Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in connection with allegations of fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit.

Analysis: The complaint against the applicant had been filed, although further investigation into the larger conspiracy continued. The applicant had remained in custody since 29.04.2026, a co-accused had been granted bail, and the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude.

Outcome: Regular bail granted on furnishing personal bond and surety.

Issues: Whether fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for increasing share capital are eligible for amortisation under section 35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) covers expenditure connected with the issue of shares or debentures and with public subscription. The enumeration of underwriting commission, brokerage, and prospectus-related charges is descriptive and does not exclude Registrar of Companies fees paid for issuance of share capital. Reading the provision without giving effect to the comma after "issue" improperly restricts its scope. Issuance of shares to the holding company does not alter the eligibility of the expenditure.

Conclusion: Fees paid to the Registrar of Companies for issuance of share capital fall within section 35D(2)(c)(iv) and are allowable for amortisation. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the figures in pages 4 and 5 of Annexure B-3 could be decoded by adding two zeros, and the resultant addition for undisclosed profit; (ii) Whether additions for unexplained investment and undisclosed profit based on Annexures B-1 and B-2 could be sustained in the assessee's hands.

Issue (i): Whether the figures in pages 4 and 5 of Annexure B-3 could be decoded by adding two zeros, and the resultant addition for undisclosed profit.

Analysis: The Tribunal had rejected the decoding of the entries by adding either two or three zeros for want of basis, but nevertheless sustained an addition by adding one zero. The two-zero decoding adopted by the appellate authority was supported by cogent factual reasons, including the nature and cost of the equipment, withdrawals, cash position and the assessee's capital investment. The Tribunal's retention of a lesser addition by adding one zero lacked a corresponding basis.

Conclusion: The addition for undisclosed profit was sustainable at Rs. 63,40,000 by decoding the Annexure B-3 entries with two zeros. This issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether additions for unexplained investment and undisclosed profit based on Annexures B-1 and B-2 could be sustained in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: The appellate authority and the Tribunal concurrently found that, except for pages 4 and 5 of Annexure B-3, the entries in the seized annexures had been considered for taxation in the hands of the firm. The material also showed that the assessee lacked financial capacity to independently conduct transactions on the scale reflected in those papers. No basis existed for making the same additions in the assessee's individual assessment.

Conclusion: The deletions of the additions for unexplained investment and undisclosed profits based on Annexures B-1 and B-2 were upheld. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The undisclosed income arising from pages 4 and 5 of Annexure B-3 was restored to Rs. 63,40,000, while the remaining seized-paper additions attributable to the firm remained deleted in the assessee's individual assessment.

Issues: Whether an approved insolvency resolution plan extinguishes GST liabilities relating to the period subsequent to its implementation date.

Analysis: The resolution plan contemplated waiver of indirect-tax dues up to the implementation date, with the requested relief left for consideration by the appropriate authorities. The petitioner had not sought waiver of interest or penalty for liabilities covered by the plan. The plan did not extend to the tax period involved in the impugned proceedings, which fell after the relevant implementation period. The statutory amendments to the insolvency regime and the applicable legal position did not support application of the resolution plan to those subsequent liabilities.

Conclusion: The approved resolution plan does not extinguish GST liability for the post-implementation period covered by the impugned order.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 72 best judgment assessments based on assumed growth, pro-rata calculations, or peak turnover despite available financial records were valid; (ii) Whether claimed exempt, export/SEZ, non-taxable, and reimbursable receipts could be included in taxable value without transaction-level verification; (iii) Whether CENVAT credit adjustment could be rejected on generalized assumptions without verifying statutory records; (iv) Whether extended limitation was invokable and SCN-I's April 2005 to September 2005 portion was beyond the statutory outer limit; (v) Whether the financial year 2016-17 demand needed protection against duplication with the DGGSTI investigation.

Issue (i): Whether Section 72 best judgment assessments based on assumed growth, pro-rata calculations, or peak turnover despite available financial records were valid.

Analysis: Best judgment assessment is an exceptional machinery provision requiring a rational nexus with available material; it cannot be used as a best guess or to replace actual, verifiable financial and statutory records with arbitrary projections. The record acknowledged audited financial statements and, for certain periods, statutory returns, while the assessments nevertheless proceeded on an inconsistent premise that such records were unavailable.

Conclusion: The best judgment assessments adopted under Section 72 were unwarranted and unsustainable. Taxable value must be determined from actual and verifiable records rather than arbitrary growth, pro-rata, or peak-turnover estimates. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether claimed exempt, export/SEZ, non-taxable, and reimbursable receipts could be included in taxable value without transaction-level verification.

Analysis: Gross receipts reflected in accounts do not automatically constitute consideration for taxable services. Claims relating to exempt or non-taxable services, export/SEZ services, and reimbursements require examination of agreements, invoices, recipient-wise records, remittances, ledgers, and other contemporaneous evidence. For periods before 14.05.2015, genuine reimbursable expenses not constituting consideration are excludible; for later periods, reimbursement claims must satisfy the statutory pure-agent requirements.

Conclusion: The receipts in question cannot be included merely on their reflection in gross financial figures. Amounts established on verification as exempt, non-taxable, or legally excludible reimbursements must be excluded from taxable value. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether CENVAT credit adjustment could be rejected on generalized assumptions without verifying statutory records.

Analysis: Salary expenditure alone could not support a sweeping inference that no eligible input or operational expenditure existed. Audited records indicated administrative, office, finance, and operational expenditure. Credit eligibility and utilisation required verification against relevant invoices, ledgers, and CENVAT records, rather than denial based on generalized assumptions or selective reliance on financial entries.

Conclusion: Eligible CENVAT credit must be allowed towards service tax liability after proper verification and cannot be denied on generalized assumptions. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether extended limitation was invokable and SCN-I's April 2005 to September 2005 portion was beyond the statutory outer limit.

Analysis: Extended limitation requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or contravention with intent to evade tax. The demands were substantially founded on audited and disclosed financial records, and the Department had already audited or investigated the same business activities. Non-filing or delayed filing of returns, without evidence of deliberate concealment, did not establish the requisite intent. Further, the statutory extended period could not reach beyond its absolute five-year boundary.

Conclusion: Extended limitation was not invokable for the notices in question; any surviving liability is restricted to the normal limitation period. The portion of SCN-I relating to April 2005 to September 2005 is barred beyond the statutory outer limit. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the financial year 2016-17 demand needed protection against duplication with the DGGSTI investigation.

Analysis: A parallel investigation does not by itself invalidate proceedings, but fiscal authorities must identify the precise transactions, period, taxable value, and demands covered by the other investigation to prevent the same liability from being assessed or recovered twice.

Conclusion: Any overlap with tax already proposed, determined, or dealt with in the DGGSTI proceedings must be excluded; no duplicated demand or recovery is permissible. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Any fresh fiscal liability must be founded on verified transaction-level material, after legally admissible exclusions and credit adjustments, within the normal limitation period, and without duplication of liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Best judgment assessment cannot rest on arbitrary estimation where primary records are available, and extended limitation cannot be invoked without proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade tax.

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.