Issues: Whether revocation of the Customs Broker licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were sustainable for undertaking clearance activities through another Customs Broker's credentials without the requisite authorisation and in breach of Customs Broker obligations.

Analysis: The Appellant admittedly undertook clearance-related work, received the import documents, and deputed its G-Card holder for examination, although the Bill of Entry bore another Customs Broker's credentials. Consent or a mutual arrangement with that broker could not authorise the Appellant to transact without an importer authorisation in its own name. The goods were prohibited for import under the applicable plant-quarantine regime; accordingly, the Appellant was required to exercise diligence, advise the importer of applicable restrictions, report non-compliance to Customs, and maintain and produce relevant business records. The established conduct supported violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f) and 10(k) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. Relief granted to the other broker in separate proceedings did not eliminate the Appellant's independent statutory breaches. Given the conscious use of another broker's credentials in a transaction involving prohibited goods, the sanctions were not manifestly disproportionate, and no substantial question of law arose under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The revocation of the licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty were sustained against the assessee.

Issues: Whether a one-day delay reflected in the payment record could deny the assessee the benefit of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme and issuance of a discharge certificate.

Analysis: The scheme benefit was sought after payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3. Although the departmental record reflected the CIN date as one day later than the claimed payment date, such minor procedural delay could not defeat the benefit of the scheme. The applicable approach also permitted manual examination and processing of declarations for issuance of the discharge certificate.

Conclusion: The assessee cannot be denied the scheme benefit because of the one-day delay; the request for issuance of the discharge certificate must be examined and processed manually within four weeks.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended limitation period was invocable for the service-tax demand; (ii) Whether the appellant's pantry-car activity was taxable as outdoor catering service.

Analysis: The Members reached opposite conclusions. The Technical Member treated the appellant's licensed on-board operations as catering performed for IRCTC, found that the operational obligations went beyond a mere sale of pre-packed food, and considered the non-payment and non-disclosure sufficient to establish suppression. The Judicial Member found that the appellant had disclosed its activity and tax position during departmental enquiry, that the Revenue had not established deliberate suppression with intent to evade, and that the contractual basis, service recipient and consideration for the alleged taxable service had not been sufficiently established.

Outcome: The Members recorded a difference of opinion and referred the matter to the President for determination by a Third Member.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen used for manufacture, repair and maintenance of capital goods and machinery within the factory; (ii) Whether the demand raised by show-cause notice for credit availed during August 2008 to April 2009 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen used for manufacture, repair and maintenance of capital goods and machinery within the factory.

Analysis: The Chartered Engineer's certificates established that the disputed goods were used within the factory for manufacture of capital goods and machinery, rather than for construction of factory sheds, buildings, foundations or support structures. The applicable principles recognise credit for inputs used in manufacture of capital goods deployed in the manufacturer's factory; the exclusion concerning structural items used for construction or foundations did not apply to the established end-use. The earlier Larger Bench view denying such credit stood displaced by subsequent authority.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the disputed structural materials, welding electrodes and oxygen was admissible. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised by show-cause notice for credit availed during August 2008 to April 2009 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The credit had been recorded in statutory RG23A records and disclosed in ER-1 returns. Given the divergent judicial views prevailing on admissibility of credit on the disputed goods, the assessee's belief in eligibility was bona fide. There was no suppression warranting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed demand, and consequential interest and penalty, could not survive either on merits or on limitation; consequential relief follows in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inputs demonstrably used in manufacture of capital goods within the factory qualify for Cenvat credit unless used for excluded construction or foundation purposes; disclosure of such credit in statutory records, coupled with a bona fide view amid interpretational dispute, negates suppression for invoking extended limitation.

Issues: Whether the appellant's request for issuance of a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, upon payment of the amount determined in Form SVLDRS-3, required manual processing.

Analysis: The records, including Forms SVLDRS-1 and SVLDRS-3 and the bank statement, established that the differential duty determined under the Scheme had been remitted, which was undisputed. The matter was procedural, and manual examination and processing of the declaration was warranted for issuance of the discharge certificate.

Conclusion: The appellant's request for a discharge certificate is to be manually examined and processed by the Commissioner within four weeks.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the advance ruling required adjudication when no assessment proceedings were pending.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of as nothing survived for consideration, with liberty to reopen it if any assessment proceedings concerning the respondent were found pending.

Issues: Whether the company claim instituted by the Official Liquidator was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A claim under Section 446(2) is governed by Article 137, and the right to apply accrues when the winding-up order is made, provided the claim was legally enforceable when the winding-up proceedings commenced. Section 458A excludes the period from commencement of winding-up proceedings until the winding-up order, and also excludes one year immediately following that order. The Official Liquidator consequently has three years under Article 137 together with the additional one-year exclusion following the winding-up order.

Conclusion: The claim filed within four years from the winding-up order was within limitation; the respondent's preliminary objection was rejected.

Issues: (i) Whether dissemination of the ethical and philosophical teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, alongside wider public-welfare objects, rendered the institution ineligible for approval under section 80G(5); (ii) Whether the expenditure reported in Form 10AB constituted religious expenditure exceeding the statutory limit under section 80G(5B).

Issue (i): Whether dissemination of the ethical and philosophical teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, alongside wider public-welfare objects, rendered the institution ineligible for approval under section 80G(5).

Analysis: Section 80G(5)(iii) requires that an institution not be expressed to benefit a particular religious community or caste, while Explanation 3 to section 80G excludes purposes wholly or substantially religious from charitable purpose. The relevant inquiry is the institution's dominant character, assessed from its objects as a whole, its beneficiaries and its actual activities. Its objects included relief to indigent persons, medical relief, public libraries, public welfare and moral advancement, with services available without distinction of class, caste or community. Dissemination of spiritual and philosophical teachings without denominational restriction did not, by itself, establish a purpose of advancing a particular religion.

Conclusion: The institution was not one existing wholly or substantially for religious purposes and was eligible for approval under section 80G(5), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the expenditure reported in Form 10AB constituted religious expenditure exceeding the statutory limit under section 80G(5B).

Analysis: Section 80G(5B) permits religious expenditure not exceeding 5% of total income. The amount entered as religious expenditure in Form 10AB exactly matched total expenditure in the audited accounts, notwithstanding the negative answer to the preceding query on religious expenditure. This supported the explanation of a clerical data-entry error. The expenditure capable of being treated as religious, recorded as Mandir Pooja expenditure, ranged from 1.46% to 2.92% of gross receipts and remained below the statutory ceiling.

Conclusion: The reported figures could not be treated as religious expenditure, and any religious expenditure was within the statutory limit, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory conditions for recognition of donations were satisfied, and the refusal based on religious character and excessive religious expenditure lacked legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval under section 80G cannot be denied merely because an institution disseminates spiritual or philosophical teachings or incurs incidental religious expenditure; its dominant objects, unrestricted beneficiaries and compliance with the statutory expenditure ceiling determine eligibility.

Issues: Whether an exporter of software services is entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit for the relevant period even where the exported software service is not a taxable service.

Analysis: Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 governs refund of accumulated credit attributable to exported output services. The binding position applied was that the non-taxability of exported software services does not disentitle an eligible exporter from claiming refund of CENVAT credit. The substantial questions concerning Rule 5, the definition of taxable service, and Notification No. 18/2008-ST were already governed by that position.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of CENVAT credit notwithstanding that the exported software service was not taxable.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate proceedings could be adjudicated after the assessee opted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued; (ii) Whether exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available in respect of long-term capital gains from sale of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate proceedings could be adjudicated after the assessee opted under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 had been issued.

Analysis: The assessee had filed Forms 1 and 2 under the settlement scheme, and Form 3 was issued by the designated authority. The lower appellate authority treated the appeal as incapable of adjudication under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. That finding was confirmed.

Conclusion: The appeal could not be adjudicated after issuance of Form 3 under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available in respect of long-term capital gains from sale of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd.

Analysis: The investigation report and the SEBI adjudication report established manipulation and rigging of the scrip's share price. Although those materials were furnished to the assessee, no supporting documents were produced before either the lower appellate authority or the Tribunal, despite the second round of proceedings and adjournments. The findings disallowing the claimed exemption were therefore sustained.

Conclusion: The claimed exemption for the long-term capital gains was not allowable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The settlement-scheme position and the merits independently sustain the Revenue's treatment of the disputed share-sale gains.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order and the appellate order dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred should be set aside and the matter restored for fresh adjudication where the assessee could not respond to the show-cause notice due to health grounds and hospitalization of its accountant.

Analysis: The adjudication was made ex parte because no reply was filed to the show-cause notice. The statutory appeal was dismissed solely on limitation and was not examined on merits. Health issues, including the hospitalization of the assessee's accountant, were accepted as sufficient circumstances for the failure to participate. A justice-oriented approach required a fresh opportunity to file a reply, produce supporting material and be heard, consistent with Natural Justice and Opportunity of Hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication and the limitation-based appellate dismissal were set aside, and the matter was restored to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration from the stage of filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether the marketing and promotional services rendered by the assessee qualified as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005.

Analysis: The Revenue's grounds substantially reiterated the contentions raised before the authorities below. The Tribunal's finding that the services fell within Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, read with the applicable Board circular, remained unassailed by any ground warranting interference. The precedent relied upon by the Revenue did not support its challenge, as the comparable issue had been resolved in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The services were correctly treated as export of service; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether GST could be deducted from compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of land and structures.

Analysis: GST is chargeable on the supply of goods or services. Land and buildings attached to land are immovable property, not goods. Compulsory acquisition is an expropriation under statutory power of eminent domain and does not involve a voluntary supply of goods or rendering of services by the landowner. No statutory basis was established for treating compensation for the acquired land or structure as taxable supply.

Conclusion: Deduction of GST from the acquisition compensation was without authority of law; the GST deduction was quashed and refund with interest and costs was directed.

Issues: Whether recurring trademark fees paid under a non-exclusive, time-bound licence agreement, without acquisition of proprietary rights in the trademark, are allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The trademark remained exclusively owned by the licensor, while the assessee obtained only a limited right of use for the authorised contractual period and was required to cease use upon termination. The fee was payable annually as a percentage of gross profit and did not transfer ownership, exclusive commercial rights, or an enduring capital asset. Such recurring payments for trademark use were therefore operational expenses rather than capital outlays.

Conclusion: The trademark fees are revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST show-cause notice and demand order should be entertained despite available statutory appellate remedies.

Analysis: The notice was issued only on the question of mandatory personal hearing. The record, including the portal screenshot produced by the petitioner, showed that the notice was visible. The statutory remedies of appeal before the appellate authority and further recourse before the GST Tribunal were available. The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, leaving all grounds, including the alleged denial of hearing, open for consideration in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in view of the efficacious alternate remedies available under the GST law.

Issues: Whether limitation for an appeal against a refund rejection, where a timely rectification application was filed and decided, must be computed from the rectification order rather than the original adjudication order.

Analysis: A rectification application under Section 161 was filed within the statutory period and was decided by a reasoned order. That rectification proceeding was material to computation of the appellate limitation under Section 107. The Appellate Authority incorrectly computed limitation solely from the original refund-rejection order without accounting for the date of the rectification order.

Conclusion: Limitation had to be computed from the date of the order deciding the timely rectification application; rejection of the appeal as time-barred by computing limitation from the original adjudication order was impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rectification application is timely filed and decided, the resulting order governs computation of limitation for an appeal challenging the original order and the rectification decision.

Issues: Whether GST demand proceedings, including show cause notices and the consequential demand order, initiated against a deceased sole proprietor were sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee had died before initiation of the proceedings, the proprietorship registration had subsequently been cancelled, and the legal heir was not connected with the business or aware of the GST portal communications. Notices and the consequential order were issued in the deceased proprietor's name, and no response could be furnished in those proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings initiated against the deceased proprietor, including the show cause notices and consequential demand order, were invalid and were quashed, without precluding lawful proceedings against the legal heir for any outstanding demand.

Issues: Whether the impugned tax order was founded exclusively on AI-generated authorities that may be nonexistent or inapplicable.

Analysis: The apparent reliance on the cited authorities was noted, and the revenue authorities were directed to obtain instructions regarding their existence and applicability. The matter was retained for further consideration, with a possible direction for the issuing officer's presence and action depending upon the verification.

Outcome: Matter listed for further hearing.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the fresh GST adjudication order and show-cause notice should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: A fresh adjudication order was passed after an earlier order had been quashed with directions to afford a personal hearing. An appeal against the fresh order is available under the statutory appellate mechanism, where objections concerning the maintainability of the subsequent show-cause notice and the alleged earlier dropping of proceedings may be raised. The appellate authority may pragmatically consider an application for exclusion of the period spent pursuing the writ petition.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available against a fresh adjudication order, objections to the proceedings should ordinarily be pursued before the appellate authority rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order passed ex parte under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can stand where the show cause notice was uploaded only on the common portal and was neither acknowledged nor answered by the assessee.

Analysis: Mere uploading of a show cause notice on the common portal, without acknowledgement of its receipt or a reply from the assessee, does not constitute sufficient service. An ex parte adjudication founded on such service deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond and be heard.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was set aside and the adjudication proceedings were restored to the stage of the show cause notice, with liberty to the assessee to submit its reply; the competent authority must pass a fresh order in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing.