Issues: Whether the six-month period prescribed under Notification No. 22/2024-Central Tax for seeking rectification to avail the benefit of Section 16(5) provides adequate statutory safeguards under Section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 16(5) confers entitlement to input tax credit for the specified financial years where the relevant return was filed by 30 November 2021, without prescribing a period for an application to obtain that benefit. Although Section 148 permits a special procedure, the procedure must contain safeguards. The absence of a mechanism to extend the six-month application period where a taxpayer is prevented by sufficient cause may defeat the benefit created by Section 16(5).

Outcome: Notice issued to the newly added respondents and the matter listed for further consideration.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 may consolidate alleged tax shortfalls for multiple financial years/tax periods.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the tax liability and assessment for each financial year as distinct, with the limitation for demand and recovery operating separately from the due date of the annual return relating to that year. A composite notice would aggregate tax periods having separate returns, due dates and limitation periods, contrary to this year-wise structure. The binding decisions within the Bombay High Court jurisdiction governed the issue; the in-limine dismissal of a challenge to a contrary decision of another High Court did not attract the doctrine of merger or displace that binding position.

Conclusion: A notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot consolidate multiple financial years or tax periods; proceedings must be initiated separately in accordance with the statutory year-wise framework.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal after its constitution, notwithstanding expiry of the prescribed period for appeal.

Outcome: Liberty was granted to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal within fifteen days, with the period during which the writ petition remained pending to be taken into account, subject to statutory compliance.

Issues: Whether the freight recovered with a mark-up for arranging international transportation of import and export cargo could be classified and taxed as support service of business or commerce.

Analysis: For the period before 1 July 2012, international transportation of goods by vessel or aircraft from outside India to a customs station in India was not covered by a taxable-service entry under the positive-list regime. From 1 July 2012, that transportation was expressly covered by the negative-list exclusion. The freight recovered from customers, including the commercial margin, was consideration arising from this principal-to-principal transportation arrangement. Rule 5 of the valuation rules and Section 67 govern valuation only after a service is otherwise taxable; failure to satisfy the conditions of a pure agent cannot itself create taxability or recharacterise non-taxable freight as a distinct business support service. The ancillary documentation and handling charges had separately suffered tax.

Conclusion: The freight component and mark-up were not taxable as support service of business or commerce; the service-tax demand, interest and consequential penalty were unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether an arbitration clause bars an operational creditor from invoking the statutory remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code; (ii) Whether a claim arising from a settlement of disputes concerning supply of goods constitutes operational debt and confers operational-creditor status; (iii) Whether the respondent's alleged contractual damages claim constituted a pre-existing dispute barring admission under Section 9.

Issue (i): Whether an arbitration clause bars an operational creditor from invoking the statutory remedy under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Analysis: An arbitration clause embodies a consensual private dispute-resolution mechanism and does not displace a statutory insolvency remedy. The availability, or even invocation, of arbitration cannot prevent proceedings under the Code where the statutory requirements for debt and default are met.

Conclusion: The arbitration clause did not bar invocation of Section 9 proceedings, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a claim arising from a settlement of disputes concerning supply of goods constitutes operational debt and confers operational-creditor status.

Analysis: The settlement amount arose from transactions for supply of raw cotton and disputes concerning the supplied goods. A claim in respect of such supply falls within operational debt; the person to whom that debt is owed qualifies as an operational creditor. The definition cannot be confined to a person who directly supplied goods or services to the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: The settlement claim was operational debt and the appellant was an operational creditor entitled to invoke Section 9, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent's alleged contractual damages claim constituted a pre-existing dispute barring admission under Section 9.

Analysis: A dispute must be genuine and supported by material, rather than a patently feeble assertion. The alleged breach and damages claim was raised only in reply to the demand notice, apart from an isolated communication, and had not been pursued before any adjudicatory or arbitral forum. It therefore did not establish a dispute existing before the demand notice.

Conclusion: No pre-existing dispute was established to bar the Section 9 application, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory conditions for pursuing insolvency resolution on the settled operational debt remained available, and the rejection founded on arbitration and an alleged pre-existing dispute could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A consensual arbitration clause does not exclude the statutory insolvency remedy, and a belated, unsupported damages assertion does not constitute a pre-existing dispute where the claim arises from an operational debt connected with supply of goods.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for failure to respond to the show-cause notice should be sustained where the non-response was attributed to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances.

Analysis: The cancellation followed the petitioner's failure to reply to a notice that had been sent by email. In view of the stated bona fide reasons and sufficient cause for the omission, a justice-oriented approach warranted a further opportunity to comply with GST obligations.

Conclusion: The cancellation of GST registration was set aside and restoration of registration was directed, conditional upon filing pending returns and payment of outstanding tax, interest and penalty. The conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an ITC mismatch caused by reporting or allocation of eligible IGST credit under the CGST and SGST heads, without excess aggregate ITC availment, can sustain a demand under Section 73.

Analysis: The aggregate ITC balance in the electronic credit ledger across IGST, CGST and SGST heads is material where the alleged discrepancy is attributable only to allocation between tax heads. The underlying eligibility of the credit was not substantively disputed and no revenue loss was established. A demand cannot rest solely on an incorrect tax-head classification when the assessee has not exceeded its aggregate eligible entitlement. The authorities had not verified the assessee's claim that sufficient eligible IGST credit remained available and unclaimed. Since the principal alleged excess ITC demand was unsustainable on these facts, interest and penalty could not independently survive.

Conclusion: A cross-head ITC reporting discrepancy does not by itself constitute excess ITC availment; the demand, interest and penalty must be dropped if verification establishes that sufficient eligible IGST credit remained unclaimed.

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the assessee as majority shareholder of the holding company of Yogesh Associates was required to be separately remanded for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The penalty imposed in the assessee's capacity as partner of Balaji Flexipack had attained finality. The distinct penalty of Rs. 20 crore related to the assessee's position as majority shareholder of the holding company of Yogesh Associates, whose matters had already been directed for de novo consideration. Both sides accepted that this distinct penalty issue had not been appropriately included in the remand direction.

Conclusion: The penalty issue of Rs. 20 crore is remitted to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration along with the remanded matters of Yogesh Associates and the connected entities, in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice and consequential tax determination issued in the name of a deceased proprietor, without notice to the legal representatives, are legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 93(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 creates liability of legal representatives, limited to the estate inherited from the deceased, but does not provide machinery to assess a deceased person. The machinery for determination under Section 74 requires notice to the person liable. A notice issued to a deceased person is a nullity; the legal representatives must instead be independently served with a notice and afforded an opportunity to respond and be heard before liability is determined.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, consequential order of determination and recovery notice issued in the deceased proprietor's name were invalid. Fresh proceedings may be initiated by issuing and manually serving a show-cause notice upon the legal representatives, followed by adjudication after hearing them.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition remained maintainable despite the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the Order in Original was liable to be quashed for non-application of mind, breach of principles of natural justice, and invalid invocation of Section 74 for Financial Year 2018-19.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition remained maintainable despite the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the original adjudication was alleged to be non-speaking, to have disregarded the reply and supporting documents, and to suffer from jurisdictional infirmity. These circumstances brought the matter within the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the Order in Original was liable to be quashed for non-application of mind, breach of principles of natural justice, and invalid invocation of Section 74 for Financial Year 2018-19.

Analysis: The notice did not dispute possession of suppliers' tax invoices or receipt of goods and services. The material placed on record also showed proceedings against the defaulting supplier. Mere non-reflection of invoices in GSTR-2A could not, by itself, result in automatic denial of input tax credit to a bona fide purchaser, particularly absent an allegation of collusion; the issue required reconsideration in light of the binding precedent identified in the order.

Analysis: For Financial Year 2018-19, the notice was ex facie beyond the ordinary limitation under Section 73(10). Section 74 was invoked through unparticularised references to fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression, without material disclosing how those ingredients were attracted. The adjudication also failed to deal with the reply and documents, contrary to the requirement of a reasoned order and fair hearing.

Conclusion: The Order in Original and consequential recovery notice were invalidated; the adjudicating authority was required to conduct fresh, reasoned adjudication after considering the reply, relevant documents and binding precedents, with an opportunity of personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The statutory demand could not stand on an unreasoned adjudication founded, for Financial Year 2018-19, on a mechanically invoked extended-limitation provision; the substantive input-tax-credit claim remains for fresh determination in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation under Section 74 cannot be invoked through bare allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression without material particulars establishing those statutory ingredients.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was chargeable on study materials/books, hostel and mess charges, 'other fee', and other ancillary collections. (ii) Whether differential service tax could be demanded on tuition-fee accounting entries, additional income declared for income-tax purposes, and rental income. (iii) Whether the appellant was entitled to Notification No. 12/2003-ST and whether the extended period and penalties were invocable.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was chargeable on study materials/books, hostel and mess charges, 'other fee', and other ancillary collections.

Analysis: Books and study materials separately reflected in invoices and accounts constituted sale of goods liable to VAT, even where VAT was exempt, and could not be treated as consideration for coaching. The allegation that their supply formed an integral or bundled part of coaching was beyond the show-cause notices. Hostel accommodation and mess facilities were independent of coaching and lacked the requisite nexus with Commercial Training and Coaching Service. Affidavit and certificate evidence supported the claim that 'other fee' represented hostel-related collections. The Department did not establish that the listed ancillary receipts arose from taxable coaching services.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, demands on study materials, hostel fee, mess fee and the identified ancillary collections were unsustainable. 'Other fee' was excluded to the extent attributable to non-coaching activities or lacking nexus with coaching, with its residual quantification requiring re-determination.

Issue (ii): Whether differential service tax could be demanded on tuition-fee accounting entries, additional income declared for income-tax purposes, and rental income.

Analysis: Income-receivable journal entries for later tuition instalments did not establish taxable receipt, completed service, advance payment or invoicing; tax on the relevant amounts had also been paid in the following month. A voluntary income-tax disclosure, without proof that it represented consideration for a taxable service, could not sustain service-tax demand. Rental income from premises leased to an educational institution fell within the applicable negative-list and exemption framework. Actual tuition charges remained consideration for Commercial Training and Coaching Service.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, differential demands based on accounting entries, the additional income disclosure and rental income were unsustainable; demand on actual tuition-fee consideration was sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to Notification No. 12/2003-ST and whether the extended period and penalties were invocable.

Analysis: The certificate based on the financial records established that no inadmissible input credit had been availed on the study materials, satisfying the notification condition. The disputed components had been the subject of prior proceedings, disclosures were made in records, and the Department failed to show deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax. The dispute involved a bona fide interpretative understanding of the taxability of separate receipts.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST was available up to 30.06.2012; the extended period and penalty under Section 78 were not invocable, and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 were waived under Section 80 for the applicable period. Cum-tax benefit was admissible where not already granted.

Final Conclusion: Service tax is confined to consideration demonstrably attributable to coaching, while independently supplied goods, accommodation, mess facilities and unrelated receipts cannot be included in the taxable value; the limited residual 'other fee' component must be quantified consistently with these findings.

Ratio Decidendi: Receipts may be included in the taxable value of a service only where the Department establishes their nexus with the taxable service; separate sale of goods and independent non-coaching facilities cannot be taxed as coaching consideration merely because they are collected from students.

Issues: Whether the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 bars refund of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess mistakenly paid on Oil Industry Development Cess.

Analysis: Section 11B applies to refund claims for duty of excise and interest paid on such duty. Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on Oil Industry Development Cess, when not legally payable, constitute amounts paid under a mistake of law rather than duty of excise. Article 265 of the Constitution of India prohibits collection or retention of tax without authority of law. The general limitation governing relief from a mistake applies rather than the limitation prescribed by Section 11B.

Conclusion: Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not bar refund of the mistakenly paid Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess; the amounts must be refunded.

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to challenge an SFIO investigation order concerning companies having their registered offices, records and related proceedings in Mumbai.

Analysis: The issuance of the investigation order by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs from New Delhi and the location of SFIO headquarters in Delhi did not establish a substantial nexus between the dispute and Delhi. The companies under investigation had registered offices in Mumbai; their statutory and financial records were maintained there; the concerned Registrar of Companies and pending insolvency proceedings were in Mumbai; and any consequential prosecution would fall within the jurisdiction of the competent Special Court in Mumbai. Even where part of a cause of action may arise within a High Court's territory, Article 226(2) confers discretionary jurisdiction, to be exercised having regard to forum conveniens and the forum with the closest connection to the dispute. Related proceedings involving the same investigation were also pending before the High Court of Bombay.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court declined to exercise territorial jurisdiction; the High Court of Bombay was the appropriate and convenient forum for adjudication of the challenge to the investigation.

Issues: Whether exemption under Section 11 could be denied to a registered charitable trust solely because Form 10BB was filed belatedly after Form 10B had initially been uploaded for the assessment year.

Analysis: The assessee was registered under Section 12AB and had claimed exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court decision that a charitable trust otherwise meeting the conditions for exemption should not be denied the benefit merely on account of a bona fide delay in uploading the prescribed audit report, particularly where the statutory framework permits a just, balanced and equitable approach to such procedural lapse.

Conclusion: The delayed filing of Form 10BB could not by itself justify denial of exemption under Section 11; the exemption was directed to be granted after verification of the belatedly filed Form 10BB.

Issues: (i) Whether turnover could be enhanced and books of account rejected without quantified suppression or supporting adverse material; (ii) Whether input tax credit could be reversed where the supplying dealers were registered on the transaction dates but their registrations were subsequently cancelled.

Issue (i): Whether turnover could be enhanced and books of account rejected without quantified suppression or supporting adverse material.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings arising from seizure had been dropped and no material showed reversal of that determination. The survey disclosed no business activity or godown, but no suppression was detected. Although seven invoices could not be verified, the remaining challans and bills had been verified. The record did not disclose any quantified suppression or specific material supporting enhancement of turnover. Under the UP VAT Act, enhancement must correspond to the suppression actually established.

Conclusion: Enhancement of turnover and the consequential rejection of books on the stated material were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit could be reversed where the supplying dealers were registered on the transaction dates but their registrations were subsequently cancelled.

Analysis: The suppliers held valid registrations on the transaction dates. The purchases were through banking channels and contemporaneous documents evidenced physical movement of goods to the assessee. Subsequent cancellation of suppliers' registrations, without cogent material discrediting the transactions at the relevant time, could not justify reversal of input tax credit.

Conclusion: Input tax credit could not be denied merely because the suppliers' registrations were cancelled after the transactions, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned tax determination, including the turnover enhancement and reversal of input tax credit, lacked legal sustainability.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchaser's input tax credit cannot be denied solely on the basis of a supplier's subsequent cancellation of registration where the supplier was validly registered and the transaction is supported by banking and movement-of-goods evidence; turnover enhancement requires established and quantified suppression.

Issues: Whether penalty adjudication founded on statements could be sustained where the taxable person was denied the requested opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon.

Analysis: The request to cross-examine the two persons was specifically made in the reply to the show-cause notice, but the adjudication proceeded without granting that opportunity. As the penalty was based on their statements, denial of cross-examination deprived the taxable person of a reasonable opportunity to rebut the material relied upon and breached the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Denial of the requested cross-examination vitiated the penalty adjudication for breach of principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether immunity from penalty under Section 270AA was available where the penalty proceedings concerned under-reporting in consequence of misreporting; (ii) Whether the rejection of the immunity application was invalid for want of a specific sub-category in the notice, absence of hearing, and delay in its disposal.

Issue (i): Whether immunity from penalty under Section 270AA was available where the penalty proceedings concerned under-reporting in consequence of misreporting.

Analysis: Section 270AA permits immunity subject to its stipulated conditions, but Section 270AA(3) excludes cases in which penalty proceedings under Section 270A were initiated in the circumstances specified by Section 270A(9). The proceedings concerned under-reporting in consequence of misreporting, as the assessee had failed to produce accounting records relating to income from the solar plant unit.

Conclusion: Immunity under Section 270AA is unavailable for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the immunity application was invalid for want of a specific sub-category in the notice, absence of hearing, and delay in its disposal.

Analysis: Although the notice did not specify a particular sub-category under Section 270A(9), it identified the case as under-reporting in consequence of misreporting. The assessee was already aware from the assessment order of the basis for the proposed penalty. This omission did not cause arbitrariness or violate principles of natural justice. Since the immunity application was outside the statutory framework applicable to misreporting cases, the prescribed statutory time limit did not invalidate its rejection.

Conclusion: The notice and rejection of immunity were not illegal. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Penalty-immunity relief is unavailable where the case falls within the misreporting circumstances under Section 270A(9).

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion of misreporting cases from immunity under Section 270AA applies where the material and notice sufficiently identify under-reporting in consequence of misreporting, notwithstanding omission to state a particular sub-category.

Issues: (i) Whether the selection and exclusion of comparables for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's ITES/BPO international transactions was justified; (ii) Whether the assessee's call-centre and back-office services qualified for deduction under Section 10A.

Issue (i): Whether the selection and exclusion of comparables for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's ITES/BPO international transactions was justified.

Analysis: A comparable consistently accepted in the assessee's earlier years was appropriately retained. Entities having materially different operating models due to outsourcing, substantially larger scale and brand value, ownership of brand and goodwill, absence of segmental information, or engagement in high-end KPO and engineering-design services were not functionally comparable to the assessee's ITES/BPO operations.

Conclusion: The deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustment was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's call-centre and back-office services qualified for deduction under Section 10A.

Analysis: Explanation 2(b) to Section 10A covers customised electronic data and notified services of a similar nature. The applicable notification expressly covers back-office operations, call centres and data processing. The assessee's activities were within the notified category, and the same eligibility had been accepted for prior assessment years without any change in circumstances.

Conclusion: The assessee's services qualified for the Section 10A deduction, and the disallowance was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arm's length price adjustment and the disallowance from the export-linked deduction were not legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer-pricing comparables must be functionally and economically comparable, and notified call-centre and back-office services constitute eligible computer-software-related services for Section 10A deduction.

Issues: (i) Eligibility for deduction under section 80JJAA, including the one-day delay in filing Form 10DA and the claim for the second and third consecutive years; (ii) Whether deduction under section 80JJAA can be allowed against income enhanced by transfer-pricing adjustment under section 92C; (iii) Transfer-pricing adjustment for information technology and information technology enabled services classified as knowledge process outsourcing services; (iv) Arm's length price of intra-group charges, including Salesforce global allocation; (v) Treatment of revenue under GAP and GSS programmes as deemed international transactions.

Issue (i): Eligibility for deduction under section 80JJAA, including the one-day delay in filing Form 10DA and the claim for the second and third consecutive years.

Analysis: Section 80JJAA, as amended, extends the deduction to qualifying additional employees and does not retain the earlier requirement concerning regular workmen. The material showed that the assessee retained the powers of appointment, remuneration, work allocation, reassignment, disciplinary action and termination, while customers had only operational supervision over deployed personnel. The conditions for the deduction were consequently satisfied. The one-day delay in filing Form 10DA was condoned. The claim relating to the second and third years requires verification of the relevant figures.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, deduction under section 80JJAA is allowable and the one-day delay in filing Form 10DA is condoned. The second- and third-year components of the claim are to be allowed upon verification.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction under section 80JJAA can be allowed against income enhanced by transfer-pricing adjustment under section 92C.

Analysis: The first proviso to section 92C(4) expressly prohibits a deduction under Chapter VI-A in respect of income by which total income is enhanced upon arm's length price determination. The character of the section 80JJAA deduction as being linked to employee cost does not displace that statutory prohibition.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, deduction under section 80JJAA cannot be allowed against income enhanced by the transfer-pricing adjustment.

Issue (iii): Transfer-pricing adjustment for information technology and information technology enabled services classified as knowledge process outsourcing services.

Analysis: Proper determination requires examination of the recharacterisation of the services, the assessee's documentary material, and comparables that are functionally similar and have segmental information.

Conclusion: The adjustment is remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh determination on the stated parameters.

Issue (iv): Arm's length price of intra-group charges, including Salesforce global allocation.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing study documentation concerning the nature and receipt of intra-group services had not been adequately evaluated. A fresh assessment is required after considering the supporting material in the transfer-pricing study report.

Conclusion: The intra-group charges adjustment is remitted to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication.

Issue (v): Treatment of revenue under GAP and GSS programmes as deemed international transactions.

Analysis: Incomplete details regarding sales generated through the programmes prevented verification of the true nature of the transactions and application of an appropriate transfer-pricing method. The ad hoc markup could not be finally assessed without examination of the relevant material.

Conclusion: The deemed international transactions adjustment is remitted to the AO/TPO for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The section 80JJAA entitlement is recognised subject to verification of the earlier-year components, but the statutory restriction on deductions from transfer-pricing-enhanced income applies. The transfer-pricing matters concerning service characterisation, intra-group services and GAP/GSS revenue require fresh factual and arm's length price determination.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 80JJAA, an entity retaining substantive powers over appointment, remuneration, deployment and discipline is the employer of deployed personnel; operational supervision by the customer does not negate that relationship.

Issues: Whether omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without a saving or sunset clause removes the restriction in pending proceedings concerning refund of integrated tax on exports.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted with effect from 08.10.2024 without a saving or sunset clause. The binding interpretation of the omission establishes that the rule was removed to end the complications generated by it and was not intended to remain operative for pending proceedings; a recommendation that the omission operate prospectively is advisory and does not preserve the omitted restriction.

Conclusion: The restriction under omitted Rule 96(10) cannot be applied to the pending refund proceedings, and the impugned communication has no legal basis.