Issues: (i) Whether a service provider could claim input tax credit in its VAT return for carry forward as transitional credit through Form TRAN-1; (ii) Whether a VAT assessing officer could raise VAT demand, interest and penalty in respect of credit carried forward in Form TRAN-1 under the GST regime.

Issue (i): Whether a service provider could claim input tax credit in its VAT return for carry forward as transitional credit through Form TRAN-1.

Analysis: The assessee was engaged solely in providing oil and gas services and had no taxable turnover or output tax liability under the VAT regime. It was consequently ineligible to claim VAT input tax credit. Credit entered in the VAT return could not be carried forward as transitional credit through Form TRAN-1 upon commencement of GST.

Conclusion: The input tax credit claimed in the VAT return and sought to be carried forward through Form TRAN-1 was not admissible. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a VAT assessing officer could raise VAT demand, interest and penalty in respect of credit carried forward in Form TRAN-1 under the GST regime.

Analysis: Although the VAT credit was inadmissible, the carry-forward claim in Form TRAN-1 fell for consideration under the GST framework. A VAT assessment could not be used to create a demand, with interest and penalty, for transitional credit claimed under GST; the matter could be communicated to the competent GST authority for action under the applicable GST Rules.

Conclusion: The VAT assessing officer lacked jurisdiction to raise the demand, interest and penalty for the Form TRAN-1 transitional-credit claim. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disallowance of the VAT input tax credit remains operative, but recovery relating to the GST transitional-credit claim cannot be imposed through VAT assessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority exercising VAT assessment jurisdiction cannot demand tax, interest or penalty for a transitional input-tax-credit claim made under the GST regime, even where the underlying VAT credit is inadmissible.

Issues: Validity of reassessment notices issued on the basis of the Shah Commission report.

Analysis: The reassessment notices were admittedly issued consequent to the Shah Commission report concerning illegal mining. A coordinate-bench decision on a similar factual setting, which had applied relevant High Court precedent, supported the challenge to such reassessment action.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and all consequential proceedings were quashed, in favour of the assessees.

Issues: (i) Whether an eight-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to be condoned; (ii) Whether trolley, lifting tackle, trailer, cabinet, workbench, rack and table captively consumed in the factory were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995.

Issue (i): Whether an eight-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was only eight days and fell within the condonable period available to the Commissioner (Appeals).

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

Issue (ii): Whether trolley, lifting tackle, trailer, cabinet, workbench, rack and table captively consumed in the factory were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995.

Analysis: The goods were identical to shop-floor equipment considered in the assessee's earlier case and in a subsequent appellate order that remained operative. Such goods, classifiable under Chapter 94, were not excluded from the notification and were used in the factory in or in relation to manufacture of final products. Judicial discipline required following the binding prior determination on the same issue.

Conclusion: The captively consumed shop-floor equipment qualified for the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. dated 16.03.1995, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed central excise duty demand founded on denial of the captive-consumption exemption could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Captively consumed shop-floor equipment used in or in relation to manufacture qualifies as capital goods for Notification No. 67/95-C.E. where its tariff classification is not excluded, and an operative prior decision on the identical issue must be followed.

Issues: Whether input tax credit could be allowed where the purchasing dealer failed to establish the actual movement and receipt of goods through independent evidence.

Analysis: The burden to prove the correctness and genuineness of an input tax credit claim rests on the purchasing dealer. Tax invoices, weighbridge slips, goods-received notes and payment particulars were insufficient where the slips and notes were generated by the assessee, did not identify the suppliers, and no transport receipts corresponding to the stated vehicle numbers were produced. The concurrent factual findings that there was no independent evidence of actual movement of goods warranted application of the requirement that the claimant establish genuine transactions and physical delivery of the goods.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to input tax credit because it failed to discharge the burden of proving genuine purchases and actual movement of goods.

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature and Document Identification Number is valid; (ii) Whether delayed challenges to patently irregular GST assessment orders may be entertained where service is claimed through portal upload.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment order lacking the assessing officer's signature and Document Identification Number is valid.

Analysis: The absence of the assessing officer's signature is an inherent defect which cannot be cured under Sections 160 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Earlier decisions treating absence of a Document Identification Number as invalidating the order were also followed.

Conclusion: The unsigned assessment order is invalid and cannot stand, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delayed challenges to patently irregular GST assessment orders may be entertained where service is claimed through portal upload.

Analysis: Uploading an order on the portal is a recognised mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Nevertheless, considering practical difficulties under the online GST regime and the patent irregularity in the assessment order, delayed writ challenges may be considered on payment of 30% of the disputed tax.

Conclusion: The delayed challenge was entertained conditionally upon deposit of 30% of the disputed tax, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The defective assessment requires fresh determination after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, while preserving all substantive issues for consideration by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order without the assessing officer's signature is inherently invalid, and a delayed challenge to such a patently defective GST order may be entertained on conditions that balance taxpayer hardship with revenue administration.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable through the authorised representative of the political party; (ii) whether the availability of remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and appellate fora under the anti-money-laundering framework barred the writ petition; and (iii) whether interim protection against the ECIR proceedings and freezing order was warranted.

Analysis: The authorisation issued by a member of the National Working Committee was valid because that Committee was the party's highest executive authority. The challenge to the initiation of the ECIR and the alleged arbitrariness of the freezing action could be considered in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternate statutory remedies, particularly as the merits required pleadings. The freezing order recorded analysis of substantial fund transfers to several entities; the legality of those transfers could not be adjudicated at the interim stage. The petitioners also had other unfrozen accounts containing substantial funds, and no prima facie case or balance of convenience supported interim protection.

Outcome: Interim relief was refused, and the matter was directed to proceed on affidavits.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for attempted tax evasion could be imposed where mobile-phone accessories were disclosed in stock-transfer invoices but taxed at the rate applicable to mobile phones; (ii) Whether check-post authorities could determine a disputed classification issue and infer tax-evasion intent.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for attempted tax evasion could be imposed where mobile-phone accessories were disclosed in stock-transfer invoices but taxed at the rate applicable to mobile phones.

Analysis: Penalty requires sufficient material and a specific finding of an attempt to avoid or evade tax. Although accessories were separately taxable under the subsequently settled classification position, that position alone did not establish an intention to evade tax. The stock-transfer invoices expressly disclosed that accessories accompanied the mobile phones; there was consequently neither concealment nor misdeclaration. The unsettled position regarding the applicable tax rate supported the bona fide nature of the transaction.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable for want of established intent to evade tax, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether check-post authorities could determine a disputed classification issue and infer tax-evasion intent.

Analysis: Check-post powers are directed to detecting patent evasion and are not a substitute for regular assessment. Where documents are produced and a bona fide dispute concerns interpretation, taxability, or classification, the matter ordinarily falls for determination by the assessing authority rather than summary penalty proceedings at the check-post.

Conclusion: The check-post authorities could not determine the disputed classification issue at the first instance to sustain the penalty, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty orders founded on the alleged attempted evasion were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A check-post penalty for tax evasion requires demonstrable intent to evade; a bona fide classification dispute accompanied by full disclosure of goods does not establish such intent and should ordinarily be addressed in assessment proceedings.

Issues: Whether an individual can claim credit of tax deducted at source where the corresponding income was earned and offered to tax by a partnership firm.

Analysis: Section 199 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules require TDS credit to be granted to the person in whose hands the corresponding income is assessable. The income from the post-conversion business was offered by the partnership firm, whereas the TDS appeared in the individual's Form 26AS because certain clients continued to quote his PAN. The individual did not offer that related income in his own return. The statutory credit could not consequently be claimed by the individual merely because the deductors had incorrectly reported his PAN. However, since the firm had offered the income to tax, its entitlement to the disputed TDS credit required verification in proceedings initiated in the firm's name.

Conclusion: The individual assessee is not entitled to the disputed TDS credit; the partnership firm may seek the credit through rectification applications, subject to verification of its entitlement.

Issues: Whether interest paid on borrowed funds advanced interest-free to a wholly owned subsidiary for acquisition of land was deductible as incurred on grounds of commercial expediency.

Analysis: The advance was made by the holding company to its newly incorporated special-purpose subsidiary for acquiring industrial land for the group's business. The subsidiary was in its start-up phase, had incurred losses, and was granted an interest holiday under board approval. Documentary material established that the land was ultimately obtained on lease, albeit after delay in regulatory and registration formalities. These facts demonstrated a genuine business purpose and commercial expediency; the allowability of the expenditure had to be assessed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman rather than by requiring immediate profit or interest income.

Conclusion: The interest expenditure was allowable under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether RoDTEP duty credit could be denied for the petitioner's qualifying exports during the relevant export period.

Analysis: The claim was governed by the RoDTEP framework under the Foreign Trade Policy and the relevant notifications. The substantially identical issue had already been resolved in favour of exporters where exports were made after fulfilling the applicable conditions. The respondents conceded that the present claim was squarely covered by that decision.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to RoDTEP duty credit for the qualifying exports; denial of the benefit was impermissible.

Issues: Whether foreign-bank charges deducted from export proceeds are consideration for a service received by the assessee in India and liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: The foreign bank provided letter-of-credit and remittance-related services to the overseas buyer, its client. The assessee had no direct contractual or service-recipient relationship with that foreign bank; any service received by it was from its Indian banker, with which the export documents were negotiated. Since both the foreign service provider and its recipient were outside India, the relevant service was outside the taxable territory. The remittance of foreign currency and deductions retained by the foreign bank did not establish receipt of a taxable service by the assessee in India.

Conclusion: Foreign bank charges were not consideration for any service supplied to the assessee in India; consequently, no service tax was payable by the assessee under the reverse charge mechanism.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned and the appeal entertained for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: Although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation framework under Section 107, the circumstances preventing timely filing were found to be beyond the petitioner's control. Denial of adjudication on merits in those circumstances would cause grave injury and prejudice. The consistent approach permitting delayed appeals to be considered on merits was applied.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and adjudicate the appeal on merits if filed within the stipulated period.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for misreporting of income could be sustained when the show cause notices and penalty order did not disclose the basis or reasons for characterising the under-reporting as misreporting; (ii) Whether the computation of tax sought to be evaded for imposing penalty required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for misreporting of income could be sustained when the show cause notices and penalty order did not disclose the basis or reasons for characterising the under-reporting as misreporting.

Analysis: Section 270A distinguishes misreporting from under-reporting and prescribes a substantially higher penalty for misreporting, while Section 270AA excludes immunity where misreporting is involved. Misreporting entails misrepresentation or other bad faith and is exhaustively confined to the categories specified in Section 270A(9). In view of these serious consequences, the notice must identify the factual basis on which misreporting is alleged, enabling a meaningful response. The notices either made a bare assertion of misreporting or merely referred to Section 270A, and the penalty order recorded misreporting without reasons.

Conclusion: The penalty order characterising the income as misreported was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the computation of tax sought to be evaded for imposing penalty required reconsideration.

Analysis: The assessed normal income reflected in the intimation under Section 143(1) and the assessment order under Section 143(3) differed only to the stated extent, whereas the penalty was computed by reference to the entire assessed normal income. The recorded figure of tax sought to be evaded therefore required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The computation underlying the penalty could not be sustained and requires reconsideration, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The invalid penalty proceedings do not preclude fresh proceedings in accordance with law, with all contentions remaining available to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for misreporting of income cannot be imposed unless the statutory basis and factual particulars establishing misrepresentation or other bad faith are specifically disclosed in the notice and supported by reasons in the penalty order.

Issues: Whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss on year-end restatement of an external commercial borrowing used for capital purposes and subsequently converted into equity shares is allowable as a revenue deduction.

Analysis: The borrowing was obtained from the parent company for acquisition of capital assets and therefore belonged to the capital field. The exchange loss arising from restatement of that liability likewise retained a capital character. The materially identical issue in the assessee's own earlier assessment years had been decided on the same basis, and no distinguishing facts or change in law was established.

Conclusion: The foreign exchange fluctuation loss is a capital loss and is not allowable as a business-revenue deduction; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order-in-original despite delay.

Analysis: The petitioner elected to pursue an appeal and sought consideration of any delay. No merits of the challenge to the order-in-original were adjudicated. Liberty was granted to file an appeal with the statutory pre-deposit and a delay-condonation application; the appellate authority was left to assess delay and, if satisfied, decide the appeal in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The petitioner may avail the appellate remedy, with consideration of delay left to the appellate authority.

Issues: Whether assessments initiated under Section 153C on the basis of one common satisfaction note for multiple assessment years were valid.

Analysis: A separate satisfaction note was required for each assessment year. The Assessing Officer had instead recorded a common satisfaction note for six assessment years. This defect vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction and initiation of proceedings under Section 153C.

Conclusion: The Section 153C assessments were invalid and were annulled in favour of the assessees.

Issues: (i) Whether interest paid to partners on their running capital accounts was allowable despite debit balances at the beginning and end of the year and credit through year-end journal entries; (ii) Whether disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) was sustainable where tax had been deducted at source and the recipient had recognised the income.

Issue (i): Whether interest paid to partners on their running capital accounts was allowable despite debit balances at the beginning and end of the year and credit through year-end journal entries.

Analysis: The partnership deed authorised interest on partners' capital accounts. The documentary record established that interest was computed on daily running credit balances after accounting for transactions and reversal entries, rather than solely on opening or closing balances. The Revenue identified no error in the running-account computations. Under the mercantile system, accrual of interest liability may validly be recognised by crediting the payee's account; a journal entry at year-end does not by itself render the expenditure fictitious. The recipient partners had also recognised the interest income and tax had been deducted at source.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest paid to the partners was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance of interest under section 40(a)(ia) was sustainable where tax had been deducted at source and the recipient had recognised the income.

Analysis: Form No. 16A established deduction of tax at source on the interest credited to the lender, and the recipient's records established recognition of the corresponding income. No finding disputed the genuineness of the certificate or deposit of tax. Section 40(a)(ia) does not impose a separate requirement that accrued interest, once credited and subjected to tax deduction, must also be transferred through banking channels. Further, where the recipient has included the sum in its taxable income and discharged tax liability, disallowance in the payer's hands is unavailable.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The interest expenditure to the partners and the interest paid to the lender were held allowable on the evidentiary record.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest liability accrued under mercantile accounting cannot be disallowed merely because it is credited through year-end journal entries or because opening and closing account balances are debit, where daily running credit balances, contractual authority, and supporting records establish the liability; disallowance for failure to deduct tax is unavailable where deduction and deposit of tax are established and the recipient has offered the income to tax.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment and passing on of input tax credit.

Analysis: The investigation stood completed and a complaint had been filed; the prosecution rested substantially on documentary evidence. No charge had been framed, the trial before the Magistrate was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, and the maximum punishment under the invoked offence was five years. The applicant had remained in custody since 12.02.2026 and had no criminal antecedents. No exceptional circumstance, risk of absconding, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or subversion of justice was shown. Pending assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 had not been initiated, though criminal proceedings could independently continue. Presumption of innocence, personal liberty, and the requirement that pre-trial detention not become punitive supported release on bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail, subject to conditions safeguarding the trial and investigation.

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated after four years of the relevant assessment year was valid where the assessee had disclosed interest expenditure and investments during the original scrutiny assessment and the proposed disallowance was based on re-examination of the same records.

Analysis: The original assessment was completed after scrutiny, during which the disallowance issue had been specifically examined. The recorded reasons did not identify any failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material facts, nor did they rely on tangible material obtained subsequent to the original assessment. The proposed reassessment rested on a fresh examination of the disclosed interest expenditure and investments and was therefore founded on a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.