Issues: Whether GST could be imposed under the assessment order on invoices relating to Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel asserted to be non-GST goods.

Analysis: Registration records and invoices placed on record indicated that the petitioner dealt in petroleum products. Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel were treated as non-GST items, while the assessment appeared to have imposed GST on such items. The resulting jurisdictional defect went to the root of the assessment and justified interference, while leaving fresh determination on the supporting documents and reply to the show-cause notice.

Outcome: The assessment order was set aside and the matter was sent for fresh determination after affording a personal hearing.

Issues: Whether notional rental income from unsold flats held as stock-in-trade was assessable under the head "Income from house property".

Analysis: Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 excludes property occupied for business or profession. The assessee had consistently treated project units, including unsold flats, as stock-in-trade; actual rent from let-out units had been offered and accepted as business income. The unsold units were stated to be used as scheme offices, material stores and sample flats. The addition was made on an ad hoc basis, and despite finding the computation unsupported by proper enquiry, the appellate authority directed fresh benchmarking without conducting verification or confronting the assessee on the alleged absence of evidence. No comparable addition had been made or sustained in other assessment years.

Conclusion: The addition of notional rental income from unsold units under Sections 22 and 23 could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a common or consolidated show-cause notice may cover multiple financial years; (ii) Whether the appellate order was invalid for denial of an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a common or consolidated show-cause notice may cover multiple financial years.

Analysis: Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 do not prohibit a show-cause notice from covering multiple financial years. The contrary basis on which the writ petition had been allowed could not be sustained.

Conclusion: A common or consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years is maintainable, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order was invalid for denial of an opportunity of hearing on the merits of the appeal.

Analysis: The record of personal hearing showed that the hearing was confined to condonation of delay and included a request for admission of the appeal and a merits hearing. The appeal was decided without affording a hearing on merits, contrary to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The appellate order is invalid for breach of principles of natural justice and the assessee must be afforded a merits hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The legal validity of consolidated notices for multiple financial years is affirmed, while the appellate adjudication requires reconsideration after a proper merits hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory prohibition, a GST show-cause notice may validly consolidate multiple financial years; however, an appellate decision rendered without a hearing on merits violates principles of natural justice.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment based on the alleged non-genuine share capital and share premium received from a foreign investor was valid; (ii) Whether reassessment was valid on account of delayed deposit of employees' PF and ESIC contributions.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment based on the alleged non-genuine share capital and share premium received from a foreign investor was valid.

Analysis: The statements relied upon alleged non-genuine practices by a person connected with the investor but did not refer, directly or indirectly, to the assessee or to the investment transaction. The survey report and statements therefore lacked a direct nexus or live link with the belief that the share capital represented escaped income. An inference that the assessee's own funds were routed through an unrelated foreign investor, which thereby obtained a substantial equity stake, was also unsustainable on the test of human probabilities. Material that is remote, conjectural or founded merely on suspicion cannot support the statutory reason to believe.

Conclusion: The reassessment ground concerning share capital and premium was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment was valid on account of delayed deposit of employees' PF and ESIC contributions.

Analysis: On the date of the reassessment notice, the prevailing law permitted deduction where employees' contributions were deposited by the due date for filing the return. Since the deposits satisfied that requirement, the later contrary Supreme Court ruling could not retrospectively furnish a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment when the notice was issued.

Conclusion: The reassessment ground concerning employees' PF and ESIC contributions was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Neither recorded ground lawfully conferred jurisdiction to reopen the completed assessment, and the reassessment notice was liable to be annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice requires material having a direct and live nexus with the alleged escapement of income, and the existence of reason to believe must be tested against the law prevailing when the notice is issued.

Issues: (i) Whether a demand and penalty proceedings could be founded on a draft assessment order where no final assessment determining the sum payable had been made; (ii) Whether a draft assessment order under Section 144C could be issued to an assessee where the Transfer Pricing Officer had made no variation in the returned income.

Issue (i): Whether a demand and penalty proceedings could be founded on a draft assessment order where no final assessment determining the sum payable had been made.

Analysis: The assessment order expressly described itself as a draft order, treated the proposed disallowance as a proposal, withheld demand and penalty notices, and afforded the statutory option to accept the variations or file objections. A final assessment under Section 143(3) requires determination of the sum payable before demand can be raised under Section 156. The asserted error in issuing a draft order was not confined to portal uploading and was never corrected through a subsequent order; consequently, Section 292B could not convert the draft order into a final assessment.

Conclusion: The demand and consequential penalty proceedings based solely on the draft assessment order were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a draft assessment order under Section 144C could be issued to an assessee where the Transfer Pricing Officer had made no variation in the returned income.

Analysis: The Transfer Pricing Officer made no variation to the international transactions because they were covered by the advance pricing agreement. In the absence of a variation arising from the transfer-pricing order, the assessee did not fall within the definition of an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15)(b). The statutory draft-assessment procedure under Section 144C(1) was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The draft assessment order was without authority under Section 144C and was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The invalid draft-assessment process could neither be retrospectively treated as a final assessment nor sustain the consequential fiscal and penalty actions.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand requires a final assessment determining the sum payable, and the draft-assessment procedure is unavailable where the assessee is not an eligible assessee because the transfer-pricing order contains no variation in returned income.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the undisclosed investment was added without invoking the applicable provisions and consequential special tax rate; (ii) Whether failure to initiate penalty proceedings under the applicable provision also justified revision.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the undisclosed investment was added without invoking the applicable provisions and consequential special tax rate.

Analysis: Revision under Section 263 is available where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment order accepted the cash payment as undisclosed investment but omitted to specify the applicable charging provision and did not apply the special rate prescribed for such income. This reflected non-application of mind and incorrect application of law, resulting in loss of tax lawfully payable.

Conclusion: The assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and revision under Section 263 was valid. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to initiate penalty proceedings under the applicable provision also justified revision.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings were initiated under an inapplicable provision instead of the provision applicable to income assessed under the deeming provisions. The incorrect invocation could affect the validity of consequential penalty proceedings and demonstrated omission to apply the correct legal provisions.

Conclusion: The omission to invoke the applicable penalty provision supported the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary authority was legally entitled to direct fresh inquiry and reassessment by applying the correct statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order that omits to apply the applicable provisions governing taxation and penalty for undisclosed income, thereby causing loss of lawful revenue, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for purposes of revision.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on service tax paid on sales commission could be denied or remanded for verification on the assumption that credit related to commission paid to overseas agents, although the show cause notice contained no such allegation or evidence.

Analysis: Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 covers credit on sales-agent commission, and the admissibility of credit on commission paid to agents was undisputed. The show cause notice sought to deny credit on total sales commission but expressly recorded that no credit had been availed on service tax paid for commission to overseas agents. An adjudicating or appellate authority cannot travel beyond the allegations, charges and supporting material in the show cause notice. In the absence of any allegation or evidence that credit was taken on overseas-agent commission, the remand for bifurcation of such alleged credit was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The order remanding the matter for verification of credit relating to overseas agents was set aside; the original order dropping the proceedings was correctly passed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the additional deduction claimed on the basis of an alleged preceding-year disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was allowable; (ii) Whether exemption under section 10(46) was available despite absence of the prescribed notification and pendency of a writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the additional deduction claimed on the basis of an alleged preceding-year disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was allowable.

Analysis: The computation for the preceding assessment year did not show any disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); instead, it reflected disallowances under other provisions. No material was produced to establish the asserted prior-year disallowance or the consequential eligibility of the additional claim.

Conclusion: The additional deduction was not allowable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under section 10(46) was available despite absence of the prescribed notification and pendency of a writ petition.

Analysis: The assessee had not been notified under section 10(46)(c). The pending writ petition did not stay the Tribunal proceedings in the absence of a specific direction, and the earlier decision on the same issue was followed for consistency.

Conclusion: Exemption under section 10(46) was unavailable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additional deduction and the claimed statutory exemption were denied.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory exemption requiring notification cannot be granted without that notification, and pendency of a writ petition without a stay does not preclude adjudication.

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while statutory adjudication is pending.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the Adjudicating Authority to determine the validity of a provisional attachment under Section 8 after notice and hearing. It further provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and a further appeal to the High Court under Section 42. Availability of an alternative remedy does not exclude writ jurisdiction, but its exercise is ordinarily declined where the statutory remedy is efficacious, unless exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or manifest statutory illegality are established. The objections concerning proceeds of crime, reasons to believe, and validity of the attachment require consideration within the statutory framework and do not establish an exceptional ground for immediate constitutional intervention.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the provisional-attachment and pending-adjudication stage; the petitioners must pursue the remedies available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether wet leasing of CNG compressors and related equipment, with operation and maintenance undertaken by the lessor, constituted taxable Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a deemed sale involving transfer of the right to use goods; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the service-tax demands.

Issue (i): Whether wet leasing of CNG compressors and related equipment, with operation and maintenance undertaken by the lessor, constituted taxable Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a deemed sale involving transfer of the right to use goods.

Analysis: The wet-lease agreements required the assessee to install and commission the compressors and associated equipment at its own cost, operate and maintain them through its own trained personnel, replace spares, and ensure continuous availability. These contractual obligations established that possession, command, management and effective control remained with the assessee. A transfer of the right to use goods requires transfer of both possession and effective control; payment of sales tax on the arrangement did not alter its service-tax character. The prior High Court decision upholding the original adjudication was binding, and the rectification order was treated as forming part of the original order covering all four show-cause notices.

Conclusion: The wet-lease activity was taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service and did not constitute a deemed sale; the service-tax demands were sustainable against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the service-tax demands.

Analysis: The agreements unambiguously retained possession and effective control with the assessee, while the applicable statutory provisions and the departmental circular had clarified the taxability of supply of tangible goods without transfer of possession and control. The conduct was found to disclose suppression and intent to evade service tax; the asserted payment of sales tax did not excuse non-payment of service tax.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was valid, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of service-tax liability under all four show-cause notices remained operative, and the rectification order was integral to the earlier adjudication upheld by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the supplier retains possession and effective control over leased equipment by undertaking its operation and maintenance, the arrangement is taxable supply of tangible goods service rather than a transfer of the right to use goods.

Issues: (i) Whether reversal of opening accrued or unbilled revenue, including adjustment relating to billing in earlier years, was allowable; (ii) Whether professional fees paid to non-resident member firms were liable to disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source.

Issue (i): Whether reversal of opening accrued or unbilled revenue, including adjustment relating to billing in earlier years, was allowable.

Analysis: The assessee consistently recognised revenue on the mercantile basis according to work performed, even where invoices had not been raised. Unbilled revenue was offered to tax in the year of accrual and retained as an asset until subsequent billing. The reversal represented amounts already recognised and taxed in earlier years. The materially similar coordinate-bench ruling accepted such reversal, and no factual or legal distinction from that ruling was established.

Conclusion: The reversal of unbilled revenue and the related earlier-year billing adjustment are allowable; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether professional fees paid to non-resident member firms were liable to disallowance for non-deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: The payments were materially identical to those addressed in the assessee's earlier years. The Revenue did not establish that the professional charges were consideration for use of protected rights, know-how, or information so as to constitute royalty under the applicable tax treaties. The prior ruling also treated the payments as not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment of the recipients, and no distinguishing material was shown.

Conclusion: No tax was deductible on the payments and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is not sustainable; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reversals are deductible in computing income, and the payments to the non-resident firms cannot be disallowed on the stated withholding basis.

Issues: Whether the limitation for filing a rectification application against an intimation commences from the date of the intimation or from its communication to the assessee.

Analysis: Section 154(7) prescribes the limitation governing rectification jurisdiction. The assessee asserted that the intimation was not received and that rectification was sought after the demand became known through recovery proceedings. The applicable principle is that limitation for rectification commences upon communication of the order rather than its mere date. The Revenue did not distinguish that principle on facts or law.

Conclusion: The rectification application could not be rejected as time-barred merely by reckoning limitation from the date of the intimation; the delay was condoned and the matter was restored for merits adjudication, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether provisional release of imported goods could be made conditional upon execution of a bank guarantee for nearly 200% of the duty.

Analysis: The Revenue's interest could be adequately secured without detaining the goods until adjudication. The petitioner agreed to pay duty on the declared value and to furnish a personal bond for any balance duty ultimately determined. The approach of securing the differential duty through proportionate safeguards supported release without insisting on the impugned bank guarantee.

Conclusion: The bank-guarantee condition was set aside in favour of the assessee; provisional release was directed upon payment of applicable duty on declared value and execution of a personal bond for the balance duty, if determined.

Outcome: Civil appeal dismissed on the ground of low tax effect as also on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether consideration from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates is a capital receipt rather than business income eligible for deduction under section 80IA; (ii) Whether such receipts are to be excluded in computing book profit for minimum alternate tax.

Issue (i): Whether consideration from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates is a capital receipt rather than business income eligible for deduction under section 80IA.

Analysis: Renewable Energy Certificates are regulatory incentives for generation of clean energy and environmental protection, rather than receipts arising from production, sale of goods, provision of services, or an operational by-product of the eligible undertaking. The coordinate-bench decisions treated such certificates as distinct from taxable carbon credits and as accretions of capital. Since the receipts are capital in nature, the question of their being profits derived from the eligible business for deduction under section 80IA does not arise.

Conclusion: Sale proceeds of Renewable Energy Certificates are capital receipts, not taxable business income, and are not eligible-business profits for section 80IA purposes, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether such receipts are to be excluded in computing book profit for minimum alternate tax.

Analysis: As the proceeds from Renewable Energy Certificates retain their character as non-taxable capital receipts, they cannot form part of book profit computed for minimum alternate tax under section 115JB.

Conclusion: Receipts from sale of Renewable Energy Certificates must be excluded from book profit under section 115JB, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The treatment of Renewable Energy Certificate sale proceeds as capital receipts, outside both taxable business income and minimum alternate tax book-profit computation, is sustained for both assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory environmental incentives represented by Renewable Energy Certificates, not generated by business operations or sale of goods or services, constitute capital receipts and are excluded from taxable business income and book-profit computation.

Issues: Whether the delayed statutory appeal against the GST assessment order should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The appeal was presented beyond the ordinary appeal period and the further condonable period under Section 107. Since factual questions required appellate adjudication, and in view of the peculiar circumstances, a further opportunity to prosecute the appeal was considered appropriate.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, and the dismissal and rectification orders relating to the appeal were quashed; the appeal was restored for adjudication after adequate hearing.

Issues: Whether ex-gratia retrenchment compensation received by a BSNL employee under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite the exemption not having been claimed in the original return and the rectification claim having been rejected.

Analysis: The compensation was received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 and was offered to tax on the basis of the employer's Form 16. The claim under Section 10(10B) was rejected in rectification proceedings on the ground that it had not been made in the return. On identical facts, including the assessee's own preceding assessment year, the coordinate bench had recognised the entitlement of BSNL employees to exemption under Section 10(10B) and clarified that appellate powers are not curtailed merely because the correct claim was not made before the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the retrenchment compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019.

Issues: Whether service tax under the reverse charge mechanism was payable on insurance/comprehensive cover obtained from an overseas provider in relation to imported goods for the period after 1 July 2012.

Analysis: The levy under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 applied to taxable services, and Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 treated the recipient's location as the place of provision. The comprehensive cover related to loss or damage in transit up to the Indian port. Its insurance cost formed part of the transaction/assessable value of the imported goods under customs valuation, and there was no allegation that such cost had been excluded. A separate reverse-charge levy on the same insurance component would therefore be unsustainable, particularly where no other taxable service was involved.

Conclusion: Service tax under reverse charge was not payable on the insurance/comprehensive cover forming part of the value of the imported goods; the entire demand was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging cancellation of GST registration and rejection of its revocation application should be entertained when the GST Tribunal has been constituted and provides an efficacious statutory remedy.

Analysis: Constitution of the GST Tribunal under the statutory appellate framework provided an equally efficacious forum for adjudication on merits. Exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction was therefore declined, while preserving all issues and contentions for determination by the Tribunal. The period spent bona fide pursuing the writ remedy was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes if the Tribunal is approached within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained; the challenge was remitted to the GST Tribunal for adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the demand as time-barred under Section 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be entertained despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The applicability of the respective limitation starting points under Section 74(10) depended upon the nature of the demand, the underlying proceedings, and the factual basis of adjudication. This involved a debatable factual and legal determination that was appropriately examinable in the statutory appellate remedy rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy; any application for exclusion of the writ-pendency period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is to be considered pragmatically by the Appellate Authority.