Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against cancellation of GST registration where disputed factual issues exist and statutory remedies of revocation and appeal are available.

Analysis: The allegation concerning wrongful availment of input tax credit and breach of the registration conditions involves factual issues requiring examination of evidence. No inherent jurisdictional defect in the show-cause proceedings was established. The available remedies of revocation of cancellation and statutory appeal provide the appropriate forums for factual adjudication.

Outcome: Interference under Article 226 was declined; the petitioner was permitted to pursue revocation, with a direction for expeditious reasoned consideration of a timely application.

Issues: Whether the eighteen-month period for an Interim Board to decide a pending settlement application commences upon its first allotment to an Interim Board or upon a subsequent administrative transfer, and whether that period is mandatory.

Analysis: Section 245D(4A)(iii), read with Sections 245D(9)(iii) and 245M(2), treats the relevant allotment date as the date of receipt of a pending application by the Interim Board. The application had already been allotted to and acted upon by the Delhi Interim Board, which exercised jurisdiction under Section 245D(3) and called for the Rule 9 report. Under Clause 6(ii) of the e-Settlement Scheme, 2021, such action could occur only after allotment. The later movement of the file to the Chennai Interim Board was an administrative transfer and could not restart or extend the statutory period; otherwise, repeated transfers could indefinitely enlarge the prescribed time. The settled position applied was that the eighteen-month period is mandatory, and an order made after its expiry is without jurisdiction and a nullity. On either the initial allotment date or, at the latest, the date on which the Rule 9 report was sought, the impugned order was beyond time.

Conclusion: The eighteen-month period is mandatory and commenced when the application was first allotted to and acted upon by the Delhi Interim Board, not on its subsequent transfer to the Chennai Interim Board; the orders passed after expiry of that period were time-barred and without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a steamer agent that lodged and verified the Import General Manifest was liable to penalty for deficiency and misdeclaration of imported goods under Section 116 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: Sections 2(31), 30, 31, 116 and 148 of the Customs Act treat the person acting for the person-in-charge of a conveyance, including an accepted agent dealing with cargo, as liable where manifested cargo is not unloaded or the deficiency is not satisfactorily accounted for. Lodgment of the Import General Manifest carries a verified declaration as to its truth and identifies the lodging agent as acting for the master of the vessel. The substantial discrepancy between the manifested quantities and the goods actually found in 150 containers was not satisfactorily explained. Contractual stipulations in bills of lading that cargo particulars were supplied by the shipper and unchecked by the carrier could not override statutory obligations. The Tribunal had not adequately addressed these facts or the governing principle on agent liability.

Conclusion: The steamer agent was liable to penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act for failure to file an accurate and complete Import General Manifest and to satisfactorily account for the deficiency in manifested goods.

Issues: Whether the open-ended continuation of suspension of a Customs Cargo Service Provider approval under Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Regulation 11(2) authorises immediate suspension only as an exceptional preventive measure where objectively supported circumstances establish an urgent and continuing threat requiring intervention without awaiting the inquiry procedure. It is distinct from suspension or revocation under Regulation 11(1), which requires observance of the procedural safeguards under Regulation 12. A preventive suspension cannot be continued indefinitely merely because an investigation remains pending; its continuance requires a demonstrated subsisting necessity, timely verification of alleged deficiencies, and consideration of less restrictive measures. Here, no notice or inquiry under Regulation 12 had commenced despite more than 100 days of suspension; the claimed corrective measures had not been verified; Customs officers remained posted at the facility; and more than 3,000 containers were cleared during suspension without reported incident. The available material did not establish an ongoing immediate risk warranting continued preventive suspension, while enhanced supervision and conditions could protect revenue and security interests proportionately.

Conclusion: The indefinite continuation of suspension under Regulation 11(2) was unsustainable; the approval was required to be restored, without precluding lawful proceedings under Regulation 11(1) following the prescribed inquiry.

Issues: Whether continuation of suspension of a Customs Broker licence was lawful where the post-decisional hearing mandated within fifteen days of suspension was conducted after expiry of that period.

Analysis: Regulation 16 creates an exceptional preventive power distinct from the regular inquiry procedure under Regulation 17. Immediate suspension requires both a pending or contemplated inquiry and recorded satisfaction that urgent intervention is necessary. As the initial suspension is made without a prior hearing, Regulation 16(2) mandates a post-decisional hearing within fifteen days; this safeguard is compulsory and cannot be extended administratively. The hearing was deferred by the licensing authority and ultimately conducted beyond the prescribed period, without any adjournment being attributable to the Customs Broker. The departmental instructions also require strict adherence to the prescribed procedure and timelines.

Conclusion: The delayed post-decisional hearing violated the mandatory requirement of Regulation 16(2); consequently, the order continuing suspension was unsustainable and the suspension stood revoked with immediate effect.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax erroneously paid by the service provider under Mining Service for supply of floating rigs could be refunded to the service recipient without the service provider challenging the assessment; (ii) Whether the one-year limitation for refund claims applied where tax was paid under a mistake of law; (iii) Whether the respondent established absence of unjust enrichment; (iv) Whether the appellate authorities and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant refund for tax paid under a mistake of law.

Issue (i): Whether service tax erroneously paid by the service provider under Mining Service for supply of floating rigs could be refunded to the service recipient without the service provider challenging the assessment.

Analysis: Supply and operation of floating rigs was classifiable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service, which became taxable only from 16.05.2008, and not as Mining Service for the disputed period. The tax passed on by the service provider to the recipient was consequently collected without legal authority. The recipient, having borne the tax incidence, was entitled to seek its refund notwithstanding that the service provider had not separately challenged the classification assessment.

Conclusion: The service recipient was eligible for refund of service tax erroneously paid under Mining Service; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the one-year limitation for refund claims applied where tax was paid under a mistake of law.

Analysis: Retention of tax collected through an erroneous classification, where no levy was legally attracted, was inconsistent with Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable to refund of service tax paid through ignorance or mistake of law.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent established absence of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: Certificates of the service provider and the entity for whom the exploration activity was undertaken supported the finding that the service tax burden had been passed to and borne by the respondent. The concurrent factual finding on the absence of further passing on of the incidence was not shown to warrant interference.

Conclusion: Refund to the respondent would not result in unjust enrichment; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the appellate authorities and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant refund for tax paid under a mistake of law.

Analysis: As the appeal proceedings contained established findings on erroneous classification, payment of tax, and the incidence borne by the respondent, requiring recourse to a civil suit or writ petition would be futile. The statutory appellate authorities were competent to rectify the classification error and order refund in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The appellate authorities and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant the refund; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Tax collected on supply of floating rigs before the taxable entry for Supply of Tangible Goods Service came into force was liable to be refunded to the recipient who bore its incidence, without limitation or unjust-enrichment impediment.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax paid under an erroneous classification where no lawful levy existed cannot be retained consistently with Article 265, and a recipient who proves that it bore the incidence may obtain refund notwithstanding the ordinary limitation provision.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of IGST paid on exports to Bhutan could be denied solely because shipping bills were not filed; (ii) Whether penalty for non-filing of shipping bills was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether refund of IGST paid on exports to Bhutan could be denied solely because shipping bills were not filed.

Analysis: The tax invoices established payment of IGST, while the Bhutan invoices, sealing endorsements by CGST officers, examination at the land customs station, and Bhutan import declarations established export and receipt of the consignments. Although the revised procedure required shipping bills, the exports occurred immediately after introduction of the GST regime and were processed by departmental and customs officers without objection. The failure to file shipping bills was therefore a procedural lapse and did not displace the established fact of export or IGST payment.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the IGST paid, with applicable interest for delayed refund.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for non-filing of shipping bills was sustainable.

Analysis: The exporter had followed the earlier documentation procedure, and the consignments had been sealed and permitted to cross the border by CGST and customs officers without being directed to follow the revised shipping-bill procedure. The lapse was consequently attributable also to the departmental authorities.

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

Final Conclusion: Documentary proof of export and tax payment prevailed over the procedural omission in the transitional period following implementation of the GST regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in export documentation cannot defeat an IGST refund or justify penalty where export, payment of tax, and substantive compliance are established by reliable contemporaneous records.

Issues: (i) Whether reimbursement of employee operating costs by group companies was taxable as Business Support Service; (ii) Whether consideration from multi-function printer arrangements was taxable as Business Support Service; (iii) Whether the value of course material supplied to independent training operators was taxable as Commercial Training or Coaching Service; (iv) Whether amounts received under the Intel Inside programme were taxable as Advertising Agency Service; (v) Whether abatement for goods supplied under comprehensive service and maintenance contracts was available; (vi) Whether the extended period could be invoked for demand up to September 2014; (vii) Whether service-tax demands for 1 July 2012 to September 2013 could be sustained under provisions rendered inapplicable by the negative-list regime.

Issue (i): Whether reimbursement of employee operating costs by group companies was taxable as Business Support Service.

Analysis: Business Support Service covered outsourced business functions. The group companies had not outsourced any function; they merely reimbursed costs of employees deployed for common group activities. Sharing or reimbursement of such expenditure did not constitute consideration for a taxable service, and reimbursed expenses could not be included in taxable value through Rule 5 of the Service Tax Valuation Rules.

Conclusion: The employee-cost reimbursement was not taxable as Business Support Service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether consideration from multi-function printer arrangements was taxable as Business Support Service.

Analysis: The printers were installed at customers' premises and remained in their possession and use for the contractual period. The arrangement transferred the right to use the equipment and amounted to a deemed sale. Further, documentary material established VAT payment on spare parts, toner and consumables, rendering their value eligible for exclusion under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003.

Conclusion: The printer arrangement and the value of goods supplied thereunder were not liable to service tax as Business Support Service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the value of course material supplied to independent training operators was taxable as Commercial Training or Coaching Service.

Analysis: Independent service providers operated the career development centres, enrolled students and provided training. The assessee only sold course material to those providers. In any event, separately identifiable goods sold during provision of training were excluded from taxable value under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable on the value of course material, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether amounts received under the Intel Inside programme were taxable as Advertising Agency Service.

Analysis: Advertising Agency Service required involvement in making, preparing, displaying or exhibiting advertisements in the relevant statutory sense. The assessee merely displayed Intel's supplied logo on computers it manufactured and undertook no designing, conceptualising or visualising of the advertisement.

Conclusion: Display of the supplied Intel logo did not constitute Advertising Agency Service and was not taxable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether abatement for goods supplied under comprehensive service and maintenance contracts was available.

Analysis: Toner, developer, spares and consumables were supplied in performing maintenance contracts. The invoices and certificate established payment of VAT on those goods, and no Cenvat credit had been availed on them. The conditions for exclusion of the value of goods under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 were therefore fulfilled.

Conclusion: Abatement for the value of goods supplied in the maintenance contracts was available, and the related service-tax demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether the extended period could be invoked for demand up to September 2014.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was issued in October 2015 on the basis of a special audit and information already available to the department since 2012. The delay in issuing the notice did not support invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand up to September 2014 was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vii): Whether service-tax demands for 1 July 2012 to September 2013 could be sustained under provisions rendered inapplicable by the negative-list regime.

Analysis: After 1 July 2012, demands could not be confirmed by invoking the earlier positive-list service categories under Section 65(105). The show-cause notice and adjudication had relied on provisions that no longer governed levy after the negative-list regime commenced.

Conclusion: The demand for 1 July 2012 to September 2013 founded on the non-existent positive-list provisions was untenable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All disputed service-tax demands lacked legal sustainability; the consequential interest and penalties could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Reimbursements without outsourced services, transactions constituting transfer of the right to use goods, and documented goods sold during taxable activities cannot be subjected to service tax beyond the statutory charge and valuation framework; a demand must also be raised under the provisions applicable to the relevant period and within limitation.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was required to make a further statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal where the disputed tax had already been paid under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax regime.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the classification of supplies as inter-State or intra-State supplies and consequent liability under CGST and SGST instead of IGST. Since the demand did not concern excess availment of input tax credit and the corresponding tax had already been deposited under the IGST regime, a further deposit was not warranted for pursuing the statutory appellate remedy under Section 112.

Conclusion: The petitioner may file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within one week without making the statutory 10% pre-deposit; all questions on the merits remain open.

Issues: Whether closure of the criminal case was sustainable when the tax liability had not attained finality at the time of the closure order.

Analysis: The closure order proceeded on the premise that the purpose of prosecution had been satisfied, although the assessment and appellate orders had been set aside in part and remitted for fresh consideration. The tax liability was determined and discharged only after the closure order. The closure order therefore did not record a sustainable basis for treating the liability as fully satisfied. Subsequent developments require consideration by the Trial Court.

Conclusion: The closure order was unsustainable and the Trial Court must reconsider the matter in accordance with law after considering subsequent developments.

Issues: Whether a Mauritius resident assessee may claim set-off and carry forward of capital losses arising from shares acquired before 1 April 2017, by electing the more beneficial provisions of the Income-tax Act over the India-Mauritius tax treaty.

Analysis: Section 90(2) permits the assessee to apply the Act or the applicable treaty, whichever is more beneficial. The treaty cannot be compulsorily imposed upon the assessee. The co-ordinate-bench rulings applied recognise that exempt capital gains under Article 13 do not enter computation of total income, and that capital-loss claims determined or claimed under the Act may be carried forward in accordance with the Act. The earlier acceptance of brought-forward losses also supported their continued availability.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to the claimed set-off and carry-forward treatment of its current-year and brought-forward long-term capital losses; the Assessing Officer shall recompute taxable income accordingly.

Issues: Whether the service-tax demand order could stand when the relevant work contracts and agreements were subsequently placed on record for consideration.

Analysis: The relevant contractual materials were available for examination, and the Department agreed that the matter required fresh consideration on the basis of the complete record. A fresh decision was also required after permitting production of any further relevant documents and affording an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned demand order was set aside and the matter was directed to be decided afresh by the competent Commissioner on the available and further relevant materials.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority may confirm tax and penalty beyond the amounts proposed in the show cause notice.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand exceeding that specified in the show cause notice. The notice proposed tax of Rs. 96,000 and penalty of Rs. 20,000, whereas the adjudication order confirmed tax of Rs. 96,000 and penalty of Rs. 96,000. The excess confirmation violated the mandatory statutory limitation and was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The adjudication order confirming penalty beyond the show cause notice was invalid and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Entitlement to credit for tax deducted at source where the deductor failed to deposit the deducted tax with the Central Government. (ii) Enforceability of a demand arising from an intimation under Section 143(1) where proof of service of the intimation was unavailable.

Issue (i): Entitlement to credit for tax deducted at source where the deductor failed to deposit the deducted tax with the Central Government.

Analysis: Section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 protects an assessee against recovery of tax deducted at source from its income. The applicable directions governing verification of a claim for credit where deduction is established but remittance by the deductor has failed were adopted. The admitted insolvency claim against the deductor related to unpaid receivables and did not preclude the assessee from seeking TDS credit.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: upon verification of deduction, TDS credit and consequential relief must be granted notwithstanding the deductor's non-deposit of the tax.

Issue (ii): Enforceability of a demand arising from an intimation under Section 143(1) where proof of service of the intimation was unavailable.

Analysis: An intimation under Section 143(1) determining a payable sum is deemed to be a notice of demand under Section 156(1), and its service upon the assessee is mandatory. As no proof of service of the relevant intimation was available, the asserted demand could not be enforced. Consequently, recovery and adjustment of refunds under Section 245 could not rest on that demand.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the demand for Assessment Year 2011-12 was quashed, and no recovery or refund adjustment could be made against it.

Final Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to verification-based TDS credit for Assessment Year 2010-11, while the unenforceable demand for Assessment Year 2011-12 cannot support recovery or adjustment of refunds.

Issues: (i) Whether contemporaneous additional evidence concerning intra-group support-service payments should be admitted and the transfer-pricing adjustment be reconsidered; (ii) Whether Reserve for Unexpired Risks, not debited to the statement of profit and loss, can be added to book profit under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether contemporaneous additional evidence concerning intra-group support-service payments should be admitted and the transfer-pricing adjustment be reconsidered.

Analysis: The evidence comprised primary contemporaneous material directly bearing on the rendition and receipt of services, benefit derived, underlying costs and arm's-length character of the payments. The short time allowed to respond to the show-cause notice and the explanation for non-production constituted sufficient cause. Since the material had not been verified by the lower authorities, its probative value required examination at the assessment stage with opportunity to both sides.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted and the transfer-pricing issues were restored for fresh determination. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Reserve for Unexpired Risks, not debited to the statement of profit and loss, can be added to book profit under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The identical issue had already been decided in the assessee's earlier assessment years. A reserve not debited to the statement of profit and loss does not satisfy the condition for adjustment under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB. The basis of the contrary adjustment did not survive in light of the earlier coordinate-bench determination.

Conclusion: Reserve for Unexpired Risks not debited to the statement of profit and loss cannot be added to book profit under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing matters require de novo consideration on the admitted record, and the consequential book-profit computation must conform to the settled position on Reserve for Unexpired Risks.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount carried to a reserve that has not been debited to the statement of profit and loss cannot be added to book profit under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB.

Issues: Whether input tax credit for Financial Year 2018-19 could be denied where the return was filed on 23.10.2019 in light of Section 16(5).

Analysis: Section 16(5) overrides the limitation in Section 16(4) and permits a registered person to avail input tax credit relating to Financial Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 through a return filed up to 30.11.2021. The return for Financial Year 2018-19 was filed on 23.10.2019, within the period preserved by that provision.

Conclusion: The claimed input tax credit could not be denied under Section 16(5), in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether cash receipts in Specified Bank Notes towards repayment of existing micro-finance loans could be assessed as unexplained cash credits; (ii) Whether the separate addition of interest income embedded in the loan repayments could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether cash receipts in Specified Bank Notes towards repayment of existing micro-finance loans could be assessed as unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: Section 68 requires a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of a sum credited in the books. The receipts were supported by audited financial-statement disclosures, regular cash-book entries, cash-flow details, deposit particulars and borrower confirmations. Repayment of loans already advanced and recorded as receivables reduces the outstanding receivable and does not constitute a fresh unexplained credit. The books and underlying loan portfolio were not rejected or shown to be non-genuine. Receipt in demonetised currency, or non-service of certain third-party notices, without contrary material disproving the repayments, did not establish undisclosed income.

Conclusion: The cash repayments were explained recoveries of existing loan receivables and could not be added as unexplained cash credits. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the separate addition of interest income embedded in the loan repayments could be sustained.

Analysis: The interest component of the instalments had been credited in the books and offered to tax. As the principal receipts were not liable to treatment as unexplained cash credits, the consequential addition concerning the same receipts had no independent basis and would result in taxation of income already offered.

Conclusion: The separate interest addition could not survive and was deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions founded on the characterisation of documented loan recoveries as unexplained credits, including the consequential interest addition, do not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Repayment of an existing and recorded loan receivable, supported by regular books and corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as an unexplained cash credit merely because it was received in demonetised currency.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to adjudicate disputed facts concerning service of the show cause notice, hearing notice and order-in-original despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The alleged non-service and denial of hearing were disputed, with the respondents asserting service through speed post, e-mail and the web portal. These factual controversies could appropriately be examined by the statutory appellate authority. As an efficacious appeal was available, and denial of hearing could not conclusively be established at this stage, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not invoked. The appellate authority was directed to consider, on merits and in accordance with law, any application for exclusion of the time spent pursuing the writ petition.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy; the writ court declined to adjudicate the disputed service-related facts.

Issues: Whether service of a show-cause notice solely by uploading it on the GST portal was valid after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration, and whether the resulting adjudication could stand without an effective opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: Section 169 permits multiple modes of service and requires service that effectively communicates the notice. Portal-only service was insufficient where registration had already been cancelled before issuance of the show-cause notice, as the taxpayer could not be expected to monitor the portal thereafter. An adverse adjudication also requires an opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4), where sought by the taxpayer.

Conclusion: The adjudication order demanding tax and penalty was quashed in favour of the assessee; the Revenue may recommence proceedings from the show-cause-notice stage and must afford a personal hearing if requested.