Issues: Whether adjudication pursuant to scrutiny of returns could be sustained without issuance of the prescribed notice in Form GST ASMT-10.

Analysis: Section 61 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, requires the proper officer to issue Form GST ASMT-10 identifying discrepancies and seeking an explanation before pursuing tax determination. This mechanism enables the registered person to explain discrepancies and may obviate further proceedings. The respondents admitted that the prescribed notice had not been issued.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was invalid for non-issuance of the mandatory Form GST ASMT-10 notice, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Karnataka High Court.

Analysis: For an appeal concerning an assessment order, the jurisdiction lies with the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the assessment order was made. The assessment order and the appellate order originated at Hyderabad; the subsequent location of the respondent's registered office at Bangalore did not confer jurisdiction on the Karnataka High Court.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Karnataka High Court.

Issues: Whether the assessee's windmill was commissioned on or before 30 September 2004 so as to qualify for depreciation at 80%, and whether the Tribunal's contrary finding was perverse.

Analysis: The commissioning certificate, contemporaneous electricity-generation record showing export of power during September 2004, and the communication permitting grid injection established that the windmill was commissioned on 30 September 2004. These materials had been accepted in the appellate findings and were not displaced. The Tribunal instead relied on transport-related documentation and insurance evidence, while disregarding the material evidence directly establishing commissioning and generation of electricity.

Conclusion: The windmill stood commissioned on 30 September 2004 and the assessee was entitled to depreciation at 80%. The Tribunal's finding was perverse; its order was set aside and the appellate order allowing the depreciation claim was restored.

Issues: Whether delay beyond the period condonable by the appellate authority in filing a GST appeal could be condoned in writ jurisdiction where the assessee showed that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its control.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 limits the appellate authority's power to condone delay. The stated circumstances showed that the assessee lacked timely knowledge of the assessment order and acted promptly after communication. Denial of a merits hearing in those circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The established approach permits writ relief to secure merits adjudication where sufficient cause exists beyond the assessee's control.

Conclusion: The delay of 114 days was condoned in favour of the assessee, and its appeal was required to be entertained and adjudicated on merits.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal, resulting in its dismissal as time-barred, could be condoned in writ jurisdiction to restore adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The petitioner had not received a merits determination from the Appellate Authority because its appeal was rejected on limitation. In the peculiar circumstances, and with no objection from the respondents to a merits remand, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to restore the statutory remedy was considered necessary to serve the ends of justice. The delay of 87 days was therefore condoned without examining the underlying tax controversy.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the statutory appeal was restored for fresh decision on merits by the Appellate Authority.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration based solely on a notice uploaded on the common portal, without service through an additional prescribed mode, was valid.

Analysis: Section 169 permits communication through the common portal, but, where cancellation of registration entails civil consequences affecting business and livelihood, fair procedure requires that portal publication be supplemented by personal service through at least one other prescribed mode. As no notice was served by e-mail or registered post, the cancellation action was inconsistent with the requirement of fair notice. A fresh proceeding must afford sufficient opportunity to respond, a personal hearing where an adverse order is contemplated, and a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was invalid and was set aside; fresh proceedings must be undertaken after proper service of notice and observance of hearing requirements.

Issues: Whether a penalty imposed on a co-noticee can survive after the principal noticee has settled the underlying service-tax dispute under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The principal noticee settled the demand under the Scheme. The applicable Tribunal precedent recognises that settlement of the demand by the principal noticee carries waiver of penalty not only for that noticee but also for co-noticees, even where the co-noticee did not independently file a declaration under the Scheme. The contrary single-member view could not prevail over the coordinate division-bench decisions.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed upon the co-noticee was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether surplus electricity generated during manufacture and sold to an outside electricity distribution company attracts payment of 6% of its value under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The identical issue had already been resolved for the relevant period: electricity generated from bagasse and wheeled out to the electricity distribution company was not liable to the amount prescribed under Rule 6(3). The earlier adjudication dropping such demand had been accepted by the departmental committee and had attained finality. No change in the applicable statutory provisions justified a contrary treatment.

Conclusion: Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not require payment of 6% of the value of surplus electricity sold to the outside electricity distribution company. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the personal-hearing requirement before an adverse tax determination was complied with; (ii) Whether refund of the amount recovered before expiry of the appeal period should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether the personal-hearing requirement before an adverse tax determination was complied with.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the proper officer to consider the taxpayer's representation before determining tax, interest and penalty, and requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. Three hearing dates were granted after receipt of the response, and the authorised representative attended and confirmed that the written defence was the final submission. The record of those hearings was not controverted in the pleadings. A further hearing merely because the order was issued later is not mandated.

Conclusion: The opportunity of personal hearing was duly afforded and the requirement was complied with, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of the amount recovered before expiry of the appeal period should be directed.

Analysis: No refund direction was warranted because the taxpayer did not institute the writ proceedings within the three-month statutory period available for filing an appeal.

Conclusion: Refund of the recovered amount was declined, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The taxpayer may pursue the statutory appellate remedy within the stipulated period, with the period spent prosecuting the writ excluded for limitation purposes; all issues other than the hearing issue remain open before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxpayer is afforded a hearing after the authority contemplates an adverse determination and the authorised representative makes final submissions, the requirement of an opportunity of hearing is satisfied and does not require a second hearing before issuance of the order.

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable despite the challenges to the predicate allegations, the alleged absence of a money trail, and the claimed invalidity of the reasons to believe; (ii) Whether the adjudication was vitiated by non-supply of relied-upon documents and absence of a scheduled offence; (iii) Whether funds predating the alleged criminal activity could be attached as value of proceeds of crime; (iv) Whether the accounts of the entities operated by the second appellant and the joint accounts operated by the third appellant were liable to attachment; (v) Whether pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts could remain under attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable despite the challenges to the predicate allegations, the alleged absence of a money trail, and the claimed invalidity of the reasons to believe.

Analysis: The material showed that the first appellant was charge-sheeted, his discharge application had been rejected and charges had been framed in the predicate case. The decision concerning appointments under the 2016 recruitment process did not concern the distinct allegations relating to manipulation of TET-2014. Witness statements, digital material, cash deposits, multiple accounts, and routing of funds into investments supported the finding that the attached assets represented proceeds of crime. The appellants did not satisfactorily disclose the source of the cash deposits despite the statutory burden under Sections 8(1) and 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was sustainable against the appellants, except to the limited extent separately directed.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication was vitiated by non-supply of relied-upon documents and absence of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The relied-upon documents had been supplied and a detailed response to the notice was filed, demonstrating an effective opportunity to contest the proceedings. Cognizance had been taken and charges framed in relation to the predicate offences.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice and absence of a scheduled offence was rejected against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether funds predating the alleged criminal activity could be attached as value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Where directly derived proceeds are unavailable or have been laundered, the statutory expression includes property of equivalent value. Since the alleged proceeds substantially exceeded the value of the attached properties and the appellants did not establish the source of substantial cash deposits, attachment of properties acquired before the alleged crime was permissible to secure the value of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Attachment of pre-existing funds as property of equivalent value was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether the accounts of the entities operated by the second appellant and the joint accounts operated by the third appellant were liable to attachment.

Analysis: The evidence supported the finding that the consultancy and online-class entities were used to collect and project illicit funds as business receipts, without effective services being rendered. The third appellant's joint accounts were used to park cash and create fixed deposits and investments; the source of the deposits was not explained.

Conclusion: Attachment of the entity accounts and joint accounts was sustained against the appellants.

Issue (v): Whether pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts could remain under attachment.

Analysis: The attachment included accounts containing retirement-related benefits. Although other balances remained attachable in view of the proceeds of crime found, pension, gratuity and provident-fund components were directed to be segregated and released.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to release of the pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts; attachment of salary, legislative honorarium and other amounts remained operative.

Final Conclusion: The attachment framework and findings concerning proceeds of crime were maintained, with confined relief protecting the identified retirement-benefit amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged proceeds of crime are untraceable and the person fails to explain cash deposits and assets, property of equivalent value may be attached, including property acquired before the scheduled offence.

Issues: Whether properties acquired before or during the alleged crime period could be attached as property of equivalent value of proceeds of crime, and whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving their lawful source.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime encompasses not only tainted property derived from scheduled criminal activity but also property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds are unavailable or untraceable. Consequently, even properties acquired before the crime period, including gifted or ancestral assets, may be attached as equivalent value. The appellant did not dispute the allegations concerning his involvement or the quantified proceeds attributed to him. The explanations concerning loans, gifts, cash deposits, bank withdrawals, property purchases and construction expenditure did not establish lawful sources or explain repayment of loans and utilisation of funds. The statutory burden under Section 24 remained undischarged.

Conclusion: Attachment of the identified properties as equivalent value of proceeds of crime was sustainable, and the appellant failed to prove lawful sources for the assets and transactions in question.

Issues: Whether service-tax credit on clearing charges, export-sales commission, material-handling charges, terminal-handling charges and bank commission charges was admissible as input-service credit.

Analysis: For manufacturer exports, the place of removal extends to the port at which the goods are loaded for export; consequently, services used up to that point for export clearance, handling and terminal operations fall within the scope of input service. Export-sales commission is covered as sales promotion, and the clarificatory explanation concerning sales promotion operates beneficially. Banking and finance services used in carrying on manufacturing activity are also covered input services.

Conclusion: Credit of service tax paid on clearing charges, export-sales commission, material-handling charges, terminal-handling charges and bank commission charges is admissible to the assessee.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority may confirm a tax demand exceeding the demand proposed in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand exceeding that proposed in the show-cause notice. The adjudication order confirmed tax and penalty substantially above the amounts proposed, constituting a patent statutory violation and a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was without jurisdiction insofar as it confirmed a demand exceeding the show-cause notice, and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a summary notice under Section 74(1), lacking specific reasons and unsupported by the relevant documents sought by the taxpayer, could sustain consequential recovery and bank-account attachment proceedings.

Analysis: Section 74(1) requires a notice specifying the tax liability proposed on grounds of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. The impugned notice merely reproduced the statutory provision without stating specific reasons. The relevant documents requested for defending the proceedings were also not supplied, preventing effective participation. A defect in the foundational notice cannot be cured in appellate or revisional proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice, recovery order, and bank-account attachment were invalid and were quashed; the authorities may initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a notice containing specific reasons and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether an order giving effect to an appellate order, including computation of refund interest, is appealable under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether a part refund must be adjusted first against accrued interest or against the principal tax refund for computing interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether an order giving effect to an appellate order, including computation of refund interest, is appealable under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The appeal-effect order was passed pursuant to the appellate order under Sections 254 and 154 and retained the character of an assessment order. Such an order falls within the appealable category under Section 246A(1)(c), notwithstanding that the dispute concerns computation of interest on refund.

Conclusion: The appeal-effect order is appealable under Section 246A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a part refund must be adjusted first against accrued interest or against the principal tax refund for computing interest under Section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: No express statutory mechanism prescribes appropriation of a part refund. The principle in the Explanation to Section 140A(1), as applied to refund computation, requires a payment short of the aggregate tax and interest to be appropriated first towards interest and thereafter towards tax. This concerns interest on the unpaid principal refund and does not amount to impermissible interest on interest.

Conclusion: The part refund must first be adjusted against interest accrued up to the date of that refund, with any balance adjusted against the principal tax refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate remedy against the appeal-effect order and the interest-first method of appropriating part refunds were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a part payment of a statutory refund is made, it is appropriated first towards accrued refund interest and only thereafter towards principal, so that interest under Section 244A continues on the unpaid principal amount.

Issues: (i) Whether the tender condition disqualifying a bidder where its promoter director is a defaulter or associated with non-performing credit facilities is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the executive involvement and control of Sri T. Gautham Pai rendered the bidder ineligible under that tender condition.

Issue (i): Whether the tender condition disqualifying a bidder where its promoter director is a defaulter or associated with non-performing credit facilities is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The condition sought to secure the financial standing and creditworthiness of bidders. In commercial tender evaluation, the credentials of persons controlling a closely held company are relevant alongside the company's separate legal identity. Judicial review of tender conditions is confined to arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or perversity; the tendering authority enjoys contractual freedom and is best placed to assess its commercial requirements. The condition had a rational nexus with financial credibility, and no mala fides or ulterior purpose was established. Further, the bidder had participated unreservedly after knowing the condition and furnished an undertaking of compliance.

Conclusion: The tender condition is valid and is not manifestly arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; the finding is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the executive involvement and control of Sri T. Gautham Pai rendered the bidder ineligible under that tender condition.

Analysis: The expression "Promoter Director" in the tender condition was not confined to the formal promoter entry in annual returns. The applicable statutory concept of promoter includes a person exercising direct or indirect control over company affairs. The material showed that Sri T. Gautham Pai was an original promoter, long-serving managing and whole-time director, and had been reappointed Executive Chairman with extensive strategic, managerial, governance and financial oversight functions. His recategorisation as a professional director did not alter his actual executive authority or control over management and policy decisions.

Conclusion: Sri T. Gautham Pai remained a promoter director exercising de facto control of the bidder, and the bidder was ineligible under the tender condition; the finding is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The tender condition lawfully permits assessment of the financial credentials and control exercised by promoters of a closely held bidding company, and the bidder's claimed recategorisation of its controlling executive does not negate that status.

Ratio Decidendi: In tender matters, a condition linking bidder eligibility to the financial credibility of promoter directors is valid where rationally connected to commercial creditworthiness, and promoter status may be established by de facto control over management or policy decisions rather than formal corporate classification alone.

Issues: Whether interest for delayed filing of returns can be levied on tax amounts credited to the Electronic Cash Ledger on or before the return due date, and whether refund of excess interest could be denied by treating the proviso to Rule 88B as prospective.

Analysis: Amounts deposited in the Electronic Cash Ledger remain available only for discharge of tax liability and are in the nature of advance tax. Interest under Section 50 is compensatory and cannot be charged for the period after tax has already been deposited in that ledger merely because the return was filed later and the ledger was debited on filing. The proviso to Rule 88B accords with this position. The refund claim was rejected without applying the binding ruling that governed the claim, despite that ruling having been specifically brought to the authority's notice. Such rejection was arbitrary and reflected non-application of mind.

Conclusion: Interest is not payable on tax amounts lying in the Electronic Cash Ledger from the return due date until debit upon delayed filing; denial of refund of the resulting excess interest was unsustainable and the refund was directed to be granted with statutory interest.

Issues: Whether the assessee should be granted an extended instalment schedule for payment of outstanding CGST and SGST interest.

Analysis: The authorities had granted four monthly instalments for the outstanding interest. Having regard to the financial burden asserted and the circumstances of the case, an extended period for payment in equal monthly instalments was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The assessee was permitted to clear the outstanding interest by the end of December 2026 in equal monthly instalments; upon default of any instalment, the facility would automatically stand withdrawn.

Issues: Whether detention of a vehicle and goods solely because the e-way bill expired shortly before inspection was lawful where the vehicle had reached the destination city but could not reach the delivery point owing to breakdown.

Analysis: The detention order disclosed no ground other than expiry of the e-way bill. The vehicle had reached Vijayawada within the validity period and was unable to travel the remaining distance of less than eight kilometres because of breakdown. In the absence of tax evasion or any other contravention, invoking the detention power solely on this basis was hyper-technical and improper.

Conclusion: The detention and continuation of proceedings were held improper; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to seek waiver of the statutory pre-deposit on grounds of financial incapacity.

Analysis: In the peculiar facts, an opportunity was warranted for the petitioner to explain the asserted pecuniary condition and inability to make the prescribed pre-deposit before the Appellate Authority. Any such application is to be considered by that Authority in accordance with law. The direction is confined to the facts of the case and is not precedent.

Conclusion: The petitioner may apply to the Appellate Authority for waiver of pre-deposit, and the application may be considered in accordance with law.