Issues: (i) Whether reimbursements recovered by a Customs House Agent towards third-party charges were includible in the taxable value of Customs House Agent service for April 2008 to March 2009; (ii) Whether the consequential service-tax demand, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether reimbursements recovered by a Customs House Agent towards third-party charges were includible in the taxable value of Customs House Agent service for April 2008 to March 2009.

Analysis: Section 67 confined taxable value to the gross amount charged as consideration for the taxable service. Rule 5(1) could not enlarge that statutory value by including expenditure incurred in providing the service. The binding position for the period before 14.05.2015 is that reimbursable expenditure is outside taxable value; the later amendment including such expenditure operates prospectively. The disputed charges represented recoveries of payments made to port authorities, steamer agents, CFS operators and other third parties on clients' behalf, rather than consideration for Customs House Agent service.

Conclusion: Reimbursements towards third-party charges were not includible in the taxable value of Customs House Agent service for the period in dispute, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential service-tax demand, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: As the disputed reimbursements did not form part of taxable consideration, the foundation of the principal service-tax demand failed. Interest and penalty liabilities dependent upon that demand could not survive.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The pre-14.05.2015 valuation of Customs House Agent service excludes genuine third-party reimbursements that are not consideration for the service.

Ratio Decidendi: Subordinate valuation rules cannot expand statutory taxable value beyond consideration charged for the taxable service; before the 14.05.2015 amendment, genuine reimbursable third-party expenses were not taxable as service consideration.

Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission's rejection of adjustment for reversed CENVAT credit warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Judicial review of an order passed by the Settlement Commission in its discretionary jurisdiction is confined to recognised grounds, including contravention of the governing statute, prejudice to the opposite party, fraud, bias or mala fides. The sufficiency, adequacy and evidentiary value of documents supporting reversal of credit fall within the Settlement Commission's domain and cannot be reassessed in writ jurisdiction as in an appeal. The earlier remand permitted the Settlement Commission to seek further information for verification; its request for statutory records and invoices was therefore within that remit. No statutory contravention, fraud, bias, mala fides or other jurisdictional infirmity was established.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claimed CENVAT-credit adjustment disclosed no ground for judicial interference and stands undisturbed.

Issues: (i) Whether mere availment of ineligible self-assessed input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger constitutes suppression of facts for invoking Section 74(1); (ii) Whether failure to reply to an audit enquiry or final audit report constitutes suppression of facts under Section 74.

Issue (i): Whether mere availment of ineligible self-assessed input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger constitutes suppression of facts for invoking Section 74(1).

Analysis: Section 74(1) requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. Mere contravention of the input-tax-credit provisions does not establish suppression absent material showing that the taxpayer knew the credit was ineligible and nevertheless availed it with the requisite intent. The show cause notice contained only bald assertions and no evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade tax. The reconciliation and relevant information had also been disclosed through statutory filings on the GST portal.

Conclusion: Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed input tax credit, without other evidence, does not amount to suppression of facts within Section 74(1), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to reply to an audit enquiry or final audit report constitutes suppression of facts under Section 74.

Analysis: The alleged failure to furnish audit-related information was not a ground in the show cause notice. Reliance on that fresh ground at the appellate stage violated principles of natural justice. Further, the appellate order neither identified the information sought, the occasion on which it was sought, nor the statutory basis for seeking it, and did not dislodge the finding that the relevant reconciliation was already available through statutory filings.

Conclusion: Mere failure to reply to an audit enquiry or final audit report, without other evidence, does not amount to suppression of facts under Section 74, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The extended-demand mechanism under Section 74 could not be invoked on unsubstantiated allegations of ineligible credit or on a new appellate ground concerning audit non-response; the adjudicating authority's determination was legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of Section 74 requires pleaded and evidenced fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax; a mere credit irregularity or unsubstantiated audit non-response is insufficient, and an appellate authority cannot sustain the demand on a ground outside the show cause notice.

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of GST dues from the legal heir of a deceased proprietor whose business stood discontinued could be sustained without proceedings, notice, or identification of the inherited estate under Section 93(1)(b); (ii) Whether input tax credit for FY 2017-18 returns filed before 30 November 2021 was admissible under retrospectively inserted Section 16(5).

Issue (i): Whether recovery of GST dues from the legal heir of a deceased proprietor whose business stood discontinued could be sustained without proceedings, notice, or identification of the inherited estate under Section 93(1)(b).

Analysis: Section 93(1)(b) makes a legal representative liable, where the deceased person's business is discontinued, only from the deceased's estate and only to the extent that the estate can meet the charge. The registration had been cancelled, the business was not continued after death, and the department neither initiated proceedings against the legal heir nor issued notice or made any inquiry into the existence and extent of an inherited estate. The statutory foundation for imposing or recovering liability from the legal heir was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Recovery from the legal heir was unsustainable; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit for FY 2017-18 returns filed before 30 November 2021 was admissible under retrospectively inserted Section 16(5).

Analysis: Section 16(5), inserted with retrospective effect from 1 July 2017, overrides the time restriction in Section 16(4) for invoices or debit notes pertaining to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21 where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021. The returns for the relevant FY 2017-18 period had been filed in July 2018 and June 2019, within that extended statutory deadline.

Conclusion: The deceased appellant was entitled to the claimed input tax credit under Section 16(5); the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The absence of statutory proceedings against the legal representative and the retrospective availability of input tax credit rendered the appellate order legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a deceased proprietor's business is discontinued, GST liability may be pursued against the legal representative only through proceedings directed to that representative and only against the inherited estate; moreover, Section 16(5) validates eligible input tax credit for the specified financial years where returns were filed by the prescribed extended date.

Issues: Whether rejection of the application for registration under section 12AB on doubts concerning lease documentation, rent expenditure and genuineness of activities warranted restoration for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The assessee had furnished a rent agreement supporting rent payments for land taken from its members, while its balance sheet reflected ownership of the building rather than the land. The rejection rested on absence of legally valid documentary evidence, but the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to furnish further particulars. A final opportunity to substantiate the claim was required in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The registration application shall be reconsidered by the Commissioner after granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate its claim; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether exemption under Section 11 could be denied to a charitable trust solely because the audit report in Form No. 10B was filed after the prescribed time but along with the return and before processing of the return.

Analysis: Filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B was treated as a directory procedural requirement. The report had been filed along with the return of income and before issuance of the intimation under Section 143(1); hence, the procedural delay did not defeat the substantive entitlement to charitable exemption.

Conclusion: Exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely for delayed filing of Form No. 10B in these circumstances; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the penalty for misreporting of income could be sustained without examining the assessee's explanation under the statutory exclusion for bona fide explanations and full disclosure of material facts.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed at 200% without recorded reasons for applying the enhanced rate beyond the minimum prescribed rate. The appellate authority did not assess whether the explanation for non-filing of the return, despite tax deduction at source on salary income, satisfied the requirements of Section 270A(6). The statutory exclusion required examination of the bona fides of the explanation and disclosure of all material facts, followed by a reasoned determination.

Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside and the matter was restored for examination under Section 270A(6) and a reasoned speaking order; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for under-reported or misreported income cannot be sustained without adjudicating the assessee's claim to the statutory exclusion based on a bona fide explanation and full disclosure of material facts.

Issues: Whether service tax was payable on the services connected with membership of the holiday scheme operated by the company.

Analysis: The scheme was determined by the securities regulator to be a collective investment scheme. Treating the arrangement as an investment scheme, the Tribunal found that the appellants were not liable to service tax on the services availed from the company.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable by the appellants; the demand and penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the assessee's request for issuance of a discharge certificate under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, was required to be manually processed after payment of the declared amount.

Analysis: The records, including Forms SVLDRS-1 and SVLDRS-3 and the bank statement, established that the differential tax had been remitted, which was undisputed. The matter was procedural and warranted manual examination in accordance with the applicable CBIC instruction concerning manual processing of declarations under the Scheme.

Conclusion: The request for issuance of the discharge certificate must be manually examined and processed within four weeks.

Issues: Whether service tax paid on telecast fees for obtaining free commercial time is admissible as CENVAT credit for providing taxable sale of space or time for advertisement service.

Analysis: Telecast fees enabled the appellant to obtain free commercial time slots, which were used to generate advertising revenue through the taxable output service. The Tribunal's coordinate Benches had consistently ruled, in respect of identical facts and earlier periods concerning the appellant, that such fees have a direct nexus with the advertising service and qualify as input services under Rule 2(l). No contrary decision of a superior court or Larger Bench was shown. The demands for succeeding periods, founded on the same allegations, consequently lacked an independent basis; the related interest and penalties were purely consequential.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit of service tax paid on telecast fees is admissible; denial of credit and the consequential interest and penalties are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether service tax under reverse charge mechanism was payable on royalty and Production Level Payment paid during April 2016 to June 2017 pursuant to a pre-1 April 2016 agreement granting rights to explore and extract natural resources.

Analysis: Service tax is attracted when a service is provided or agreed to be provided. Before 1 April 2016, services provided by Government, other than specified exceptions, remained in the negative list; the substitution of "support services" with "any service" in Section 66D(a)(iv) made Government services to business entities taxable only from that date. The agreement granting the relevant extraction rights was executed in 2002, when the grant of the right to use natural resources was not taxable. The subsequent dates of royalty and PLP payments do not alter the date on which the service was agreed to be provided. Rule 7 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 governs the time for payment of tax and does not determine whether the underlying service is taxable.

Conclusion: No service tax under reverse charge mechanism was payable on the royalty and Production Level Payment arising from the pre-1 April 2016 agreement. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether rejection of the rectification application without considering the assessee's substantive contentions and without affording sufficient opportunity was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The rectification application contained several specific objections to the tax demand and supporting material. The rejection order summarily dismissed the application without addressing those objections. Such non-consideration, coupled with the absence of sufficient and reasonable opportunity, violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection of the rectification application was unsustainable for failure to consider the assessee's contentions and for breach of principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the assessment order treating the co-operative bank's deposits as unsecured loans could be sustained.

Analysis: The assessment recorded the relevant amount as unsecured loans, whereas the petitioner's balance sheet showed it as deposits. This apparent mismatch, coupled with the need to afford the petitioner an opportunity before the assessing authority, warranted intervention. The merits of the assessment were not adjudicated and remain open for consideration in fresh proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessment order was quashed, with liberty to the revenue authorities to issue notice and undertake further proceedings in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether additions under Section 68 in respect of amounts recorded as unsecured loans and debits to the assessee's capital account with a partnership firm were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 68 required the assessee to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The partnership firm's confirmation, audited financial statements, bank statements and supporting records established that the disputed debits represented capital withdrawals and expenditure incurred on behalf of the assessee from the firm's available funds; no inconsistency or evidence of recycling of the assessee's own funds was shown. In respect of the individual lender, the lender confirmed the transaction in response to notice under Section 133(6), and the income-tax return, capital position, loan confirmation and bank statements demonstrated sufficient funds and liquidity. No cogent material displaced this evidence.

Conclusion: The assessee discharged the burden of proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of both transactions; the addition relating to the partnership firm was unsustainable, and the deletion relating to the individual lender was justified.

Issues: Whether the blocking of input tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger without compliance with Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 was valid, notwithstanding subsequent reactivation of the ledger.

Analysis: Rule 86A(1), including clause (d), permits restriction on use of credit only by the competent officer upon reasons to believe and reasons recorded in writing. The respondents acknowledged that no proper reasoned order was passed and that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the credit was blocked. The Electronic Credit Ledger had, however, become operational upon expiry of the statutory period.

Conclusion: The mandatory requirements of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 were not complied with in blocking the input tax credit. In the exceptional circumstances, no further substantive relief was granted; future non-compliant blocking was cautioned to entail appropriate compensation to the aggrieved party.

Issues: (i) Place of supply, classification, and GST liability of international passenger air transportation based on embarkation and continuous journeys involving short transit stops; (ii) Whether air transportation of human remains is a taxable supply under GST.

Issue (i): Place of supply, classification, and GST liability of international passenger air transportation based on embarkation and continuous journeys involving short transit stops.

Analysis: Section 12(9) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies where both supplier and recipient are in India and, for an unregistered passenger, fixes the place of supply at the place of embarkation. Section 13(10) applies where either supplier or recipient is outside India and likewise fixes the place of supply at embarkation. A short transit stop, without the attributes of a stopover, does not interrupt a continuous journey within Section 2(3). The airline's scheduled passenger services fall under SAC 996425.

Conclusion: Passenger journeys embarking outside India, including foreign-to-India journeys and foreign-to-foreign continuous journeys with a short transit in India, are outside GST. Journeys embarking in Kolkata, including continuous journeys from India to a foreign destination through a short transit, are intra-State supplies taxable at the notified CGST and WBGST rates. This issue is decided substantially in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether air transportation of human remains is a taxable supply under GST.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 excludes activities specified in Schedule III from the scope of supply. Clause 4 of Schedule III expressly covers funeral, burial, crematorium and mortuary services, including transportation of the deceased.

Conclusion: Transportation of human remains is neither a supply of goods nor a supply of services and is not liable to GST. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: GST treatment of international passenger carriage is governed by the passenger's place of embarkation, and a short transit does not break the continuity of the journey; transportation of deceased persons remains outside the scope of supply.

Ratio Decidendi: For passenger transportation, the statutory place-of-supply rule attaches to the place of embarkation for a continuous journey, and a short transit without a stopover does not alter that place; transportation of the deceased is excluded from supply by Schedule III.

Issues: (i) Whether estimated year-end provisions, without identified payees or crystallised liabilities, attracted tax deduction at source; (ii) Whether a demand under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) could survive after disallowance of the related expenditure under section 40(a)(ia).

Issue (i): Whether estimated year-end provisions, without identified payees or crystallised liabilities, attracted tax deduction at source.

Analysis: Sections 194C, 194H and 194I require deduction upon payment or credit to the concerned payee. Recognition of estimated expenditure under the mercantile system does not by itself constitute credit of an ascertainable sum to an identified payee. The provisions were based on estimates, invoices had not been received, neither the precise liability nor payees were ascertainable, and the entries were reversed in the succeeding year; tax was deducted when invoices were received and liabilities crystallised. The consistent decisions on materially identical facts in earlier years were followed, there being no distinguishing fact or contrary binding precedent.

Conclusion: The estimated year-end provisions did not attract tax deduction at source at the time of their creation; consequently, no liability as an assessee in default arose under section 201(1). This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a demand under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A) could survive after disallowance of the related expenditure under section 40(a)(ia).

Analysis: The relevant expenditure had already been disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of tax. Applying the consistent view in the assessee's earlier years, the same default could not again support a demand under section 201(1). Interest under section 201(1A) is consequential to a sustainable default under section 201(1) and has no independent basis where such default is not established.

Conclusion: The demand under section 201(1) could not be sustained on the same default after the expenditure had been disallowed under section 40(a)(ia), and the consequential interest under section 201(1A) could not survive. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletion of the principal tax-default demand and consequential interest is sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An estimated year-end provision does not trigger tax deduction at source unless it represents a crystallised and ascertainable liability credited or payable to an identifiable payee; consequential default interest cannot subsist without a sustainable tax-default liability.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings and an appeal can be maintained against or by a company struck off from the register of companies; (ii) Whether the sustained unexplained-credit addition required fresh adjudication on merits.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings and an appeal can be maintained against or by a company struck off from the register of companies.

Analysis: Sections 248(6) and 248(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 preserve the availability of company assets for discharge of liabilities and continue the liability of its directors, officers and members despite dissolution. Section 250 creates an exception to cancellation of the certificate of incorporation for realisation of amounts due to the company and discharge of its liabilities or obligations. A struck-off company consequently continues for determining and discharging tax liabilities, and its tax proceedings cannot be treated as infructuous merely because of striking off.

Conclusion: The reassessment framed against the struck-off company was not invalid, and the appeal filed by it was maintainable. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the sustained unexplained-credit addition required fresh adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The first appellate proceedings had been decided without the assessee's participation. Since the reassessment was legally maintainable, the assessee was entitled to place supporting material before the first appellate authority for determination of the addition on merits, with an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The merits of the addition were remitted to the first appellate authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish supporting documents. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The legal challenge based on the company's striking off fails, while the tax liability represented by the addition remains open for fresh merits determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A company struck off under the Companies Act, 2013 continues for purposes of determination, recovery and discharge of its outstanding liabilities; consequently, tax assessment and appellate proceedings concerning such liabilities remain maintainable.

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.