Issues: Whether GST can be deducted from compensation paid for compulsory acquisition of land and structures.

Analysis: GST under Article 366(12A) is attracted to a supply of goods or services. Land and buildings attached to it are immovable property; compulsory acquisition is an expropriation through exercise of eminent domain, not a voluntary supply, sale of goods, or provision of services by the landowner. No statutory basis was shown for levying GST on compensation awarded for the acquired land or structure.

Conclusion: Deduction of GST from the acquisition compensation was without authority of law and in excess of power.

Issues: Whether, after unsigned assessment orders were quashed, the authorities could be permitted to reissue the same orders after curing the signature defect, including through a successor officer, with protection against limitation.

Analysis: Orders issued without either digital or manual signature had already been quashed, and that quashing was not challenged by the official respondents. Once an order is quashed, the authorities may initiate and conclude fresh proceedings in accordance with law, but cannot cure the defect and reissue the very same quashed order. A successor officer cannot be authorised to issue the same predetermined order after hearing the assessee, since such hearing would be merely formal. The direction insulating any reissued order from limitation was consequently unsustainable.

Conclusion: The authorities cannot reissue the same quashed orders by affixing signatures or through successor officers, nor can such orders receive protection from limitation; they retain liberty to issue fresh orders in accordance with law and due procedure. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year were valid where approval under Section 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rather than the prescribed higher authority.

Analysis: For a reassessment notice issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Section 151 required prior sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, as applicable. The approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was consequently incompetent, rendering the consequential reassessment action invalid.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid for want of sanction by the competent statutory authority; the assessment order was therefore rightly quashed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a penalty for misreporting of income can be sustained without specifying the applicable limb of Section 270A(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings for misreporting require identification of the precise statutory limb under which the alleged default falls. Neither the assessment proceedings nor the penalty action specified which of the six limbs in Section 270A(9) was attracted. This omission deprived the assessee of a definite charge and rendered the penalty action legally defective.

Conclusion: The penalty was invalid and was struck down.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order demanding tax, interest and penalty exceeding the aggregate amount specified in the show-cause notice is sustainable under Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 75(7) limits the demand in an order to the amount specified in the notice and prohibits confirmation on grounds other than those stated in the notice. The notice specified an aggregate demand of Rs. 57.60 crore towards tax, interest and penalty, whereas the impugned order raised an aggregate demand of Rs. 59.20 crore. The excess demand was ex facie inconsistent with the statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The demand order was unsustainable for contravention of Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether appellate and consequential assessment proceedings could continue after acceptance of settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and issuance of Form No. 4.

Analysis: The acceptance of the settlement application, payment of the determined amount, and issuance of Form No. 4 made the assessment for the relevant year conclusive and final under the Scheme. Upon being notified of issuance of Form No. 2 and the pending settlement application, the appellate authority ought not to have remanded the assessment; it should have deferred disposal until the final settlement certificate and then disposed of the appeal consistently with the settlement. Continuation of the remand and consequential proceedings produced unwarranted multiplicity of litigation.

Conclusion: The settlement certificate in Form No. 4 remains conclusive under the Scheme, and the appellate, Tribunal and consequential proceedings founded on the remand order cannot survive.

Issues: (i) Whether the cost of land acquired before transfer of the original capital asset may form part of the cost of construction of a new residential house for exemption under section 54F; (ii) Whether exemption under section 54F is unavailable because unutilised consideration was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme by the due date under section 139(1), despite its actual investment in construction within three years.

Issue (i): Whether the cost of land acquired before transfer of the original capital asset may form part of the cost of construction of a new residential house for exemption under section 54F.

Analysis: Section 54F(1) requires construction of a residential house within three years of transfer but does not require that the land on which it is constructed must also have been acquired after that transfer. Land is an integral component of a residential house, and excluding its cost would artificially segregate the land from the completed residential unit. A beneficial and purposive construction of the exemption provision supports inclusion of land cost where the house is constructed within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The cost of land purchased before transfer of the original asset forms part of the cost of the new residential house for section 54F exemption. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under section 54F is unavailable because unutilised consideration was not deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme by the due date under section 139(1), despite its actual investment in construction within three years.

Analysis: The deposit requirement in section 54F(4) preserves unutilised funds for their eventual application to the specified residential investment. Where the entire consideration is actually invested in constructing the house within the three-year statutory period, the substantive purpose of the provision is fulfilled. Non-deposit in the Scheme cannot override actual and timely utilization for construction.

Conclusion: Non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme does not defeat section 54F exemption where the consideration is actually invested in construction within three years. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee remains entitled to the claimed capital-gains exemption for both the pre-transfer land cost and the subsequently incurred construction expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 54F must be purposively applied: land cost integral to a residential house is includible notwithstanding pre-transfer acquisition, and actual investment in construction within the prescribed period satisfies the substantive exemption requirement despite non-deposit of unutilised funds in the Capital Gains Account Scheme.

Issues: Whether disclosed turnover could be enhanced merely because books of account were not produced during survey, without cogent adverse material supporting undisclosed purchases and sales.

Analysis: Non-production of books of account at the time of survey justified their rejection and a best-judgment assessment, but did not by itself permit enhancement of turnover. No discrepancy or other adverse material was found during the survey to support estimation of undisclosed purchases or sales.

Conclusion: The disclosed turnover was required to be accepted; enhancement based solely on presumption in the absence of cogent material was impermissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether deduction of the tendered KVAT and service-tax components from the contract amount and addition of GST at 18% amounted to impermissible double taxation.

Analysis: The tender rates included the tax components applicable under the earlier regime. Since the works were completed after GST came into force, the earlier tax components included in the quoted contract amount were deducted and GST was added to the resulting value. This computation applied GST alone to the revised contract value and did not impose both KVAT/service tax and GST.

Conclusion: The adjustment of pre-GST tax components and addition of GST did not constitute double taxation; the challenge to the impugned explanation of the bills failed, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether reinsurance premium ceded to a foreign reinsurer beyond the prescribed threshold was disallowable despite the regulator's no-objection to the arrangement; (ii) Whether independently acquired enterprise software was depreciable as computer software or as an intangible licence.

Issue (i): Whether reinsurance premium ceded to a foreign reinsurer beyond the prescribed threshold was disallowable despite the regulator's no-objection to the arrangement.

Analysis: Section 44 and Rule 5 of the First Schedule establish the special framework for computing insurance-business income. The regulatory authority, in response to information sought by the Assessing Officer, clarified that it had no objection to the reinsurance arrangement exceeding the threshold and had accepted the insurer's explanation. In the absence of any rejection, regulatory action, or established infraction, the tax authorities could not substitute their interpretation of the regulatory correspondence for the regulator's satisfaction.

Conclusion: The reinsurance-premium disallowance was not sustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether independently acquired enterprise software was depreciable as computer software or as an intangible licence.

Analysis: Appendix I expressly places computers including computer software in a distinct depreciation block without requiring that software be embedded in, or acquired simultaneously with, hardware. Licensing is the usual legal mode for supplying software and does not alter its character as computer software. The expression licences in Section 32(1)(ii), construed ejusdem generis with other independent commercial or intellectual-property rights, does not encompass a software licence acquired merely to operate software in a computer environment.

Conclusion: The enterprise software qualified for depreciation under the computer-software block at the prescribed rate; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of both additions were sustained for all the relevant assessment years, while the reassessment-jurisdiction objections were left open as academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent sectoral regulator accepts an insurer's arrangement, tax authorities cannot infer a regulatory breach without established contrary material; separately acquired software remains computer software where the depreciation schedule specifically so classifies it.

Issues: Whether an export-oriented unit is liable to customs duty on imported raw material treated as excess consumption or wastage beyond prescribed norms, where the material was used in manufacture and the resulting waste and scrap were cleared with permission on payment of applicable duty.

Analysis: Clause (3) of Notification No. 52/2003-Customs extends the exemption to imported goods used for manufacturing finished goods, including waste and scrap arising during production or manufacture, notwithstanding the prescribed norms. The imported brass scrap was used in manufacture, there was no diversion or unauthorised removal of the alleged excess quantity, and the segregated waste was cleared with the Development Commissioner's permission on payment of applicable duty. The conditions for exemption were therefore fulfilled notwithstanding wastage in excess of the norms.

Conclusion: No customs duty was payable merely because the wastage exceeded the prescribed norms; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether amendment of a bill of entry and consequential refund could be allowed where goods were removed under provisional assessment but 1,800 MT of imported goods sank before final assessment, and the relevant police report existed before final clearance.

Analysis: Section 149 permits amendment of a bill of entry, subject to its proviso concerning documents after clearance for home consumption. Removal of goods following provisional assessment is distinct from clearance for home consumption, which occurs upon final assessment and the proper officer's clearance order. The sinking was recorded in a police report dated before the final assessment and clearance; hence, documentary evidence of the loss existed at the material time.

Conclusion: Amendment of the bill of entry under Section 149 and consequential refund were rightly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an assessee may take suo motu re-credit of duty paid twice where the double payment and correctness of the re-credit are undisputed, without pursuing the refund procedure under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The excess duty arose from a duplicate debit for the same clearances. The assessee informed the audit officer and reversed the re-credit, but the Revenue did not identify any discrepancy in the double payment or establish that the re-credit was unjustified. In those circumstances, re-credit was treated as reversal of an accounting entry rather than a refund involving an outflow of funds; consequently, the refund mechanism was inapplicable. A demand founded solely on non-compliance with that procedure, without disputing the substantive entitlement to re-credit, lacked a valid basis.

Conclusion: The assessee was legally entitled to suo motu re-credit of the excess duty paid twice, and the show-cause notice and consequential demand were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect can be sustained where the show cause notice did not propose or disclose retrospective cancellation.

Analysis: The cancellation order retrospectively cancelled registration from 01.05.2023, while the show cause notice did not refer to any proposed retrospective cancellation. The matter was governed by the applicable Division Bench ruling, and the Revenue did not dispute either the factual position or the governing legal position.

Conclusion: Retrospective cancellation of the GST registration without prior notice of such proposed retrospective effect cannot be sustained; the cancellation order was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the operation and management of Government Urban Health and Wellness Centres, Urban Ayushman Arogya Mandirs and Polyclinics constitutes exempt healthcare services provided by a clinical establishment under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The contractual scope required the operator to establish and run healthcare facilities, deploy medical and paramedical personnel, and deliver diagnosis, treatment, preventive and curative care, diagnostics, medicines, referrals and public-health interventions. These activities formed a naturally bundled composite supply whose predominant and essential character was healthcare delivery. The administrative, operational, monitoring and reporting obligations were ancillary to that principal supply and could not be artificially segregated to classify the arrangement as facility-management or support services.

Analysis: The executing agency only implemented and administered the Government programme and routed payments from Government grants. Its role, and its liability to make payment, did not alter the actual nature of services supplied through the clinical establishments to members of the public. Healthcare services remain characterised by their substance and dominant purpose, notwithstanding that consideration is paid through a Government-appointed implementing agency rather than directly by patients.

Conclusion: The services are healthcare services supplied by a clinical establishment and are exempt from GST under Entry No. 74 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Issues: (i) Whether demurrage charges paid separately by the importer for vessel delay formed part of the transaction value and assessable value of the imported goods; (ii) Whether differential customs duty could be confirmed by invoking Rule 10(2) when it was not invoked in the show cause notice; (iii) Whether the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) was invocable.

Issue (i): Whether demurrage charges paid separately by the importer for vessel delay formed part of the transaction value and assessable value of the imported goods.

Analysis: The contractual clause provided that demurrage or dispatch settlements were to be made separately between the buyer and seller, outside the letter-of-credit payment for the goods. Such charges, arising from additional vessel waiting time, were therefore not part of the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods. Inclusion of demurrage would also result in goods under the same contract being assessed at differing values.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges paid separately did not form part of the transaction value or assessable value. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether differential customs duty could be confirmed by invoking Rule 10(2) when it was not invoked in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The demand was confirmed on the basis of Rule 10(2), although that provision was not invoked in the show cause notice. Further, the provision had been declared ultra vires.

Conclusion: Confirmation of the demand on a ground absent from the show cause notice was unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended limitation period under Section 28(4) was invocable.

Analysis: The department produced no evidence of a positive and deliberate act establishing wilful suppression or intent to evade customs duty. Mere allegations of suppression were insufficient to invoke the extended period for bills of entry covering April 2012 to July 2016.

Conclusion: The show cause notice issued in March 2017 was time-barred. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Separately settled demurrage for port delay is outside the transaction value, and a demand founded on an uninvoiced and invalid valuation provision, without proof of wilful suppression, cannot be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts separately settled as demurrage and not constituting the price paid or payable for imported goods cannot be added to transaction value; extended limitation requires proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether GST may be levied on affiliation fee collected by a university from an affiliated college.

Analysis: Grant of affiliation is a statutory and regulatory function and is not a supply of service for consideration. Affiliation fee is not consideration for a taxable activity; in any event, affiliation services fall within the educational-services exemption under Entry 66 of Notification No. 12/2017-CT (Rate). The settled position governing university affiliation fees applied directly to the impugned demand.

Conclusion: Levy and demand of GST on the affiliation fee are unsustainable; the demand is set aside and GST collected, if any, is refundable.

Issues: Whether supply of tobacco-based and herbal hookah through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant, with attendant facilities, qualifies as restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Paragraph 6(b) creates a deeming fiction only for supplies made as part of a service where the goods supplied are food, any other article for human consumption, or drink. The provisions concerning composite supply and principal supply govern tax consequences only after the transaction satisfies the statutory description of the relevant category; they cannot enlarge the scope of restaurant service. The rate notification likewise cannot extend the parent statutory provision.

Analysis: Applying the common parlance test, ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, the expression "any other article for human consumption" takes its meaning from food and drink and is confined to articles of a like character ordinarily consumed by eating or drinking. Hookah, whether tobacco-based or herbal, is ordinarily understood as being smoked and not as food, drink, or an article akin to them. Its preparation, apparatus, restaurant ambience and attendant service do not alter this statutory character. The separate fiscal and regulatory treatment of tobacco products contextually supports this interpretation; the conclusion regarding herbal hookah independently follows from the interpretation of paragraph 6(b).

Conclusion: Tobacco-based and herbal hookah supplied through a hookah apparatus in a restaurant do not qualify as restaurant service under paragraph 6(b) of Schedule II to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and are taxable as supplies of goods under the applicable classification and rate notifications. The conclusion is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the inventory write-off for expired stock was allowable; (ii) Whether the bad-debt write-off was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether the inventory write-off for expired stock was allowable.

Analysis: The write-off was supported by item-wise stock particulars, physical verification, and documentary material establishing expiry and destruction of stock under applicable regulatory norms. The concurrent factual findings of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal established that the inventory was old and expired. The challenge raised no substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The inventory write-off was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the bad-debt write-off was allowable.

Analysis: The assessee produced debtor details, invoices, ledger accounts and an ageing analysis supporting the write-off. The requirements under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were satisfied. Once the debts were written off as irrecoverable in the accounts, proof that they had actually become bad was not required.

Conclusion: The bad-debt write-off was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenges concerning the inventory and bad-debt write-offs failed for want of a substantial question of law; the questions concerning write-off of subsidiary investments and advances were admitted for further consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent factual findings supported by documentary evidence do not give rise to a substantial question of law, and a bad-debt deduction is available where the statutory conditions are met and the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts.