Issues: Whether confiscation and penalties could be sustained for alleged smuggling of foreign-origin black pepper and socks that were not notified goods.

Analysis: The goods were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. The burden therefore remained on Revenue to establish that the goods were smuggled. Revenue failed to discharge that burden.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation, and no penalties could be imposed.

Issues: Whether confirmation of the provisional attachment of the Trust's properties as proceeds of crime or property of equivalent value was sustainable despite the asserted purchase and distribution of aids and appliances from the grant-in-aid.

Analysis: Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 5 and 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 govern identification of proceeds of crime, money-laundering conduct, provisional attachment and its confirmation. The material established that the claimed distribution camps had not been organised in the relevant districts, the supporting records carried forged official signatures, and the stated beneficiaries denied receiving the aids and appliances. The appellants produced invoices and bank records concerning purchase, but furnished no reliable material proving distribution to disabled persons or explaining the transfer of Rs. 20,82,795 from the Trust's account to its representative. The identified movable and immovable properties and bank balances were within the quantified value of the misused grant.

Conclusion: Confirmation of the provisional attachment of the identified properties as proceeds of crime or property representing their value was sustained.

Issues: Whether the provision of vehicles fitted with hydrogen cylinder skids for charges computed on a per-trip basis was taxable as supply of tangible goods service.

Analysis: Supply of tangible goods service under Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies where tangible goods are supplied for use without transferring their possession and effective control. The per-trip basis of charges indicated transportation activity rather than renting of vehicles. The activity had already been found not classifiable as supply of tangible goods service; the subsequent examination also found that it did not meet the criteria of a goods transport agency.

Conclusion: The activity was not classifiable as supply of tangible goods service, and the service-tax demand under that category was set aside.

Issues: (i) Maintainability of a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a Council notice requiring participation in mediation under Section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; (ii) Whether the fresh mediation notice amounted to an impermissible review of the Council's earlier decision; (iii) Whether pending commercial civil proceedings bar a supplier's claim before the Council.

Issue (i): Maintainability of a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a Council notice requiring participation in mediation under Section 18(2) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.

Analysis: Section 18 contemplates statutory conciliation before an adversarial dispute arises. A notice confined to calling a party for mediation does not create an adjudicatory lis; the dispute becomes adversarial only upon failure of conciliation. Judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 is therefore premature at the mediation stage.

Conclusion: The civil revision petition was not maintainable against the mediation notice, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the fresh mediation notice amounted to an impermissible review of the Council's earlier decision.

Analysis: The earlier challenge was withdrawn after the Council indicated that it would entertain a fresh claim. The subsequent notice was consequently not an exercise of review of the previous decision.

Conclusion: The fresh mediation notice did not amount to an impermissible review, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether pending commercial civil proceedings bar a supplier's claim before the Council.

Analysis: The statutory remedy under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 is an independent right available to a registered supplier. Parallel proceedings before a commercial court do not create a legal bar to the Council dealing with the statutory claim.

Conclusion: The pending commercial proceedings did not bar the supplier's claim before the Council, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The statutory mediation process may continue, and the Council may entertain the supplier's claim notwithstanding the parallel commercial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice initiating statutory conciliation under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 creates no adjudicatory lis amenable to Article 227 review before conciliation fails, and the statutory remedy is not displaced by parallel civil proceedings.

Outcome: Assessment order quashed and matter remitted for fresh adjudication on stipulated pre-deposit and reply.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment order warranted interference when the record showed service of the statutory pre-notice and show-cause notice.

Analysis: The record established that an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A and a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 had been issued under the Section 73 assessment process. No procedural irregularity was discernible in the making of the impugned order. Nevertheless, a conditional opportunity for de novo adjudication was granted in accordance with the consistent approach adopted in similar matters.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside for fresh adjudication upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash and filing its reply with supporting documents within the stipulated period. The bank attachment was directed to be lifted upon compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16, founded on a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on or after 1 April 2021, could continue under the substituted reassessment regime.

Analysis: The applicable legal position included the Revenue's accepted concession that notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16 did not fall within the period available for completion under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. That position applied to the notice in question and its consequential proceedings under Sections 148A and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and consequential reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2015-16 could not continue and were required to be dropped.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate forum has statutory power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution and to set aside such default dismissal; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to a fresh merits determination in its first appeal after dismissal for non-appearance despite payment of pre-deposit and disputed service of hearing notices.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate forum has statutory power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution and to set aside such default dismissal.

Analysis: Section 111(1) requires the appellate forum to be guided by principles of natural justice while regulating its procedure. Section 111(2)(f) expressly authorises dismissal of a representation for default or ex parte decision, while Section 111(2)(g) expressly authorises setting aside of such default dismissal or ex parte order. The reference to a representation includes an appeal for this purpose.

Conclusion: The appellate forum is empowered to dismiss for default and to set aside a default or ex parte order. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to a fresh merits determination in its first appeal after dismissal for non-appearance despite payment of pre-deposit and disputed service of hearing notices.

Analysis: The first appeal had been validly constituted upon payment of the prescribed pre-deposit. In view of the asserted lack of effective notice of the hearing dates and the absence of any apparent reason for the assessee to abandon an appeal after making the pre-deposit, denial of a merits determination in the first appeal was not justified. The statutory restoration mechanism was available, but the facts warranted preservation of the assessee's opportunity for a first appellate decision on merits.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to a fresh merits determination after due opportunity of hearing. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's right to an effective first appellate adjudication on merits was preserved notwithstanding the appellate forum's statutory power to dismiss matters for default.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate forum expressly empowered to dismiss for default is correspondingly empowered to set aside a default dismissal or ex parte order under the statutory procedure.

Issues: Whether separately invoiced freight and insurance amounts, recovered as reimbursements, were includible in the taxable value of erection and commissioning services.

Analysis: The valuation principle applied confines service tax to consideration for the taxable service. The invoices showed that freight and insurance were separately billed as reimbursements; service tax had been discharged on erection and commissioning charges and on goods transport agency services under the reverse charge mechanism. In the absence of evidence that any amount recovered exceeded the actual freight and insurance paid, those amounts could not be treated as consideration for the taxable service.

Conclusion: Separately recovered freight and insurance reimbursements were not includible in the taxable value of the erection and commissioning service. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether penalty for contravention of GST e-way bill requirements was sustainable where the delivery address stated in the e-way bill was not a declared place of business of the recipient, despite payment of tax and absence of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129 permits penalty for contravention of the applicable GST statutes or rules, and is not confined to cases of tax non-payment. Rule 138 requires accurate e-way bill particulars to facilitate tracking of goods, including the place of delivery. The delivery address was admittedly neither the recipient's principal place of business nor an additional declared place of business on the date of interception; its subsequent registration did not cure the contravention. The supplier was required to verify that the address provided for delivery was a declared place of business before generating the e-way bill. The e-way bill was also deemed accepted because neither supplier nor recipient communicated its rejection under the prescribed mechanism. Payment of tax and absence of intention to evade tax did not eliminate the statutory breach.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 129 was sustained; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Validity of the revisionary jurisdiction invoked under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue for allowing deduction under Section 80P(2) without examining the mandatory condition in Section 80AC; (iii) Whether examination of the Section 80P(2) deduction was outside the scope of reassessment under Section 147.

Issue (i): Validity of the revisionary jurisdiction invoked under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 263(1) requires examination of the record and formation of an opinion that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The revision notice recorded perusal of the assessment records, notwithstanding reference to the Assessing Officer's proposal, and specifically identified the unverified allowance of deduction as causing error and prejudice. Prima facie satisfaction at the notice stage was sufficient, subject to final determination after hearing.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the revisionary jurisdiction was validly assumed.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue for allowing deduction under Section 80P(2) without examining the mandatory condition in Section 80AC.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 263 treats an order as erroneous and prejudicial where required inquiries or verification are not made or relief is allowed without inquiry. Section 80AC makes timely furnishing of the return under Section 139(1) mandatory for deductions under the relevant Chapter. No specific inquiry was made into the eligibility of the deduction under Section 80P(2) read with Section 80AC, although the return was filed only in response to notice under Section 148. The allowance was consequently contrary to the statutory condition and could not constitute a plausible view.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue because the deduction was allowed without the required inquiry and despite non-compliance with Section 80AC.

Issue (iii): Whether examination of the Section 80P(2) deduction was outside the scope of reassessment under Section 147.

Analysis: The deduction claim arose directly from the explanation for the cash deposits that formed the basis for reopening: the deposits were asserted to arise from cooperative-credit activities, whose profits were claimed as deductible. The deduction was therefore integral to, rather than independent of, the issue investigated in reassessment. The principle restricting additions on wholly different issues after the recorded reopening issue fails did not apply.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: examination of the deduction claim was within the scope of the reassessment.

Final Conclusion: The absence of inquiry into the mandatory statutory eligibility for deduction justified revision of the assessment and required the claim to be addressed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to inquire into a mandatory statutory condition governing a deduction, resulting in allowance contrary to law, renders an assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue and amenable to revision.

Issues: Whether subscription fees received for access to an online communication platform constitute royalty under Explanation 2(iii) to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Article 12(3)(a) of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, and are consequently taxable in India.

Analysis: The subscription terms granted customers only a limited, non-exclusive right to access and use the platform for the subscription period. Ownership of the software, source code, copyright and all intellectual-property rights remained with the provider. Customers could neither access nor use the source code or the underlying processes, nor modify, reproduce, commercially exploit or acquire any ownership interest in the software. The complex digital processes were used by the provider itself to render communication, collaboration and file-sharing services; access to the resulting platform did not amount to use of, or a right to use, those processes. The receipts therefore did not satisfy the requirements for royalty under either the Act or the treaty. In the absence of a permanent establishment in India, the receipts were business receipts not chargeable to tax in India.

Conclusion: The subscription fees are not royalty under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and are not taxable in India in the absence of a permanent establishment; the related additions are deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the woven man-made fibre textile rolls intended for use as labels are classifiable under CTI 5807 10 20 rather than CTI 5807 10 90; (ii) Whether goods classified under CTI 5807 10 20 are covered by Entry No. 370 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the woven man-made fibre textile rolls intended for use as labels are classifiable under CTI 5807 10 20 rather than CTI 5807 10 90.

Analysis: Heading 5807 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 covers non-embroidered labels and similar textile articles presented in the piece, strips, or cut to shape or size. The HSN Explanatory Notes exclude woven labels and similar articles from Heading 5806 even where they are narrow woven fabrics. The rolls were woven man-made fibre materials, specially processed for durable printing, presented in strips, and intended exclusively for garment labels. Their unprinted condition at import and subsequent cutting did not displace their character as labels. The common-parlance and functional-character tests supported classification as label articles, while the specific entry for woven articles of man-made fibre prevailed over the residual entry for other woven articles.

Conclusion: Against the assessee's proposed CTI 5807 10 90, the products are classifiable under CTI 5807 10 20 as woven labels or similar articles of man-made fibre, subject to verification of their declared description, construction, and composition at import.

Issue (ii): Whether goods classified under CTI 5807 10 20 are covered by Entry No. 370 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Entry No. 370 covers labels, badges, and similar articles of textile materials falling under Heading 5807 and prescribes IGST at 5 per cent. The classification under CTI 5807 10 20 falls within that heading.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the products are covered by Entry No. 370 of Schedule I to Notification No. 09/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 17.09.2025, and attract IGST at 5 per cent.

Final Conclusion: The declared woven man-made fibre label rolls receive the specific tariff treatment applicable to Heading 5807 and the corresponding concessional IGST notification entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Textile rolls specially designed and exclusively intended for use as non-embroidered labels retain the character of labels under Heading 5807 despite being unprinted and requiring cutting after import; woven man-made fibre articles fall under the specific man-made fibre tariff item rather than the residual item.

Issues: Whether Bulk Drugs/Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients imported under Chapters 28 or 29, including those imported for manufacture of formulations, testing, clinical research, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, qualify as "All Drugs and medicines" taxable at 5% IGST under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 links IGST on imports to the rate applicable to like goods under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Sl. No. 226 is a description-based entry covering drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The inclusive definition of "drug" in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 encompasses substances intended for use as components of a drug. Read with the definition of bulk drug/API in the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013, APIs used as such or as ingredients in formulations possess the statutory character of drugs. Their use for testing, clinical trials, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies does not alter that character.

Analysis: The separate reference to formulations manufactured from bulk drugs cannot restrict "All Drugs and medicines" to finished dosage forms without rendering part of the entry redundant. The expression "or any Chapter" extends coverage to eligible APIs classified under Chapters 28 or 29. The specific description for drugs and medicines prevails over the general chemical entries for those Chapters. As the rate notification is a taxing notification rather than an exemption notification, any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the taxpayer.

Conclusion: Bulk Drugs/APIs qualifying as drugs or medicines are eligible for IGST at 5% under Sl. No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025, provided the particular goods are not covered by the nil-rate exclusion under Sl. No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issues: Whether bulk drugs/Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients classified under Chapters 28 or 29, including those imported for manufacture, testing, clinical trials, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, qualify as "all drugs and medicines" under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and attract IGST at 5%.

Analysis: Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 links IGST on imports to the rate applicable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. As the rate notification does not define "drugs", the inclusive definition in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was applied. It includes substances intended for use as components of a drug. Bulk drugs/APIs, being pharmaceutical substances used as such or as ingredients in formulations and regulated under the drug-control framework, fall within that meaning. Their pharmaceutical character is not altered merely because they are imported for examination, testing, clinical research, bioavailability or bioequivalence studies.

Analysis: Serial No. 226 is a description-based entry covering drugs and medicines falling under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The expression "or any Chapter" extends coverage to APIs under Chapters 28 and 29. The semicolon separates the coverage of drugs and medicines from formulations manufactured from bulk drugs; restricting the former to finished dosage forms would offend the Rule Against Surplusage. Applying the Specific Over General Rule, the specific entry for drugs and medicines prevails over the general entries for inorganic or organic chemicals. As the notification is a taxing rate notification, any ambiguity is to receive Beneficial Construction in favour of the taxpayer. The nil-rate exclusion under Serial No. 113 must, however, be determined for each particular API at the time of import.

Conclusion: Bulk drugs/APIs described in the application qualify as "all drugs and medicines" under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and are liable to IGST at 5%, provided the particular API is not covered by the nil-rate exclusion under Serial No. 113 of Notification No. 10/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issues: Whether omitted Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 could continue to govern pending export refund claims in the absence of a savings or sunset clause.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) was omitted without any savings or sunset clause. Omission of subordinate legislation without such preservation terminates its operation in relation to pending proceedings; an advisory recommendation for prospective omission cannot independently preserve the omitted rule.

Conclusion: Rule 96(10) could not be applied to pending refund proceedings after its omission, and the refund direction remained unaffected.

Issues: Whether internal comparables derived from audited segmental accounts were rightly accepted under the Transactional Net Margin Method for determining the arm's length price and deleting the transfer-pricing adjustment.

Analysis: Under Sections 92 and 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, comparable transactions with non-associated enterprises should be preferred over external comparables where they are available and suitable. The segmental financials were derived from audited accounts, sales were allocated on actual invoice-level data, and common expenses were allocated on a rational basis. The chartered accountant's certification also extended to the rationality of the allocation basis. The factual findings accepting the internal comparables were supported by the record and were not perverse.

Conclusion: Internal comparables were rightly accepted for determining the arm's length price, and no upward transfer-pricing adjustment was warranted.

Issues: Whether GST reimbursement claims concerning contracts executed after 1 July 2017 could be denied by applying paragraph 3(iv), instead of paragraph 4, of Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated August 16, 2017.

Analysis: A plain-meaning interpretation of the Notification distinguishes pre-GST contracts from post-GST contracts. Paragraph 3(iv) is confined to pre-GST contracts, whereas paragraph 4 applies to post-GST contracts and ongoing projects covered by its terms. Reliance on paragraph 3(iv) to reject a post-GST reimbursement claim was therefore based on a misconstruction of the Notification. The factual entitlement and quantification of the reimbursement claim were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Paragraph 3(iv) cannot be invoked to deny GST reimbursement in respect of contracts executed after 1 July 2017; such claims fall for consideration under paragraph 4 of Notification No. 5050-F(Y) dated August 16, 2017.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory minimum penalty under Section 73(9) could be interfered with on the plea that the breach was minor, absent a constitutional challenge; and (ii) Whether the assessment order required intervention because it was issued without affording a hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory minimum penalty under Section 73(9) could be interfered with on the plea that the breach was minor, absent a constitutional challenge.

Analysis: The applicable GST provisions draw a distinction between Section 74(1), which does not prescribe a minimum amount, and Section 73(9), which prescribes a minimum penalty. Although that distinction may furnish a basis to challenge the validity of the provisions, no such challenge was made.

Conclusion: Interference with the statutory minimum penalty was not warranted in the absence of a constitutional challenge, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order required intervention because it was issued without affording a hearing.

Analysis: The order had been issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The alleged breach also appeared prima facie to be minor. Fair adjudication required an opportunity to contest the tax proposals on merits, upon remittance of the tax demand within the stipulated period.

Conclusion: The denial of hearing vitiated the assessment order, and the assessee was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposals on merits upon payment of the tax demand, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A challenge to the statutory penalty provision cannot succeed without directly questioning its validity, whereas an assessment made in breach of natural justice requires a fresh merits determination after affording a reasonable hearing.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment and transfer of input tax credit through bogus firms.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody since 23.06.2026, the investigation had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, and the material was documentary in nature. Bail granted in similar matters and bail extended to another accused in a comparable case supported parity.

Conclusion: Regular bail was warranted on the recorded circumstances.