements of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade tax, the proceedings must be treated as ones under Section 73 and not Section 74, and any collateral order premised on the contrary classification cannot survive.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's application to amend the writ petition was liable to be allowed in view of the Supreme Court's remand order and the amendment introducing concurrent jurisdiction under Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Court noted that the subsequent amendment to Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provided for concurrent jurisdiction of the Faceless Assessing Officer and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, which was consistent with the Court's earlier view on the competence to issue notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It further noted that the Supreme Court's order had set aside only the judgments in favour of the assessees and had granted liberty to amend writ petitions to challenge the amended provision, whereas the present writ petition had already been dismissed and no live issue survived for amendment.

Conclusion: The application for amendment was rejected as misconceived.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained no relief, and the application stood dismissed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying writ petition has already been dismissed and the subsequent legislative amendment does not revive a live controversy in the pending proceeding, an amendment application seeking to challenge that amendment is misconceived and liable to be rejected.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 should be set aside and the appeals restored subject to deposit.

Analysis: The petitioner's advanced age and critical medical condition, including dementia, were not controverted. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the requisite pre-deposit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, and the respondent raised no objection if the statutory pre-deposit was complied with. The appeals had been closed without consideration on merits solely for non-payment of the pre-deposit. In these circumstances, interference was warranted and restoration of the appeals with a time-bound deposit condition would serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was quashed and set aside, and the appeals were directed to be restored on payment of Rs. 7.5 lakhs within four weeks.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is dismissed only for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit and the appellant demonstrates readiness to comply, the dismissal can be interfered with and the appeal restored subject to deposit.

Issues: Whether investment advisory services provided to an overseas entity constituted export of service so as to entitle the appellant to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit.

Analysis: The services were rendered under an agreement with the foreign recipient, invoiced in convertible foreign exchange, and there was no agreement or direct service obligation towards customers in India. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that investment advisory and related research services supplied to an overseas entity are used outside India when the recipient is abroad and the service is not rendered to Indian clients on its behalf. On that basis, the requirement of export of service was held to be satisfied, making the accumulated credit refundable under the refund scheme.

Conclusion: The services qualified as export of service and the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit was admissible to the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the refund claim restored in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Investment advisory services supplied to an overseas recipient for consideration in foreign exchange constitute export of service where the service is not provided to Indian clients on the foreign recipient's behalf and the effective use of the service is with the foreign recipient.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand when an earlier notice on the same issue for the preceding period already existed; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax as a vocational training institute or approved training partner without proof of the prescribed affiliation or approval.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand when an earlier notice on the same issue for the preceding period already existed.

Analysis: The demand notices in both matters related to the same issue, and the record showed that an earlier show cause notice for the preceding period had already been issued. On that basis, the element of suppression necessary for invoking the extended period was not made out. The Department also fairly conceded that the extended period should not have been applied in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand for the extended period was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption from service tax as a vocational training institute or approved training partner without proof of the prescribed affiliation or approval.

Analysis: The exemption under the relevant notifications was conditional. For vocational training institutes, the notification contemplated training imparted to enable employment, and for the later exemption entry the appellant had to establish approval by the National Skill Development Corporation or the Sector Skill Council. The appellant did not produce evidence of the required affiliation or approval despite opportunities before the authorities and the Tribunal. In the absence of proof of eligibility, the exemption claim could not be accepted for the normal period demand.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exemption for the normal period, and the demand for the normal period was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The common order resulted in partial relief only to the extent of deleting the extended-period demand, while the tax demand for the normal period was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption from service tax available to vocational training institutions or approved training partners can be claimed only on proof of fulfillment of the prescribed statutory conditions, and the extended period cannot be invoked where the facts show a prior notice on the same issue without suppression.

Issues: Whether reimbursable amounts could be included in the gross value for charging service tax for the period prior to the amendment to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of taxable services under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that reimbursable expenditure is not part of the taxable value for the period before the legislative amendment made effective from 14 May 2015. The amendment to Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 was treated as a substantive change operating prospectively, and the pre-amendment period could not be subjected to service tax on reimbursable amounts.

Conclusion: Reimbursable amounts were not includible in the taxable value for the disputed period, and the demand could not be sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief in law.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment expanding the taxable value of service tax to include reimbursable expenditure operates prospectively and cannot be applied to periods prior to its commencement.

Issues: Whether the final assessment order, passed by enhancing the proposed addition without granting the assessee an opportunity to show cause on the enhanced amount, could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessment proceedings were preceded by a show cause notice proposing a much lower addition, but the final order made a substantially higher addition on the basis of material already on record without any fresh notice or opportunity to respond to the enhanced figure. Such an enlargement of the proposed addition, without affording the assessee a chance to explain or rebut it, offended the requirement of fair hearing and the principles governing assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The final assessment order could not be sustained and was rightly quashed and set aside, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration after reply and hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition on alleged bogus purchases was liable to be restricted to the estimated profit element at 3.5% instead of disallowing the entire purchase amount; (ii) Whether the reopening of assessment under sections 148A and 147 was invalid and whether section 153C was the proper course.

Issue (i): Whether the addition on alleged bogus purchases was liable to be restricted to the estimated profit element at 3.5% instead of disallowing the entire purchase amount.

Analysis: The disputed purchases were examined in the context of accepted turnover, unchallenged sales, banking-channel payments, documentary material supporting the transactions, and the fact that the books of account were not rejected under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The estimation of only the profit element was also supported by the factual finding that the material was used in execution of civil construction and infrastructure projects and that the surrounding circumstances did not justify a full disallowance of the purchase value.

Conclusion: The restriction of the addition to 3.5% of the disputed purchases was upheld and the assessee did not succeed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the reopening of assessment under sections 148A and 147 was invalid and whether section 153C was the proper course.

Analysis: The reopening was found to be based on information and post-search enquiries, along with the statement of the supplier, and the procedure under section 148A was held to have been followed. The record did not show that the reassessment was founded directly on incriminating material seized in a third-party search so as to require invocation of section 153C instead of section 147.

Conclusion: The challenge to reopening failed and the assessee did not succeed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The additions restricted to estimated profit were sustained, the reassessment was upheld, and all connected appeals and cross-objections were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of alleged accommodation purchases, where sales are accepted, books are not rejected, and the surrounding material supports the transactions, only the embedded profit element may be estimated; a reassessment founded on post-search information and enquiries, rather than direct seized material, is not invalid for want of section 153C proceedings.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148, and the consequent reassessment proceedings, were invalid for want of approval by the competent specified authority under section 151 when the reopening was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: The reopening notice and the order under section 148A(d) were issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In such a case, the approval had to be obtained from the authority contemplated by section 151(ii), namely the Principal Chief Commissioner or the equivalent specified authority. The approval in the present case was granted by the Principal Commissioner, which was not the competent authority for a reopening beyond three years. The Tribunal followed binding jurisdictional precedents holding that such sanction is invalid and the notice and consequent proceedings cannot survive.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was held to be invalid and was quashed, and the reassessment proceedings and order passed thereafter were also set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the reassessment was annulled on the ground of absence of valid sanction by the specified authority, rendering the remaining grounds academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reopening is initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval must be granted by the specified authority under section 151(ii), and sanction by a lower authority renders the notice and consequent reassessment invalid.

Issues: (i) Whether the consequential notices under section 148 and the orders under section 148A(d) were time-barred and invalid on the ground that they were issued beyond the surviving period after exclusion of the time covered by the deemed notices and the period allowed for reply. (ii) Whether, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the approval for proceedings under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 had to be obtained from the authority specified under section 151(ii), and whether approval from the Principal Commissioner was sufficient.

Issue (i): Whether the consequential notices under section 148 and the orders under section 148A(d) were time-barred and invalid on the ground that they were issued beyond the surviving period after exclusion of the time covered by the deemed notices and the period allowed for reply.

Analysis: The original notices had been issued between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 and were treated as deemed notices under the substituted reassessment regime. The applicable limitation had to be computed by excluding the period during which the deemed notices remained stayed, the time taken for furnishing information and material, and the time allowed to the assessee to reply. Applying the governing principles, the surviving period for each assessment year had already expired before the consequential notices dated 25.07.2022 and 27.07.2022 were issued. For Assessment Year 2015-16, the proceedings did not survive at all beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and the orders under section 148A(d) were time-barred and invalid. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18, the approval for proceedings under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 had to be obtained from the authority specified under section 151(ii), and whether approval from the Principal Commissioner was sufficient.

Analysis: Once more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years, the statute required prior approval from the higher specified authority under section 151(ii). The orders under section 148A(d) and the consequential notices were issued in July 2022, but approval had been obtained from the Principal Commissioner, who was not the competent authority for that stage. The defect went to the root of jurisdiction and was not a curable irregularity. The foundation of reassessment for these years was therefore invalid.

Conclusion: The sanction obtained was not in accordance with section 151(ii), and the reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were invalid. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The foundational reassessment proceedings failed on limitation and on lack of valid statutory approval, and the assessments founded on them, along with the appellate orders sustaining or restoring them, could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to deemed notices under the substituted regime, the Revenue must act within the surviving limitation period and must obtain approval from the correct specified authority under section 151 according to the elapsed time from the end of the relevant assessment year; failure on either count renders the notice and all consequential proceedings void.