Issues: Whether Section 206AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 overrides Section 90(2) where tax is deducted at the beneficial rate prescribed under an applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Section 90(2) gives primacy to the provisions of a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement where they are more beneficial to the assessee. Section 206AA is a procedural tax-withholding provision and cannot override the beneficial treaty rate applicable to payments made to non-residents. Accordingly, where tax has been deducted at the lower rate stipulated by the relevant treaty, deduction at 20 per cent cannot be insisted upon merely because the non-resident deductee does not furnish a permanent account number.

Conclusion: Section 206AA does not override Section 90(2); the beneficial rate under the applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement governs tax deduction at source. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a statutory housing board undertaking housing-development functions is disentitled to exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 because of Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8).

Analysis: Statutory bodies engaged in housing development advance objects of general public utility. Charges collected in performing public statutory functions are not, merely because consideration is recovered, commercial receipts; the character of the activity depends upon whether the charges substantially exceed cost with a nominal mark-up. The governing test requires scrutiny of the statutory objects, functions, regulatory controls and the nature of the receipts. The applicable principles treat statutory housing boards as eligible general-public-utility charities where their activities remain directed to public functions.

Conclusion: Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) does not apply to deny the assessee exemptions under Sections 11 and 12; the assessee is entitled to those benefits.

Issues: Whether the profit element on purchases held to be unverifiable, where corresponding sales were accepted, was correctly estimated at 12.5%.

Analysis: The purchases were not established as wholly genuine from the stated supplier, but the authorities accepted that goods had been purchased from the market without proper billing and that corresponding sales were not disputed. Therefore, disallowance of the entire purchase amount was unwarranted; only the profit element embedded in the unverified purchases could be assessed. Having regard to the business activities and circumstances, the estimation adopted was excessive.

Conclusion: The profit rate was reduced from 12.5% to 6.5% of the purchases, and an addition of Rs. 5,81,100 was sustained.

Issues: Whether a tax demand can be confirmed by applying a valuation rule different from that invoked in the show cause notice, without affording the assessee an opportunity to respond.

Analysis: The show cause notice invoked Rule 28(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, for determining the value of excavated soil. The adjudicating authority acknowledged that the invoked rule was inapplicable, but confirmed the demand by applying Rule 27(c), which adopted a distinct valuation basis. The assessee had no notice of, or opportunity to address, the applicability or valuation under Rule 27(c). The substitution of the valuation basis at adjudication caused grave prejudice and was inconsistent with the requirements of a valid show cause notice and principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: A demand cannot be sustained on the basis of Rule 27(c) when the show cause notice invoked Rule 28(1)(a) and no opportunity was given to meet the changed basis of valuation; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration and rejection of its revocation application could be sustained solely because the registered person reported nil turnover in GSTR-3B returns and did not respond to the subsequent show-cause notice.

Analysis: Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits cancellation only upon circumstances specified therein. The proper officer must independently reach satisfaction, founded on cogent and tangible material, that the statutory conditions exist. Nil turnover declarations, without verification of the evidence demonstrating continuing business activity from the registered premises, do not establish discontinuance of business or otherwise fall within the prescribed grounds for cancellation.

Conclusion: The cancellation proceedings and rejection of revocation were invalid, as nil turnover alone could not justify cancellation of registration under Section 29. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment notice founded on an unsigned and uncorroborated loose paper, without a live link between its contents and the assessee, was valid.

Analysis: Clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires information from seized material to bear a prima facie nexus with the assessee and the alleged escapement of income. The loose paper was illegible, did not name the assessee or the purchaser, referred only to an unrelated person, and pre-dated the assessee's purchase of the land by nearly two years. There was no material linking the assessee with the entities or broker referred to in the paper. The assumed transaction value was therefore based on hypothesis rather than material establishing a live link with the assessee.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and was quashed and set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether an addition could be made by revaluing opening stock where the corresponding closing stock of the preceding year had been accepted; (ii) Whether interest on an outstanding credit could be disallowed when the credit pertained to the preceding year and its outstanding balance was not doubted.

Issue (i): Whether an addition could be made by revaluing opening stock where the corresponding closing stock of the preceding year had been accepted.

Analysis: The settled accounting principle is that the closing stock of an earlier accounting year necessarily constitutes the opening stock of the succeeding year, and the stock positions in the two years are interlinked. The disputed stock was shown as closing stock in the preceding year, which the Department accepted; the books of account were not rejected and no material justified a different valuation of the same stock on the first day of the succeeding year.

Conclusion: Revaluation of the accepted opening stock was unjustified; the deletion of the addition was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on an outstanding credit could be disallowed when the credit pertained to the preceding year and its outstanding balance was not doubted.

Analysis: The outstanding credit related to the preceding year, and the assessing authority had not disputed the amount standing to the credit of the concerned party. The factual basis for treating the credit as false and disallowing the related interest was therefore absent.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was not sustainable; its deletion was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The accepted closing-stock position could not be altered through a contrary opening-stock valuation in the succeeding year, and interest could not be disallowed on an undoubted outstanding credit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where closing stock of a preceding year is accepted, it must be carried forward as the opening stock of the succeeding year unless a legally sustainable basis exists to alter it.

Issues: Whether penalty proceedings and consequential penalty orders under Section 271DA were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c).

Analysis: Under the unamended Section 275(1)(c), two coordinate-bench interpretations were noted: one treated the Assessing Officer's reference as the commencement point, while the other treated issuance of notice under Section 274 by the Joint Commissioner as initiation of proceedings. The assessment orders having been passed in March 2024, the applicable six-month period expired on 30.09.2024. The show-cause notice dated 12.12.2024 was beyond that period under either interpretation.

Conclusion: The penalty orders and demand notices under Section 271DA were barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether reduction of indexed cost of acquisition, on the basis that only the reduced area available after compulsory surrender to the development authority was transferred, could be made through rectification.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to a mistake apparent from the record. The claim that 40% of the originally purchased land was compulsorily retained by the development authority upon conversion to non-agricultural use, leaving no ownership in that portion, required examination of the conversion order, the legal effect of the statutory surrender, and the principles governing attribution of acquisition cost. The controversy therefore involved factual investigation and legal interpretation, rather than an apparent error capable of correction through rectification.

Conclusion: The rectification exceeded the permissible jurisdiction under Section 154; the rectification order was quashed and the addition for alleged excess indexed cost of acquisition was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the gold seized from the assessee's premises under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable; (ii) Whether penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the gold seized from the assessee's premises under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 permits reliance on statements to prove their contents only in the prescribed circumstances. The finding that the seized gold was smuggled substantially rested on a retracted statement and statements of other persons. The makers were not made available for cross-examination despite a specific request. Such untested statements could not constitute legal evidence against the assessee. The remaining material concerning a wider smuggling syndicate did not independently establish that the particular gold seized was smuggled.

Conclusion: The confiscation was unsustainable and is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty was founded substantially on the same retracted and untested statements used to implicate the assessee in receipt and refining of smuggled gold. Denial of cross-examination violated Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 and the principles of natural justice. In the absence of admissible evidence independently establishing knowledge or involvement, the evidentiary basis for penalty failed.

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

Final Conclusion: The findings founded on retracted statements without the requested opportunity for cross-examination were vitiated, eliminating the legal basis for the customs consequences imposed on the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement relied upon against a noticee cannot be treated as substantive evidence under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 where requested cross-examination of its maker is denied; absent independent admissible evidence, confiscation and penalty cannot be sustained.

Issues: Whether revocation proceedings could be sustained where statements relied upon in the show-cause notice and offence report were not supplied to the Customs Broker despite repeated requests.

Analysis: The relied-upon statements of the F-Card holder and G-Card holder formed a material basis of the allegations, but were not furnished to the appellant. This deprived the appellant of an effective opportunity to address, contradict, and make submissions on that material, contrary to the principles of natural justice applicable to proceedings under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Conclusion: The matter requires fresh adjudication after supplying the relied-upon statements and granting a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and enquiry report.

Issues: (i) Whether refund of excess service tax paid under mistake is subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether refund of excess service tax paid under mistake is subject to the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 11B applies to refund of duty or tax legally leviable under the statutory scheme. The excess amount, having been paid inadvertently where no tax liability existed, lacked legal authority and was in the nature of a deposit. Article 265 of the Constitution of India prohibits retention of a tax amount without authority of law. The assessment-related refund principles relied upon by Revenue were inapplicable because the claim concerned refund of an excess deposit rather than reassessment of service tax.

Conclusion: The one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not apply to refund of the excess amount paid under mistake; the issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim is barred by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The invoices and the Superintendent's certificate established that the service tax amount forming the claim had not been recovered from service recipients. The assessee consequently discharged the burden of showing that the incidence of the excess payment had not been passed on to another person.

Conclusion: The refund claim is not barred by unjust enrichment; the issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Excess service tax paid without legal liability is refundable as a deposit where the assessee establishes that its incidence was not passed on.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount paid as tax under mistake, without an underlying taxable liability, is a refundable deposit outside the limitation regime for statutory duty refunds, provided unjust enrichment is disproved.

Issues: Whether the claimed reimbursed expenses could be excluded from taxable value on the basis that the appellant acted as a pure agent.

Analysis: The claim of reimbursement and pure-agent status was unsupported by contractual agreements or other documentary evidence correlating the disputed amounts with expenses incurred for clients. The initial burden to establish the factual basis for exclusion had not been discharged. The appellant was nevertheless permitted to produce the requisite evidence before the original authority; if reimbursement is established, the governing principle that service tax is not chargeable on reimbursed expenses is to be applied.

Outcome: The matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

Issues: Whether the hospital's retention of a share of patient fees under arrangements with consultant doctors for provision of healthcare services was taxable as Business Support Service before 1 July 2012 or as a taxable service thereafter.

Analysis: The contractual arrangements constituted mutually beneficial revenue-sharing arrangements under which the consultant doctors rendered professional services and the hospital managed and delivered healthcare services to patients, including supporting facilities and follow-up care. The retained share was not consideration separately attributable to infrastructural support supplied to the doctors. Treating that share as Business Support Service or another taxable service would be inconsistent with the exemption available to healthcare services rendered by clinical establishments. The applicable coordinate-bench rulings on identical arrangements had been accepted by the department.

Conclusion: The retained amount was not liable to service tax as Business Support Service or as a taxable service. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed upon suppliers that cleared their goods on payment of excise duty, merely because invoices did not correctly identify the buyer.

Analysis: Rule 25 is expressly subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Its invocation therefore requires the conditions under Section 11AC, including non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, short-payment or erroneous refund of duty, to be satisfied. The goods supplied by the respondents were admittedly cleared on payment of the applicable excise duty. Incorrect or omitted buyer particulars in invoices, even if constituting a procedural lapse under Rule 11(2), did not establish any duty evasion by those suppliers or fulfil the statutory preconditions for penalty and confiscation under Rule 25.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 25 was not imposable on suppliers whose goods were cleared on payment of duty; the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the accused should be enlarged on bail pending investigation into alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims.

Analysis: The material investigation concerning the accused was substantially complete; the accused had remained in custody since 16.06.2026; and certain co-accused had already been granted bail. Balancing these circumstances against the nature and gravity of the allegations, further custodial detention was not considered necessary for the investigation.

Outcome: Bail granted on furnishing the prescribed bond and surety and complying with the monthly appearance requirement before the investigating officer until submission of the charge sheet.

Issues: Whether an addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between stamp-duty value and purchase consideration could be made in the hands of a joint purchaser who had not contributed to the purchase consideration.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 presumes equal interest in jointly acquired property only in the absence of evidence regarding the respective contributions. The evidence showed that the entire consideration was paid by the husband, while the assessee, though named as a co-purchaser, made no contribution. The Revenue neither rebutted this evidence nor conducted enquiry against the husband. The respective contribution towards acquisition is material for determining the person chargeable on the alleged benefit under section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Conclusion: The addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) could not be sustained in the hands of the assessee and was deleted.

Issues: Whether reassessment initiated solely on a revenue audit objection, without fresh tangible material after the original scrutiny assessment, was valid.

Analysis: The reopening was founded only on verification of the existing assessment record and the revenue audit objection. No new fact or tangible material, external to the original assessment record, was available to support the belief that income had escaped assessment. Reassessment on matters already examined in the original assessment amounted to an impermissible change of opinion under Section 147.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid; the addition made in the reassessment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable without an established contravention or failure to comply with a statutory obligation; (ii) Whether a detention and demurrage waiver certificate was required for the period of Customs-attributable delay in permitting re-export.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable without an established contravention or failure to comply with a statutory obligation.

Analysis: Section 117 is attracted only where a contravention, abetment, or failure to comply with a duty imposed by the Customs Act is established and no separate penalty is prescribed. The recorded findings showed that the re-export request was bona fide, the goods were unobjectionable upon examination, the proposed transhipment failed owing to non-availability of a coastal vessel, and the requisite no-objections were available. No contravention or statutory failure by the appellant was identified. Discretion to impose penalty must be exercised rationally, fairly and proportionately; it cannot be a mechanical imposition of the statutory maximum.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 117 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a detention and demurrage waiver certificate was required for the period of Customs-attributable delay in permitting re-export.

Analysis: The goods continued to remain detained despite payment of the penalty under protest, and the Let Export Order was issued only subsequently. Detention and demurrage liability cannot be imposed upon an importer or exporter for a period attributable to delay or omission by Customs authorities, particularly where adjudication has concluded without duty, fine or penalty.

Conclusion: A certificate waiving detention and demurrage charges up to the date on which the Let Export Order was issued and made available was directed to be issued in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The monetary consequence imposed for the re-export request was removed, and Customs was required to extend statutory waiver protection against charges arising from its delay.

Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary customs penalty requires an established contravention and a rational, proportionate exercise of power; where Customs-attributable delay causes detention after adjudication favours the importer or exporter, the statutory waiver certificate must be issued.

Issues: Whether a provisional-release order imposing conditions without affording a personal hearing and without considering the pending request for re-test could be sustained.

Analysis: The right to seek re-test is material to classification and the eventual adjudication. The governing re-test procedure and the request for provisional release required consideration. A decision on provisional release is adjudicatory in character and requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including consideration of the applicant's contentions and an effective opportunity of hearing. The order neither recorded a hearing nor addressed the pending re-test request or the basis on which the stipulated conditions were considered viable.

Conclusion: The provisional-release order could not stand and a fresh reasoned determination is required after granting the assessee a personal hearing and permitting supporting evidence.