Issues: (i) Whether capital gains on sale of a redeveloped flat received as permanent alternate accommodation are short-term or long-term capital gains; (ii) Whether indexed cost of acquisition and exemption for investment in another residential house are available on such sale.

Issue (i): Whether capital gains on sale of a redeveloped flat received as permanent alternate accommodation are short-term or long-term capital gains.

Analysis: A redevelopment arrangement preserves and substitutes the existing owner's proprietary rights in the old premises; it does not extinguish those rights and create a wholly fresh capital asset upon execution of the permanent alternate accommodation agreement. The agreement merely identifies the premises allotted pursuant to enforceable rights that had already crystallised under the redevelopment arrangement. The original area, additional area available under redevelopment, purchased additional area, and area derived through transfer of pre-existing rights could not be artificially separated into new assets. Even if the holding period were reckoned from the development agreement rather than acquisition of the original flat, the asset had been held well beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The gain from sale of the redeveloped flat is assessable as long-term capital gain, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether indexed cost of acquisition and exemption for investment in another residential house are available on such sale.

Analysis: Since the sale resulted in long-term capital gain and the capital gain was invested in another residential house within the prescribed period, the consequential denial of indexation and residential-house exemption could not stand.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to indexed cost of acquisition and exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition based on short-term capital-gain treatment is deleted, with consequential computation of long-term capital gain, indexation, and residential-house exemption in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a redevelopment arrangement, permanent alternate accommodation is a continuation of pre-existing ownership rights, and its holding period is reckoned from the crystallisation of those enforceable rights rather than from the later accommodation agreement.

Issues: (i) Whether the Indian subsidiary could be treated as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment and business income attributed to the foreign assessee; (ii) Whether interest on income-tax refund could be assessed without prior notice and despite the assessee's claim of non-receipt.

Issue (i): Whether the Indian subsidiary could be treated as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment and business income attributed to the foreign assessee.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing order concerning the Indian subsidiary accepted its declared arm's-length price without adjustment. The identical issue for an earlier assessment year had been resolved in favour of the assessee, and the consequential order had deleted the addition based on Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment. No contrary decision of a higher forum was shown.

Conclusion: The Indian subsidiary could not be treated as a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment for attributing business income to the assessee; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on income-tax refund could be assessed without prior notice and despite the assessee's claim of non-receipt.

Analysis: The interest component was not included in the show-cause notice and was introduced in the draft assessment order. The lower authorities had not examined the assessee's claim that no refund interest was received during the relevant year.

Conclusion: The interest issue is remitted for fresh consideration; if the assessee had not received the interest during the year, it cannot be assessed as income.

Final Conclusion: The addition founded on Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment is deleted, while the refund-interest question requires fresh factual adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Indian affiliate's relevant transactions have been accepted at arm's length and an identical issue has been conclusively resolved in the assessee's favour, income cannot be attributed to the foreign enterprise on the basis that the affiliate constitutes a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment.

Issues: Whether the orders permitting retention of frozen bank funds, crypto assets and seized material under Section 17(4) could stand without specific findings on the appellants' role, ownership and control of the assets, and their nexus with alleged proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The retention orders did not substantively address the appellants' explanations that they operated cryptocurrency exchange platforms, the extent of information and control available to them, the ownership of assets held in pool wallets, the position of third-party customers, or the alleged connection between the frozen assets and proceeds of crime. The Adjudicating Authority was required to deal with these material questions and record specific, reasoned findings after allowing both sides to substantiate their claims.

Conclusion: The retention orders could not be sustained in the absence of reasoned findings on the material issues and required fresh determination by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal could remand the service-tax appeal for factual examination despite the asserted settled precedent concerning construction of residential quarters for a government-owned police housing corporation.

Analysis: The material fact requiring verification was limited to whether the petitioner had undertaken construction for Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Limited. The applicable precedent treated that government-owned corporation as a government organisation and excluded construction services supplied to it from the charge under construction of residential complex service. A remand to the adjudicating authority, instead of deciding the appeal on that limited factual basis and applying the precedent, would cause avoidable further litigation.

Conclusion: The prior remand order could not be sustained; the appeal must be decided afresh on merits by a reasoned order.

Issues: Whether parallel Central and State GST proceedings concerning the same subject matter may continue, and the procedure for determining the authority competent to adjudicate.

Analysis: The statutory bar applies where formal adjudicatory proceedings, commenced through show-cause notices, concern an identical or overlapping tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from the same contravention. The concerned tax authorities must verify any asserted overlap and decide between themselves which authority will continue; the designated authority must then adjudicate upon the taxpayer's response and supporting material by a speaking, reasoned order.

Conclusion: If the Central and State notices concern the same subject matter, only the authority designated inter se may proceed with adjudication; the petitioner must first submit replies and supporting documents to both authorities.

Issues: Whether input tax credit can be denied to a purchasing dealer who paid GST to the registered selling dealer, solely because the selling dealer failed to file returns and deposit the tax.

Analysis: Sections 16(2)(c) and 16(2)(d) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were applied in accordance with the binding interpretation that protects a bona fide purchasing dealer holding a valid tax invoice and having paid the tax to the supplier. The supplier admitted receipt of the GST but non-filing of returns. The purchaser's input tax credit could not be disallowed merely due to the supplier's default; recovery action lies against the defaulting supplier.

Conclusion: Denial of input tax credit and the consequential GST demand against the purchasing dealer were unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of a partner's capital contribution as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was sustainable where the assessee produced documentary evidence of the contribution through banking instruments.

Analysis: The partner had been inducted into the firm, and the credited amount was reflected in the partner's capital account and the firm's balance sheet. The assessee's contemporaneous explanation, pay-in slips, demand-draft details and partner-account records established that the contribution was received through banking instruments. These materials were not controverted. The absence of a separate confirmation from the partner did not displace the documentary evidence or justify treating the contribution as the firm's unexplained income. The authorities failed to consider the material evidence and incorrectly concluded that the assessee had not discharged its onus.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether allotment of permanent alternate accommodation under a registered redevelopment agreement, before completion of construction and delivery of possession, attracts Section 56(2)(x) as receipt of immovable property without consideration.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(x) is attracted only upon actual receipt of immovable property in the relevant previous year. Registration of a redevelopment agreement, while construction remains incomplete and no possession or enjoyment of the alternate premises is available, creates only a contractual right to obtain the premises in future and does not amount to receipt of immovable property. Further, allotment of permanent alternate accommodation in exchange for surrender of tenancy rights is supported by valuable reciprocal consideration and is not a gratuitous receipt. The charging deeming provision must be construed strictly and cannot be extended notionally beyond its express requirement of receipt.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(x) does not apply to the allotment of the alternate premises; the addition based on their stamp-duty value is liable to be deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for belated furnishing of the tax audit report could be sustained where the report was available to, and considered by, the Assessing Officer before completion of reassessment.

Analysis: Although the tax audit report was not furnished by the prescribed due date, it was filed during reassessment proceedings and was expressly considered while completing reassessment. No addition was made in reassessment. The delay was therefore a technical or venial breach causing no prejudice to the Revenue, and the coordinate-bench decisions on materially identical facts applied.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 271B was not sustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether aluminium formwork structures and accessories imported for in-situ construction are classifiable under CTH 76109010 as aluminium structures, rather than under CTH 84806000 as moulds, and are consequently eligible for the claimed customs exemption.

Analysis: The imported aluminium panels and accessories function as shuttering and support at the construction site while concrete sets in situ; they are removed after the permanent building structure is formed. The HSN Explanatory Notes applicable to heading 7610 include equipment for shuttering, and the goods do not constitute moulds producing separate end-products of concrete. The binding coordinate-bench rulings on materially identical goods were applicable.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under CTH 76109010 and not CTH 84806000; the claimed exemption benefit is consequently available. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalties for alleged illegal importation could be sustained solely on a subsequently retracted statement allegedly obtained under coercion, without evidence of recovery of imported Chinese firecrackers or other corroborative investigation.

Analysis: The allegation of illegal import was founded only on the appellant's statement. No Chinese-origin firecrackers imported by the appellant were recovered, and no independent investigation or corroborative evidence established illegal importation. The subsequent retraction of the statement, asserted to have been procured under coercion and duress, was not duly addressed by the lower authorities. The allegation consequently remained unproved.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 112(a), 112(b) and 114AA were unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether Vistacell H is classifiable under Tariff Item 2309 90 90 as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding; (ii) If not, the correct tariff classification of Vistacell H.

Issue (i): Whether Vistacell H is classifiable under Tariff Item 2309 90 90 as a preparation of a kind used in animal feeding.

Analysis: Classification is governed by Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation, read with the tariff terms, Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes. Heading 2309 covers complete feeds, supplementary feeds, premixes and preparations generally comprising mixtures of substances. Although the product is intended for animal nutrition and has nutritional, prebiotic and postbiotic uses, end use alone does not determine classification. Vistacell H is a single-ingredient hydrolysed yeast product, without carriers, added vitamins, minerals, enzymes or other feed ingredients; it is neither a premix nor a compounded feed preparation.

Conclusion: Vistacell H is not classifiable under Tariff Item 2309 90 90. This finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): If not, the correct tariff classification of Vistacell H.

Analysis: The product is derived solely from Saccharomyces cerevisiae and remains hydrolysed inactive whole yeast containing naturally occurring amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, beta-glucans and mannans. Hydrolysis, spray-drying and sieving do not alter its essential character as inactive yeast. Heading 2102 specifically covers inactive yeasts, including those used for animal feeding. Heading 2106 is inapplicable because the goods are not food preparations for human consumption and are specifically covered elsewhere. Heading 3507 is also inapplicable because the finished product is not an enzyme preparation and has no enzyme activity as its essential character. The cited feed-additive instruction does not independently govern tariff classification.

Conclusion: Vistacell H is classifiable under Tariff Item 2102 20 00 as inactive yeasts or other dead single-cell micro-organisms. This finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The product is classified according to its essential character as hydrolysed inactive whole yeast rather than according to its animal-feed use.

Ratio Decidendi: A single-ingredient hydrolysed inactive yeast product, without carriers or added feed components, remains classifiable under the specific heading for inactive yeasts notwithstanding its use as an animal-feed additive.

Issues: Whether the service-tax adjudication order could be sustained where the authorities failed to establish issuance and service of the show-cause notice required under Section 73(1).

Analysis: Service of a notice requiring the assessee to show cause is mandatory before recovery proceedings under Section 73(1). Where receipt of the alleged notice was specifically denied, the burden lay on the authorities to prove its issuance and service. The authorities produced neither the alleged notice nor postal receipt, tracking details, or acknowledgment evidencing service. The adjudication consequently proceeded without affording the assessee the statutory opportunity to respond. Since the challenge was confined to non-service and did not deny issuance of the alleged notice, the intervening period from 07.10.2021 was directed to be excluded in computing limitation for fresh action.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement and was quashed. The revenue may issue a fresh show-cause notice, with the specified period excluded for limitation purposes.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was liable to central excise duty as the manufacturer of goods supplied to power supply corporations; (ii) Whether personal penalty was imposable on the authorised representative.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was liable to central excise duty as the manufacturer of goods supplied to power supply corporations.

Analysis: Manufacture had to be determined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and not merely from representations made to customers for obtaining orders. The evidence showed that the assessee lacked functional manufacturing infrastructure, machinery and testing facilities, while the goods were purchased and sold as trading goods or obtained in limited quantities through job workers acting on a principal-to-principal basis. The Revenue produced no independent evidence of actual manufacture by the assessee. The earlier decision concerning the same assessee and substantially identical facts was applicable. Suspicion arising from declarations to power supply corporations could not substitute proof of manufacture.

Conclusion: The assessee was not the manufacturer of the disputed goods; the duty demand, interest and penalty against the assessee are unsustainable and are set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalty was imposable on the authorised representative.

Analysis: Since the underlying duty demand was unsustainable, there was no basis to regard the goods as liable to confiscation. The authorised representative acted bona fide and lacked knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules is not imposable on the authorised representative and is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order cannot sustain the fiscal liabilities founded on the allegation that the assessee manufactured the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A representation of manufacturer status to secure commercial orders, without independent proof of actual manufacture under the statutory definition, cannot fasten central excise liability on a trader.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal solely on limitation, where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, warranted interference.

Analysis: Uploading the show-cause notice only in the specified portal tab without separate intimation prevented the petitioner from responding. This amounted to a prima facie breach of the principles of natural justice. Since the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on limitation without adjudicating its merits, the circumstances warranted intervention.

Conclusion: The limitation-based appellate dismissal and the adjudication order were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered on merits after affording a hearing.

Issues: Whether a penalty order founded on statements of third parties can be sustained where the assessee's specific request to cross-examine those persons was denied.

Analysis: The penalty order relied on the statements of two identified persons, although the assessee had expressly sought their cross-examination in the reply to the show-cause notice. Denial of cross-examination in these circumstances deprived the assessee of a meaningful opportunity to rebut material relied upon for imposition of penalty and constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The penalty order and consequential demands were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after supplying relevant documents, granting personal hearing and cross-examination, and permitting a fresh reply.

Issues: Whether the assessment order was vitiated because no opportunity of personal hearing was provided before its issuance.

Analysis: The show-cause notice did not fix a date for personal hearing, and no hearing was afforded at any stage before the order was made. This breached the mandatory hearing requirement and the principles of natural justice. The slight delay in invoking writ jurisdiction did not warrant denial of relief in view of that procedural violation.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated for breach of the mandatory requirement of personal hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in an investigation alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit.

Analysis: The statutory power of arrest for GST offences is not automatic and requires objective reasons to believe founded on tangible material. The gravity of an economic offence is relevant but cannot alone justify deprivation of personal liberty; arrest must be necessary to secure a fair investigation, including to prevent abscondence, evidence tampering, witness influence or obstruction. The adjudication of tax liability and prosecution operate in distinct fields, so pending tax proceedings do not bar investigation. However, substantial documentary, financial and electronic material had already been secured; the petitioners' identities and establishments were known; no material showed a real risk of abscondence or tampering; and they undertook to cooperate. The investigative objectives did not establish that custodial interrogation was indispensable at that stage.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners, subject to conditions requiring surrender, execution of bonds, cooperation with the investigation, travel restrictions and non-interference with evidence or witnesses.

Issues: Whether the ex parte GST adjudication and appellate orders could stand where the show-cause notice and adjudication order were uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notices and Orders", depriving the taxpayer of knowledge of the proceedings and an effective hearing.

Analysis: Uploading the relevant notice and order only under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab resulted in the petitioner lacking knowledge of the proceedings. This procedural deficiency denied an effective opportunity of hearing and violated the principles of natural justice. Recovery of the entire disputed tax further supported granting a fresh hearing, and the asserted finality of the appellate proceedings could not override the identified procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order, appellate order and consequential recovery notices were set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after granting the petitioner a personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the unsecured loan received by the assessee was liable to be treated as unexplained cash credit.

Analysis: The lender's subsequent restoration in the corporate register, its income-tax return for the relevant assessment year, GST returns, bank statements and substantial electricity consumption established that it was an active manufacturing concern during the relevant period. These materials established the lender's identity and financial capacity, while receipt of the loan through normal banking channels established the genuineness of the transaction.

Conclusion: The assessee established the identity and creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the loan transaction; the addition for unexplained cash credit was deleted.