Issues: (i) Validity of reassessment notices and assessments for AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 under Sections 148 and 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Validity of assessment for AY 2021-22 made under Section 143(3) without notice under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Sustainability of additions for alleged unaccounted sales and estimated net profit founded on WhatsApp chats, other digital material, cash books and retracted statements.

Issue (i): Validity of reassessment notices and assessments for AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 under Sections 148 and 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: For reassessment beyond three years, Section 149(1)(b) required the recorded reason to believe and approval to identify escaped income represented in an asset, expenditure relating to a transaction, event or occasion, or entries in books of account, exceeding the prescribed threshold. The recorded reasons merely referred to unaccounted receipts and expenses from alleged out-of-books sales. They did not identify the applicable statutory limb or establish a live link between the alleged escaped income and an identifiable asset, qualifying expenditure, or book entry. Unaccounted business receipts and payments, without parallel books or other material, could not simply be characterised as an asset.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and consequential assessments for AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 are invalid for non-fulfilment of the jurisdictional conditions under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (ii): Validity of assessment for AY 2021-22 made under Section 143(3) without notice under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: AY 2021-22 was a year preceding the search year. No notice under Sections 147 and 148 was issued, although assessment for that year was required to proceed through that statutory route. Completion of the assessment solely under Section 143(3) therefore lacked the required jurisdictional basis.

Conclusion: The assessment for AY 2021-22 made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is vitiated.

Issue (iii): Sustainability of additions for alleged unaccounted sales and estimated net profit founded on WhatsApp chats, other digital material, cash books and retracted statements.

Analysis: Although strict rules of evidence do not govern assessment proceedings in every respect, electronic evidence used to establish taxable income must possess reliability, authenticity and probative value. The revenue bore the burden to establish real income through material showing the source and extraction of the digital data, chain of custody, integrity of files, context of conversations, and corroboration with identifiable completed transactions.

Analysis: The WhatsApp chats predominantly contained figures without currency, description of goods or services, identifiable customers, projects, invoices, deliveries, cash movement or accounting treatment. The directors' statements were retracted and the retractions were neither rebutted nor further investigated. No excess stock, unrecorded purchases, parallel invoices, delivery records, buyers' confirmations, transporter evidence, unaccounted cash or other independent corroborative evidence was found. Chats relating to later years could not be projected to other assessment years without year-specific evidence. The cash books also required reconciliation of bank entries, receipts, payments, internal movements and wrong-year entries before any profit estimation. In the absence of corroboration, the material remained dumb documents and could not establish completed unaccounted sales or justify a net-profit estimate.

Conclusion: The additions for alleged unaccounted sales and the related net-profit estimations are unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory jurisdiction for the impugned reassessments was absent where the recorded reasons did not satisfy Section 149(1)(b), and the alleged undisclosed income was not proved by reliable, authenticated and corroborated evidence of assessment-year-specific taxable transactions.

Issues: Whether the seized gold was liable to seizure and absolute confiscation where the carrier possessed a delivery challan and the appellant produced records of its procurement.

Analysis: Gold is a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, placing an initial burden upon the person in possession. The delivery challan produced at the time of interception discharged that burden and shifted the onus to Revenue to establish that the gold was of foreign origin and smuggled. The seizure was from a town location; the gold had 99.7% purity; and Revenue produced no evidence establishing foreign origin or smuggling. The GST-paid procurement invoice and corresponding GSTR-2A records established licit procurement.

Conclusion: The seizure lacked the requisite reasonable belief under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the gold was not liable to confiscation.

Issues: Whether an assessment proceeding can be sustained where the date fixed for personal hearing precedes the deadline for filing a reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The statutory procedure requires a meaningful opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and to be heard before an adverse determination. Scheduling the hearing before expiry of the time granted for submission of reply deprived the assessee of an effective hearing and breached principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order and the appellate order were quashed, and proceedings were directed to recommence from the show-cause-notice stage after allowing reply and a proper personal hearing.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing the petitioners from responding.

Analysis: Uploading the show-cause notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, resulted in the petitioners being unable to file a response. The resultant denial of an effective opportunity to answer the notice constituted a breach of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice and required fresh determination after affording the petitioners a hearing.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice validly invoked Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit.

Analysis: Section 74 permits action on the extended limitation basis only where non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit is attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. The notice must disclose the foundational facts supporting the applicable allegation and correlate those facts with a clear, categorical statutory charge. Mechanical or alternative recitation of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, without identifying which conduct is attributed and why, does not meet this requirement.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice did not validly invoke Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was set aside.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129(3) for an address and business-particulars discrepancy was sustainable where the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and e-way bill, without independent evidence of tax evasion.

Analysis: Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requires a legally established contravention for imposition of penalty. The goods were supported by the relevant tax invoice and e-way bill, and no discrepancy in their quantity or quality was found. A discrepancy in the address or business particulars, without cogent and reliable independent evidence, did not establish mens rea or an intention to evade tax. Such a technical or procedural breach could not sustain a penalty in the absence of proof of tax evasion.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable for want of sufficient evidence establishing a contravention warranting penal action, and the appellate order sustaining it was set aside.

Issues: Whether an ex parte appellate order affirming a GST demand arising from a GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch, without reconciliation and findings on material statutory claims, is legally sustainable.

Analysis: A numerical difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is only the starting point for determining tax liability and does not, without more, establish short-payment of tax. The differential figures must be reconciled with returns, electronic records, payment particulars, annual returns and other relevant material to determine whether tax remained unpaid. Where the demand is said to involve input-tax-credit reversal under Rules 42 and 43, the statutory basis and computation must also be distinctly identified and established.

Analysis: Section 107(12) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires a reasoned appellate determination of the material grounds. Although the appellant had been afforded hearing opportunities and could validly be proceeded against ex parte, non-appearance did not dispense with the obligation to determine the pleaded rectification, subsequent payment, interest, penalty, communication and alleged duplication issues. The claim for statutory waiver under Section 128A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 164 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 also required examination on its prescribed conditions.

Conclusion: The appellate affirmation of the demand was legally unsustainable without factual reconciliation of the alleged mismatch and a reasoned determination of the material statutory claims.

Issues: Whether a revision application under Section 264 could be rejected without examining the assessee's claim on merits merely because the assessee had not participated in the reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 confers wide revisionary powers upon the Commissioner to call for records, make or cause inquiries, and pass an order not prejudicial to the assessee. Non-compliance with notices issued during reassessment does not absolve the Revisional Authority of its obligation to consider the grounds raised in the revision application, examine the claim on merits, and record reasons for accepting or rejecting it. A bare assertion that the assessment order is well reasoned, without addressing the assessee's submissions and supporting material, does not constitute a valid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: A non-speaking rejection of the revision application without a merits-based consideration of the assessee's claim was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the assessment was issued against the petitioner on a PAN alleged not to have been obtained or used by him.

Analysis: The differing details in the two PAN records, including the date of birth and addresses, were noted. The record did not presently establish how two PAN cards bearing substantially similar particulars were issued or the basis on which one PAN was subsequently deactivated.

Outcome: Original PAN-application records, verification details, profiles, and deactivation material were directed to be produced; the matter was listed for further hearing. No final adjudication was made.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order and notice for the relevant assessment year were valid where approval was obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the higher specified authority mandated after expiry of three years.

Analysis: The reassessment regime requires approval from the authority specified according to the time elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Where the three-year period expired during the period covered by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the extension for approval by the authority applicable within three years operated only until 30 June 2021. The approval obtained in July 2022 from a Principal Commissioner was therefore not from the authority prescribed for cases beyond that period; approval was required from the higher authority specified under Section 151(ii). Such prior approval is a jurisdictional precondition to an order under Section 148A(d) and issuance of a reassessment notice.

Conclusion: The order under Section 148A(d), the reassessment notice, and proceedings arising from them were invalid for want of approval from the statutorily competent authority.

Issues: Whether the tax effect of the Tribunal's order and the continued seizure of the locker require administrative action pending the petition.

Analysis: The continuing absence of an effect-giving order and the prolonged seizure of the locker were treated as requiring immediate administrative consideration. No final determination of tax liability, refund entitlement, or release of articles was made.

Outcome: The Assessing Officer was directed to grant a personal hearing, pass appropriate effect-giving orders within the stipulated period, and arrange for opening and inventorying of the seized locker. The matter was listed for further hearing.

Issues: Whether gold seized in a town seizure was liable to confiscation where the claimant produced documents evidencing licit procurement and the Revenue failed to establish its smuggled origin.

Analysis: Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires a reasonable belief that the gold is smuggled before the reverse burden operates. The procurement invoice and corresponding GSTR-2A records sufficiently evidenced licit acquisition. The town seizure, absence of features establishing foreign origin, and gold purity of 99.7% did not support a reasonable belief of smuggling. The claimant discharged the applicable burden, after which the Revenue failed to prove that the gold was smuggled.

Conclusion: The gold was not liable to confiscation. The absolute confiscation order was set aside and release of the gold to the appellant was directed.

Issues: (i) Whether written acceptance of enhanced or reassessed import value precludes challenge to the reassessment; and (ii) Whether declared transaction value may be rejected and enhanced on an acceptance letter and unsubstantiated contemporaneous-import data without statutory valuation compliance.

Issue (i): Whether written acceptance of enhanced or reassessed import value precludes challenge to the reassessment.

Analysis: Section 17(5) relieves the proper officer from issuing a speaking order where reassessment under Section 17(4) is accepted in writing. That procedural concession is confined to dispensing with the speaking order and does not amount to abandonment of the statutory right to question the legality or merits of reassessment.

Conclusion: Written acceptance of enhanced value did not preclude the importer from challenging the reassessment. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether declared transaction value may be rejected and enhanced on an acceptance letter and unsubstantiated contemporaneous-import data without statutory valuation compliance.

Analysis: Section 14 and Rule 12(2) require formation of reasonable doubt regarding the truth or accuracy of the declared transaction value and written communication of the grounds before proceeding to valuation under the sequential rules. The acceptance letters did not disclose particulars of comparable contemporaneous imports, and reliance solely on external or NIDB data without independent, cogent material could not sustain rejection of declared value or enhancement.

Conclusion: Rejection of the declared transaction value and enhancement founded on the acceptance letters and unsubstantiated contemporaneous-import data were unsustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessments could validly be challenged, and the valuation enhancements lacked the mandatory statutory foundation.

Ratio Decidendi: Written acceptance of reassessment dispenses only with a speaking order and does not waive the statutory right to challenge reassessment; rejection of transaction value requires properly communicated reasonable doubt and cogent supporting material.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order founded on a show-cause notice issued to a transferor company that had ceased to exist upon amalgamation is legally sustainable.

Analysis: The approved amalgamation had caused the transferor company to cease to exist. Proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are a nullity; therefore, a notice issued in the transferor's name could not sustain the impugned adjudication order. Questions concerning service-tax liability, amalgamation documentation and surrender of registration were left for fresh determination on the petitioner's representation.

Conclusion: The adjudication order dated 30 January 2024 was quashed and set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether Government grants-in-aid received for designated activities constituted taxable consideration for Business Exhibition Service; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period was invocable for the service-tax demand on those grants; and (iii) Whether the extended limitation period was invocable for the reverse-charge service-tax demand in a revenue-neutral situation.

Issue (i): Whether Government grants-in-aid received for designated activities constituted taxable consideration for Business Exhibition Service.

Analysis: Under the service-tax valuation framework, tax is chargeable on consideration for the taxable service actually provided. The grants were earmarked for specified activities, required utilisation certification, and were fully accounted for as expenditure. No evidence established that invoices were raised, that a service-provider-client relationship existed with the Governments, or that any amount represented a reward for Business Exhibition Service. The grants were reimbursement-like funds rather than consideration. The cited circular concerning charitable commercial training did not establish taxability under Business Exhibition Service.

Conclusion: Government grants-in-aid did not constitute consideration for Business Exhibition Service and were not taxable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period was invocable for the service-tax demand on those grants.

Analysis: The grants and related expenditure were recorded in the books of account and formed part of the audited financial records. The disclosed nature of the transactions, coupled with a bona fide belief supported by decisions concerning grants-in-aid, negated suppression or intent to evade service tax.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period was not invocable for the demand relating to grants-in-aid. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended limitation period was invocable for the reverse-charge service-tax demand in a revenue-neutral situation.

Analysis: The reconciliation reflected overall excess service-tax payments, though individual figures could not be verified. Any reverse-charge tax paid would have been available as CENVAT credit, making the position revenue neutral. The relevant entries were recorded in the books, and no suppression could be attributed.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period was not invocable for the reverse-charge service-tax demand. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Earmarked and fully accountable Government grants lacking any element of consideration cannot be subjected to service tax, and the extended limitation period was unavailable for both the grant-related and reverse-charge demands.

Issues: (i) Whether the electronic data and computer printouts, unsupported by the statutory certificate, were admissible to sustain the excise-duty demand. (ii) Whether investigative statements could be excluded solely because cross-examination was denied and could independently support the alleged clandestine transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the electronic data and computer printouts, unsupported by the statutory certificate, were admissible to sustain the excise-duty demand.

Analysis: Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 treats computer output as documentary evidence only upon fulfilment of the prescribed statutory conditions. The mandatory certificate requirement was not met. The limited exception applicable where a party has demonstrably done everything possible to obtain a third-party certificate was not established. Admissibility is distinct from the probative value of evidence; material that fails the statutory threshold cannot be used for quantifying the alleged clandestine manufacture or clearance.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the electronic data and printouts were inadmissible and could not form the basis for determining the duty liability.

Issue (ii): Whether investigative statements could be excluded solely because cross-examination was denied and could independently support the alleged clandestine transactions.

Analysis: Investigative statements are distinct evidence from electronic records. Cross-examination is an important aspect of natural justice but is not an absolute entitlement; its denial vitiates an adjudication only where specific prejudice is demonstrated. The statements were unretracted, and no witness-specific prejudice from the refusal of cross-examination was established. Statements, invoices, transport records, weighment records and statutory records may be evaluated independently, but quantities found exclusively in the excluded electronic data cannot be adopted.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, the statements were not excluded merely because cross-examination was denied and may be relied upon to the extent that they independently establish particular transactions or quantities.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed aggregate demand, having been quantified from excluded electronic data, cannot be maintained at its existing level. Any duty liability and consequential interest or penalties must be determined solely from independently admissible statements and documentary or circumstantial evidence, after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand cannot be quantified from electronic records that fail the mandatory statutory requirements for admissibility; unretracted investigative statements remain usable unless denial of cross-examination causes demonstrated prejudice and may sustain liability only to the extent independently corroborated.

Issues: Whether duty-free clearances to the expansion of an existing Mega Power Project, where the corresponding imported goods were partially exempt from customs duty and fully exempt from additional customs duty, qualified for the exception under Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rule 6(6)(vii) excludes specified goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding or to qualifying power projects from the operation of Rule 6(1) to Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The project certificates established that the supplies were for expansion of a Mega Power Project under the International Competitive Bidding procedure. The applicable customs notifications prescribed a concessional basic customs duty rate of 2.5% and nil additional customs duty. An exemption from customs duty includes partial exemption; complete exemption from every component of customs duty is not required under Rule 6(6)(vii).

Conclusion: The supplies qualified under Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The requirements relating to separate accounts, credit reversal, or payment of 5% or 6% under Rule 6(1) to Rule 6(4) were inapplicable.

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged clandestine clearances could be sustained on the Varanasi loose sheets and WhatsApp printouts; (ii) Whether the alleged clandestine clearances could be sustained on the Tally data recovered from the Prayagraj laptop and related statements; and (iii) Whether the demand based on File No. 17 concerning alleged supply and consumption of laminates could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged clandestine clearances could be sustained on the Varanasi loose sheets and WhatsApp printouts.

Analysis: The unsigned loose sheets neither identified the assessee, the goods, their author, nor the quantity and nature of any taxable transaction. The WhatsApp printouts lacked a reliable evidentiary foundation concerning extraction, provenance, integrity, preservation and statutory compliance for electronic evidence under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Neither source was supported by corroborative evidence of unaccounted inputs, excess production, transport, identified buyers or receipt of sale proceeds. A charge of clandestine removal must be proved through reliable material; a finding on preponderance of probability must arise from proved circumstances rather than successive assumptions.

Conclusion: The demand attributable to the loose sheets and WhatsApp printouts is unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged clandestine clearances could be sustained on the Tally data recovered from the Prayagraj laptop and related statements.

Analysis: The Tally records were recovered from third-party premises, maintained under a fictitious name, and were not linked to the assessee through reliable source documents or transaction-wise corroboration. Deficiencies regarding the laptop's identity, custody, ownership, extraction and electronic-record safeguards undermined the evidentiary value of the data. Related statements could at most indicate a marketing connection and could not independently establish clandestine manufacture and removal. Reliance on an undisclosed relied-upon statement and panchnama was also inconsistent with natural justice. The necessary chain of circumstantial evidence connecting manufacture, removal, transport, delivery and consideration was absent.

Conclusion: The demand based on the Tally data and related statements is unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand based on File No. 17 concerning alleged supply and consumption of laminates could be sustained.

Analysis: File No. 17 was an unverified third-party record of unproven authorship, authenticity and custody. Its entries were not corroborated by evidence of actual delivery of laminates to the factory, receipt, consumption, manufacture of finished goods, clandestine outward transport, identified buyers or flow of consideration. Attribution of laminate through a selected ratio, followed by assumed manufacture and clearance, amounted to a presumption founded upon another presumption. Third-party records cannot alone discharge the burden of proving clandestine removal.

Conclusion: The demand founded on File No. 17 is unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive demands lacked a legally reliable evidentiary foundation because the alleged unaccounted clearances were not established through a complete and corroborated evidentiary chain.

Ratio Decidendi: Fiscal liability for clandestine removal cannot be founded solely on unauthenticated private or electronic records; reliable corroboration linking unaccounted inputs, manufacture, removal, recipients and consideration is indispensable.

Issues: Whether an ex parte order under Section 74, passed after the scheduled hearing date without notice of the subsequent hearing, violates principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Once a hearing date is fixed, the authority must either decide the matter on that date or fix and communicate a further date of hearing. Failure to notify the subsequent hearing date deprives the affected person of an effective opportunity of personal hearing and results in an unfair ex parte proceeding.

Conclusion: The ex parte order was invalid for breach of principles of natural justice and was quashed, with a direction to afford a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.