Issues: (i) Whether the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applied to dam-construction services at Aland and Jambaga; (ii) Whether service tax could be demanded on the differential amount reflected in Form 26AS after rectification of the TDS return; (iii) Whether Small-Scale Industry exemption was available for the residual service-tax demands; (iv) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the service receipts had been disclosed in income-tax returns.

Issue (i): Whether the exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applied to dam-construction services at Aland and Jambaga.

Analysis: The subsequently produced work orders established that the services at Aland and Jambaga concerned construction of dams. Comparable dam and bridge works had already received the exemption notification benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 applies to the Aland and Jambaga works, and the related demand does not survive.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax could be demanded on the differential amount reflected in Form 26AS after rectification of the TDS return.

Analysis: The revised Form 26AS corrected the reported receipt from Rs. 2,70,91,427 to Rs. 2,41,98,173, which matched the amount for which service details had been furnished. No differential taxable value remained.

Conclusion: No service-tax demand can be sustained on the alleged differential value of Rs. 28,93,254.

Issue (iii): Whether Small-Scale Industry exemption was available for the residual service-tax demands.

Analysis: The residual demand relating to Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Niyamit fell within the available Small-Scale Industry exemption. The same exemption was also available to reduce the liability relating to the educational institution premises.

Conclusion: Small-Scale Industry exemption is available for the residual demands; it extinguishes the demand for 2015-16 and reduces the otherwise payable amount for 2016-17.

Issue (iv): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked where the service receipts had been disclosed in income-tax returns.

Analysis: The demand was computed entirely from receipts disclosed in income-tax returns, which were public documents. Non-registration with the service-tax authorities, without material showing misstatement or a conscious intent to suppress facts, did not establish suppression of facts. The 2016-17 demand was beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the remaining demand for 2016-17 is time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax liabilities were eliminated through the applicable exemption notification, correction of the Form 26AS discrepancy, Small-Scale Industry exemption, and the bar of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Disclosure of service receipts in income-tax returns, absent proof of conscious misstatement or intent to suppress, cannot by itself support invocation of the extended limitation period merely because service-tax registration was not obtained.

Issues: Whether reassessment for the assessment year 2019-20 could be initiated under Sections 147, 148 and 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of a verification report under Section 131(1A) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 148A requires that the show-cause notice be founded on information suggesting escapement of income and that the order determining whether to issue a reassessment notice be made after actual consideration of the material on record and the assessee's reply. Information suggesting escapement cannot be a mere suspicion or a desire for verification; it must have a live link and rational nexus with the conclusion that income has escaped assessment. Although Section 131(1A) permits investigation, the verification report extended adverse inferences from a confined inquiry into specified funds to the entirety of expenditure without independent verification. The order neither addressed the audited accounts, bank records, utilisation details and vouchers furnished nor found any identified amount to be unaccounted for. Its sole basis that transactions required further in-depth scrutiny disclosed a roving or fishing inquiry, rather than the requisite application of mind and a speaking determination under Section 148A(3).

Conclusion: The jurisdictional threshold for reassessment was not met; the order under Section 148A(3) and the consequential notice under Section 148 were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether information reflected against the assessee's PAN despite disclosure and taxation in the demerged entity's hands constituted information suggesting escapement under Explanation 1 to Section 148; and (ii) Whether the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) was available.

Issue (i): Whether information reflected against the assessee's PAN despite disclosure and taxation in the demerged entity's hands constituted information suggesting escapement under Explanation 1 to Section 148.

Analysis: Section 148 permits reassessment only on information suggesting Income Escaping Assessment, while Section 148A requires objective satisfaction and application of mind before issuance of a notice. Income disclosed and taxed by the entity to which the business stood transferred does not become escaped income merely because departmental data reflected the transactions against another PAN for transitional reasons. An order acknowledging such disclosure but seeking reassessment solely for further verification, without dealing with the supporting material or verifying the connected assessee's records, amounts to a roving or fishing inquiry.

Conclusion: The material did not constitute valid information suggesting income escaping assessment under Explanation 1 to Section 148. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) was available.

Analysis: Section 149(1)(a) prescribes a three-year period, and the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) requires books, documents, or evidence revealing previously undisclosed income of at least the stipulated threshold. Material showing transactions already recorded and offered to tax does not reveal undisclosed income; it only calls for correlation of disclosed information. The notice was issued after expiry of the ordinary limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) was unavailable, and the reassessment notice was time-barred. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment action for the relevant assessment year lacked the statutory basis of information suggesting escapement and was also barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Information for reassessment must indicate actual escapement of undisclosed income; material showing only a technical attribution mismatch concerning income already disclosed and taxed cannot satisfy that threshold or invoke extended limitation.

Issues: Whether tax was required to be deducted at source on transferable development rights issued to a developer under a slum rehabilitation scheme and on transferable development rights issued as compensation for land acquired for public purposes.

Outcome: Rule was issued; the impugned orders, demand notice and consequential proceedings were stayed pending final hearing, and the petition was directed to be tagged with the connected petition.

Issues: Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition challenging an investigation directed under Section 212(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction depends on whether material and integral facts constituting a part of the cause of action arise within the State. The Central Government's direction for investigation into the company's affairs under Sections 210 and 212 necessarily involved examination of the company's registered/head office at Ranchi, which constituted a repository and fulcrum of the investigation. Its location therefore gave rise to a part of the cause of action within the High Court's territorial limits.

Conclusion: The High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, and the preliminary objection to its maintainability is rejected.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit could be denied despite the departmental verification report and records establishing receipt and use of duty-paid inputs; and (ii) Whether incomplete supplier addresses on invoices justified denial of Cenvat credit.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit could be denied despite the departmental verification report and records establishing receipt and use of duty-paid inputs.

Analysis: The departmental verification report recorded party-wise receipt of goods and payment of duty under the relevant invoices. The appellant's purchase and clearance records further corroborated receipt and consumption of inputs. No contrary departmental evidence was produced. The evidentiary burden was discharged, demonstrating substantive compliance with the requirements for Cenvat credit.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; Cenvat credit could not be denied where receipt and use of duty-paid inputs stood established.

Issue (ii): Whether incomplete supplier addresses on invoices justified denial of Cenvat credit.

Analysis: Incomplete address particulars on invoices constituted a procedural lapse. Since duty payment, receipt of inputs, and their use in manufacture were established, the deficiency did not impair the assessee's substantive entitlement to credit under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee; incomplete supplier addresses on otherwise accepted invoices did not justify denial of Cenvat credit.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary record established eligibility for the disputed Cenvat credit, and the invoice defect did not defeat that entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied for procedural deficiencies in invoices where reliable verification and contemporaneous records establish actual receipt and use of duty-paid inputs.

Issues: Whether failure to issue the notice under Section 129(3) within seven days of detention and seizure of goods and conveyance vitiates the consequential penalty proceedings.

Analysis: Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes mandatory timelines governing detention, seizure and penalty proceedings. The prescribed period protects against arbitrary or prolonged exercise of coercive powers and requires strict compliance. The goods and conveyance were detained on 02.09.2024, whereas the notice was issued only on 11.09.2024 and uploaded thereafter, beyond the stipulated seven-day period.

Conclusion: The delay in issuing the notice breached the mandatory requirement of Section 129(3) and vitiated the detention-and-penalty proceedings; the appellate and proper-officer orders could not stand.

Issues: Whether the assessee remained eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) after excluding part of the land initially earmarked for the housing project and constructing a personal residential house thereon.

Analysis: Section 80-IB(10) grants deduction for qualifying housing projects subject to conditions, including the minimum plot-area requirement and the prescribed maximum built-up area for residential units. Although the project was initially proposed over 117.5 cents in two phases, the assessee later withdrew 46.93 cents from the project and used it for a 4000 sq. ft. personal residence. That construction could not form part of an affordable housing project because it exceeded the stipulated residential-unit area. The effective project area was consequently reduced to 70.57 cents, below the statutory minimum.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for either assessment year; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the discrepancy between Form 26AS receipts and ST-3 returns, including the asserted payment through the corrected challan and advances subsequently invoiced, required verification.

Analysis: The record indicated that the cited challan number was stated to contain a clerical error and that the correct challan was available. The differential receipts were also asserted to comprise customer advances on which service tax was discharged in the succeeding period. Verification of the challan, payments and supporting reconciliation was therefore required after affording an opportunity to produce documents and to be heard.

Outcome: The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification and fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A(1), 148A(3) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid where the underlying dissemination reports and material connecting the assessee with the alleged escapement of income were not supplied at the notice stage.

Analysis: Section 148A(1) requires disclosure of sufficient material particulars and incriminating material that prima facie connect the assessee with the alleged fictitious or accommodation transactions, so as to afford an effective opportunity to respond. Screenshots containing transaction values and entity details, without the underlying dissemination reports relied upon, did not satisfy that requirement. The Assessing Officer also did not meaningfully address the assessee's documentary response or independently identify material establishing the assessee's role in the alleged transactions. Supply of the reports during the writ proceedings could not cure the foundational defect in the statutory notice.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Sections 148A(1), 148A(3) and 148 were invalid for want of disclosure of the relied-upon material and a meaningful statutory opportunity to respond.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice founded on alleged accommodation or fictitious transactions must disclose the material particulars and relied-upon incriminating material linking the assessee to those transactions; subsequent disclosure cannot cure the denial of an effective opportunity under Section 148A(1).

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee were valid; (ii) Whether alleged escaped capital gains from sale of land, with sale proceeds deposited in a bank account, fell within the expression "asset" for the extended reassessment period; (iii) Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on the basis of a valuation report obtained in the case of a co-owner without an independent valuation inquiry for the assessee's land.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice issued in the name of a deceased assessee were valid.

Analysis: The notice and the order were issued after the assessee's death, although the petitioner was her legal representative. Proceedings against a deceased person did not conform to the statutory framework governing assessment of a deceased person through the legal representative.

Conclusion: The notice and consequential order issued in the name of the deceased assessee were invalid and were quashed. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged escaped capital gains from sale of land, with sale proceeds deposited in a bank account, fell within the expression "asset" for the extended reassessment period.

Analysis: The inclusive definition of asset covers immovable property and bank deposits. Land sold by the assessee was a capital asset, and its sale proceeds, on deposit in the bank account, retained the statutory character of an asset. Understatement of capital gains directly concerned income represented in that form and allegedly escaping assessment above the prescribed threshold.

Conclusion: The alleged escaped capital gains were capable of falling within the expression "asset" for the extended reassessment period. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reassessment could be initiated solely on the basis of a valuation report obtained in the case of a co-owner without an independent valuation inquiry for the assessee's land.

Analysis: Reassessment was founded exclusively on the co-owner's valuation report, which relied on sale instances from another village. The assessee's registered valuer's report was disregarded without an independent valuation reference, inquiry into the fair market value of the assessee's land, or application of mind to tangible material demonstrating escapement of income.

Conclusion: Reassessment solely on the co-owner's valuation report, without an independent valuation inquiry and formation of belief by the Assessing Officer, was impermissible. The impugned notice and order were quashed. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings could not be sustained where initiated against a deceased assessee or where founded only on an unverified valuation report concerning a co-owner.

Ratio Decidendi: A valuation report concerning another person cannot by itself constitute a valid basis for reassessment unless the Assessing Officer independently investigates the assessee's property, applies mind to the material, and forms a belief of escapement of income.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 could be invoked where the Assessing Officer had made enquiries into seized material and accepted the assessee's explanation.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that detailed notices under Section 142(1) were issued, the assessee was confronted with seized documents and statements, explanations were obtained, and the Assessing Officer consciously accepted those explanations. The revision was founded on the same material and reflected a different view regarding the adequacy of the enquiries. Revision under Section 263 is attracted where there is a lack of enquiry rendering the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; it cannot be invoked merely because the revisional authority prefers another view after an enquiry has been conducted and a plausible view has been adopted.

Conclusion: The assumption of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order passed against a foreign company without first issuing a draft assessment order under the statutory dispute-resolution procedure is valid.

Analysis: A foreign company falls within the definition of an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where a prejudicial variation is proposed, Section 144C(1) mandatorily requires the Assessing Officer to first forward a draft assessment order, enabling the assessee to accept the variation or raise objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The final assessment is thereafter required to be completed in conformity with the prescribed procedure under Section 144C(13). Issuance of a final order without a preceding draft order is a breach of a mandatory statutory requirement and vitiates the assessment.

Conclusion: The final assessment order passed without issuing a draft assessment order was invalid; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a claimant receiving restored property could be required to have the surety furnish a solvency certificate.

Analysis: Rule 3A(2) requires the claimant to execute a bond undertaking production of the restored property before the Special Court when required, but does not require a surety to furnish a solvency certificate. Issuance of such certificates had also been discontinued by the State Government, rendering the condition incapable of compliance and unduly onerous.

Conclusion: The condition requiring the surety to produce a solvency certificate was set aside; the claimant and surety must execute the bond determined by the Special Court, and the claimant must furnish an undertaking to refund the amount if required.

Issues: Whether a subsequently recorded charge for State VAT dues could prevail over the prior security interest and the title of purchasers acquiring the mortgaged property through a secured creditor's auction under the SARFAESI regime.

Analysis: Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, effective from 01.09.2016, accords priority to debts due to secured creditors over all other debts, revenues, taxes, cesses and rates payable to governmental authorities. The subject property had been mortgaged to the Bank and was sold in its SARFAESI auction before certification of the VAT Department's charge. The secured creditor's charge and the consequential auction sale therefore had priority over the subsequent VAT charge.

Conclusion: The VAT charge could not prevail over the prior secured creditor's charge; the mutation entry recording that charge was liable to be removed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) could be invoked for the service-tax demand.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax; mere non-payment of tax is insufficient. The show-cause notice, original order and appellate order did not record facts or findings establishing the required ingredients, including any deliberate intent to evade payment of service tax.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was unavailable and the confirmed demand was time-barred; the consequential interest and penalties were set aside, without affecting amounts already deposited towards tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: An extended limitation period for recovery of service tax cannot be invoked merely on account of non-payment; the Revenue must establish the statutory ingredients of deliberate suppression or other specified conduct with intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the manufacture of 10 kg tin containers by the independently registered job worker could be attributed to the assessee for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: The job worker held central excise registration for manufacture and home clearance of containers and had paid excise duty. Its status as an independent manufacturer had thus been recognised for statutory purposes. In the absence of admissible evidence of financial flow-back, profit sharing, common funding, or other indicia establishing that the job worker was a dummy unit, its manufacturing activity could not be treated as that of the assessee. Where transactions with the job worker are on a principal-to-principal basis, the job worker's manufacturing cost cannot be added to the value of goods manufactured by the assessee.

Conclusion: Manufacture of the tin containers was not attributable to the assessee; the related excise-duty demands were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the ten-percent penalty pre-deposit requirement under the proviso to Section 107(6) applied where the adjudication order imposed tax, interest and penalty, but the tax and interest had already been paid.

Analysis: The proviso applies only where an order demands penalty without involving any demand of tax. The adjudication order had confirmed liabilities towards tax, interest and penalty, while appropriating the tax and interest already paid. The subsequent recovery order being confined to penalty did not alter the character of the adjudication order as one involving a demand of tax.

Conclusion: The penalty pre-deposit proviso was inapplicable; rejection of the statutory appeal on that basis was invalid, and the appeal is to be adjudicated on merits.

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed pursuant to a show-cause notice contemplating an adverse decision is sustainable without affording the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) requires an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated. The undisputed absence of such hearing, despite the show-cause notice contemplating an adverse order, constituted non-compliance with the statutory requirement. The taxpayer must be permitted to respond to the notice, and the proper officer must thereafter decide the matter after hearing the taxpayer and by a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The assessment order is unsustainable for breach of the mandatory opportunity-of-hearing requirement; the taxpayer is entitled to fresh adjudication in accordance with law.