Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's available pre-GST ITC must be adjusted against GVAT and CST liabilities before determining the balance eligible for transition; (ii) Whether VAT authorities may deny that set-off by reference to ITC declared in FORM GST TRAN-1, or whether excess transitional credit must be addressed by GST authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's available pre-GST ITC must be adjusted against GVAT and CST liabilities before determining the balance eligible for transition.

Analysis: The admitted surplus ITC under the pre-GST regime was available for adjustment against the outstanding liabilities under the GVAT Act and the CST Act. The adjustment had to be made before calculating the balance ITC capable of being carried forward into the GST regime. The direction for fresh determination on that basis was therefore consistent with the applicable set-off principle.

Conclusion: The available pre-GST ITC must first be set off against GVAT and CST liabilities; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether VAT authorities may deny that set-off by reference to ITC declared in FORM GST TRAN-1, or whether excess transitional credit must be addressed by GST authorities.

Analysis: Rule 117(3) of the GST Rules, 2017 permits credit declared in FORM GST TRAN-1 to be credited to the electronic credit ledger. Rule 121 of the GST Rules, 2017 provides the GST mechanism for verification and action concerning wrongly availed credit through Sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act. The VAT authorities could inform the competent GST officer of any excess credit transitioned, but could not use the TRAN-1 declaration to deny adjustment of ITC against liabilities arising under the pre-GST enactments.

Conclusion: Any wrongly transitioned ITC is to be dealt with under the GST framework, and cannot defeat the assessee's pre-GST ITC set-off; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Pre-GST tax liabilities must be adjusted from available pre-GST ITC, and only the resulting balance is eligible for transition; the legality of any excess transitional credit falls for action by the GST authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A VAT authority cannot deny statutory set-off of available pre-GST input tax credit by relying on credit transitioned through FORM GST TRAN-1, since verification and recovery of wrongly availed transitional credit lie within the GST statutory mechanism.

Issues: Whether dumpers and tippers deployed for transportation integral to composite mining contracts qualify for higher depreciation as vehicles used in the business of running them on hire.

Analysis: Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and sub-item 2(ii) of Item III of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 allow higher depreciation for motor lorries used in the business of running them on hire. CBDT Circulars No. 609 and No. 652 clarify that the benefit extends to motor lorries used in the assessee's own business of transporting goods on hire, but not in a non-hiring business. The contractual terms established that excavation, loading, transportation, dumping and related operations formed an integrated composite mining contract; the minerals and overburden belonged to the mine owners, and the assessee's dumpers and tippers were deployed to transport those materials under the contractual obligations. These facts brought the case within the applicable principle governing equipment and vehicles supplied on hire for mining and transportation operations, and were materially distinct from cases involving merely occasional hiring or vehicles used ancillary to a different principal business.

Conclusion: Dumpers and tippers used for transportation under the composite mining contracts were used in the business of running them on hire and qualified for depreciation at the higher rate of 30%.

Issues: Whether the 89-day delay in filing the statutory appeal against the assessment order should be condoned and the appellate rejection set aside.

Analysis: The appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the condonable period. The explanation that the petitioner's accountant was seriously ill and therefore failed to access the portal and communicate the assessment order was accepted as genuine. The admitted recovery of 24.36% of the disputed tax was also taken into account while prescribing the deposit required for restoration of the appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The delay of 89 days was condoned and the appellate rejection was set aside, subject to payment of the balance required to make up 25% of the disputed tax after adjusting the amount already recovered. The appellate authority must take the appeal on record and decide it on merits after affording personal hearing.

Outcome: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was restored for consideration.

Issues: (i) Whether a cost-free corporate guarantee to a foreign associated enterprise constitutes an international transaction; (ii) What arm's-length commission rate applies to the guarantee; (iii) Whether the sales commission paid to the foreign associated enterprise was disallowable for non-deduction of tax at source.

Issue (i): Whether a cost-free corporate guarantee to a foreign associated enterprise constitutes an international transaction.

Analysis: The Explanation to section 92B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, addresses guarantees. Binding precedent identified inherent risk and enhanced creditworthiness for the associated enterprise notwithstanding the absence of an immediate cost.

Conclusion: The corporate guarantee is an international transaction. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): What arm's-length commission rate applies to the guarantee.

Analysis: The arm's-length rate was benchmarked by reference to a High Court decision and other tribunal decisions concerning corporate guarantees.

Conclusion: The guarantee commission is to be computed at 0.5% instead of 1%. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the sales commission paid to the foreign associated enterprise was disallowable for non-deduction of tax at source.

Analysis: Section 195 requires withholding only where the payment is chargeable to tax in India. An adopted earlier decision on the same agreement treated the marketing commission as outside the treaty's fees-for-included-services category; no change in facts or law was identified.

Conclusion: The sales commission is not disallowable for non-deduction of tax at source. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The guarantee remains within the transfer-pricing regime at a reduced commission rate, while the sales commission is not subject to disallowance for non-withholding.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate guarantee furnished without charge to an associated enterprise is an international transaction subject to arm's-length pricing.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice issued after omission of Rule 89(4B) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, without a saving clause, had statutory validity.

Analysis: Rule 89(4B) had been omitted by notification dated 08.10.2024 without any saving clause. Omission of a rule without a provision preserving pending or subsequent proceedings renders the omitted rule unavailable as a statutory basis for action. The impugned notice, issued on 02.12.2025 after the omission, was therefore unsupported by any extant statutory authority.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was non est in law and was quashed.

Issues: Whether the ITAT could reject a rectification application under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by introducing new grounds and reappreciating matters beyond a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Section 254(2) confines rectification jurisdiction to correcting a mistake apparent from the record and does not permit a review on merits or reappreciation of the matter. The rejection relied on new considerations concerning distributor confirmations and patterns of cash receipts, which did not form the basis of the rectification grounds or the original appellate order.

Conclusion: The ITAT exceeded its rectification jurisdiction under Section 254(2) in rejecting the application on new grounds, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the IT segment could be divided into associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions for benchmarking; (ii) whether the transfer-pricing adjustment could be computed at the combined IT-segment level; (iii) whether an upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore applied to comparable selection; (iv) whether interest disallowance was warranted; and (v) which investments were to be considered for indirect-expense disallowance.

Issue (i): Whether the IT segment could be divided into associated-enterprise and non-associated-enterprise transactions for benchmarking.

Analysis: The segmental accounts formed part of the transfer-pricing study and were certified before the dispute resolution panel. The two segments had different risk profiles, and a similar approach had been accepted for the IT-enabled services segment. The adopted precedent recognised that audited segmental accounts were not mandatory.

Conclusion: The segmentation must be accepted for benchmarking, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment could be computed at the combined IT-segment level.

Analysis: Under the transactional net margin method, Rule 10B directs comparison of the margin from the international transaction, with regard to functions, assets and risks. The combined margin included transactions with unrelated parties.

Conclusion: The adjustment must be confined to associated-enterprise transactions, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether an upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore applied to comparable selection.

Analysis: Turnover bears on assets, risks and operating margins. The adopted precedent treated scale as relevant to comparability under the transactional net margin method.

Conclusion: The Rs. 200 crore upper turnover filter must be applied, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest disallowance was warranted.

Analysis: Section 14A and Rule 8D concern expenditure relating to exempt income. The assessee's own funds exceeded its investments.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was not warranted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Which investments were to be considered for indirect-expense disallowance.

Analysis: The applicable precedent confines the Rule 8D calculation for indirect expenses to investments earning exempt income. The assessee supplied a working identifying those investments.

Conclusion: Only investments earning exempt income are to be included, after verification, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The remaining transfer-pricing adjustment requires recomputation on the accepted segmental basis, accounting for the mutual agreement procedure. The indirect-expense disallowance requires verification and recalculation.

Ratio Decidendi: For transactional net margin benchmarking, segmental results cannot be rejected solely because they are unaudited, and the resulting adjustment must be confined to associated-enterprise international transactions.

Issues: Whether an ECIR under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can survive against the petitioners after quashing of the sole predicate FIR.

Analysis: The ECIR was founded solely on the FIR alleged to constitute the scheduled offence. Under Sections 2(1)(u) and 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, proceeds of crime must arise from criminal activity relating to a subsisting scheduled offence. Where the scheduled-offence case is quashed by a competent court, no money-laundering action can continue against the person in relation to property allegedly linked to that offence. Since the FIR had been quashed and no scheduled offence remained against the petitioners, the Enforcement Directorate lacked jurisdiction to continue proceedings under the ECIR against them.

Conclusion: The ECIR was quashed insofar as it concerned the petitioners, their directors, partners, employees and shareholders.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.

Issues: Whether an appeal against an advance ruling may determine the classification of a materially different product on the basis of revised packaging and a post-ruling test report that were not before the original Authority.

Analysis: The scope of appellate jurisdiction under Sections 100(1) and 101(1) is confined to the advance ruling and the factual foundation on which it was rendered; it does not permit a new case at appellate stage or an original determination on a materially altered factual matrix. The subsequently produced soap differed in physical appearance, description and packaging from the product originally presented as laundry soap. The later test report did not identify the relevant batch, manufacture details or other particulars establishing that the tested sample was the original product. No contemporaneous technical or manufacturing material established identity or equivalence between the two products.

Conclusion: No. The subsequently presented product and later test report could not be substituted for the product and record underlying the advance ruling, and its classification was not determined in the appeal.

Outcome: Delay condoned and the Special Leave Petition dismissed; the question of law was kept open.

Issues: Whether reassessment may be initiated on the same transfer-pricing material after the Assessing Officer failed to pass a final assessment order within the statutory period following a draft assessment order.

Analysis: The draft assessment order had proposed a transfer-pricing adjustment after detailed scrutiny, and the assessee had communicated that it would not approach the Dispute Resolution Panel. The Assessing Officer did not pass the consequential final assessment order within the period prescribed under the statutory framework. The subsequent proceedings under sections 148A and 148 were founded on the identical transfer-pricing adjustment and material already considered in the scrutiny proceedings; no fresh material was shown to have emerged. Reassessment cannot be used to overcome or indirectly extend the limitation resulting from failure to complete the original assessment.

Conclusion: Reassessment on the same material, after the original assessment proceedings lapsed for want of a final assessment order within limitation, was impermissible.

Issues: Whether respondents to customs appeals could be excluded from participation at the admission stage and denied an opportunity to raise the appeals' maintainability despite their prior admission.

Analysis: The appeals had already been admitted before the scheduled admission hearing, while no interim relief had been granted. Procedural fairness required that the affected respondents be permitted to participate in the appellate proceedings and raise all legally permissible contentions, including the objection to maintainability. Admission of the appeals did not preclude an expeditious consideration of their maintainability.

Conclusion: The petitioners are entitled to participate in the High Court appeals and raise the issue of maintainability, which must be considered expeditiously notwithstanding admission of the appeals.

Issues: Whether assessment orders could stand where show-cause notices were uploaded only on the GST portal, the taxpayer did not respond, and no personal hearing was afforded.

Analysis: Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises portal uploading as a valid mode of service. However, where repeated portal notices elicit no response, the officer must explore other prescribed modes, preferably registered post, to ensure effective service rather than merely complete a procedural formality. Confirmation of the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing in those circumstances denied an effective opportunity to respond.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders were invalid for want of effective service and an opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite the alternative remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal when ineffective communication and breach of natural justice were alleged; (ii) Whether rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred was sustainable where the adjudication order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab and the delay explanation was not addressed.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite the alternative remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal when ineffective communication and breach of natural justice were alleged.

Analysis: Article 226 of the Constitution of India permits exercise of writ jurisdiction notwithstanding an alternative remedy where breach of natural justice is alleged. The challenge concerned the effective communication of the adjudication order and the appellate rejection of the appeal on limitation, warranting consideration under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The existence of a further appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction in the circumstances alleged.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the statutory appeal as time-barred was sustainable where the adjudication order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab and the delay explanation was not addressed.

Analysis: Section 107(1) of the CGST and MGST Acts makes limitation run from communication of the decision. Communication requires sufficient knowledge of the decision to enable an effective statutory remedy. Uploading the order under a tab not designated for notices and orders did not establish such communication; routine filing of returns through the portal could not establish knowledge of an order placed there. The appellate order also failed to disclose reasons for rejecting the explanation for delay.

Conclusion: The limitation dismissal could not stand; the delay was condoned and the statutory appeal was restored for a merits decision after personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appeal must receive adjudication on merits upon application of the communication requirement under section 107(1), without any pronouncement on the underlying tax demand or the alleged denial of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under section 107(1), an order uploaded on a non-designated portal tab is not effectively communicated unless it imparts sufficient knowledge to enable effective pursuit of the statutory remedy; routine portal use for filing returns cannot substitute for such communication.

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the 20-day delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: Section 260A(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits admission of an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period where sufficient cause is established. A justice-oriented and pragmatic approach applies to short delays, while considering the conduct of the applicant and the need to advance substantial justice. The delay was short, arose in the governmental approval process, and the appeal was filed promptly after approval; the circumstances did not disclose lethargy or dilatory conduct.

Conclusion: Sufficient cause was established, and the 20-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.