Issues: Whether the incentive paid by the State Government to cooperative banks under the scheme was a subsidy and, if not, whether it formed consideration for supply and was liable to GST.

Analysis: The State Government resolution used distinct expressions for interest subsidy to borrowers and incentive to banks. The incentive was payable to banks on achievement of lending targets and varied with the quantum of disbursement, which showed that it was performance-linked remuneration and not a subsidy to borrowers. The amount therefore fell within the breadth of consideration under section 2(31) of the CGST Act, 2017, since the statutory exclusion applies only to subsidy given by the Central Government or a State Government. The claim that the amount was covered by section 7(2), Schedule III, or as an actionable claim was rejected because the payment did not answer those descriptions. The plea based on differential interest and Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was also rejected, since the exemption was not established and exemption notifications must be strictly construed.

Conclusion: The incentive was held to be taxable consideration and not subsidy, actionable claim, or exempt differential interest; the appeal was rejected.

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act suffered from an apparent error or perversity warranting revision. (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions by proving that the cheque was issued only as security or for a different transaction and not towards a legally enforceable debt.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act suffered from an apparent error or perversity warranting revision.

Analysis: The cheque, signature, bank endorsements, notice, and reply notice were on record. The complainant proved the foundational facts of issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice. The revisional court found no legal infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence did not suffer from perversity or any error calling for revisional interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions by proving that the cheque was issued only as security or for a different transaction and not towards a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque was admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the holder. The accused did not produce material to show that consideration was improbable, doubtful, or illegal, nor did he establish that the cheque was not issued towards the debt in question. The use of a blank or incomplete cheque did not by itself defeat liability where the instrument was completed and presented in relation to the proved transaction.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumptions, and the cheque was treated as having been issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance and dishonour of a cheque are proved, statutory presumptions arise in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut them by credible evidence; a mere plea that the cheque was given as security or for another transaction is insufficient without proof.

Issues: Whether the contract for supply of cattle feed plant, together with erection, installation and commissioning services, without civil work, constituted works contract service under GST and whether the plant amounted to immovable property.

Analysis: The determining factor was whether the supply resulted in an immovable property, because works contract under GST applies only to contracts for building, construction, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair, maintenance, renovation, alteration or commissioning of immovable property involving transfer of property in goods. The plant supplied by the appellant consisted of interlinked machinery, structures, electrical systems, piping, foundations, grouting and commissioning activities, all designed to operate as a single functional unit. On the facts, the plant could not be shifted without dismantling and re-erection, and the manner of installation showed permanency and attachment to the earth. The cited precedents were distinguished on facts, and the earlier reference order relied upon by the appellant was treated as not assisting the appellant in view of the nature of the present contract and the binding clarification that a dairy plant installed on turnkey basis constitutes works contract.

Conclusion: The cattle feed plant was held to be immovable property, and the composite supply for its supply, erection, installation and commissioning was held to be works contract service taxable at the applicable rate.

Ratio Decidendi: A turnkey contract for supply and installation of a plant will be treated as works contract service where the installed plant, by reason of its permanent attachment and functional integration, results in an immovable property.

Issues: Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on import of old and used worn clothing were required to be enhanced.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to be old and used worn clothing and the import was without the required specific licence. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on similar facts and held that confiscation for want of licence was sustainable. It further noted that the adjudicating authority had already imposed redemption fine and penalty, and there was no sufficient basis to interfere with the quantum fixed, particularly when the Revenue sought enhancement and the Respondent had not challenged the confirmed amounts.

Conclusion: The request for enhancement was rejected and the redemption fine and penalty as imposed by the adjudicating authority were upheld in favour of the respondent.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exclusion of the time spent in pursuing writ proceedings before the High Court and an SLP before the Supreme Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so as to treat the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as within limitation.

Analysis: Section 14 applies only where the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a court unable to entertain it because of defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature. The earlier writ petition was not treated as a jurisdictional failure of the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant, being a liquidator, was aware of the statutory appellate remedy under the Code, yet chose to pursue writ and then special leave proceedings. The High Court had already relegated the appellant to the statutory appeal, and the Supreme Court merely declined to interfere. The time spent in those proceedings therefore did not satisfy the statutory conditions for exclusion under Section 14.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the appeal was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unavailable where the earlier proceedings were not prosecuted with due diligence and good faith in a court lacking jurisdiction or suffering from a defect of like nature, and the statutory appellate remedy was available throughout.

Issues: Whether tax could be levied on the entire value of dyes and chemicals used in the job work process, or only on the quantity actually transferred to the fabric and retained in the turnover.

Analysis: The appeal concerned levy of tax on dyes and chemicals used in dyeing job work under the sales tax and value added tax framework. The Tribunal had upheld the assessment on the footing that a part of the chemicals was taxable on a proportionate basis and the entire quantity of dyes had been brought to tax. The governing principle applied was that only the value of consumables or materials that are actually transferred to the principal and embedded in the textile can be subjected to tax, while the extent of wastage or wash-out is a factual matter requiring enquiry by the Assessing Officer. The earlier coordinate Bench decision had already held that the issue of quantity transferred must be determined on evidence and remitted for factual determination.

Conclusion: The levy could not be sustained on the basis adopted by the Tribunal, and the matter had to be remanded for factual determination of the quantity of dyes, colours, and chemicals actually transferred and taxable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded and the assessment dispute was sent back for fresh factual examination before the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: In a job-work process, tax is chargeable only on the value of goods actually transferred or embedded in the finished product, and the extent of such transfer must be determined on evidence by the assessing authority.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account should be entertained when the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal against the order-in-original, and whether limited withdrawal from the attached account could be permitted for the purpose of pre-deposit.

Analysis: The petitioner's challenge arose in the context of proceedings under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, including provisional attachment under Section 83 and adjudication of the show cause notice. As an order-in-original had since been passed, the appropriate course was to assail that order by way of appeal. In that setting, the Court considered it to require the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy. At the same time, to enable effective pursuit of the appeal, the Court permitted the petitioner to seek release of limited amounts from the attached bank account for making the pre-deposit, while preserving the petitioner's contention that the attachment was illegal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits of the attachment challenge, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy, with limited permission to operate the account for the purpose of pre-deposit.

Issues: Whether customs duty could be demanded when the importer had fulfilled the export obligation within time but the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was issued belatedly by the DGFT.

Analysis: The conditions of the exemption scheme required the importer to fulfil the export obligation and submit the requisite documents to the competent authority, while issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate was a function of the DGFT. The record showed that the export obligation had been discharged within the prescribed period and the relevant papers had been submitted to the DGFT well in time. A delay in issuance of the certificate by the public authority could not be attributed to the importer. The customs authorities and the appellate authority ought to have verified the status of the certificate and taken the subsequently produced EODC into account instead of denying the benefit on the ground of belated issuance.

Conclusion: The demand of customs duty was not sustainable and the importer was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An importer who has fulfilled the export obligation and has timely applied for the requisite discharge certificate cannot be denied exemption benefit or burdened with duty solely because the competent public authority issued the certificate after delay.