Issues: Whether the pending representation seeking refund and statutory interest should be directed to be decided.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the pending representation within 90 days in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner established that he was intercepted before he could declare the gold articles through the Red Channel; (ii) Whether the subsequently retracted statement recorded under Section 108 and the non-availability of CCTV footage undermined the confiscation findings; (iii) Whether the concurrent factual findings warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner established that he was intercepted before he could declare the gold articles through the Red Channel.

Analysis: The Customs Declaration Form recorded a nil declaration, while there was no material supporting the assertion of interception at the aerobridge. The petitioner was an experienced international traveller familiar with customs formalities; the contemporaneous record supported the finding that he crossed the Green Channel without declaring dutiable gold.

Conclusion: The plea that the petitioner was prevented from making the mandatory declaration was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsequently retracted statement recorded under Section 108 and the non-availability of CCTV footage undermined the confiscation findings.

Analysis: The CCTV footage had been automatically erased before the preservation order was made, and its absence did not displace the contemporaneous documentary evidence. The detailed eleven-page statement bore the petitioner's signatures throughout, was corroborated by the signed panchnama, and was retracted only after release on bail without contemporaneous proof of coercion.

Conclusion: The statement was rightly relied upon and the absence of CCTV footage did not invalidate the findings, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the concurrent factual findings warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Judicial review does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of a plausible view of statutory authorities. The findings rested on the declaration form, recovery proceedings, panchnama, statement and surrounding circumstances, and were neither perverse, unsupported by evidence, arbitrary nor affected by jurisdictional error or manifest illegality.

Conclusion: No ground for writ interference with the concurrent findings was made out, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty findings founded on non-declaration of the imported gold remained legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, concurrent factual findings based on relevant contemporaneous evidence are not open to reappreciation unless shown to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by manifest illegality.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax could be invoked on wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges; (ii) Whether wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges were liable to service tax as a declared service.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery of service tax could be invoked on wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade payment. The taxability of the charges was itself uncertain until a decision of the Finance Ministry's high-level committee. The dispute was consequently one of interpretation, and no mala fide intent or other prerequisite for the extended period was established.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; this finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges were liable to service tax as a declared service.

Analysis: Wheeling charges arose from transmission of electricity through the distribution network, an activity related to transmission of electricity. Cross-subsidy surcharges were collected under the electricity-law framework to maintain cross-subsidy obligations and were also related to transmission and distribution of electricity. Neither collection represented consideration for agreeing to tolerate an act, and neither fell within the declared-service provision.

Conclusion: Wheeling charges and cross-subsidy surcharges were not liable to service tax; this finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The demand beyond the normal limitation period cannot be sustained, and no service-tax liability arises on the specified charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period requires proof of a statutorily specified culpable element with intent to evade, and charges intrinsically connected with transmission or distribution of electricity do not constitute a declared service merely because they are collected from power producers or consumers.

Issues: Whether a bank is entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on deposit-insurance premium.

Analysis: Registration with the deposit-insurance corporation and payment of premium are necessary for a bank to render Banking and Other Financial Services. The insurance service received for this purpose is an input service used for providing the output service.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on deposit-insurance premium is admissible to the bank, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a delay of 603 days in filing the revision petition was supported by sufficient cause; (ii) Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour warranted revisional interference.

Issue (i): Whether a delay of 603 days in filing the revision petition was supported by sufficient cause.

Analysis: The explanation that the previous counsel falsely assured the petitioner that a revision had been filed was unsupported by fee receipts, an affidavit of that counsel, a complaint, or particulars of follow-up. The petitioner's sustained participation in the trial and appellate proceedings was inconsistent with the claimed prolonged reliance on unverified oral assurances. Illiteracy did not dispense with the requirement of ordinary diligence. A bona fide and acceptable explanation is necessary before delay can be condoned.

Conclusion: The delay was not supported by sufficient cause; condonation was declined, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour warranted revisional interference.

Analysis: Admission of the cheque, signature, dishonour and the correctness of the notice address activated the presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt or liability. The petitioner was required to establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. His account materially shifted regarding the lender, number of security cheques, repayment amount and manner of payment. The bank record did not establish repayment and indicated that the cheque book remained in his possession after the alleged delivery of security cheques. The absence of any demand for return of the cheques or complaint regarding their alleged misuse further undermined the defence. The concurrent findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence, and the sentence was proportionate.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions remained unrebutted; the conviction and sentence required no interference, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed both on limitation and on the merits, leaving the conviction for cheque dishonour and the sentence intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a dishonoured cheque is admitted and the statutory presumptions arise, a materially inconsistent and unsupported defence does not rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities; delay requires a bona fide and substantiated explanation.

Issues: Whether the bank-guarantee/security conditions imposed for provisional release of imported sugar under investigation for alleged misdeclaration were fair and justified.

Analysis: Provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits conditions adequate to protect revenue, but such conditions cannot amount to a virtual denial of release. The alleged misdeclaration had not been confirmed by any conclusive test report; the goods were not per se prohibited; and the importer was a regular importer. The deposits already made, aggregating about Rs.3 crores, exceeded 30% of the estimated differential duty. In these circumstances, insistence on additional bank guarantee/security based on prospective duty, fine and penalty liabilities was disproportionate.

Conclusion: The bank-guarantee/security requirement was set aside; the importer must furnish the bond stipulated in the impugned orders, upon which the goods must be provisionally released within one week. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether seized goods alleged to be restricted or prohibited could be provisionally released for re-export pending final adjudication.

Analysis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 confers discretion to release any seized goods upon bond, security and appropriate conditions pending adjudication. That discretion must be exercised fairly and reasonably; it cannot be curtailed through a blanket exclusion of goods alleged to be prohibited or restricted. The classification dispute remained pending and could not be conclusively determined at the provisional-release stage. Provisional release is an interim measure that preserves commercial value without precluding subsequent confiscation, duty or penalty proceedings. Re-export would address the policy concern underlying the alleged import restriction, and the investigating agency had raised no objection to considering re-export.

Conclusion: Goods alleged to be restricted or prohibited are capable of provisional release under Section 110A for re-export pending final adjudication, on appropriate security conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether full CENVAT credit was admissible on common input services used for taxable services and for investment in securities, an activity not amounting to a service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable for failure to reverse the proportionate credit.

Issue (i): Whether full CENVAT credit was admissible on common input services used for taxable services and for investment in securities, an activity not amounting to a service.

Analysis: Purchase and sale of securities on own account constituted investment and not trading or any taxable or exempted service. However, the disputed housekeeping, consultancy, communication, courier, advertisement and training services were common office-running input services and were not exclusively attributable to taxable output services. The governing principle applied was that credit is unavailable to the extent common input services are used for an activity outside the scope of manufacture and service; the attributable credit must be segregated and excluded through proportionate reversal.

Conclusion: Full CENVAT credit was not admissible; proportionate credit attributable to the investment activity was required to be reversed. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were invocable for failure to reverse the proportionate credit.

Analysis: The applicable precedent treated non-maintenance of separate records and non-reversal of credit attributable to the non-service activity as justifying extended limitation and consequential penal action. The investment activity, related profits and its proportion in total income were separately recorded and disclosed during investigation, while proportionate credit on common input services was not reversed.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation and imposition of penalties were justified. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Credit attributable to common input services used for a non-service investment activity is unavailable, and the fiscal demand and related consequences remain sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where common input services are used both for taxable output services and an activity that is neither manufacture nor service, CENVAT credit is unavailable to the extent attributable to that non-service activity and must be reversed proportionately.

Issues: (i) Whether a manufacturer may avail CENVAT credit on inputs used by a contractor in fabricating storage tanks and mechanical piping, where the contractor has or has not availed service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for recovery of the disputed credit.

Issue (i): Whether a manufacturer may avail CENVAT credit on inputs used by a contractor in fabricating storage tanks and mechanical piping, where the contractor has or has not availed service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme.

Analysis: Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 requires eligible inputs, receipt in the manufacturer's factory, compliance with prescribed conditions, and valid duty-paying documents. The inputs were received at the appellant's premises, the appellant bore the incidence of duty, and the materials were used in relation to manufacture of excisable products through fabrication of storage tanks and piping. Credit is attached to the inputs and their use, rather than ownership of the goods or the identity of the person undertaking fabrication.

Analysis: Where the contractor did not avail abatement, the statutory conditions for credit stood satisfied and there was no legal basis to deny the manufacturer credit merely because the contractor used the inputs. However, where the contractor opted for service-tax abatement under the works contract composition scheme, the scheme incorporated the value of goods in the concessional taxation arrangement and barred credit to the contractor. Allowing the manufacturer credit on the same inputs would result in an impermissible double benefit.

Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on inputs where the contractor did not avail service-tax abatement, but is not entitled to such credit where the contractor availed abatement under the works contract composition scheme. The issue is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for recovery of the disputed credit.

Analysis: The appellant regularly filed statutory returns, underwent departmental audits, and supplied the documents and information sought. The prescribed returns did not require disclosure of the particular use of inputs. In these circumstances, failure by the department to scrutinise available records or issue notices within time could not establish wilful suppression, fraud, collusion, or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation is not invocable. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit liability requires re-quantification by excluding the time-barred demand and by allowing credit only for inputs not covered by the contractor's abatement benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer satisfying the CENVAT credit conditions may claim credit for inputs used through a contractor, but cannot claim credit where the same inputs have already yielded the contractor a concessional works-contract abatement benefit; extended limitation requires proof of wilful suppression or equivalent intent.

Issues: Whether rejection of the belated GST appeal for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement should be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, having regard to the alleged recoveries from the electronic ledgers.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond limitation and the amount deposited at its filing did not meet the mandatory pre-deposit requirement. The alleged prior recoveries required verification. A fresh opportunity was therefore directed, conditional upon deposit of 50% of the disputed tax in cash, after adjustment of verified amounts already recovered or paid, and submission of a reply with supporting documents.

Conclusion: The rejection order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to compliance with the stipulated deposit and reply requirements.

Issues: Whether the credit received as an advance from a related corporate entity was satisfactorily explained for purposes of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: For a credit to be accepted, the assessee must establish the creditor's identity and creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. Although the creditor's identity was established through its corporate status, PAN and address, no material established its capacity to advance more than Rs. 25 crore. Repayment of the amount during the same year, by itself, did not establish genuineness, particularly where no business purpose for the advance was shown and the funds were placed in short-term deposits before repayment with a mark-up. The explanation concerning seizure of records and the circumstances of the surviving director did not cure the absence of evidence regarding the transaction's purpose, creditworthiness and genuineness.

Conclusion: The credit was not satisfactorily explained under Section 68; the deletion of the addition was unsustainable and the addition was restored, in favour of the Revenue.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the GSTAT.

Issues: Whether sale proceeds from the inherited residential property were assessable as income from other sources or as capital gains, and whether the assessee was entitled to indexed cost and deduction for investment in a new residential property.

Analysis: The documentary material, including title-related records, co-operative society membership, transfer documentation, inheritance, possession and the absence of any ownership claim by the company allegedly providing the original consideration, supported the assessee's ownership. The conclusion that the deceased husband was merely a nominee rested on an unverified signature comparison and a declaration which was not conclusive when read with the remaining evidence. Further, gross consideration received on transfer of immovable property could not be assessed under the residuary head merely because ownership was disputed, without establishing that it was taxable income under that head.

Conclusion: The property was a capital asset in the hands of the assessee or her deceased husband; its sale proceeds are assessable under the head Capital gains and not Income from other sources. The additions were deleted, and the assessee's deduction claim is to be allowed after arithmetical verification.

Issues: Whether statutorily recognised IGST refund claims may be denied because of technical errors in the online customs system.

Analysis: A statutory entitlement to refund under the respective GST enactments cannot be curtailed merely because the online portal has generated technical mismatches or does not permit manual sanction. The respondent remains obliged to process refund claims in accordance with the applicable GST enactments.

Conclusion: Denial of the IGST refund claims solely on account of portal-related technical issues is unsustainable; the claims must be processed manually on physical documents and appropriate refund orders passed.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income is leviable where no return was filed within the prescribed time, but income disclosed in response to reassessment notice was accepted without further addition.

Analysis: Section 270A(2)(b) deems income to be under-reported where no return has been furnished and the assessed income exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Section 270A(3)(i)(b) quantifies such under-reported income in the case of a non-corporate assessee by reference to assessed income and the maximum non-taxable amount. Filing a return only after notice under Section 148 does not cure the original failure to furnish a return. The acceptance of the income returned in reassessment, without an addition over that returned income, is not determinative under Section 270A(2)(b). Deduction of tax at source and departmental availability of income information do not remove the statutory obligation to file a return. The assessee did not establish applicability of any exclusion under Section 270A(6).

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 270A(7) was validly leviable; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the plaint seeking declaration of property as joint family property was liable to rejection as barred by Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: At the stage of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, only the plaint averments and documents annexed to it may be considered. The pleadings stated that the property was acquired in the name of a son out of the nucleus of joint family income and was held as joint family property. Such assertions did not, on their face, disclose a benami transaction. The statutory definition also excludes property held by a Karta or member of a Hindu undivided family for family benefit out of known family sources, and property acquired in the name of a child from known sources of the individual. A benami objection could be raised and established at trial, but could not sustain rejection of the plaint at the threshold.

Conclusion: The plaint was not barred by the prohibition against benami claims and could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint cannot be rejected as pursuing a benami claim unless its own averments and annexed documents plainly disclose a transaction falling within the statutory definition of benami transaction.

Issues: (i) Whether the 918-day delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned; (ii) Whether interest earned by a co-operative housing society on deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the 918-day delay in filing the first appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: Section 249(3) permits admission of a delayed appeal upon sufficient cause. The explanations concerning changes in the managing committee, delayed elections, post-pandemic operational difficulties and lack of timely tax assistance were assessed through the justice-oriented approach applicable to limitation provisions. In the absence of mala fides or a deliberate dilatory strategy, substantial justice prevails over technical lapse.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the first appeal was condoned, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest earned by a co-operative housing society on deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(d) allows deduction of interest or dividend received from investments with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank remains a species of co-operative society for this purpose. Section 80P(4) excludes a co-operative bank from claiming deduction under section 80P itself, but does not deny another co-operative society deduction on interest earned from investments made with such bank.

Conclusion: Interest earned from deposits with the co-operative banks qualified for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), and the disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's first appeal is to be adjudicated on merits, and its claimed deduction for interest from investments with co-operative banks is allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: A co-operative bank is a co-operative society for section 80P(2)(d), and section 80P(4) does not curtail a co-operative society's deduction for interest received from investments with a co-operative bank.

Issues: Whether the works contract services supplied for canal soil work and construction of a culvert were exempt from service tax.

Analysis: The documentary material, including departmental certificates and tax records, established that the services comprised soil work on a canal and construction of a culvert in connection with irrigation works. Such services fell within the exemption for construction-related services provided to Government in relation to canals, dams or other irrigation works under Serial No. 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Conclusion: The services were exempt from service tax; the tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether amounts received towards sale of developed plots, including advances originally received under a flat-sale scheme, were taxable as Site Formation and Development Service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand and consequential penalties.

Issue (i): Whether amounts received towards sale of developed plots, including advances originally received under a flat-sale scheme, were taxable as Site Formation and Development Service.

Analysis: Service tax under the charging provision applied only to services. The statutory definition excluded a transfer of title in immovable property by sale. The negative-list regime also excluded trading in goods. The evidence established that agricultural land was developed and sold as plots, while no material disproved that flats were never sold and advances were refunded or adjusted towards plot sales. Development undertaken before sale formed part of the sale of the developed immovable property and was not a service rendered to purchasers.

Conclusion: Receipts towards sale of developed plots were not consideration for taxable Site Formation and Development Service; the demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand and consequential penalties.

Analysis: The relevant information was available in statutory records and the balance sheet, and returns had been filed with only brief delay. No evidence established clandestine activity, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or deliberate intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment or a departmental interpretative difference could not justify the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was invalid and the show-cause notice was time-barred; consequential penalties on the company and its directors could not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, interest, late-filing penalty and penalties imposed upon the company and co-noticees were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Sale of land developed by the seller constitutes transfer of immovable property rather than a taxable service, and extended limitation requires proof of a deliberate act to evade tax beyond mere non-payment or delayed filing.

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

Analysis: Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the impugned adjudication order. The petitioner had not exhausted that remedy. The time spent pursuing the writ petition was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes if an appeal is filed within 30 days.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained because the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal; the conclusion is neutral as to the underlying fiscal demand.