Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice issued under Section 148 to a deceased assessee were valid where the legal representative promptly objected and did not submit to the assessing jurisdiction.

Analysis: A notice under Section 148 issued to a deceased person is invalid unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction without objection. The legal representative promptly informed the assessing authority of the assessee's death and reiterated the objection; such intimation did not amount to participation in the assessment proceedings. Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 did not validate proceedings commenced through a notice addressed to the deceased assessee.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation and the consequential assessment and demand were invalid; the respondent may commence proceedings against the legal representative in accordance with Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if otherwise permissible.

Issues: (i) Whether a single assessment order for distinct tax periods is sustainable; (ii) Whether unsigned assessment and summary orders have legal efficacy.

Issue (i): Whether a single assessment order for distinct tax periods is sustainable.

Analysis: The assessment covered multiple financial years through one composite order. Separate notices and separate adjudication are required for the respective tax periods.

Conclusion: A composite assessment order covering distinct tax periods is unsustainable; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether unsigned assessment and summary orders have legal efficacy.

Analysis: The assessment order and the accompanying summary orders were unsigned. The absence of signatures deprived the orders of legal efficacy.

Conclusion: Unsigned assessment and summary orders are legally ineffective; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment requires fresh determination through separate notices and an opportunity of hearing for each tax period, conditional on deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment must be embodied in a signed order and separately adjudicated for each distinct tax period; a composite unsigned assessment order is unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition challenging measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 should be entertained despite the effective statutory remedy under Section 17. (ii) Whether the disputed existence and terms of a one-time settlement could be summarily enforced in writ jurisdiction so as to compel acceptance of delayed settlement payments.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition challenging measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 should be entertained despite the effective statutory remedy under Section 17.

Analysis: Sections 34 and 35 establish the statutory recovery framework and reinforce the primacy of the remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Although Article 226 jurisdiction is not barred, its exercise is ordinarily restrained where the statute provides an efficacious remedy. No exceptional circumstance, including breach of statutory procedure, fundamental judicial procedure, or natural justice, was established to justify bypassing the remedy under Section 17 against the measures taken under Sections 13(4) and 14.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained in view of the effective alternative remedy under Section 17; the issue was resolved in favour of the secured creditor.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed existence and terms of a one-time settlement could be summarily enforced in writ jurisdiction so as to compel acceptance of delayed settlement payments.

Analysis: The alleged settlement proposal was incomplete regarding the payment schedule and contemplated compliance with the lender's stipulated terms. Its binding character required factual determination of the signing official's authority, the capacity of the incomplete offer to be accepted, and the applicable settlement conditions. A writ proceeding was not suited to summarily resolve those factual disputes. Further, even assuming a settlement had been agreed, delayed performance would not justify compelling the lender to accept belated instalments merely on payment of interest. Such relief effectively imposed a contract and exceeded the challenge to the possession-assistance order.

Conclusion: The alleged one-time settlement could not be summarily enforced, and the lender could not be compelled to accept delayed payments; the issue was resolved in favour of the secured creditor.

Final Conclusion: The order granting protection and directing acceptance of the alleged settlement amount with interest was legally unsustainable. The parties remain free to pursue their available remedies concerning the settlement proposal, with all rights and contentions reserved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious remedy under Section 17, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked absent recognised exceptional circumstances; disputed contractual settlement terms requiring factual inquiry cannot be summarily enforced to impose obligations on a secured creditor.

Issues: Whether applications seeking condonation of delay in filing Form-10B could be rejected solely for being beyond the period stipulated in departmental circulars, despite Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 119(2)(b) confers discretion to admit belated claims or applications to avoid genuine hardship and does not prescribe a specific limitation for seeking condonation. This discretion must be exercised liberally with reference to the difficulties faced by the assessee. Departmental circulars bind income-tax authorities but cannot curtail the statutory discretion available under Section 119(2)(b), particularly in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Rejection of the condonation applications solely on the ground of delay beyond the circular-prescribed period was unsustainable; the delay was condoned and the assessee was entitled to furnish Form-10B with its returns for processing in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether a demand confirmed after nearly ten years of the assessee's application under the retrospective amendment scheme could be set aside solely because verification was not completed within the prescribed two-month period.

Analysis: Section 70 of the Finance Act, 2010 required verification of the amount paid under the scheme within two months and permitted recovery of any shortfall with interest. The delay in verification and issuance of the impugned order was substantial. However, the demand was not challenged on merits, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to quash the demand solely on the ground of prolonged delay, unlike the constitutional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court. The departmental delay justified relief from interest.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand was not set aside, but no interest is payable on that demand.

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or other ground warranting reconsideration of the impugned order.

Analysis: No error apparent on the face of the record or merit warranting reconsideration was found.

Conclusion: The review petition did not establish any ground for review and was dismissed.

Issues: Whether the appellate authority could accept the assessee's claimed classification of the exported goods without requiring a fresh show cause notice or remanding the matter for fresh classification adjudication.

Analysis: The original authority had itself examined the classification, afforded the assessee an opportunity of hearing, and reclassified the goods from parts of industrial robots to parts of a grass-cutting machine. The appellate authority considered the relevant export and product material and accepted the assessee's claimed classification as parts of industrial robots. Since classification had already been adjudicated after inquiry and opportunity to the assessee, no fresh show cause notice or remand was required merely because the appellate authority disagreed with the original authority's classification.

Conclusion: The appellate authority validly accepted the assessee's claimed classification; a fresh show cause notice or remand was not necessary. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether input tax credit could be denied for delayed filing of returns despite the retrospective benefit under Section 16(5).

Analysis: The statutory entitlement under Section 16(5) operates retrospectively. Failure to seek rectification within the period stipulated by an administrative circular could not defeat that entitlement. The returns for the relevant months had been filed before the cut-off prescribed by Section 16(5).

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to consideration for input tax credit under Section 16(5).

Issues: Whether a refund allowed to the petitioner could be withheld merely because the Revenue had subsequently filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The refund had been allowed in 2022, whereas the Revenue's Tribunal appeal was instituted only in 2026 and had not been fixed for hearing. The petitioner, being an established manufacturing company, was not regarded as an entity likely to evade a future liability. Release of the refund with an undertaking to repay any liability ultimately determined in the Revenue's appeal adequately protected the Revenue.

Conclusion: The refund must be released to the petitioner on furnishing an undertaking to deposit any liability that may ultimately be determined in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether waiver under Section 128A extends to demands concerning self-assessed tax where proceedings were initiated under Section 73, notwithstanding Section 75(12) and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST; (ii) Whether the time limits under Rule 164, including the deadline for filing a waiver application, are mandatory, and whether delayed disposal results in deemed approval; (iii) Whether an order approving waiver in Form GST SPL-05 may be subsequently declared void otherwise than under Rule 164(16) or Rule 164(17).

Issue (i): Whether waiver under Section 128A extends to demands concerning self-assessed tax where proceedings were initiated under Section 73, notwithstanding Section 75(12) and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.

Analysis: Section 128A is triggered by initiation of proceedings under Section 73. Section 75(12) permits direct recovery under Section 79 of unpaid self-assessed tax without prior determination, but does not preclude the revenue from initiating determination proceedings under Section 73. The wider non obstante clause in Section 128A, the absence of an express exclusion for self-assessed tax, and the express exclusion of erroneous refunds demonstrate that self-assessed tax cannot be impliedly excluded from the waiver scheme. Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST cannot restrict the statutory scope of Section 128A.

Conclusion: Where proceedings are initiated under Section 73, waiver under Section 128A is available even in relation to self-assessed tax; exclusions based solely on Section 75(12) or Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST are invalid. This is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the time limits under Rule 164, including the deadline for filing a waiver application, are mandatory, and whether delayed disposal results in deemed approval.

Analysis: Rule 164 establishes a time-bound scheme for filing, scrutiny and disposal of waiver applications. Its prescribed consequence of deemed approval where no order is issued within the period under Rule 164(13) confirms that the stipulated time limits are integral to the scheme. The expression "may" in Rule 164(6) enables an eligible person to elect to apply; it does not render the three-month filing deadline discretionary. Deemed approval under Rule 164(14) operates only where the substantive conditions of Section 128A are satisfied. Substantial compliance may apply only to non-essential procedural lapses, not to belated filing or belated payment that defeats an essential condition of the scheme.

Conclusion: The time limits under Rule 164 are mandatory; a timely eligible application is deemed approved if no order is issued within the period under Rule 164(13), whereas belated applications or payments do not qualify for waiver. The deemed-approval finding is in favour of the assessee, and the mandatory filing and payment requirements are against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an order approving waiver in Form GST SPL-05 may be subsequently declared void otherwise than under Rule 164(16) or Rule 164(17).

Analysis: Rule 164(16) and Rule 164(17) exclusively identify the circumstances in which waiver granted through Form GST SPL-05 or Form GST SPL-06 becomes void, namely failure to make specified additional payments. In those circumstances, voidness follows by operation of law. Neither Section 161 nor any other provision authorises the proper officer to issue a separate void order after approving the waiver for reasons outside those sub-rules.

Conclusion: An approval order in Form GST SPL-05 cannot be declared void except in the situations specified by Rule 164(16) or Rule 164(17). This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Waiver applicants satisfying the statutory conditions cannot be denied the amnesty benefit merely because the demand concerns self-assessed tax, and approvals or deemed approvals remain effective unless the narrowly prescribed grounds of voidness arise; applications or payments made beyond mandatory deadlines remain outside the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amnesty provision with a broad non obstante clause cannot be curtailed by implying an exclusion absent from its text or by an administrative circular; mandatory timelines governing the scheme bind both applicants and authorities, subject to the express consequence of deemed approval.

Issues: Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit attributable to exported output services could be denied for alleged absence of nexus between input services and exported services, and for invoices not bearing the service provider's PAN-based registration number.

Analysis: The availment of credit on the disputed input services had never been questioned through recovery proceedings under Rule 14 read with Section 73. Nor was export of the output services or compliance with the requirements of Rule 5 specifically disputed. Rule 5 permits refund of accumulated credit relating to exported output services subject to its prescribed conditions and procedure; the refund claim could not consequently be denied on grounds concerning the eligibility of credit that had not been challenged at the stage of availment.

Conclusion: The refund denial on the grounds of lack of nexus and absence of PAN-based registration particulars in invoices was unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to the disputed refund.

Issues: Whether a demand based on alleged undervaluation of guarantees could be confirmed under Section 73 without prior scrutiny and investigation to ascertain revenue leakage.

Analysis: Following self-assessment, the statutory framework requires scrutiny of returns and permits audit, special audit and inspection or investigation mechanisms to verify whether transactions resulted in tax leakage. The authorities issued the demand notice and confirmed it without undertaking those measures to determine whether the guarantees were corporate guarantees or whether taxable value had been suppressed.

Conclusion: The demand-confirming order is unsustainable and is quashed; the matter is remitted for inspection or investigation and fresh determination, if warranted.

Issues: Whether the compounding fee was required to be computed under the CBDT Guidelines dated 16.05.2008 or under the revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024.

Analysis: The applicability of the 2008 Guidelines had been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties and that determination, affirmed in appeal, had attained finality. A direction to calculate and communicate the compounding fee was confined to quantification and did not permit reopening the settled question governing the applicable guidelines. The statutory power to issue compounding instructions could not override a final inter partes judicial determination. Further, the 2024 Guidelines did not apply because the application had not been rejected for a curable defect contemplated by those Guidelines.

Conclusion: The compounding fee must be recomputed strictly under the CBDT Guidelines dated 16.05.2008 after crediting the amount already paid by the assessee.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to adjudicate the disputed denial of input tax credit, interest and penalty despite the available statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The dispute required verification of the existence and utilisation of the ERP software, as well as the genuineness of the underlying transaction. These factual matters had not been tested by either side. Given the statutory appeal mechanism, writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving that factual controversy. In the special circumstances, an opportunity was provided to pursue the statutory appeal without pre-deposit.

Outcome: The writ appeal was disposed of with liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days; the appellate authority was directed to entertain it without pre-deposit and decide it on merits within three months.

Issues: Whether an assessment order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained where the show-cause notice was uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration.

Analysis: Following cancellation of registration, the taxpayer was not obliged to monitor the GST portal. Service of a show-cause notice in those circumstances required recourse to an alternative mode of service. Uploading the notice solely on the portal denied an effective opportunity of hearing and breached the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether unspent Government grant constituted taxable income; (ii) Whether interest on unutilised grant was allowable as a deduction; (iii) Whether depreciation could be denied for individual assets retired from active use within a block of assets.

Issue (i): Whether unspent Government grant constituted taxable income.

Analysis: The grants were received for implementing the specified micro-irrigation scheme and were subject to directions governing their utilisation. Applying the established treatment of project-specific Government grants, the amount could not be regarded as income of the assessee.

Conclusion: Unspent Government grant was not taxable income. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on unutilised grant was allowable as a deduction.

Analysis: The obligation to pay interest on the unspent grant arose from the terms governing disbursement of the grant and was an ascertained business liability, rather than a contingent liability.

Conclusion: Interest payable on the unutilised grant was deductible. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether depreciation could be denied for individual assets retired from active use within a block of assets.

Analysis: Under the block-of-assets regime, individual assets in a block cannot be segregated for restricting depreciation where the business assets in the block are used. Simultaneous active use of every individual item is not required.

Conclusion: Depreciation could not be denied merely because particular assets within the block had been retired from active use. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletions of additions relating to the grant and interest, and the allowance of depreciation, remain undisturbed; no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A project-specific Government grant subject to mandated utilisation is not taxable income; liabilities arising from its governing terms are deductible when ascertained; and depreciation under the block-of-assets regime cannot be restricted by isolating individual inactive assets.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the seizure of gold and the pending customs show-cause proceedings should be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction before completion of statutory adjudication.

Analysis: The pending proceeding before the Additional Commissioner of Customs was considered an available forum for determination of the parties' claims. No view was expressed on the legality of the seizure, the show-cause notice, or the merits of the competing claims. The petitioners were directed to submit further material and participate in the adjudication, which must be concluded through a reasoned order after fair opportunity of hearing.

Outcome: The writ petitions were kept pending and adjourned sine die pending completion of adjudication by the customs authority.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of a mini agricultural market and agricultural facilitation centre for a government organisation qualified for exemption as a structure predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry or business; (ii) Whether construction of residential units under government-approved housing projects was rendered to a competent government authority and eligible for exemption; (iii) Whether construction of a government high school under contracts entered into after 01.03.2015 qualified for exemption under Entry 14A.

Issue (i): Whether construction of a mini agricultural market and agricultural facilitation centre for a government organisation qualified for exemption as a structure predominantly meant for use other than commerce, industry or business.

Analysis: Entry 12A(c) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 exempts original works provided to Government, a local authority, or a governmental authority where the structure is predominantly meant for non-commercial use. Commercial use requires assessment of the factual purpose of the activity. Although the market infrastructure was created under a government drought-mitigation scheme, no statutory mandate for collection of user fees or evidence that such fees were deposited into the government treasury was established. The activity therefore did not fall within statutory public functions undertaken for non-commercial use.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied and service tax on construction of the mini agricultural market remained confirmed, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether construction of residential units under government-approved housing projects was rendered to a competent government authority and eligible for exemption.

Analysis: The work orders for residential units at Vasant Vihar and Chhatarpur were issued by the Executive Engineer of the M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and showed that the works formed part of government-approved residential housing projects. The basis that services were not supplied to a competent authority was therefore unsupported.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand on construction of residential units was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether construction of a government high school under contracts entered into after 01.03.2015 qualified for exemption under Entry 14A.

Analysis: Entry 14A restricts the exemption to original-work contracts entered into before 01.03.2015. The relevant school-construction work orders were dated 26.09.2016, after the prescribed date.

Conclusion: The exemption was rightly denied and service tax on construction of the government high school remained confirmed, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The residential-units demand was excluded, while the tax liabilities relating to the agricultural mini market and government high school were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption for government-related original works requires fulfilment of the prescribed non-commercial-use conditions; infrastructure involving fee-based use is not shown to be non-commercial merely because it is created under a government scheme, and a contract-specific temporal condition for exemption must be strictly satisfied.