Issues: (i) Whether the alleged shortage determined from estimated stock-taking and discrepancies between statutory records and physical stock established clandestine manufacture and removal without payment of duty; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation, interest and penalty could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged shortage determined from estimated stock-taking and discrepancies between statutory records and physical stock established clandestine manufacture and removal without payment of duty.

Analysis: Production of pig iron was recorded using yield-based conversion ratios because no post-production weighment system was available, while physical stock-taking was conducted by volumetric or eye estimation. Both methods were inherently approximate and could generate discrepancies. The Revenue produced no actual weighment report or independent evidence of unaccounted manufacture, removal, transport, purchasers, sale proceeds, excess raw-material consumption, or excess electricity consumption. A stock discrepancy based solely on estimation cannot establish clandestine removal.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine manufacture and removal was not proved; the duty demand based on the alleged shortages was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation, interest and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The show cause notice invoked the extended period for the relevant period, but the Revenue established no mala fides, suppression, or intent to evade duty. The assessee's public-sector character and disclosure of the stock discrepancy further negated the basis for invoking the extended period. As the principal demand failed, penalty could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended-period demand was unsustainable and the penalty was liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Estimated stock variations and record discrepancies, without tangible corroborative evidence of illicit manufacture and clearance, cannot support an excise-duty liability or its penal consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal cannot be inferred solely from estimated stock shortages or discrepancies in production and stock records; it requires tangible and corroborative evidence of unaccounted manufacture and clearance.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on a suspicious transaction report when the disclosed banking transactions were supported by books of account and no material established escapement of income.

Analysis: Reassessment requires material giving reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The suspicious transaction report concerned transactions between the assessee and his partnership/proprietary concerns, which were recorded in the books and for which audit reports, financial statements, bank books, cash books and ledgers had been furnished. The show-cause notice and the order incorrectly recorded non-submission of supporting details. No independent material, third-party statement, seized material, or information indicated that the transactions were bogus or accommodation entries, or explained how inter se loans resulted in taxable income escaping assessment. Mere suspicion arising from transaction patterns was insufficient.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation lacked material demonstrating escapement of income and was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspicious transaction report, without cogent material linking disclosed transactions to escapement of taxable income, cannot by itself sustain reassessment.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated on the basis of a suspicious transaction report where the questioned receipts represented withdrawal of capital by a partner from its partnership firm and no material indicated escapement of income.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished audited financial statements, capital accounts and tax-audit material explaining that the impugned transactions were capital infusion or withdrawal in the partnership firm. The reassessment order did not deal with this explanation or supporting evidence and incorrectly treated the source of funds as unverified. Withdrawal of a partner's capital balance, undertaken under the partnership arrangement, did not by itself establish taxable income having escaped assessment. The assessee had also not claimed interest expenditure in relation to those transactions. Apart from the suspicious transaction report, no information, third-party statement, incriminating material or evidence established that the bank transactions were bogus or accommodation entries. Mere suspicion, without supporting material, could not justify reopening.

Conclusion: Reassessment was invalid; the impugned notices and orders were liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars was leviable where depreciation was claimed under Appendix I, later revised during assessment proceedings, and the underlying asset particulars were fully disclosed.

Analysis: The second proviso to rule 5(1A) permits a power-generating undertaking to opt for depreciation under rule 5(1) read with Appendix I instead of Appendix IA. No separate mode is prescribed for exercising that option; a claim in the return, supported by the depreciation computation in Form No. 3CD, constitutes its exercise. The original claim was consequently supported by a statutory option and could not be treated as wholly untenable.

Analysis: All primary particulars concerning the assets, their cost, use, and depreciation computation were disclosed, and none was found false, erroneous, or fictitious. The revised computation withdrawing the excess claim was furnished before any specific query on depreciation. Expiry of the period for filing a revised return did not negate the bona fides of correction through the pending assessment proceedings. A difference concerning the applicable method or rate of depreciation, without false particulars or an unsubstantiated explanation, does not attract penalty; Explanation 1 was inapplicable.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable, and deletion of the penalty was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a registered person may rectify invoices mistakenly reported under a GST TDS GSTIN rather than its regular GSTIN in Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, so as to enable Input Tax Credit.

Analysis: Sections 37(3) and 39(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require a purposive construction that permits correction of bona fide and inadvertent return-filing errors. A technical limitation of the GST portal cannot prevent rectification where the correction ensures accurate return data and causes no loss of revenue. The reporting error concerned invoices for 2019-20, and the retrospective relaxation under Section 16(5) also covered that period for availing Input Tax Credit.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to amend or rectify Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B for the relevant period, through online or manual means, for invoices wrongly reported under the GST TDS GSTIN.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for alleged on-money receipts from sale of flats could be sustained on loose papers and a retracted search statement without independent corroboration; (ii) Whether cash deposits during demonetisation, recorded in the regular books and sourced from disclosed business receipts, could be treated as unexplained; (iii) Whether credits to partners' capital accounts consequent to an accepted declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 could be treated as unexplained.

Issue (i): Whether additions for alleged on-money receipts from sale of flats could be sustained on loose papers and a retracted search statement without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The loose papers and private notings were only a starting point for investigation and did not, by themselves, establish actual receipt of undisclosed sale consideration. The assessee's explanation that the papers were internal workings connected with the accepted Income Declaration Scheme declaration was supported by reconciliations, cancelled-booking details, purchaser affidavits, registered sale deeds and audited accounts. The Revenue made no enquiry from purchasers, did not establish market under-valuation, and found no cash, assets, financial trail, parallel accounts or other material showing receipt or deployment of alleged on-money. The statement recorded during search was promptly retracted and remained uncorroborated. The presumptions concerning seized documents were rebuttable and did not convert every entry in loose papers into taxable income.

Conclusion: The additions for alleged on-money receipts were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash deposits during demonetisation, recorded in the regular books and sourced from disclosed business receipts, could be treated as unexplained.

Analysis: The audited books disclosed the business receipts from which the deposits were explained, and those receipts had already been offered to tax. The books and accounting treatment were not rejected, and no material showed that the bank deposits arose from an independent undisclosed source. Treating deposits of already disclosed cash as unexplained would result in taxing the same amount twice.

Conclusion: The additions for cash deposits were deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether credits to partners' capital accounts consequent to an accepted declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 could be treated as unexplained.

Analysis: The declaration under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 had been accepted and attained finality. The consequential credits in the partners' capital accounts and subsequent utilisation of declared funds were reflected in audited financial statements. The Revenue neither challenged the accepted declaration nor produced material disproving the accounting entries or utilisation of funds.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged unexplained partners' capital was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The sustained additions for all assessment years lacked evidentiary foundation, and consequential relief was required to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Loose papers and a retracted search statement cannot alone support additions for undisclosed income once a plausible, documented explanation is furnished and the Revenue fails to obtain independent corroboration of actual receipts.

Issues: Whether uploading a show-cause notice or order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Common Portal constitutes valid service under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not treat mere uploading on the Common Portal as sufficient service of a show-cause notice or order. The retrospective amendment under Section 115 of the Finance Act, 2022, enabling functions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to be performed on the Common Portal, does not expand the portal's limited functions into a substitute for formal service of notices or orders. Electronic communication under the Rules must validly communicate the notice or order itself, particularly where adverse civil consequences follow.

Conclusion: Mere uploading of a show-cause notice or order-in-original on the Common Portal, without acknowledgment or a response establishing knowledge, is not valid service upon the assessee. The writ petition is governed by the consequential relief framework applicable to such defective service.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory authorization to perform GST functions through the Common Portal does not, without an express service mechanism, make mere portal uploading valid service of a show-cause notice or adjudication order.

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was rightly restricted to 10% rather than sustained in full or deleted entirely; (ii) Whether reassessment proceedings were invalid for non-compliance with the procedure under Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance of alleged bogus purchases was rightly restricted to 10% rather than sustained in full or deleted entirely.

Analysis: The findings established that the suppliers and the claimed movement of goods were unverifiable. However, the assessment had not invoked Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the books of account, recorded sales and disclosed profits had not been rejected or doubted. In these circumstances, the addition could be confined to the income or profit component embedded in the disputed purchases. The Tribunal's 10% estimation was based on the material and applicable precedents and involved a permissible exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: Restriction of the addition to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases was upheld; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment proceedings were invalid for non-compliance with the procedure under Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the record disclosed compliance with the prescribed reopening procedure. The Assessing Officer was not required at that stage to furnish all material in his possession.

Conclusion: The reopening process was valid; this issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's determination of the addition and the validity of reassessment were sustained, with no substantial question of law arising.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged bogus purchases are not assessed under Section 69C and the recorded sales, books and disclosed profits remain accepted, addition may be limited to the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases on the facts of the case.

Issues: Whether reassessment could validly be reopened where the assessee had disclosed the relevant transactions during the original scrutiny assessment and the reopening was founded on investigation information concerning subsequent cash withdrawals by the recipient concern.

Analysis: The payments to the recipient concern, made towards cotton purchases, had been disclosed through invoices and were subjected to scrutiny in the assessment under Section 143(3). The investigation report merely raised suspicion because the recipient's proprietor withdrew funds in cash; it disclosed no new tangible material indicating escapement of the assessee's income. Reopening on those facts amounted to a fishing and roving inquiry and a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice lacked a valid reason to believe that income had escaped assessment and was quashed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Classification of Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate under the Customs Tariff.

Analysis: The imported product is a single chemically defined coordination compound of magnesium and glycine. Under Chapter Note 5(C)(3) of Chapter 29, a coordination compound is classified by reference to the organic ligand obtained upon cleavage of the metal bonds; glycine is an amino acid covered by Heading 2922. Water and citric acid do not alter the classification because water and stabilisers necessary for preservation or transport are permitted under Chapter Notes 1(d) and 1(f). Classification depends on the objective characteristics and composition of the goods at import, not their intended use in nutritional supplements. The goods are neither a food preparation under Heading 2106 nor an antibiotic under Heading 2941.

Conclusion: Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate is classifiable under Tariff Item 2922 49 90 as other amino-acids and their esters; salts thereof.

Issues: Whether the determination that service tax already paid could not be adjusted or refunded was premature before classification of the contract as a works contract or a service contract.

Analysis: The tax incidence and the nature of the tax payable depended on the Assessing Authority's determination of the character of the contract. Since that classification was still to be undertaken pursuant to the remand, a definitive ruling on adjustment or refund of service tax introduced an impermissibly speculative element. The parties agreed that this question should remain for consideration by the appropriate authority after completion of the classification exercise.

Conclusion: The prior finding denying adjustment or refund of service tax was premature and was vacated; the question remains open for determination by the appropriate authority after classification of the contract.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order-in-original and Form GST DRC-07 despite delay.

Analysis: No merits of the tax demand or the challenged proceedings were adjudicated, since the petitioner elected to avail the appellate remedy. Liberty was granted to file an appeal with statutory pre-deposit and an application for condonation of delay; the appellate authority was directed to consider delay and, if satisfied, determine the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to file a statutory appeal within two weeks; coercive action pursuant to the garnishee notice was restrained during that period.

Issues: Whether the pending application for provisional release of the seized vessel, oil and cash required expeditious consideration after granting a personal hearing.

Analysis: The petitioner's application for provisional release remained pending following seizure under the Customs Act. The respondents accepted that the application could be decided within a fixed time after a hearing consistent with the principles of natural justice. No view was expressed on the merits of entitlement to provisional release.

Outcome: The concerned respondent was directed to hear the petitioner and issue a reasoned order on the provisional-release application within six weeks.

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference in criminal revision.

Analysis: The accused admitted the loan, issuance of the signed cheque, dishonour with the endorsement "account closed", and receipt of the statutory notice. These admissions corroborated the complainant's evidence. Admission of execution of the cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 that it was issued for consideration and towards a legally enforceable liability; the burden lay on the accused to establish a probable defence. The plea of repayment was unsupported by evidence, and the agreement and defence evidence did not prove repayment. A cheque issued as security remains enforceable under Section 138 where a subsisting liability has matured, and voluntary delivery of a signed blank cheque authorises the payee to fill its particulars absent cogent rebuttal. A cash loan in contravention of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 attracts statutory penalty but does not render the underlying debt void or unenforceable. Although the bank return memo lacked a seal and signature, dishonour due to account closure stood proved by the accused's admission; such dishonour falls within Section 138. The variation regarding the repayment period did not affect the liability, as presentation occurred after expiry of one year. The three-month imprisonment and compensation were not excessive. In revision, concurrent factual findings cannot be reappreciated unless shown to be perverse, jurisdictionally erroneous, or legally untenable; no such defect was established.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment with compensation were sustained.

Issues: Whether the assessment order could be quashed and the matter restored for fresh adjudication despite expiry of the statutory appellate limitation.

Analysis: The petitioner asserted that its supplies of paddy and rice were exempt under the applicable GST enactments and undertook to deposit 10% of the disputed tax in cash. On that basis, fresh adjudication was directed upon the stipulated pre-deposit and submission of a reply with supporting documents, with notice before any fresh order.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication, conditional upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply within 30 days.

Issues: Whether assessments under section 153C were barred by limitation where the assessee's records stood transferred to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction pursuant to an order under section 127 before the satisfaction note was recorded.

Analysis: The assessee's records were transferred to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 20.10.2020 under section 127. Applying the precedent that, where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, transfer of the assessee's case and seized material to that Assessing Officer constitutes the relevant handing-over date, limitation commenced from the date of the transfer order. The subsequent satisfaction note dated 24.12.2021 could not defer the commencement of limitation.

Conclusion: The assessments dated 30.03.2023 under section 153C were barred by limitation and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether scientifically estimated provision for warranty, based on historical trends, is deductible; (ii) Whether withholding tax borne by the assessee on a grossed-up royalty payment forms part of the deductible royalty consideration; (iii) Whether weighted deduction for in-house scientific research expenditure under Section 35(2AB) can be restricted to the expenditure quantified by DSIR.

Issue (i): Whether scientifically estimated provision for warranty, based on historical trends, is deductible.

Analysis: Warranty obligations arose upon sale and constituted present contractual obligations. The provision was made consistently using a scientific methodology based on historical experience and appropriately matched expected warranty costs with the revenue recognised under the mercantile system. An unutilised opening warranty provision could not, by itself, displace a provision otherwise supported by the established methodology and past trends.

Conclusion: The warranty provisions were legitimate trading expenditure deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether withholding tax borne by the assessee on a grossed-up royalty payment forms part of the deductible royalty consideration.

Analysis: The royalty arrangement required the assessee to discharge the non-resident parent's tax liability. Tax paid pursuant to that undertaking was part of the consideration payable for use of the intellectual property; absent that undertaking, the royalty consideration would have been correspondingly higher. The Settlement Commission's determination of the royalty amount did not determine the deductibility of the tax borne by the assessee.

Conclusion: The grossed-up withholding tax formed an integral part of the royalty cost and was allowable as business expenditure, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether weighted deduction for in-house scientific research expenditure under Section 35(2AB) can be restricted to the expenditure quantified by DSIR.

Analysis: Section 35(2AB) requires approval of the in-house research and development facility by DSIR, but does not require DSIR approval or certification of the quantum of eligible expenditure. The expression "any expenditure" covers qualifying scientific research expenditure incurred, other than the excluded cost of land or building. Quantification under Rule 6(7A) is preparatory to consideration of the deduction and does not restrict a claim where the approved facility and actual qualifying expenditure are undisputed.

Conclusion: The weighted deduction could not be restricted to the amount certified by DSIR, and the disallowed qualifying research expenditure was deductible, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment adjustments concerning warranty provisions, grossed-up royalty tax, and qualifying in-house research expenditure were unsustainable; consequential interest issues were to follow the revised computation.

Ratio Decidendi: A scientifically estimated warranty obligation arising from sales is deductible on accrual and matching principles; tax contractually borne on a net-of-tax royalty payment forms part of its consideration; and DSIR approval of an in-house research facility, rather than its expenditure quantification, governs eligibility for weighted deduction.

Issues: Whether possession or eviction could be secured through police assistance while the purchaser's application for vacant possession remained pending before the Company Court.

Analysis: The application seeking vacant possession was pending before the Company Court. Expedited consideration of that application was directed, and police assistance for eviction or securing possession was prohibited unless directed by the Company Judge.

Outcome: The special leave petition was disposed of with directions for expeditious consideration of the pending company application and restraint on police-assisted eviction.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge on royalty paid for mining rights could be determined without examining the mining lease agreements and the date on which the right was granted.

Analysis: Service tax is chargeable under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 on services provided or agreed to be provided. Before 01.04.2016, services provided by the Government were generally within the negative list under Section 66D(a)(iv) of the Finance Act, 1994; after its amendment, Government services to business entities became taxable. The date of the mining lease is material to determine whether the grant of mining rights was governed by the pre-amendment regime. As the lease agreements were not produced before either lower authority, the factual basis necessary for this determination was absent.

Conclusion: The demand order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after examination of the mining lease agreements in accordance with the applicable law.