Issues: Whether reassessment orders and consequential notices could stand when the replies and material furnished by the petitioners were not considered and no opportunity was afforded before passing the orders under Section 148A(d).

Analysis: The impugned orders did not consider the contentions raised in the replies. A fresh opportunity was warranted to enable the petitioners to furnish additional pleadings and documents in response to the notices under Section 148A(b), followed by reconsideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The orders under Section 148A(d) and all consequential proceedings and notices were set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh reconsideration from the stage of the Section 148A(b) notices, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether input tax credit for April 2018 to March 2019 could be denied for delayed returns despite the returns having been filed within the cut-off prescribed by Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 16(5) extends eligibility for input tax credit where returns for the relevant period were furnished by 30.11.2021. The returns concerned were filed between 24.05.2018 and 27.10.2019, and therefore fell within that statutory cut-off. The denial founded on Section 16(4) could not be sustained without giving effect to Section 16(5).

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to consideration of input tax credit under Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, subject to fulfilment of other eligibility requirements.

Issues: (i) Whether the Bhuj Court had territorial jurisdiction over the suit; (ii) Whether defendants nos. 1 to 4 breached the contract notwithstanding expiry of the letters of credit; (iii) Whether the counterclaim of the unregistered partnership firm was maintainable; (iv) Whether defendants nos. 5 and 6 were liable along with defendants nos. 1 to 4; (v) Whether the decretal amount required modification for export-related expenses incurred by defendant no. 1.

Issue (i): Whether the Bhuj Court had territorial jurisdiction over the suit.

Analysis: The contract was accepted at Kandla, goods were dispatched from Kandla, and payment under the arrangement was receivable through the plaintiff's bank at Kandla. Delivery to the carrier at Kandla for transmission was prima facie delivery to the buyer under Section 39(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The subsequent arrangement for airlifting from Bombay did not displace the part of the cause of action arising at Kandla.

Conclusion: The Bhuj Court had territorial jurisdiction; this finding is against defendants nos. 1 to 4.

Issue (ii): Whether defendants nos. 1 to 4 breached the contract notwithstanding expiry of the letters of credit.

Analysis: The purchase orders and subsequent conduct established a subsisting contractual arrangement distinct from the payment mechanism under the letters of credit. Defendants nos. 1 to 4 caused the second and third consignments to be exported, received payment from the foreign buyers, and withheld payment from the plaintiff. Expiry of the letters of credit did not terminate the underlying contract where the parties continued to perform it.

Conclusion: Defendants nos. 1 to 4 committed breach of contract and remained liable for the value of the second and third consignments; this finding is in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (iii): Whether the counterclaim of the unregistered partnership firm was maintainable.

Analysis: The counterclaim sought enforcement of contractual rights by an admittedly unregistered partnership firm. Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 applies to a claim of set-off or other proceeding enforcing contractual rights, and the statutory bar consequently applied to the counterclaim.

Conclusion: The counterclaim was not maintainable and was rightly rejected; this finding is against defendants nos. 1 to 4.

Issue (iv): Whether defendants nos. 5 and 6 were liable along with defendants nos. 1 to 4.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish independent liability of the clearing and forwarding agent or the bank for the plaintiff's claim. The bank acted on the documents presented, while no evidentiary basis established liability of the clearing and forwarding agent for the non-payment.

Conclusion: Dismissal of the suit against defendants nos. 5 and 6 was upheld; this finding is against the plaintiff.

Issue (v): Whether the decretal amount required modification for export-related expenses incurred by defendant no. 1.

Analysis: Although the counterclaim was barred, the evidence established that defendant no. 1 had incurred specified expenses for airfreight, returned or deficient goods, demurrage, and clearing and forwarding charges in exporting the second and third consignments. Those expenses were required to be reimbursed and set off against the decretal amount to render substantial justice.

Conclusion: The decree was reduced by Rs. 13,66,118 from Rs. 49,81,336 to Rs. 36,15,218 with proportionate interest; this finding is partly in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 4.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's contractual entitlement against defendants nos. 1 to 4 subsists, subject to reimbursement of proven export-related expenses, while the rejection of the counterclaim and exoneration of defendants nos. 5 and 6 remain undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Expiry of a letter of credit does not extinguish an independently subsisting sale contract where subsequent conduct establishes continued performance, and a contractual claim by an unregistered partnership firm is barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.

Issues: Whether steps were required to enable consideration of the application for a temporary GST ID to facilitate the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The parties could not apprise the Court of the status of issuance of the temporary ID. The respondents stated that the application would be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law, which course was accepted by the petitioner.

Outcome: The competent authority was expected to pass appropriate orders on the temporary-ID application within 30 days.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order is vitiated where the quasi-judicial officer had countersigned and approved the investigation report leading to initiation of prosecution in the same matter.

Analysis: The officer who adjudicated the show-cause notice had earlier approved the investigation report for initiation of prosecution. The objection to this overlap was not adequately addressed. A quasi-judicial decision-maker must be free from circumstances creating a reasonable apprehension of bias; proof of actual bias or partiality is unnecessary. The combination of approving the investigative action and adjudicating the resulting proceedings undermined the required appearance of impartiality.

Conclusion: The adjudication and appellate orders were vitiated by the reasonable apprehension of bias and were quashed; the matter was directed to be decided afresh by a competent authority other than an individual who performed the investigative, approval and quasi-judicial roles.

Issues: Whether the arrest, remand and detention for alleged cess evasion under the Health Security Se National Security Cess Act, 2025 were lawful.

Analysis: The alleged offence carried a maximum punishment of five years and was therefore governed by the safeguards applicable to arrest for offences punishable below seven years under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Although grounds of arrest accompanied the arrest memo, the record showed that arrest authorisation was issued after the actual arrest; the arrest time was inconsistently recorded; no family member or nominated person was shown to have received the arrest memo or been informed; the memo did not record communication of the right to legal assistance; and the witnesses were strangers to the arrestee. The asserted revenue evasion had also not been founded on audit or assessment under the Act. These deficiencies did not justify custodial arrest.

Conclusion: The arrest, remand and detention were illegal and were set aside; the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.

Issues: (i) Whether the show-cause notice and demand order were liable to be quashed for defective service and denial of opportunity; (ii) Whether extraordinary writ relief could be granted despite the assessee's conduct after bank attachment and its failure to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the show-cause notice and demand order were liable to be quashed for defective service and denial of opportunity.

Analysis: The demand notice specified the discrepancies concerning short payment of tax, excess input tax credit claimed in GSTR-3B compared with GSTR-2A, and the amounts payable. The demand order recorded that the final reminder had been sent to the registered email address under Section 169(1)(c). The assessee neither specifically denied receipt of that email nor disclosed the actual input tax credit accruing in GSTR-2A or substantively answered the allegations of excess credit and suppression of turnover. Mere assertions concerning the portal tab in which the documents were uploaded did not establish non-service or a denial of effective opportunity.

Conclusion: The challenge based on defective service and denial of natural justice fails, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether extraordinary writ relief could be granted despite the assessee's conduct after bank attachment and its failure to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: After attachment of its bank accounts, the assessee furnished an undertaking to clear the outstanding demand, supplied post-dated cheques, obtained removal of the account hold, and permitted one cheque to be encashed. It did not contemporaneously protest that the undertaking or cheques were furnished under duress, nor did it pursue the available appeal under Section 107. The later plea of compulsion was treated as an afterthought. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is unavailable to a litigant not approaching with bona fide conduct and clean hands.

Conclusion: Extraordinary writ relief is refused, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The GST demand proceedings remain unaffected, and costs were imposed for the assessee's lack of bona fides.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to a GST demand alleging defective service cannot succeed where the assessee fails to specifically controvert service through its registered email or address the substantive demand allegations, and its subsequent conduct demonstrates acquiescence without bona fide challenge.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand order should be entertained despite the available statutory appeal.

Analysis: A statutory appeal against the adjudication order is available under Section 107. The challenge to the circular was not adjudicated on merits and was left open for appropriate future proceedings. To prevent prejudice in pursuing the appeal, the period spent before the High Court was directed to be excluded in computing limitation if the appeal is filed within 30 days.

Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether deduction under Section 54F was allowable where the assessee purchased a residential property from her husband.

Analysis: The purchase was a registered transaction for market-value consideration, supported by payment through disclosed funds and payment of stamp duty. The sole basis for denial was the alleged arrangement to enable the spouse to set off capital gains against business losses. The spouse's business losses arose after the property transaction and could not have been anticipated on the purchase date. A related-party purchase is not, by itself, a colourable device where the transaction is genuine and falls within the statutory framework. Legitimate tax planning does not invalidate an otherwise lawful transaction merely because it results in a tax benefit.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 54F; the disallowance was deleted.

Issues: Liability for cost recovery charges at an inland container depot where the prescribed benchmark volume of trade was not achieved, and the treatment of charges for subsequent periods.

Analysis: The controversy between two State instrumentalities was resolved through judicially facilitated mediation. The accepted terms distinguished the period in which the benchmark was admittedly not achieved from later periods requiring verification of benchmark compliance. Waiver for later periods was made contingent upon the customs authority's assessment under the applicable law, with reciprocal adjustment and release of amounts due.

Conclusion: CONCOR is liable to bear cost recovery charges for 2009-10. For subsequent periods, waiver shall be granted where benchmark compliance is established on verification, and any amounts due shall be adjusted and released in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether refunds already sanctioned pursuant to orders that attained finality could be recovered or rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The entitlement to refund, including the absence of unjust enrichment, had been determined in the assessee's earlier proceedings and that determination stood affirmed upon dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The assessee had issued credit notes returning the duty component to buyers, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported that the incidence of duty had not ultimately been passed on. A subsequent view on unjust enrichment could not reopen a concluded refund entitlement or sustain recovery in executory proceedings. Finality of litigation precludes vexing a person twice on the same cause.

Conclusion: The recovery demand and rejection of the refunds on the ground of unjust enrichment were unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether statutory interest is payable on the tax refund released after withdrawal of the departmental revision under the monetary-limit litigation policy.

Analysis: Section 56 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 provides that every refundable amount shall carry interest at fifteen per cent per annum from the date of its deposit. The refund was admittedly released following withdrawal of the departmental revision, but without interest. The statutory language imposed an unequivocal obligation to pay interest and did not permit withholding it merely because the underlying litigation ended through withdrawal under the State litigation policy.

Conclusion: Statutory interest on the refunded amount is payable to the assessee in accordance with Section 56 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration without a personal hearing complied with the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation was valid despite prior filing of returns and payment of late fees, on the basis of an unsigned or unidentified notice lacking DIN, and whether a subsequent circular could validate that notice retrospectively.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration without a personal hearing complied with the statutory requirement and principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 75(4) required a personal hearing before an adverse action. Only a show-cause notice was issued and no separate opportunity of personal hearing was afforded; the prescribed process requiring fixation of hearing dates was not followed. The cancellation consequently suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was invalid for breach of the statutory hearing requirement and principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation was valid despite prior filing of returns and payment of late fees, on the basis of an unsigned or unidentified notice lacking DIN, and whether a subsequent circular could validate that notice retrospectively.

Analysis: The returns and late fees had been furnished before the notice concerning revocation. The notice did not disclose the name or designation of its issuing authority and lacked the then-mandatory DIN. The later circular dispensing with DIN for portal-generated communications carrying a verifiable reference number could not retrospectively cure the defects in the earlier notice. The material already available on record was not considered.

Conclusion: Rejection of revocation was invalid; the subsequent circular could not retrospectively validate the defective notice, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The foundational cancellation and revocation actions being vitiated, the consequential appellate orders founded on those actions could not stand; registration was directed to be restored and litigation costs were awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse GST registration action taken without the statutorily required personal hearing is void, and a subsequent administrative circular cannot retrospectively cure defects in an earlier notice or order.

Issues: Whether late filing fee under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be levied on Supplementary Bills of Entry filed to clear excess quantity of imported bulk cargo.

Analysis: The original Bills of Entry had been filed within time, and the excess coal was part of the same imported consignments. The Import General Manifests had also been amended; consequently, the contrary factual premise in the appellate order was unsupported by the record. The statutory scheme permits late charges only where the proper officer is not satisfied that sufficient cause existed. The delay in filing the Supplementary Bills of Entry was not attributable to any fault or lack of bona fides of the importer and resulted from excess bulk cargo remaining after clearance of the manifested quantity. The applicable discretion to levy or waive charges must be exercised judiciously rather than mechanically.

Conclusion: The late filing fee levied on the Supplementary Bills of Entry was unwarranted and legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether late filing fee under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable on a supplementary Bill of Entry filed for excess bulk cargo forming part of the original import consignment.

Analysis: The excess PCI coal was part of the original bulk consignment, and variation in quantity was attributable to the inherent characteristics of bulk cargo, including moisture-related weight variation. The original Bill of Entry had been filed within the stipulated period, while the supplementary Bill of Entry was filed after the excess cargo was identified and permission was obtained under the prescribed procedure. Late fee is attracted only where the delay lacks sufficient cause; its levy requires a judicious assessment and cannot be imposed mechanically. The bona fide circumstances disclosed sufficient cause for the supplementary filing.

Conclusion: The late filing fee was legally unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether enhancement of the declared value of imported viscose filament yarn and the consequential differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The remand directions required fresh consideration of the appellants' claims, including contemporaneous import data and whether statements alone established undervaluation. The adjudicating authority did not meaningfully consider the contemporaneous import data supplied by the appellants, selectively relied on data, and treated the value relating to live consignments as determinative of earlier imports. This approach did not comply with the remand directions. Under the valuation rules, the lowest transaction value was required to be adopted; values prevailing at a later point could not be applied to imports made over an earlier period, particularly where comparable bulk imports supported the declared prices.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value and the consequent differential duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether an electric-scooter knocked-down kit imported without tyres, battery and charger qualified for concessional basic customs duty under Serial No. 531A(1)(a) of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017; (ii) Whether the explanation introduced by Notification No. 02/2022-Cus dated 01.02.2022 applied to an import made before that notification took effect.

Issue (i): Whether an electric-scooter knocked-down kit imported without tyres, battery and charger qualified for concessional basic customs duty under Serial No. 531A(1)(a) of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017.

Analysis: The pre-amendment entry required a knocked-down kit to contain all necessary components, parts or sub-assemblies for assembling a complete vehicle. Although the kit retained the essential character of an electrically operated vehicle and was classifiable under Heading 8711 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, it did not contain all components required to assemble a complete vehicle.

Conclusion: The imported kit was not eligible for the concessional basic customs duty under Serial No. 531A(1)(a), against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the explanation introduced by Notification No. 02/2022-Cus dated 01.02.2022 applied to an import made before that notification took effect.

Analysis: The amendment altered the description and conditions of the entry by extending the benefit to incomplete or unfinished knocked-down kits containing necessary components and by omitting the earlier requirement that all necessary components be imported. The explanation allowing the benefit despite non-import of one or more components operated under the amended entry and was effective only for imports on or after 01.02.2022.

Conclusion: Notification No. 02/2022-Cus dated 01.02.2022 did not apply retrospectively to the prior import, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The pre-amendment exemption condition requiring all necessary vehicle components governed the import, and the subsequent amendment could not extend the reduced-duty benefit to it.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent exemption-notification amendment that substantively changes eligibility from kits containing all necessary components to incomplete kits containing necessary components applies prospectively, notwithstanding an accompanying explanation expressed to remove doubts.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the review petition should be condoned and the earlier revision order restored for merits consideration after the review petitioner was not shown to have received effective communication of the proceedings.

Analysis: Notice in the revision was served beyond the period stipulated in it, and no material established that the pendency of the revision was subsequently communicated to the review petitioner through the jurisdictional officer. As the earlier revision order had allowed the revision by relying on notifications whose applicability was disputed, a merits hearing was warranted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the review petitioner was granted an opportunity to contest the revision on merits.