Issues: (i) Whether the waterproofing works qualified for exemption as services relating to original works pertaining to a single residential unit; (ii) Whether waterproofing undertaken for the first time on an existing structure could qualify as original works; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for a demand founded on Form 26AS data against a registered assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the waterproofing works qualified for exemption as services relating to original works pertaining to a single residential unit.

Analysis: The exemption required proof that the works pertained to single residential units. The material produced did not clearly establish that the works were undertaken for such units.

Conclusion: The claim for full exemption was not allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether waterproofing undertaken for the first time on an existing structure could qualify as original works.

Analysis: Original works include new construction as well as work on abandoned or damaged existing structures required to make them workable. Waterproofing undertaken for the first time to address seepage in an existing building could therefore fall within original works; the distinction based solely on whether the premises were newly constructed was erroneous.

Conclusion: Waterproofing carried out for the first time on an existing damaged structure can qualify as original works, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for a demand founded on Form 26AS data against a registered assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had been registered since 2011, while the Department raised no query regarding non-payment or non-filing of returns for about ten years. The notice treated the entire Form 26AS receipts as taxable consideration without first verifying the nature of the works or the assessee's status. The Revenue produced no material establishing collection of service tax or willful suppression. A demand based solely on income-tax data, without proper verification or corroborative evidence of taxable services, could not justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unsustainable and the confirmed demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand could not survive because it was raised beyond the permissible limitation period without proof of willful suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS or income-tax data where the Revenue has not undertaken proper verification or established willful suppression by a registered assessee.

Issues: Whether receipts from ancillary services connected with software licensing were taxable as fees for technical services under the applicable tax treaty, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal's treatment of the ancillary-service receipts was governed by the precedent concerning software licence transactions. The identical issue for the preceding assessment year had already been disposed of on the basis of that precedent, whose review had also been dismissed. No distinguishing basis warranting reconsideration was shown.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the Tribunal's treatment of the receipts was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether, while allowing restoration of an appeal dismissed in the absence of the appellant, the Tribunal could decide the appeal's maintainability.

Analysis: Restoration was warranted to afford an opportunity of hearing because the original dismissal followed an unrepresented hearing. Restoration merely returns the appeal to the stage at which it stood dismissed and does not determine its maintainability. A finding that the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal, rather than by revision before the Central Government, could not be rendered in a restoration proceeding, since that would effectively recall and replace the earlier dismissal through review.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction restoring the appeal for rehearing was sustained, but its finding that the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal was set aside. Maintainability remains open for determination by the Tribunal through a speaking order at the admission stage.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for alleged suppression of sales could be sustained on employee statements without corroborative material; (ii) Whether cash found with the assessee was taxable as unexplained money.

Issue (i): Whether additions for alleged suppression of sales could be sustained on employee statements without corroborative material.

Analysis: The finding of suppressed sales rested solely on statements, with no corroborative material. There was no unaccounted investment, unexplained asset or expenditure, and the source of the alleged suppressed turnover had been disclosed and included in the returns. The income was also already taxed. The Tribunal's finding was factual and did not warrant interference in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged suppression of sales was rightly deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash found with the assessee was taxable as unexplained money.

Analysis: No material substantiated the Revenue's case of unaccounted cash, and the Tribunal's factual finding on the absence of supporting material could not be reappreciated in the appeal.

Conclusion: The cash was not liable to be brought to tax as unexplained money, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for suppression of sales or unexplained money cannot be sustained solely on statements where no corroborative material supports the allegation and the relevant income has been disclosed and taxed.

Issues: Whether the State GST authorities could sustain assessment and rectification orders on issues and for an assessment period already adjudicated by the Central GST authorities, whose order was pending in appeal.

Analysis: The State and Central GST orders concerned identical issues and the same assessment period. The Central GST order preceded the State proceedings and remained under appellate consideration. In these circumstances, parallel State adjudication duplicated the earlier Central GST proceedings and could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The State GST assessment and rectification orders were unsustainable and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the challenge to notices initiating rectification under Rule 83 could be entertained at the show-cause stage, particularly when the petitioner raised an objection to the Assessing Authority's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The dispute as to whether telephone rental charges involved transfer of the right to use goods required factual adjudication in the statutory proceedings. Although writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised against a show-cause notice, the jurisdictional objection concerning invocation of Rule 83 was required to be considered by the Assessing Authority before proceeding on merits. The petitioner was left free to submit further material and raise all available grounds, including jurisdiction.

Outcome: The writ petition was not entertained at the notice stage; the petitioner was directed to participate in the rectification proceedings and the Assessing Authority was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within the prescribed limitation period, having regard to the date on which the Order-in-Original was actually received.

Analysis: The documentary evidence showed that the appellant had requested a copy of the Order-in-Original on 09.05.2024 and received the departmental email with the order attached on 21.05.2024. Although the email body contained an inconsistent order number and date, the reference to the appellant's request and the attached order established that the discrepancy was a typographical error. On that evidence, the appeal filed on 19.07.2024 was within the normal two-month period. Since the underlying documentary evidence and the correctness of the adjudication order required verification, the matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a considered decision.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to have been filed within the normal limitation period, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification of the documentary evidence and fresh decision.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could remand the matter on merits without deciding the assessee's specific plea that the show cause notice was barred by limitation and that the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invocable.

Analysis: The assessee had specifically raised before the Tribunal that the demand related to 2007-08 to 2008-09, that the show cause notice dated 30.01.2012 was beyond the normal period, and that there was no suppression justifying invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal recorded this contention but remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority only for re-determination on merits relating to valuation of clearances and export sales, without returning any finding on limitation. Since a successful limitation plea would itself render the remand on merits unnecessary, the limitation issue required an express adjudication before the matter could proceed further on merits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was unsustainable to the extent it failed to decide the limitation issue; the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the question of limitation, while the remand on merits was otherwise left undisturbed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee specifically raises a plea that the show cause notice is barred by limitation and that the extended period is not invocable, the appellate Tribunal must adjudicate that issue before remanding the matter on merits, because a finding in favour of the assessee on limitation may render further adjudication unnecessary.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation in respect of the alleged benami transaction were justified; and whether denial of cross-examination vitiated the impugned order.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation in respect of the alleged benami transaction were justified.

Analysis: The transaction was found to involve deposit of demonetised cash in entities controlled by the alleged benamidar, followed by RTGS credits to the appellant's account. The appellant's explanation based on sale of gold was rejected because the documentary trail was inconsistent, the bills showed manipulation, the rates and quantities were improbable, and the surrounding facts supported the inference that the funds were routed through a planned benami arrangement.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the provisional attachment was upheld and the allegation of benami transaction was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination vitiated the impugned order.

Analysis: The challenge on natural justice failed because no statement of the alleged intermediary was on record, the appellant had been supplied the material relied upon, the alleged benamidar's statement was already furnished, and no prejudice was shown. The decision applied the settled principle that breach of procedure does not invalidate an order unless prejudice is demonstrated.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and the attachment order, as confirmed by the adjudicating authority, was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In benami proceedings, a transaction supported by corroborative circumstances and unexplained money trail may be upheld despite a challenge based on denial of cross-examination, if no prejudice is shown and the affected party is supplied the relied-upon material.

Issues: Whether the seized imported goods were liable to be provisionally released pending adjudication, and on what conditions.

Analysis: The petition concerned only a seizure memo and a prayer for interim release of imported goods. The Court followed its earlier orders in similar matters and directed provisional release subject to deposit of the enhanced duty amount, quantification by Customs within one week, release within four weeks on payment, a bank guarantee equivalent to 10% of the total price, and maintenance of customer and transaction details. The Court preserved the adjudicating authority's to proceed independently and made it clear that the release order would not influence the merits of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The goods were directed to be provisionally released on the specified conditions, while the adjudication proceedings were left open to be decided in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the appellant, a director of the company, could be held liable and penalised under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the company's alleged export-related contravention when the record did not establish that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business in relation to finance, export-import or regulatory compliance.

Analysis: Liability under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 arises only where the person sought to be penalised is shown to have been in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time, or where consent, connivance or neglect is proved. The appellant's explanation, statement and reply to the show cause notice showed that his role was confined mainly to technical and administrative work, with finance, banking and export-import being handled by the managing director, and the impugned order did not meaningfully deal with these explanations or record reasons showing how the statutory ingredients were satisfied. Mere designation as director was insufficient to fasten liability absent proof of the required role or active involvement.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be held liable to penalty under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and the penalty imposed on him was set aside.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to condonation of delay in filing Form 10-IC under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequent benefit of concessional taxation under Section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite non-filing of the prescribed form within time.

Analysis: The petitioner had declared the option for concessional taxation in the return of income, paid tax at the concessional rate, and the omission to file Form 10-IC arose from a bona fide and inadvertent lapse during the first year of the provision's operation. The Court also noted the CBDT circulars issued to address hardship in filing Form 10-IC for the relevant assessment years, which reflected a liberal approach where the return had been filed in time, the option under Section 115BAA had been exercised in the return, and genuine hardship was shown. In this backdrop, the rejection of condonation on a rigid view of the requirement was held to be inconsistent with the beneficial object of the provision and the hardship-based standard under Section 119(2)(b).

Conclusion: Delay in filing Form 10-IC ought to have been condoned and the petitioner could not be denied the benefit under Section 115BAA solely for that procedural omission.

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were justified on the footing that the impugned cash-to-RTGS routing constituted a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. (ii) Whether denial of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon vitiated the proceedings for breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation were justified on the footing that the impugned cash-to-RTGS routing constituted a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that cash of Rs. 39,50,000 deposited after demonetisation in accounts controlled by the alleged benamidar was routed back through RTGS to the appellant's account, and the appellant did not produce convincing independent evidence to show a genuine prior business relationship or to substantiate the claimed sale of gold as the true source of the credits. The surrounding circumstances, the statement recorded under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the timing and pattern of the transactions were treated as supporting the inference that the arrangement was a planned benami routing of funds.

Conclusion: The transaction was treated as benami and the confirmation of the provisional attachment was upheld, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon vitiated the proceedings for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that no prejudice was shown from the absence of cross-examination. It noted that there was no statement of one proposed witness on record, and as regards the other, the appellant had been supplied the statement and the witness had not appeared when summoned. Applying the settled prejudice-based approach to natural justice, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned action was not invalid merely because cross-examination was not granted.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was found, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order confirming the provisional attachment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In benami proceedings, where the surrounding circumstances and recorded statement support the conclusion that funds were routed through controlled entities back to the alleged beneficiary, and no real prejudice is shown from denial of cross-examination, the attachment and its confirmation need not be set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the order confirming the provisional attachment and declaring the property as benami could be sustained on the material placed on record; (ii) whether the matter required remand for reconsideration of the facts and evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the order confirming the provisional attachment and declaring the property as benami could be sustained on the material placed on record.

Analysis: The record showed conflicting statements regarding the source of purchase consideration, the capacity of the appellant, the role of the alleged beneficial owner, and the effect of the affidavits and other seized material. The finding that the beneficial owner was not established beyond doubt, while the appellant was held to be the benamidar and the property benami, was found unsatisfactory because the conclusions were drawn without properly appreciating the complete factual matrix and the evidentiary record.

Conclusion: The impugned order confirming the attachment and declaring the property benami was not sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for reconsideration of the facts and evidence.

Analysis: Since the conclusions on the benami character of the property and the identity of the beneficial owner were not reached after full consideration of all relevant facts, statements, affidavits, and investigation material, the proper course was to send the matter back for a fresh decision. The continuation of status quo was directed pending adjudication.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration of all facts and evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded to the extent that the impugned adjudication was set aside and the proceedings were restored for fresh consideration, while interim status quo over the property was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A benami finding cannot be sustained where the adjudicatory conclusions on benamidar status and beneficial ownership are reached without full and proper appreciation of the entire evidentiary record, and such incomplete adjudication warrants remand for reconsideration.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice dated 11.09.2023 and the complaint initiated under Section 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, could be sustained when they arose from the same cause of action already under challenge in a pending writ petition concerning proceedings under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and were said to be affected by the subsisting status-quo order.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition had already questioned the legality of proceedings under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and a status-quo order was stated to be operating. The impugned notice and complaint were found to be a continuation of the very same cause of action, only in a fresh form. Since the matter was already sub judice and protected by the existing interim order, continuation of the later proceedings was not permitted.

Conclusion: The impugned show-cause notice and complaint were quashed, and the proceedings could not be continued independently of the pending writ petition.

Issues: Whether delayed remittances for imported services and goods became trade credit or external commercial borrowing and therefore a capital account transaction under FEMA; whether the RBI's permission regularised the delayed payments or condoned the contravention; and whether the individual directors were liable under the deeming provision for the company's contravention.

Issue (i): Whether delayed remittances for imported services and goods became trade credit or external commercial borrowing and therefore a capital account transaction under FEMA.

Analysis: The outstanding dues arose out of admitted current account transactions for services and goods, but the payments remained unpaid far beyond the six-month period recognised in the RBI circulars governing import payments. The Tribunal held that under the extant RBI framework, deferred or delayed import payments beyond the permissible period are treated as external commercial borrowings or trade credit, even if no separate loan agreement or interest clause exists. The distributor agreement did not displace the statutory consequences of the prolonged deferment, and the contractual references to payment intervals and compliance with local law did not prevent the characterisation of the unpaid amounts as credit facilities under FEMA.

Conclusion: The delayed payments were correctly treated as trade credit or external commercial borrowing and the company's contention on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the RBI's permission regularised the delayed payments or condoned the contravention.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the RBI letters permitted remittance from the foreign exchange angle, but those communications expressly stated that they should not be construed as validating irregularities or contraventions under other laws. The record also showed that the delays were not established as having occurred due to genuine financial difficulty or dispute so as to bring the case within the protective part of the relevant RBI instructions. Accordingly, the subsequent permission did not erase the completed breach.

Conclusion: The RBI permission did not condone or wipe out the contravention.

Issue (iii): Whether the individual directors were liable under the deeming provision for the company's contravention.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the directors of an Indian company cannot avoid responsibility merely by asserting foreign nationality or lack of day-to-day control. On the record, they were directors during the relevant period, had signed statutory financial statements, and there was no sufficient material showing due diligence or that the contravention occurred without their knowledge. The Tribunal also held that civil penalty under FEMA does not require proof of mens rea and that the statutory deeming provision attached liability to those responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Conclusion: The individual directors were held liable along with the company.

Final Conclusion: The contravention findings were upheld, but the penalties were substantially reduced, resulting in only a partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Under FEMA and the RBI import-payment framework, prolonged unpaid import dues can acquire the character of trade credit or external commercial borrowing, subsequent RBI permission does not by itself condone an already completed contravention, and civil penalty for such breach does not depend on proof of mens rea.

Issues: (i) whether the contraventions relating to delayed reporting of foreign remittances, delayed allotment of shares and non-filing of FC-GPR under FEMA were established, and (ii) whether the penalties imposed on the company and its directors required reduction.

Issue (i): whether the contraventions relating to delayed reporting of foreign remittances, delayed allotment of shares and non-filing of FC-GPR under FEMA were established.

Analysis: The remittances of foreign direct investment were received in 14 tranches over several years, the first four tranches were not reported within the prescribed time, the shares were allotted much beyond the stipulated period of 180 days, and FC-GPR was not filed in respect of the allotment. The Tribunal also relied on the statements recorded under FEMA to hold that the individual directors were associated with the company affairs relevant to the foreign investment compliance.

Conclusion: The contraventions were established against the company and the directors.

Issue (ii): whether the penalties imposed on the company and its directors required reduction.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the subsequent RBI circular governing delayed filing could not be applied to transactions that predated it. It also accepted that FEMA contraventions are civil in nature and that the absence of mens rea did not by itself bar penalty, but considered the facts and circumstances to make the penalties proportionate.

Conclusion: The penalties were reduced in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalties, while the findings of contravention under FEMA were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In FEMA contraventions concerning delayed reporting and share allotment, penalty may be sustained even without mens rea, but the quantum can be moderated on the facts where the breach is established and the later circular is inapplicable to earlier transactions.

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were invalid because the alleged offender had died before the attachment order was passed. (ii) Whether the appellant was required to move the Special Court under section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for appropriate orders regarding the attached property.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were invalid because the alleged offender had died before the attachment order was passed.

Analysis: The attachment was treated as a civil action under the statute and not as a proceeding that automatically abates on the death of the accused. The Court noted that the notice requirement under section 8(1) could be met by serving the legal heir who held the property on behalf of the deceased person. It also found that the attached property was only to the extent of the alleged proceeds of crime and that attachment of equivalent value was permissible under the wide definition of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the death of the alleged offender was rejected, and the attachment was not held invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was required to move the Special Court under section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for appropriate orders regarding the attached property.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 8(5), 8(6), and 8(7) was read as providing a distinct course where the trial cannot be concluded because of the death of the accused. In that situation, the Director or a person claiming entitlement may approach the Special Court, which may then pass appropriate orders of confiscation or release on the basis of the material before it.

Conclusion: The appellant was directed to pursue the remedy before the Special Court under section 8(7).

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed to disturb the attachment, and the parties were left to work out their remedies before the Special Court under the statutory mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provisional attachment and adjudication may continue against property linked to proceeds of crime even after the alleged offender's death, and where the trial cannot be concluded because of death, section 8(7) provides the proper forum for orders on confiscation or release.

Issues: (i) Whether the dispute arising from the cryptocurrency exchange incident disclosed enforceable public law rights and justified a writ for regulatory directions or investigation by the CBI/SIT; (ii) Whether the prayers for release of funds and compensation could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite disputed questions of fact.

Issue (i): Whether the dispute arising from the cryptocurrency exchange incident disclosed enforceable public law rights and justified a writ for regulatory directions or investigation by the CBI/SIT.

Analysis: The controversy was treated as a private commercial dispute between individual customers and a private exchange concerning a cyber incident, withdrawal restrictions, and alleged fund mismanagement. The mere fact that a large number of investors may have been affected did not convert the matter into one involving enforceable public law rights. The exchange entities were not found to be State or instrumentalities of the State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and taxation of virtual digital assets did not alter that position. In the absence of a specific regulatory statute governing such exchanges, writ jurisdiction could not be invoked merely because many investors were affected.

Conclusion: No writ relief was warranted for regulatory mandamus or for directing a CBI investigation or SIT investigation.

Issue (ii): Whether the prayers for release of funds and compensation could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The request for release of funds and lifting of withdrawal restrictions would have required factual findings on the amount standing to the credit of each investor and on the nature of the restrictions imposed after the public statement. The claim for compensation required proof of loss, culpability, and quantification of liability. These matters involved disputed questions of fact and evidence, which are not amenable to summary adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The available remedies lay before the civil court or other competent forum, and the pending criminal complaint and alternative civil or consumer remedies preserved the appellants' ability to seek redress.

Conclusion: The prayers for release of funds and compensation were not maintainable in writ proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the grievances arose from a private commercial dispute and the reliefs sought required factual adjudication outside writ jurisdiction, leaving the appellants to pursue ordinary remedies in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate a private commercial dispute involving disputed questions of fact or to seek monetary reliefs or investigative directions in the absence of enforceable public law elements and a statutory basis for such intervention.

Issues: Whether the deficiency memo in Form GST RFD-03 for refund of unutilised input tax credit attributable to input services was liable to be quashed, and whether the refund claim had to be processed in light of the amended Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: The amendment to Rule 89(5) introduced by Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated 05.07.2022 was treated as applicable retrospectively, following the binding effect of the later Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions dealing with the scope of refund under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. On that basis, the restriction in the refund formula was not treated as a bar to consideration of the petitioner's claim in accordance with the amended rule and the governing refund provision.

Conclusion: The deficiency memo was quashed and the respondents were directed to process the refund claim in accordance with the amended Rule 89(5) and the applicable law.