Issues: (i) Whether the writ challenge to the adequacy of the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the substituted pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued before 01.10.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the writ challenge to the adequacy of the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: Determining whether the extensive adjudication order adequately addressed the assessee's contentions would require examination of facts and merits. Section 107 provides a statutory appellate remedy for such examination.

Conclusion: The challenge to the merits and adequacy of the adjudication order must be pursued through the statutory appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the substituted pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 applies to an appeal arising from a show-cause notice issued before 01.10.2025.

Analysis: The show-cause notice had been issued before 01.10.2025, and the order imposed only penalty without any tax demand. The appellate remedy was therefore governed by Section 107(6) as it stood on the date of issuance of the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The substituted requirement to deposit ten per cent of the disputed penalty does not apply to the assessee's appeal, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: An appeal filed within two weeks must be considered under the pre-substitution pre-deposit regime applicable to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The pre-deposit regime governing a GST appeal is determined by the law applicable when the show-cause notice initiating the proceedings was issued; a subsequently substituted requirement does not govern proceedings initiated earlier.

Issues: (i) Whether GST is applicable to rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce; (ii) Whether GST on such rent is payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism or the Forward Charge Mechanism; (iii) What GST rate applies to the renting of such godowns.

Issue (i): Whether GST is applicable to rent paid for hired godowns used exclusively for storage and warehousing of raw agricultural produce.

Analysis: Renting of godowns for consideration and the subsequent provision of storage and warehousing services are separate supplies. Although storage or warehousing of agricultural produce is exempt under Entry No. 54(e) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), the exemption applies to the outward warehousing service and does not extend to the independent inward supply of renting non-residential godowns. Such renting is a taxable supply of real estate services.

Conclusion: GST is applicable on rent paid for hired godowns notwithstanding their exclusive use for exempt agricultural-produce warehousing, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GST on such rent is payable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism or the Forward Charge Mechanism.

Analysis: Renting of non-residential godowns by registered suppliers is taxable under forward charge. Entry No. 5AB of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate), as amended, requires a registered recipient to pay tax under reverse charge where the non-residential property is rented by an unregistered supplier; the entry applies from 10.10.2024.

Conclusion: Rent paid to unregistered persons for hired godowns from 10.10.2024 is taxable under reverse charge; rent charged by registered persons is taxable under forward charge, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): What GST rate applies to the renting of such godowns.

Analysis: Renting or leasing of non-residential property falls within real estate services under Entry No. 16(iii) of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Conclusion: GST is payable at 18%, comprising 9% CGST and 9% SGST, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption available to storage and warehousing of agricultural produce does not alter the taxability of the distinct supply of renting hired godowns.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption of an outward supply does not exempt a separate inward supply; each supply must be classified and taxed independently under the applicable GST notification.

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Authority was required to await expiry of the statutory appeal period before deciding an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether rejection of the immunity application after a one-day notice complied with the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Authority was required to await expiry of the statutory appeal period before deciding an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 270AA(3) makes grant of immunity conditional upon fulfilment of the prescribed requirements and expiry of the appeal-filing period specified in Section 249(2)(b). The statutory scheme therefore precludes determination of the immunity application before that period expires.

Conclusion: The Assessing Authority was justified in awaiting expiry of the statutory appeal period before deciding the immunity application. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the immunity application after a one-day notice complied with the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 270AA(4) prohibits rejection without an opportunity of hearing. Notice issued on 28 July 2026 requiring appearance on 29 July 2026, followed by rejection on 30 July 2026, did not afford sufficient time to place records and substantiate the claim for immunity, and offended principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection of immunity without an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing was invalid. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The immunity applications must be determined after affording the assessees a meaningful hearing and considering their submissions and material in accordance with Section 270AA and principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Although an application for immunity under Section 270AA may be decided only after expiry of the statutory appeal period, its rejection is impermissible unless the assessee receives a real and effective opportunity of hearing.

Outcome: The recall application was allowed and the writ petition restored; the writ petition was thereafter closed with liberty to approach afresh on the same cause of action and challenge Section 147A, with the earlier protection continued for 90 days.

Issues: (i) Whether Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract remain classifiable as vegetable extracts under Heading 1302, rather than as food preparations under Heading 2106, of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the goods fall under the residual Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (i): Whether Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract remain classifiable as vegetable extracts under Heading 1302, rather than as food preparations under Heading 2106, of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff requires classification according to the heading terms and relevant notes. Heading 1302 covers vegetable extracts obtained from original vegetable material by solvents, including extracts concentrated and converted into powder, unless specialised post-extraction processing selectively increases or decreases particular compounds or compound classes beyond ordinary solvent extraction.

Analysis: The repeated extraction cycles were performed on the original pine bark and grape seeds to recover soluble botanical constituents before the extraction liquors were combined. No material established selective isolation, enrichment or depletion of particular constituents in Pine Bark Extract. For Grape Seed Extract, no technical evidence established that resin adsorption selectively fractionated compound classes; the recorded material showed recovery of the adsorbed organic fraction together. Concentration, drying, grinding, sieving and stated extraction ratios did not alter the goods' essential character as botanical extracts.

Analysis: Heading 2106 concerns food or dietary preparations put up as supplements to the normal diet. The goods were single-ingredient extracts imported in bulk as industrial inputs requiring further formulation, and were neither presented nor put up as finished dietary supplements for direct consumption. The food-safety regulatory framework corroborated the distinction between nutraceutical ingredients and completed nutraceutical products, without governing Customs tariff classification.

Conclusion: Pine Bark Extract and Grape Seed Extract are classifiable under Heading 1302 as vegetable extracts and not under Heading 2106; this finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods fall under the residual Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Under Heading 1302, specific tariff items apply to extracts of named plants or products. Neither Pine Bark Extract nor Grape Seed Extract is specifically enumerated under those entries. Following the tariff restructuring effective from 01.05.2026, the applicable residual entry for other vegetable extracts is Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39.

Conclusion: Both products are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 1302 19 39 as "Other".

Final Conclusion: The imports are governed by the tariff treatment for residual vegetable extracts rather than that for residual food preparations.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of botanical extracts depends on their character as imported and on demonstrable selective post-extraction refinement, not merely their ultimate nutraceutical use; absent proof of specialised processing that selectively alters their constituent profile, bulk extracts requiring further formulation fall under Heading 1302 rather than Heading 2106.

Issues: Whether a further pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is required where the pre-deposit made under Section 107(6) exceeds the prescribed percentage of the tax remaining in dispute after reduction by the first appellate authority.

Analysis: Section 107(6) requires payment of a specified percentage of the disputed tax for a first appeal, while Section 112(8)(b) requires a further prescribed payment for an appeal to the Tribunal. The pre-deposit is a portion of the disputed tax and not an independent liability. The requirement cannot be mechanically applied where the tax in dispute has been substantially reduced in the first appeal and the amount already deposited equals or exceeds the applicable percentage of the surviving disputed tax. Insisting on an additional deposit in those circumstances would produce an anomalous and unworkable result.

Conclusion: No further pre-deposit under Section 112(8)(b) was required because the amount already deposited under Section 107(6) exceeded the prescribed requirement with reference to the reduced tax remaining in dispute.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 was justified where goods were transported under a second e-way bill generated after expiry of the original e-way bill.

Analysis: Rule 138 requires an e-way bill before movement of goods, and Rule 138(10) permits extension only within eight hours of its expiry; generation of a fresh e-way bill on the same invoice after that period was not authorised. The original e-way bill was not extended, while the second e-way bill was generated three days after expiry by inserting an additional zero in the invoice number. The record did not reliably establish the asserted vehicle breakdown, repair, or movement of goods from Orai to Kachora Ghat. The unexplained delay in covering the earlier route, followed by the rapid movement from Kachora Ghat and the changed loading location, constituted circumstantial evidence supporting an adverse inference. In civil proceedings under Section 129, the facts were assessable on the preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The second e-way bill was the product of fraud and deception, and the goods were transported with intent to evade tax; the Section 129 penalty was warranted, against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the reassessment accepted non-taxability of accumulated interest without proper inquiry and application of law; (ii) Whether conversion of zero-coupon debentures into equity shares resulted in taxable interest income despite the cash system of accounting and the exemption for conversion from capital-gains treatment.

Issue (i): Whether revision under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the reassessment accepted non-taxability of accumulated interest without proper inquiry and application of law.

Analysis: Section 263 permits revision where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Acceptance of a claim without necessary inquiry or proper application of the governing provisions renders the assessment erroneous. The reassessment did not properly address the interest component represented by the equity shares issued on conversion.

Conclusion: The exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was valid. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether conversion of zero-coupon debentures into equity shares resulted in taxable interest income despite the cash system of accounting and the exemption for conversion from capital-gains treatment.

Analysis: Allotment of equity shares of ascertainable monetary value in satisfaction of accumulated interest constitutes constructive receipt; receipt need not be in physical cash. Section 47(x) excludes conversion from transfer only for capital-gains computation under Section 45 and does not exempt the embedded interest income taxable under Section 56. Credit for tax deducted at source on that interest cannot be claimed while denying taxability of the underlying income. Taxing the interest component on conversion does not result in double taxation, since the taxed amount forms part of the cost basis of the converted shares under Section 49(2A).

Conclusion: The accrued interest embedded in the converted shares remains taxable under Section 56 notwithstanding the cash system of accounting or Section 47(x). This issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary setting aside of the reassessment for fresh determination remains operative, and the fresh determination must account for the rectification made to the appellate order.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision under Section 263 is available where an assessment accepts a claim without necessary inquiry or application of the applicable law, thereby rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax could be demanded again on rake/wagon loading services already taxed under the service provider's centralized registration; (ii) Whether transportation contracts with incidental loading were classifiable as Cargo Handling Services; and (iii) Whether the demand for 2014-15 could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether service tax could be demanded again on rake/wagon loading services already taxed under the service provider's centralized registration.

Analysis: Service tax on the rake/wagon loading value had already been discharged under the centralized Kolkata registration. The subsequent demand under the surrendered Odisha registration covered the same taxable service and value, without accounting for the tax already paid.

Conclusion: A second service-tax demand on the same rake/wagon loading service was impermissible, and the demand of Rs. 1,41,49,414 was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether transportation contracts with incidental loading were classifiable as Cargo Handling Services.

Analysis: The transportation and loading work was separately contracted and billed, and transportation constituted the predominant component of the overall consideration. Applying Section 66F(3)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994, the essential character of the activity was transportation; loading at a single point was incidental. No evidence established specialized cargo-handling activities. The applicable circulars also treat loading and similar ancillary activities undertaken in the course of road transportation as part of the principal transport service. Goods Transport Agency services involving consignment notes are taxable in the recipient's hands under reverse charge, while transportation without consignment notes falls within the negative list under Section 66D(p) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The services were classifiable as transportation services and not as Cargo Handling Services; the demand of Rs. 6,73,01,893 was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand for 2014-15 could be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The show-cause notice issued on 29 September 2020 was beyond the normal limitation period, which had expired by 30 September 2017. The proceedings were based on information available from income-tax returns and Form 26AS, and the dispute concerned classification of services. The requisite basis for invoking the extended period was therefore absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was unavailable, providing an independent ground to set aside the tax demand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not sustain the service-tax demands, interest, or penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transportation is the principal element of a composite arrangement and loading is merely ancillary, the service must be classified as transportation and cannot be taxed as Cargo Handling Service.

Issues: (i) Whether cleaning, sanitation, garbage-removal and onboard-housekeeping services provided to Indian Railways were exempt under Entry 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand; (iii) Whether penalties and late fees for non-filing and delayed filing of returns were sustainable; (iv) Whether the amount deposited during investigation was refundable with interest; (v) Whether the allegation that service tax collected was not deposited with the Government was established.

Issue (i): Whether cleaning, sanitation, garbage-removal and onboard-housekeeping services provided to Indian Railways were exempt under Entry 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Analysis: Entry 25(a) exempts services provided to Government that carry out functions ordinarily entrusted to a municipality in relation to public health, sanitation conservancy and solid-waste management. The platform maintenance, coach and station cleaning, garbage disposal and onboard housekeeping services were of that character and were supplied to Indian Railways as a Government body.

Conclusion: The services were exempt from service tax; the tax demand, consequential interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were unsustainable-in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service-tax demand.

Analysis: The demand was founded on information contained in the balance sheet, profit and loss account, Form 26AS and ST-3 returns, all of which were available for departmental scrutiny. Suppression of facts with intent to evade tax was not established, and the major portion of the demand period was beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation was unsustainable-in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties and late fees for non-filing and delayed filing of returns were sustainable.

Analysis: The failure to file returns for certain periods and delay in filing returns were undisputed. The separate statutory consequences under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 therefore remained independently enforceable.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 30,000 and late fee of Rs. 1,21,700 were sustained-against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the amount deposited during investigation was refundable with interest.

Analysis: The amount was deposited during investigation against the alleged tax liability. Once the underlying demand failed, the deposit could not be treated as payment of service tax; the refund procedure under Section 11B, as applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, was inapplicable to it.

Conclusion: The investigation deposit of Rs. 60 lakhs was refundable with applicable interest-in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the allegation that service tax collected was not deposited with the Government was established.

Analysis: The department did not discharge the burden of proof by producing conclusive material showing that any collected service tax had been retained rather than deposited.

Conclusion: The allegation was not established-in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive tax liability was eliminated, while the independent consequences for return-filing defaults remained enforceable and the investigation deposit was required to be restored with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Services provided to Indian Railways that perform municipal functions relating to public health, sanitation conservancy or solid-waste management fall within the exemption under Entry 25(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Issues: Whether Education Cess and Higher Education Cess refunded under appellate orders, but subsequently redeposited under protest after a later overruling decision, must be refunded notwithstanding pending appeals against certain appellate refund orders.

Analysis: The appellate refund orders had applied the legal position prevailing at the time, under which the cess paid along with exempted excise duty was refundable. The subsequent overruling of that position could not reopen refunds settled under decisions that had attained finality. Although certain appeals concerning the petitioner's appellate refund orders remain pending, parity with similarly situated assessees and protection of revenue interests warranted release of the redeposited amount with appropriate safeguards.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to refund of the entire Education Cess and Higher Education Cess redeposited under protest, subject to furnishing an equivalent bank guarantee and to the outcome of pending appeals or other proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under Section 74, passed without a personal hearing after the date originally fixed for hearing, was valid.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of personal hearing. No hearing was held on the scheduled date, no subsequent date was communicated, and the adjudication order was passed more than nine months later without recording any opportunity of hearing. Section 75(5) permits limited adjournments, but no adjournment had been sought by the petitioner. The absence of a fresh hearing opportunity constituted a complete breach of the principles of natural justice and an incurable procedural deficiency.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was invalid for denial of the mandatory opportunity of personal hearing; fresh notice and adjudication after affording such opportunity were required.

Issues: Whether cancelled GST registration could be restored upon payment of outstanding penalty and statutory interest and filing of defaulted returns.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled for non-furnishing of GST returns for six months, and penalty had been imposed. Revenue raised no objection to revival if the outstanding penalty with statutory interest was paid and the defaulted returns were filed within the time stipulated.

Conclusion: The registration may be restored upon compliance with the stipulated payment and return-filing requirements.

Issues: Whether an appellate authority may dismiss a GST appeal solely for non-prosecution without determining the grounds of appeal on merits and recording reasons.

Analysis: Section 107(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an appellate order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision on those points, and the reasons for that decision. Dismissal merely for non-prosecution, without considering the appeal grounds and record, framing points for determination, or giving a reasoned decision on merits, fails to comply with that mandatory requirement and amounts to an abdication of appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: An appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-prosecution; the appellate authority must adjudicate it on merits through a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be declined because a condonation application was pending before the CBDT? (ii) Whether the 30-day delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2020-21 warranted condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be declined because a condonation application was pending before the CBDT?

Analysis: The pending application before the CBDT was an alternate statutory remedy for a delayed condonation request. In the particular circumstances, immediate exercise of writ jurisdiction was appropriate because the short delay, its bona fide explanation, and the resulting hardship were capable of final resolution.

Conclusion: The assessee was not required to pursue the pending CBDT application before relief could be granted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the 30-day delay in filing Form No. 10B for Assessment Year 2020-21 warranted condonation under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Analysis: Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required the audit report in Form No. 10B to be furnished one month before the return due date, a requirement newly advanced for the relevant assessment year. The 30-day delay resulted from a bona fide understanding that the report could be furnished with the return, amid the COVID-19 period and extensions of compliance timelines. Section 119(2)(b) permits condonation to avert genuine hardship; denial of the Section 11 exemption solely for this short, non-deliberate delay would cause such hardship. Substantial justice therefore outweighed technical default.

Conclusion: The 30-day delay in filing Form No. 10B was condoned, and the rejection of condonation and the intimation denying exemption were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Form No. 10B must be treated as having been filed within time, and the return of income must be processed afresh in accordance with law on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A short, bona fide compliance delay that would otherwise deny a statutory exemption and cause genuine hardship should be condoned under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to advance substantial justice.

Issues: Whether the statutory foundation for invoking the reverse burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 was established in respect of the seized gold bangle and whether the claimant's evidence of domestic acquisition discharged that burden.

Analysis: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 places the burden of proving that notified goods are not smuggled upon the claimant only after seizure on the basis of a reasonable belief supported by tangible material and cumulative surrounding circumstances. Neither an inland seizure nor absence of foreign markings is individually conclusive. The evidence must be evaluated with reference to the manner of carriage, concealment, admissions, markings, documentary provenance, accounting trail and other incriminating circumstances. A claimant's burden may be discharged on a preponderance of probabilities through reliable documentary and circumstantial material; proof of uninterrupted physical identity of fungible gold is not invariably required. The seized article was a gold bangle transported through a domestic courier, without concealment, foreign markings, incriminating admissions, or material disproving the identified tax invoices for domestic purchases of 999-purity gold. In the absence of a finding that the invoices were false or lacked nexus with the business stock, the documentary explanation could not be rejected on conjecture.

Conclusion: The evidentiary foundation for treating the seized gold bangle as smuggled was not established, and the claimant's explanation of domestic acquisition could not be rejected; confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.