Issues: Whether rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing revised returns for claiming exemption on ex gratia compensation was sustainable.

Analysis: The application required a pragmatic and liberal consideration of genuine hardship. Consistent relief granted to identically placed retirees, including condonation of delay, had not been properly considered, notwithstanding that those decisions had attained finality.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the undisclosed investment in the residential house was correctly determined; (ii) whether the addition for unexplained cash receipts was sustainable; (iii) whether unexplained cash receipts could be telescoped against undisclosed investment in the residential house; (iv) whether addition for fixed deposit receipts could be based on their maturity value rather than the amount invested.

Issue (i): Whether the undisclosed investment in the residential house was correctly determined.

Analysis: The adoption of an investment value of Rs. 85 lakh was arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence. The insurance proposal was only an estimate, while the assessee's disclosed estimated value of Rs. 70 lakh was accepted. Since Rs. 46,80,692 was recorded in the books and the claimed Rs. 9 lakh expenditure on the old land and building was not substantiated, the unexplained investment was to be computed at Rs. 23,19,308.

Conclusion: The house-property addition was reduced to Rs. 23,19,308, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for unexplained cash receipts was sustainable.

Analysis: The addition rested on concurrent factual findings, and no basis was established for interference with the finding that the diary entries represented unexplained cash receipts.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 26,21,000 for unexplained cash receipts was sustained, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether unexplained cash receipts could be telescoped against undisclosed investment in the residential house.

Analysis: No material established that the house investment and the cash reflected in the seized diary related to the same period. The acquisition of the residential plot pre-dated the search by several years, defeating the claimed nexus necessary for telescoping.

Conclusion: Telescoping was rightly denied, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether addition for fixed deposit receipts could be based on their maturity value rather than the amount invested.

Analysis: The seized material showed unaccounted deposits aggregating Rs. 40,665. The figure of Rs. 82,567 represented the maturity value and not the actual unexplained investment.

Conclusion: The FDR addition was restricted to Rs. 40,665, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The undisclosed house investment and FDR additions were reduced, while the unexplained cash-receipts addition and denial of telescoping were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Telescoping of unexplained income requires a demonstrated nexus in source and period between the income and the investment; an unexplained investment must be assessed on the actual amount invested, not on subsequent maturity value.

Issues: Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on stamp-duty value should be computed using the subsequently received valuation report.

Analysis: The assessee disputed adoption of the stamp-duty value and sought a valuation reference. Although the assessment was completed before the valuation report became available, the report subsequently determined a lower fair market value. The assessment itself contemplated modification if the valuation authority determined a lesser value. The differential between the valuation determined and the declared consideration was required to be restricted to the assessee's 50% share.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was restricted to Rs. 8,73,650, being the assessee's share of the difference between the valuation report value and the purchase consideration, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether common area maintenance charges paid by mall occupants are subject to tax deduction at source as contractual payments or as rent.

Analysis: Common area maintenance charges represented consideration for maintenance, housekeeping, security and related facilities, rather than consideration for the use of premises or equipment. Applying the binding coordinate-bench decisions in the assessee's own earlier assessment years, such charges retained the character of contractual payments and did not form part of rent.

Conclusion: Common area maintenance charges are liable to tax deduction at source at 2% under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not at 10% under Section 194I of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default for short deduction.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice for assessment year 2016-17, issued after three years upon approval by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, was validly sanctioned by the competent authority.

Analysis: For reassessment notices concerning assessment year 2016-17 issued beyond three years, the prescribed approving authority was the Principal Chief Commissioner or Deputy Director General; in their absence, the Chief Commissioner or Director General. Approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax did not satisfy this jurisdictional requirement.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid for want of approval from the competent authority, and the consequential assessment order was quashed.

Outcome: The application for condonation of delay was rejected and the civil appeal was dismissed as time barred.

Issues: Whether fabrication, erection and allied services for hydroelectric power projects were exempt from Service Tax as services relating to generation of electricity.

Analysis: The work orders covered fabrication, erection, testing, painting, transportation, alignment and commissioning of pressure-shaft steel liners and tunnelling formwork for hydroelectric power projects. The undisputed nature and purpose of these activities established their intrinsic connection with electricity generation. Notification No. 11/2010-ST and Notification No. 45/2010-ST exempted taxable services relating to generation, transmission or distribution of electricity during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The services were covered by the applicable exemption notifications and were not liable to Service Tax; the demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite the statutory appellate remedy where an erroneous classification of interest as tax in Form GST DRC-07 compelled a pre-deposit not contemplated by Section 112(8).

Analysis: The demand comprised reversal of input tax credit, interest and penalty, without any disputed tax component. However, the interest demand was recorded under the tax head in Form GST DRC-07. Although the original order was subsequently rectified to classify the amount as interest, the appellate order remained unrectified and the appellate authority could not amend it after expiry of the prescribed period. An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal would consequently require deposit calculated upon an amount wrongly shown as tax, rendering the alternative remedy inefficacious and prejudicial.

Conclusion: The erroneous tax classification, coupled with the inability to rectify the appellate order, justified exercise of writ jurisdiction and fresh appellate consideration.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST adjudication order was maintainable despite the statutory appeal available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The statutory appeal provides an efficacious and comprehensive mechanism for examination of factual and legal errors in the adjudication order. The petitioner had participated in the audit and adjudication proceedings, filed detailed replies and supporting material, and received personal hearings. The alleged failure to call for further documents and the asserted inadequate consideration of the reply concerned the sufficiency and appreciation of material, which are matters for the appellate authority. These circumstances did not establish denial of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or another recognised exception warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable because no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the statutory appellate remedy.

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.

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.