Issues: Whether an adjudication order could stand where the taxpayer specifically sought a personal hearing but was not informed of the date and time of hearing.

Analysis: The show-cause notice assured an opportunity of personal hearing, and the taxpayer expressly requested such hearing in Form GST DRC-06. No material established that the hearing date and time had been communicated. Consideration of the written reply alone did not cure the failure to afford the requested personal hearing.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice and was quashed, with the matter requiring fresh adjudication after hearing the taxpayer.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could validly be initiated by a show-cause notice issued under Section 148A(1) to a deceased assessee, and thereafter continued against the legal representative.

Analysis: Service of a show-cause notice upon the assessee under Section 148A(1) is a condition precedent to an order under Section 148A(3) and a reopening notice under Section 148. Issuance of notice to the correct person is foundational to jurisdiction. As the Department had already registered the legal heir before initiation, the notice addressed to the deceased assessee was invalid at inception. Section 159 permits proceedings against a legal representative but does not authorise initiation against a deceased person followed by subsequent substitution. The legal heir's reply, which raised the jurisdictional objection, could not cure the defect because participation cannot confer jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice issued to the deceased assessee was invalid and non-est; the consequential order under Section 148A(3), reopening notice under Section 148, and consequential reassessment proceedings were unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of input tax credit on construction intended for leasing without applying the Supreme Court precedent on "own account" construction was sustainable; (ii) Whether debit and recovery from electronic cash and credit ledgers without an intimation under Rule 142B(1) and expiry of seven days was valid.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of input tax credit on construction intended for leasing without applying the Supreme Court precedent on "own account" construction was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 17(5)(d) blocks input tax credit for construction of immovable property on a taxable person's own account, subject to its stated exceptions. The applicable Supreme Court precedent distinguishes construction for personal use or as the premises from which the taxable person conducts business from construction intended for sale, lease or licence, which cannot be characterised as construction on the taxable person's own account. The assessment findings treated ownership and capitalisation as determinative and rejected leasing as irrelevant, without addressing that binding distinction.

Conclusion: The rejection of input tax credit without applying the governing distinction regarding construction intended for leasing was unsustainable; the claim requires fresh consideration in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether debit and recovery from electronic cash and credit ledgers without an intimation under Rule 142B(1) and expiry of seven days was valid.

Analysis: Rule 142B requires electronic intimation in Form GST DRC-01D of an amount recoverable under Section 79 and allows recovery measures only where the amount remains unpaid after seven days from that intimation. The prescribed intimation and waiting period were not complied with before the ledger debits. The underlying assessment orders also could not sustain recovery action.

Conclusion: The ledger debits and recovery were invalid; the amounts must be restored to the corresponding electronic ledger in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to reconsideration of the leasing-related input tax credit claim under the binding interpretation and to restoration of the amounts recovered without adherence to the prescribed recovery process.

Issues: (i) Whether long-term capital gains from sale of listed shares, supported by stock-exchange trades, securities transaction tax, demat records and banking channels, could be assessed as unexplained cash credits in the absence of evidence linking the assessees to price manipulation; (ii) Whether deletion of penalty for concealment could be sustained after deletion of the underlying quantum additions; (iii) Whether reopening or reassessment proceedings founded on the assessment findings invalidated in the quantum matters could survive.

Issue (i): Whether long-term capital gains from sale of listed shares, supported by stock-exchange trades, securities transaction tax, demat records and banking channels, could be assessed as unexplained cash credits in the absence of evidence linking the assessees to price manipulation.

Analysis: Under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, interference with the Tribunal's factual findings is confined to a substantial question of law, including perversity. The material established documented purchase and sale through recognised stock exchanges, payment of securities transaction tax, demat trail and receipt through banking channels. Though abnormal price appreciation and circumstances concerning intermediaries could create suspicion, no positive and corroborated material connected either assessee with payment of unaccounted cash, an arrangement with operators, or manipulation of the share price. The test of human probabilities remains an evidentiary tool but does not dispense with proof where primary documentary evidence remains undisplaced.

Conclusion: The gains could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and were eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the issue is decided in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether deletion of penalty for concealment could be sustained after deletion of the underlying quantum additions.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 rested on the same additions that were found unsustainable for want of cogent and corroborated evidence.

Conclusion: Deletion of the penalty is sustained; the issue is decided in favour of the assessees.

Issue (iii): Whether reopening or reassessment proceedings founded on the assessment findings invalidated in the quantum matters could survive.

Analysis: The challenged reopening and reassessment measures were founded upon the assessment orders whose additions had not survived judicial scrutiny. Their stated foundation was consequently unavailable.

Conclusion: Reopening or reassessment proceedings based on those invalidated assessment findings cannot stand; the issue is decided in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The share-sale gains retained their exempt capital-gain character, the related concealment penalties lacked a surviving basis, and derivative reassessment measures founded on the invalidated additions were rendered unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspicion arising from unusual share-price movements or third-party conduct cannot displace documented securities transactions or sustain an addition under Section 68 without positive, corroborated evidence linking the assessee to the alleged manipulation.

Issues: Whether interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction was warranted against the service-tax demand where the claimed exemption was unsupported by the relevant tender and work-order documents.

Analysis: A claimant of notification-based tax exemption bears the burden of establishing eligibility through supporting evidence. The assessment order recorded consideration of the materials furnished but found that the relevant work orders and agreements were not produced to correlate the receipts with exempt handling and transportation services. The relevant tender document was also withheld in the writ proceedings, and the assertions in the counter affidavit regarding the contractual rate and taxes remained unanswered. A statutory appellate remedy was available.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the service-tax demand; the petitioner could pursue the statutory remedy in accordance with law.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether continuation of the debit freeze on the assessee's bank account after expiry of the statutory period for provisional attachment was legally permissible.

Analysis: Section 110(5) permits provisional attachment of a bank account for a maximum of six months, extendable by a further period not exceeding six months only for recorded reasons and upon intimation of the extension. The investigation had concluded, the show-cause notice had been adjudicated, and the assessee had filed an appeal after making the statutory pre-deposit. No material or statutory authority supported continuation of the debit freeze beyond one year or after conclusion of the investigation. Continued freezing in those circumstances operated coercively without legal sanction.

Conclusion: Continuation of the debit freeze beyond the permissible statutory period was impermissible and the account was required to be defreezed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the tax demand order and the appellate order rejecting the appeal as time-barred should be set aside to afford the assessee an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.

Analysis: The demand had been confirmed under Sections 73(9), 122(2)A and 50 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without a reply to the show-cause notice, and the appellate challenge was rejected under Section 107(11) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The inability to file a reply and contest the proceedings was accepted as arising from bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. A justice-oriented approach required a further opportunity, with costs, for a fresh determination after allowing the assessee to place replies and documents and receive a reasonable hearing.

Conclusion: The demand order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration from the stage of filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether recovery of the disputed demand should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The appeal remained under scrutiny and the challenge to invocation of Section 74 was not examined on merits. The applicant's full discharge of the GST liability was confirmed, and the statutory deemed stay of recovery under Section 112(9), subject to compliance with Section 112(8), applied. Continued recovery from amounts receivable under works contracts could defeat the pending appeal and cause irreparable injury.

Outcome: Operation of the order rejecting the first appeal on limitation and recovery of the disputed demand were stayed until disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit can be denied because it was not reflected in ST-3 returns and was utilised after the prescribed time limit; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the service-tax demand was based on third-party information from the Income Tax Department.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit can be denied because it was not reflected in ST-3 returns and was utilised after the prescribed time limit.

Analysis: The receipt of input services, payment of service tax thereon, and possession of supporting documents were undisputed. Substantive eligibility to CENVAT credit could not be defeated by procedural lapses, including non-reflection of credit in ST-3 returns or its delayed utilisation.

Conclusion: The CENVAT credit was admissible to the assessee despite its non-reflection in ST-3 returns and delayed utilisation.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the service-tax demand was based on third-party information from the Income Tax Department.

Analysis: The demand originated from information supplied by the Income Tax Department, and no material established suppression, misstatement, fraud, collusion, or intent to evade service tax.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The restoration of the original adjudication preserves the assessee's eligible CENVAT credit and prevents confirmation of demand through extended limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantively eligible CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural non-reporting or delayed utilisation, and third-party information alone does not establish suppression or intent to evade tax for invoking extended limitation.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration, followed by dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation, warranted reconsideration where the personal hearing fixed in the show-cause notice was not a meaningful opportunity and the assessee had subsequently filed returns and paid outstanding dues.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The hearing date was fixed before expiry of the period allowed for furnishing a reply to the show-cause notice, rendering the hearing an empty formality. The assessee had subsequently filed the pending GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns and paid the tax, late fee and penalty. Permanent cancellation of registration could cause civil death to the business.

Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside. The assessee may apply for revocation of cancellation within three weeks, and the competent authority must decide that application on merits without rejecting it solely on limitation.

Issues: Whether the demand arising from denial of exemption for non-filing of Form 10-B should be adjudicated in the writ petition while the assessee's rectification application remains pending.

Analysis: The rectification application acknowledged by the Income Tax Department had not been considered because it was not reflected on the electronic system. Since no order on rectification had been passed on merits, adjudication of the challenge to the demand was considered premature. The competent authority was directed to take the application on record, consider it on its own merits in accordance with law, and communicate its order; the demand was directed to abide by that decision.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for consideration and disposal of the pending rectification application.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a further extension for making the statutory pre-deposit after expiry of the period fixed by an earlier coordinate-bench order.

Analysis: The earlier order had set aside the appellate dismissal conditional upon appearance before the appellate authority and furnishing the statutory pre-deposit within 30 days, while expressly providing that the earlier dismissal would revive upon non-compliance. The deposit was made after the stipulated period. Granting a further extension or directing acceptance of the delayed deposit would nullify the binding directions of the coordinate bench in a separate writ proceeding.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to further time or a direction to accept the delayed statutory pre-deposit; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the complaints contained sufficient averments to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioner under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques under Section 138.

Analysis: Liability of a company director for an offence by the company requires averments that, at the time of the offence, the director was both in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, or that the offence occurred through the director's consent, connivance or neglect. Directorship alone does not create deemed criminal liability. The petitioner was neither a party to the underlying agreement nor a signatory to the cheques, and the complaints contained only general allegations against all accused without material particulars of the petitioner's role in the company's day-to-day affairs or in the cheque transactions. The process-issuing orders also did not address the statutory requirements for vicarious liability.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be prosecuted under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the deficient complaints; the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: Whether a taxpayer is entitled to proportionate refund of the statutory pre-deposit attributable to the demand set aside in first appeal, notwithstanding its intended further appeal against the surviving demand.

Analysis: Under Section 107(6) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019, refund of pre-deposit is admissible once appellate proceedings attain finality. The first appellate order had set aside 64% of the original demand, and the department had not challenged that relief. The taxpayer's intended appeal concerned only the balance demand sustained against it; consequently, finality attached separately to the portion of demand deleted in appeal. A statutory pre-deposit is in the nature of a security deposit and, upon appellate relief, its retention without authority is impermissible. The appellate order, insofar as it set aside the demand, was binding under Section 107(16) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The taxpayer was entitled to refund of the proportionate pre-deposit attributable to the demand set aside in appeal; the rejection founded on absence of finality of the entire appellate proceedings was unsustainable.

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.