Issues: Whether a bona fide purchaser for value of a duty-free import licence, without notice of the original licence-holder's irregularity, is liable for duty, interest and redemption fine where the licence has not been cancelled by the issuing authority.

Analysis: A licence genuinely issued by the competent authority, though founded on fraud or misrepresentation at the export-obligation certification stage, is voidable rather than void and continues to operate unless avoided in the prescribed manner. The licence remained uncancelled and subsisting at the time of import. Instruments that were forged and never issued stand on a distinct footing. The purchaser had acquired the licence for value without notice of the upstream irregularity, and its lack of knowledge had already been accepted through deletion of the personal penalty. The fraud of the original licence-holder could not therefore be visited upon the innocent transferee.

Conclusion: A bona fide purchaser for value without notice of irregularity cannot be made liable for duty, interest or redemption fine on imports made under an uncancelled duty-free import licence. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A genuinely issued duty-free licence affected by upstream fraud is voidable, not void, and protects a bona fide transferee for value without notice until it is cancelled by the competent authority.

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with the conditions governing import of gold dore bars under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs disentitled the importer to exemption and justified confiscation and penalties; (ii) Whether nil-duty benefit under Notification No. 96/2008-Customs could be simultaneously claimed without fulfilling its conditions.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the conditions governing import of gold dore bars under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs disentitled the importer to exemption and justified confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The import licences expressly required compliance with the applicable concessional-duty notification. Condition 40 required each bar to meet the prescribed weight and purity requirements and required the mining company's packing list and assay certificate. The required mining-company documents were not produced; the supplied documents were issued by the supplier. Testing also showed purity exceeding the stipulated limit. Exemption notifications require strict construction, and the claimant bears the burden of establishing fulfilment of every condition. Voluntary statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as substantive evidence corroborating the documentary non-compliance.

Conclusion: The exemption was wrongly availed; the imported goods were prohibited goods liable to confiscation, and the demand of duty and penalties on the importer, its directors and customs broker were valid. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether nil-duty benefit under Notification No. 96/2008-Customs could be simultaneously claimed without fulfilling its conditions.

Analysis: Simultaneous benefits under exemption notifications require strict fulfilment of the conditions of each notification. The country-of-origin certificates were issued on the basis of control carried out and the exporter's declaration, without the requisite authentic supporting material. This did not establish compliance with the conditions for the least-developed-country exemption.

Conclusion: Nil-duty benefit under Notification No. 96/2008-Customs was unavailable, and the duty demand and penalties were sustainable. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Imports made without strict fulfilment of the licence-linked and country-of-origin exemption conditions attract the customs consequences applicable to prohibited goods and wrongful exemption claims.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer claiming exemption under one or more customs notifications must strictly prove compliance with every prescribed condition; failure of a licence-linked condition renders the claimed exemption unavailable and permits action for prohibited goods.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax on undisclosed receipts and wrongly claimed threshold exemption; (ii) Whether cum-tax benefit was available on the receipts of the unregistered second firm; (iii) Whether unutilised Cenvat credit could be allowed at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of service tax on undisclosed receipts and wrongly claimed threshold exemption.

Analysis: The taxable receipts of both firms were higher than those declared in the ST-3 returns. The receipts of the second firm were not reported, the receipts of the registered firm were understated, and the threshold exemption was admittedly claimed without supporting eligibility. The second firm was also unregistered. These omissions established suppression of taxable value with intent to evade service tax, attracting the extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The extended period was validly invoked and the service-tax demand based on the actual taxable receipts was sustainable, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cum-tax benefit was available on the receipts of the unregistered second firm.

Analysis: The sample bills relied upon to establish that service tax had not been separately collected lacked essential particulars and covered only a negligible part of the receipts. No further documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the claim.

Conclusion: Cum-tax benefit was not available, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether unutilised Cenvat credit could be allowed at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The credit had not been availed within the prescribed time through the ST-3 returns. No fresh evidence was produced to establish entitlement to the claimed credit.

Conclusion: The claim for unutilised Cenvat credit was rightly denied, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability, interest and penalties remain legally sustainable, with no entitlement to cum-tax adjustment or the claimed Cenvat credit.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied on allegations of receipt of invoices without goods, primarily founded on third-party statements and investigation material not validly established against the assessee.

Analysis: Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits recovery only of credit wrongly taken or utilised. Statements recorded during investigation could be relied upon only upon compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944: the maker must be examined before the adjudicating authority, the statement must be admitted by a reasoned opinion in the interests of justice, and an opportunity for cross-examination must follow. The adjudication gave general findings concerning numerous noticees without addressing the assessee's individual case, evidence, or specific defence. The material showed that the broker and transporter stated that goods were supplied under invoices, while there was no evidence connecting the assessee with any manipulation by the alleged suppliers. No stock verification or other corroborative investigation established non-receipt of inputs. Statements of witnesses not produced for cross-examination, and statements contradicted during cross-examination, could not be relied upon without compliance with Section 9D.

Conclusion: The allegation that the assessee availed CENVAT credit without receiving goods was not established by legally admissible and corroborated evidence; the denial of credit, interest and penalty was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the absence of a formal written show-cause notice, despite waiver and participation in the proceedings, constituted a jurisdictional defect warranting writ intervention notwithstanding the statutory appeal.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits oral notice at the request of the person concerned. Read with Section 128(1)(a), compliance depends upon the noticee having a genuine and effective opportunity to know and answer the case, rather than upon issuance of a document in a prescribed show-cause-notice form. The noticee had waived the requirement of a show-cause notice, participated in the proceedings, and raised no objection before the adjudicating authority. A deliberate waiver of a procedural safeguard, followed by full participation, cannot ordinarily be revived in writ proceedings merely because the adjudication is adverse.

Conclusion: The absence of a formal written show-cause notice did not create a jurisdictional infirmity justifying bypass of the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether entire claimed purchases, including the GST component, could be added under Section 69C where sales were accepted and purchase evidence was partly available; (ii) Whether the addition for discrepancy in income from other sources was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether entire claimed purchases, including the GST component, could be added under Section 69C where sales were accepted and purchase evidence was partly available.

Analysis: Section 69C concerns expenditure whose source or explanation is not satisfactorily established. The declared sales were accepted and the trading results were not disturbed. Purchase invoices, GST returns and stock records were available, but critical evidence of actual movement and delivery of goods, including transport documents, e-way bills and delivery challans, was not furnished. The material therefore did not justify either complete acceptance of the purchases or their total disallowance.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged bogus purchases was restricted to Rs. 6,00,000, being 10% of Rs. 60,13,941, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for discrepancy in income from other sources was sustainable.

Analysis: The addition arose from the difference in income from other sources as compared with the original return. The material and submissions on record did not support its retention.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 16,146 was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjustment relating to disputed purchases is confined to Rs. 6,00,000, and the separate addition for income from other sources does not survive.

Issues: Whether the Revenue may retain recoveries exceeding 20% of the disputed demand, or adjust future refunds, during pendency of the first appeal without recorded reasons for departing from the CBDT norm.

Analysis: The CBDT Office Memoranda prescribe recovery of 20% of the disputed demand as the ordinary condition for stay pending first appeal. The stay order acknowledged that more than 20% had already been recovered, while no exceptional circumstances, lack of prima facie sustainability, or other recorded reasons justified recovery beyond that threshold. Continued retention of the excess, or further adjustment of refunds during the subsisting stay, would defeat the protection granted by the stay order.

Conclusion: The Revenue may retain only 20% of the disputed demand pending appeal; any amount recovered or adjusted beyond that level must be verified and refunded with applicable interest. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of interest income under section 80P(2)(d) on investments made with co-operative banks despite section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(d) grants deduction for interest or dividend income derived by a co-operative society from investments with another co-operative society. A co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for this purpose. The exclusion under section 80P(4) applies to a co-operative bank's own entitlement to deduction and does not disqualify another co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest earned from investments with that bank. The settled interpretation of these provisions therefore covered the claim.

Conclusion: The deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is available to the assessee on interest earned from investments with co-operative banks, and no substantial question of law arises.

Issues: Whether excess customs duty paid on imports of crude soybean oil qualifying under the tariff rate quota scheme was refundable.

Analysis: The applicable tariff rate quota framework extended the concessional benefit to imports supported by bills of lading dated on or before 31 March 2023, where the goods landed before 30 June 2023. The importer's claim concerned the same product and period already governed by the prior ruling granting refund, and the Revenue did not dispute that settled position.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was quashed, and the excess customs duty is refundable in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against cancellation of GST registration and rejection of its revocation despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner did not satisfactorily establish that its reply to the show-cause notice had been filed within the stipulated time. The record also disclosed allegations of transactions and input-tax-credit claims involving firms whose registrations had been cancelled. A statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was available, and the tax statute provided a complete remedial mechanism.

Outcome: Writ relief was declined in view of the efficacious statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail pending trial for the alleged offences.

Analysis: The request for bail under the statutory bail jurisdiction was assessed with reference to the filing of the charge sheet, custody since 15.07.2026, absence of flight risk and criminal antecedents, the maximum prescribed punishment of five years, and the absence of a need for further undertrial detention. The pending investigation concerning co-accused was safeguarded through stringent conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail on stringent conditions.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax law.

Analysis: Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects personal liberty through a just, fair and reasonable procedure, and pre-conviction detention is not punitive. Bail is directed to securing attendance at trial, while prolonged custody, absence of criminal antecedents, parity with similarly placed co-accused, completion of investigation, absence of charge framing, the limited maximum sentence, and absence of material suggesting flight risk, witness intimidation or evidence tampering support release. The absence of assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could also bear upon the criminal prosecution. The prosecution was substantially documentary, the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate, and the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to bail.

Issues: Whether a notice for reassessment could be issued directly under Section 148, without prior notice under Section 148A(b), where the underlying third-party search occurred before 1 September 2024.

Analysis: Section 152(3) preserves the pre-Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 regime under Sections 147 to 151 where a search was initiated between 1 April 2021 and 1 September 2024. As the third-party search occurred on 4 January 2024, the pre-amendment provisions, including Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148, remained applicable notwithstanding its subsequent omission. The statutory framework deemed the Assessing Officer to possess information suggesting escaped income and permitted direct issuance of notice under Section 148 in the stated circumstances.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 was validly issued without first issuing a notice under Section 148A(b), and the jurisdictional challenge fails.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings concerning domain-registration receipts should be stayed pending adjudication of the challenge to the reassessment action.

Analysis: Prior determinations on the characterisation of the receipts, the absence of a permanent establishment, and the history of scrutiny assessments were noted. The reassessment action was prima facie viewed as overlooking objectivity, certainty, and finality in tax adjudication.

Outcome: Notice was issued and the reassessment proceedings were stayed pending the next hearing.

Issues: Whether service tax could be demanded from a goods transport agency solely on Form 26AS data without verifying whether the service recipients had discharged tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: Service tax on goods transport agency services was payable by service recipients under the reverse charge mechanism. Although details of the recipients were furnished during adjudication, no inquiry was made with the persons reflected in Form 26AS to ascertain whether they had received the services and discharged the corresponding tax liability. Form 26AS data without such verification could not substantiate the demand against the service provider.

Conclusion: The allegations and service-tax demand against the goods transport agency were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where service tax returns were regularly filed and service tax had been paid, but an incorrect registration number was inadvertently stated.

Analysis: The ST-3 return for the relevant period was filed on time. The error concerned the registration number of a different unit, while payment of service tax was not disputed. The error did not justify invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable and the proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied where the relevant invoices supporting the credit were furnished and available on record.

Analysis: The relevant invoices were supplied in response to the audit objection and formed part of the record. The denial had not taken those supporting documents into account.

Conclusion: The CENVAT credit was correctly availed and could not be denied; no penalty was imposable.

Issues: Whether a repeated show-cause notice and retrospective cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when earlier proceedings on identical registration-fraud allegations had been dropped and the cancellation relied upon allegations concerning fraudulent availment and passing of input tax credit that were not stated in the notice.

Analysis: The earlier cancellation proceedings had been dropped after the assessee responded to a notice founded on the allegation that registration had been obtained through fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The subsequent notice was founded on the same allegation and substantially identical intelligence material. The cancellation order nevertheless relied on alleged fraudulent availment and passing of ineligible input tax credit, although the assessee had not been required to answer those allegations in the show-cause notice. This reflected non-application of mind and denied the assessee an opportunity to respond to the grounds ultimately relied upon. The merits of the allegations were left open.

Conclusion: The repeated show-cause notice and the registration-cancellation order were set aside. The authorities may initiate fresh proceedings through a proper notice and after affording an opportunity of hearing.