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.

Issues: Whether refund could be withheld during pendency of the Revenue's appeal without a specific order by the Commissioner under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Rule 90(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permits communication of deficiencies in a refund application through Form GST RFD-03. However, the record did not disclose any proceeding or exercise by the Commissioner under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for withholding the claimed refund during the pendency of the appeal. Exercise of that power required issuance of notice, opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned determination.

Conclusion: Refund cannot be withheld during pendency of the appeal without the Commissioner passing a specific order under Section 54(11) after notice and opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory power to withhold a GST refund pending appeal must be exercised through a specific reasoned order after complying with notice and hearing requirements.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal solely on limitation was sustainable where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing an effective response.

Analysis: The notice-placement resulted in the petitioners being unable to respond within time. This constituted a prima facie breach of principles of natural justice. As the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on limitation without examining merits, the circumstances warranted intervention and fresh appellate consideration.

Conclusion: The appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside, and the appeal was directed to be admitted and decided afresh on merits after hearing the petitioners.

Issues: Whether rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration without intimating the date and time of personal hearing was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 30(2) requires that an application for revocation of cancellation of registration must not be rejected without an opportunity of hearing. A proper and effective hearing requires prior intimation of the appointed date and time. The show-cause notice referred to a possible personal hearing but did not specify its date or time. The rejection order, founded only on failure to reply, was also cryptic and non-speaking.

Conclusion: The rejection order was unsustainable for denial of a proper and effective opportunity of hearing and for being non-speaking; the Proper Officer must reconsider the revocation application after duly notifying and affording personal hearing.

Issues: Whether service tax was payable on royalty paid during April 2016 to June 2017 under a mining lease granted by the State Government before 1 April 2016.

Analysis: Services provided by Governments became taxable from 1 April 2016. The mining lease had, however, been granted in 2012. The Tribunal applied its earlier decisions, whose view had not been interfered with by the Supreme Court, that royalty paid under mining rights granted before the levy became effective did not attract service tax merely because payment was made after that date.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable on the royalty paid during the disputed period because the mining lease was granted before 1 April 2016.

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority could, under Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rectify an ex parte adjudication that failed to consider the assessee's replies by issuing a further ex parte demand order without notice, rather than recalling the original order and granting a hearing.

Analysis: Section 161 permits rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record, including suo motu rectification within the prescribed period. A procedural review may also be exercised to cure a fundamental procedural defect. However, complete non-consideration of the assessee's replies and denial of hearing vitiated the original adjudication. The error could not be cured through a merits-based reconsideration resulting in another ex parte demand. As the rectified action adversely affected the assessee, notice and compliance with principles of natural justice were required; the proviso permitting rectification without notice did not apply merely because the demand was reduced.

Conclusion: The further ex parte order was impermissible and invalid. The original adjudication required recall and fresh determination only after affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with directions to provide the order-in-appeal and permit recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether an adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) and retained without independent scrutiny in an assessment under section 143(3) could be challenged in an appeal against the assessment order; (ii) Whether employees' PF/ESI contributions could be disallowed through a section 143(1)(a) adjustment under section 36(1)(va) when the allowability of delayed payments was a debatable issue on the date of intimation; (iii) Whether further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be sustained where the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeded the amount computed by considering only investments yielding exempt income, including while computing book profit for AY 2018-19.

Issue (i): Whether an adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) and retained without independent scrutiny in an assessment under section 143(3) could be challenged in an appeal against the assessment order.

Analysis: The adjustment remained embedded in the assessed income because the Assessing Officer adopted the income determined in the intimation as the starting point and made no independent examination or finding on that adjustment. A taxpayer aggrieved by the resultant assessment liability may contest the retained adjustment in the appeal against the assessment order. The absence of a separate appeal against the intimation does not defeat that substantive appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to challenge the retained section 143(1)(a) adjustment, including its jurisdictional validity, in the appeal against the section 143(3) assessment; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether employees' PF/ESI contributions could be disallowed through a section 143(1)(a) adjustment under section 36(1)(va) when the allowability of delayed payments was a debatable issue on the date of intimation.

Analysis: On the date of the intimation, divergent judicial views existed regarding contributions deposited after the welfare-law due dates but before the return-filing due date, and the jurisdictional view supported allowability. The limited summary-adjustment mechanism cannot be used to adjudicate a contentious legal question. A subsequent settlement of the law does not retrospectively remove the debatable character of the issue at the time the intimation was issued.

Conclusion: The section 143(1)(a) disallowance of employees' PF/ESI contributions was impermissible and was deleted; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could be sustained where the assessee's suo motu disallowance exceeded the amount computed by considering only investments yielding exempt income, including while computing book profit for AY 2018-19.

Analysis: For computing the Rule 8D disallowance, only investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year were relevant. On that basis, the computed amounts for both years were lower than the sums already disallowed by the assessee. For AY 2018-19, the additional disallowance was also not sustainable in book-profit computation because it did not fall within the prescribed adjustments under section 115JB.

Conclusion: No further disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was warranted for either year, and the corresponding book-profit adjustment for AY 2018-19 could not survive; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The invalid PF/ESI adjustment and the additional exempt-income disallowances were eliminated, while the claimed donation deduction requires factual verification.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary adjustment under section 143(1)(a) cannot be made on a legal issue that was debatable when the intimation was issued; subsequent judicial settlement does not retrospectively make that issue apparent from the return.

Issues: Whether a regular criminal court could grant interim custody of goods seized under the Customs Act, 1962 where no prior sanction for prosecution or cognizance of a Customs offence had been recorded.

Analysis: Sections 110 and 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 provide the special statutory mechanism for seizure and provisional release of goods pending adjudication. Confiscation and penalties are to be adjudicated by the officers specified under Sections 122 and 122A. Although a complaint referred to Section 135, the record disclosed neither the prior sanction mandated by Section 137 nor an order taking cognizance. In the absence of cognizance of an offence under the Customs Act, the criminal court could not invoke the general power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to order release of the seized goods, overriding the special Customs regime.

Conclusion: The regular criminal court lacked jurisdiction to grant zimma of the Customs-seized areca nuts; the order granting their release was without jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the dividend distribution tax rate could be determined under the India-Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement instead of Section 115-O.

Analysis: In light of the pending Supreme Court proceedings against the jurisdictional High Court ruling on the same question and the direction to consider staying similar matters, judicial discipline required that the issue not be adjudicated at this stage.

Outcome: The issue was restored for fresh adjudication after the Supreme Court decision.