Issues: Whether Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 bars civil suits seeking a declaration that a registered sale deed is void and not binding on a company.

Analysis: Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 confer jurisdiction on the National Company Law Tribunal in matters concerning oppression, mismanagement, company affairs and shareholders' rights. Section 430 excludes civil-court jurisdiction only in respect of matters that the Tribunal is empowered to determine. As a statutory tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction, its powers cannot be extended to grant a declaration invalidating a registered sale deed as against the company. Under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, civil jurisdiction continues unless expressly or necessarily impliedly excluded, and such exclusion cannot rest on assumptions.

Conclusion: Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 does not bar the suits; the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the declaratory relief concerning the registered sale deed.

Issues: (i) Whether a one-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), within the statutorily condonable period, could be rejected merely because no separate condonation application was filed; (ii) Whether the service-tax demand for FY 2015-16, raised by invoking the extended period of limitation, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether a one-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), within the statutorily condonable period, could be rejected merely because no separate condonation application was filed.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 permits presentation of an appeal within a further one-month period on sufficient cause. Its exercise is not expressly conditional upon a separate condonation application. Since the delay was only one day and the appellant had been heard, an explanation could have been sought instead of rejecting the appeal on a technical lapse.

Conclusion: The one-day delay was condoned; rejection of the appeal on limitation for want of a separate condonation application was erroneous and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the service-tax demand for FY 2015-16, raised by invoking the extended period of limitation, was sustainable.

Analysis: The entire demand was beyond the normal limitation period and could survive only upon proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice was based on income-tax-return data already available to the Government. Mere non-payment of tax, non-registration, or non-filing of returns did not establish deliberate concealment or intent to evade. The Revenue produced no corroborative material establishing wilful suppression. Further, the demand for April to September 2015 was issued after expiry of the maximum five-year period.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable, and the entire demand was barred by limitation; the consequential interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax liability, interest, and penalties arising from the time-barred demand do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of the extended limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or other statutory ingredients with intent to evade tax; a mere failure to pay tax, register, or file returns, particularly where relevant information was available to the Revenue, is insufficient.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended-period CENVAT credit demand was sustainable; (ii) Whether CENVAT credit on inputs claimed to have been used for fabrication, repair and maintenance of capital goods was admissible for the normal period.

Issue (i): Whether the extended-period CENVAT credit demand was sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute regarding credit eligibility arose from an interpretative issue concerning inputs used in fabrication and support of capital goods. The legal position previously relied upon to deny credit had subsequently been overturned, and such an interpretative dispute could not sustain invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The extended-period demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether CENVAT credit on inputs claimed to have been used for fabrication, repair and maintenance of capital goods was admissible for the normal period.

Analysis: Inputs used in fabrication of capital goods, including structural supports integral to their functioning, may qualify for credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, entitlement depends upon reliable proof of actual use. The burden of establishing such use had not been discharged through adequate documentary material or certification by a Chartered Engineer.

Conclusion: Credit eligibility for the normal period remained undetermined pending factual verification of the inputs' actual use.

Final Conclusion: Extended limitation is unavailable for a merely interpretative CENVAT credit dispute, while normal-period entitlement depends on substantiated evidence of actual use in relation to capital goods.

Ratio Decidendi: An extended limitation demand cannot be sustained where CENVAT credit eligibility turns on statutory interpretation rather than suppression or deliberate non-disclosure.

Issues: Whether persons separately penalised could receive the benefit of the SVLDR Scheme where the principal party had obtained that benefit, despite not having made independent scheme applications.

Analysis: The principal party's dispute had been granted SVLDR Scheme benefit. Coordinate Tribunal decisions had extended comparable benefit to separately penalised persons in similar circumstances, and no contrary authority was shown.

Conclusion: The penalised appellants were entitled to the corresponding SVLDR Scheme benefit and consequential relief.

Issues: Validity of the residuary penalty imposed for delayed filing of the return after payment of late fees, including whether the penalty exceeded the statutory maximum.

Analysis: The return had been filed and the applicable late fees had been paid. The aggregate penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed under Section 125 exceeded the maximum limit under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice and the penalty order imposing the aggregate penalty are quashed and set aside.

Issues: Whether ex parte adjudication and penalty orders could be sustained where show-cause notices were uploaded only on the common portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled several years before the show-cause notices were issued electronically. The applicable departmental circular required physical service of notices where adjudication proceedings were initiated after cancellation of registration. Electronic upload in those circumstances did not effectively notify the taxpayer, who consequently remained unaware of the proceedings and was proceeded against ex parte. The taxpayer was therefore required to be afforded an opportunity to file replies, seek documents or cross-examination, and receive adequate advance notice of personal hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication and penalty orders were set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication after affording the taxpayer the prescribed opportunity of reply and hearing.

Issues: Whether service tax could be levied on legal services provided by individual advocates or firms of advocates notwithstanding Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

Analysis: The notifications prescribed a nil rate and exemption for legal services provided by an individual advocate or a partnership firm of advocates. The demands were contrary to these binding notifications and were consequently without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Legal services provided by individual advocates or firms of advocates were exempt from service tax under the notifications; the impugned levy and consequential actions were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether transfer of the assessee's case from Kolkata to New Delhi under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for coordinated investigation was lawful.

Analysis: The power of transfer under Section 127 is a machinery provision which must be exercised on a demonstrated and legitimate necessity for coordinated investigation. Although the Revenue may investigate alleged accommodation entries, the material did not establish a structural connection with the searched group, interlacing of funds, or interconnection of business activities. An isolated banking transaction, without such demonstrated nexus, was insufficient to justify an inter-State transfer. The transfer order lacked a transparent factual basis and proper application of mind, resulting in disproportionate operational prejudice.

Conclusion: The transfer of jurisdiction to New Delhi was arbitrary and legally untenable; it was quashed, with jurisdiction remaining with the competent Assessing Officer at Kolkata.

Issues: Whether an ex parte adjudication order was sustainable where it was uploaded only under the "Additional Notice and Orders" tab without separate intimation and without affording a personal hearing.

Analysis: The adjudication arose under Section 73 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The record indicated that the order had been uploaded only in the "Additional Notice and Orders" tab, without separate intimation. The absence of an opportunity of personal hearing and the resulting challenge on principles of natural justice disclosed a prima facie case.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order was quashed. The matter is to be adjudicated afresh after considering the reply, affording a personal hearing, and issuing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 155 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be read down because seized records were unavailable to support the input tax credit claim; (ii) Whether the writ challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy; (iii) Whether the duplicated demand appearing in Forms GST DRC-07 must be corrected.

Issue (i): Whether Section 155 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be read down because seized records were unavailable to support the input tax credit claim.

Analysis: Section 155 places the burden of proving eligibility for input tax credit on the claimant. The unavailability of particular seized records, their relevance to the disputed transactions, the resulting prejudice, and the consideration of supplied or reconstructed material require examination of the record. The Department's inability to furnish certain documents remains relevant when assessing whether the statutory burden has been discharged.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, Section 155 is not read down; the evidentiary issues concerning unavailable and reconstructed records are to be considered in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: An efficacious appeal is available under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The objections concerning demand, interest, penalties, documentary evidence, and entitlement to input tax credit require appellate consideration, without any expression on their merits.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, the writ challenge is not entertained and the petitioners are relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (iii): Whether the duplicated demand appearing in Forms GST DRC-07 must be corrected.

Analysis: The revenue acknowledged that multiple demand summaries had been generated because of a technical portal glitch. The summaries must correspond to the demand actually confirmed by the adjudication order, including for computation of the statutory pre-deposit.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the revenue must rectify the duplicated demand in Forms GST DRC-07 and issue corrected summaries reflecting the confirmed demand.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal adjudication and all objections to it remain open for appellate scrutiny, while the electronic demand summaries must be aligned with the demand actually confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Unavailability of seized documents does not by itself dilute the claimant's statutory burden to establish input tax credit eligibility; the evidentiary effect of such absence is appropriately assessed in the statutory appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit paid on coal used in manufacturing leather products for domestic supplies was refundable under the inverted tax structure in Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 concerning zero-rated supplies supported the domestic refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit paid on coal used in manufacturing leather products for domestic supplies was refundable under the inverted tax structure in Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 54(3) permits refund of unutilised input tax credit only within the specified statutory categories, including accumulation caused by a higher rate of tax on inputs than on output supplies. Eligibility to avail credit under Section 16 and the absence of blocked credit under Section 17(5) are distinct from a statutory entitlement to refund. The proviso to Section 11(2) of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 creates a Cess Credit Utilisation Restriction by confining such credit to payment of Compensation Cess. Inability to utilise the credit against other tax liabilities, or the absence of Compensation Cess on domestic outward supplies, does not itself satisfy the inverted tax structure requirements. Rule 89(5) supplies a computation mechanism only after the substantive conditions for refund are met.

Conclusion: No independent entitlement to refund under Section 54(3) was established for the accumulated Compensation Cess credit arising from domestic supplies; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 concerning zero-rated supplies supported the domestic refund claim.

Analysis: The circulars address refund of Compensation Cess credit attributable to qualifying zero-rated supplies, including supplies made under bond or letter of undertaking. They do not confer an unconditional refund right for domestic outward supplies merely because the finished goods do not attract Compensation Cess. Administrative clarification cannot displace the statutory conditions governing refund.

Conclusion: No; the circulars did not support the domestic refund claim, and the issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Eligible Compensation Cess input tax credit that cannot be utilised against other liabilities does not become cash-refundable merely because domestic outward supplies do not attract the cess; the claimant must demonstrate a permitted statutory refund category.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of unutilised Compensation Cess input tax credit requires independent satisfaction of the statutory conditions under Section 54(3); eligibility to avail credit and restricted utilisation of cess credit do not by themselves create a right to refund.

Issues: (i) Whether the delayed additional invoices and bilties established that the undeclared goods were lawfully documented; (ii) Whether the appellant established genuine buyer-seller transactions and interstate movement from Delhi to Gwalior through Uttar Pradesh; (iii) Whether the relied-on transit-state precedent applied to the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the delayed additional invoices and bilties established that the undeclared goods were lawfully documented.

Analysis: The documents covering the disputed goods were not produced at interception, and the driver had stated that all available documents had been furnished. The subsequently produced invoices and bilties were not reliably linked to the undeclared goods; the delayed production and discrepancies in the documentation remained unexplained by corroborative material.

Conclusion: The delayed invoices and bilties did not establish that the undeclared goods were lawfully documented, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant established genuine buyer-seller transactions and interstate movement from Delhi to Gwalior through Uttar Pradesh.

Analysis: The alleged buyers and sellers neither acknowledged the transactions nor claimed ownership of the goods. Their identity, business credentials, addresses and connection with the consignment were not established, leaving the asserted out-of-State destination unsupported by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove genuine transactions or an interstate movement from Delhi to Gwalior, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the relied-on transit-state precedent applied to the facts.

Analysis: The relied-on transit-state principle concerned a documented interstate consignment involving identifiable and genuine transacting parties. Those material factual foundations were absent because the goods were found undeclared and the later documents and claimed destination were not proved to be genuine.

Conclusion: The transit-state precedent was distinguishable and did not apply, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty was sustained because the claimed out-of-State movement rested on uncorroborated delayed documents and unverified transactions.

Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming that goods in transit are part of an out-of-State consignment must establish that claim through reliable contemporaneous documentation and verifiable transaction parties; an unsupported asserted destination cannot displace action concerning undeclared goods.

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used to manufacture leather products supplied domestically, where the outward supplies do not attract Compensation Cess, is refundable under the inverted tax structure category. (ii) Whether Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 support that refund for domestic outward supplies.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used to manufacture leather products supplied domestically, where the outward supplies do not attract Compensation Cess, is refundable under the inverted tax structure category.

Analysis: Section 54(3) permits refund of unutilised input tax credit only where the claim falls within a statutorily prescribed category. Availability of credit under Section 16 and absence of a blocked-credit restriction under Section 17(5) concern availment of credit, not its cash refund. The restriction under the proviso to Section 11(2) confines utilisation of Compensation Cess credit to payment of Compensation Cess; although that restriction is not an absolute bar to every refund, inability to utilise the credit against another tax liability does not independently create a refund right. A claim under the inverted tax structure category must independently establish that the accumulation satisfies Section 54(3)(ii), including the relevant exclusion for nil-rated or fully exempt outward supplies. Rule 89(5) supplies a computation mechanism only after the substantive statutory entitlement is established.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee: eligible Compensation Cess credit and its accumulation on account of domestic outward supplies not attracting Compensation Cess did not establish a refund entitlement under Section 54(3).

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 support that refund for domestic outward supplies.

Analysis: The circulars address refund of Compensation Cess credit attributable to zero-rated supplies, including supplies made under bond or letter of undertaking. They do not grant an unconditional refund for domestic supplies merely because the finished goods do not attract Compensation Cess. Administrative circulars cannot override the parent statute, but that principle does not dispense with the requirement to satisfy Section 54(3). Decisions concerning exports and other qualifying zero-rated supplies were materially distinguishable from the domestic supplies involved.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee: the circulars did not support refund of the accumulated Compensation Cess credit attributable to domestic outward supplies.

Final Conclusion: The refund relief lacked an independently demonstrated statutory basis under the prescribed refund framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit requires independent satisfaction of the statutory conditions for refund; admissibility of credit or inability to utilise it against other liabilities does not by itself confer a cash-refund entitlement.

Issues: (i) Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used for manufacture of leather products supplied domestically is refundable under the inverted tax structure category; (ii) Whether eligibility to avail Compensation Cess input tax credit automatically establishes entitlement to its cash refund; (iii) Whether Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 permit refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit relating to domestic outward supplies.

Issue (i): Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used for manufacture of leather products supplied domestically is refundable under the inverted tax structure category.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits refund only where credit accumulates because the rate of tax on inputs exceeds that on output supplies, subject to the prescribed exclusions. Accumulation resulting from Compensation Cess on coal and absence of Compensation Cess on domestic outward supplies does not, by itself, satisfy that statutory test. The refund claimant must independently establish that the outward supplies and the nature of accumulation fall within a permitted refund category.

Conclusion: The accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit was not shown to qualify for refund under the inverted tax structure category. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether eligibility to avail Compensation Cess input tax credit automatically establishes entitlement to its cash refund.

Analysis: Sections 16 and 17(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 govern availment and blocked credits, whereas Section 54(3) separately governs refund. Section 11(2) of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 and its proviso confine utilisation of Compensation Cess credit to payment of Compensation Cess. That utilisation restriction is not an absolute bar to every refund claim, but inability to utilise the credit against other liabilities does not independently create a right to cash refund. Rule 89(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides only the computation mechanism after the substantive conditions for refund are met.

Conclusion: Eligibility to avail Compensation Cess input tax credit does not automatically entitle the assessee to refund of that credit. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Circular No. 45/19/2018-GST dated 30.05.2018 and Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18.11.2019 permit refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit relating to domestic outward supplies.

Analysis: The circulars address Compensation Cess credit attributable to zero-rated supplies, including supplies made under bond or Letter of Undertaking. They do not confer an unconditional refund entitlement for domestic supplies merely because the finished product is not subject to Compensation Cess. The statutory refund conditions remain controlling.

Conclusion: The circulars do not support the disputed refund claims relating to domestic outward supplies. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed domestic refund claims lacked an independently established statutory basis under the refund provisions notwithstanding the availability of Compensation Cess credit on coal.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit requires independent satisfaction of the statutory conditions under Section 54(3); mere eligibility to avail credit or inability to utilise it against other tax liabilities does not create a right to cash refund.

Issues: (i) Whether the gross cash principal reflected in seized angadia records could be assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the embedded commission income should be estimated at 2% or 0.30% of total unaccounted turnover and taxed at normal rates rather than under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the gross cash principal reflected in seized angadia records could be assessed as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 69A applies to money owned by the assessee. The seized notebook and digital records reflected cash received from senders and routed to beneficiaries through the angadia network, while the accepted business model established that the assessee acted as a facilitator for commission. The treatment of identified beneficiary transactions as commission-earning activity was inconsistent with treating the same type of transit funds, merely because beneficiaries were unidentified, as the assessee's own unexplained money. In the absence of evidence of corresponding assets, investments, or retention of the principal sums, gross transit turnover could not be equated with real income.

Conclusion: The gross principal movement of funds is not assessable as the assessee's unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; only the embedded commission income is taxable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the embedded commission income should be estimated at 2% or 0.30% of total unaccounted turnover and taxed at normal rates rather than under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: A 2% commission rate was commercially unrealistic for a high-volume, low-margin angadia business, having regard to the stated operating margins and the scale of the cash-transfer network. Income estimation must bear a reasonable nexus to the industry-specific operating environment and cannot be based on an excessive approximation. A commission rate of 0.30% of the unaccounted turnover was found reasonable, with credit required for commission income already assessed.

Conclusion: Embedded commission income shall be restricted to 0.30% of the total unaccounted turnover, taxable at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Taxability is confined to the realistically estimated commission embedded in the angadia transactions, and not to the gross principal funds routed through the business.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a cash-transit intermediary is shown to handle third-party funds for commission, the gross principal handled cannot be taxed as unexplained money; only the real embedded income may be assessed on a reasonable commercial basis.

Issues: Whether an addition under Section 56(2)(viib) based on Net Asset Value could be sustained after the assessee elected the Discounted Cash Flow method supported by a merchant banker's valuation report.

Analysis: Section 56(2)(viib) taxes excess share consideration over fair market value. Rule 11UA(2) gives the assessee the option to determine the value of unquoted shares through either the Net Asset Value method or the Discounted Cash Flow method supported by a merchant banker's report. Although the Assessing Officer may scrutinise the methodology and underlying data, the selected Discounted Cash Flow method cannot be replaced with the Net Asset Value method unless grave or material errors, demonstrably wrong facts, or an erroneous valuation basis are established. The rejection here rested only on the numerical projections in the valuation report, without inquiry into their basis or identification of a material error in the merchant banker's data or methodology.

Conclusion: The Discounted Cash Flow valuation could not be rejected merely because its projections were considered unreasonable, and the addition of Rs. 18,57,73,482 under Section 56(2)(viib) was deleted.

Issues: (i) Whether the insured established grounds to displace the licensed surveyor's assessment of loss and obtain enhanced insurance recovery? (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced interest on the insurance amount?

Issue (i): Whether the insured established grounds to displace the licensed surveyor's assessment of loss and obtain enhanced insurance recovery?

Analysis: A licensed surveyor's report under Section 64-UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not conclusive, but may form the basis of the determination unless displaced by cogent and reliable contrary material. The insured did not produce technical, expert, eyewitness, or documentary evidence capable of rebutting the surveyor's quantification. The depreciation calculation was based on the insured's books of account, and no substantiated error in the assessment, valuation, or underinsurance calculation was established.

Conclusion: No grounds were established to interfere with the surveyor's assessment or enhance the insurance recovery; the issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced interest on the insurance amount?

Analysis: The claim for interest lacked an independent factual foundation because no error requiring enhancement of the assessed insurance amount was established.

Conclusion: No enhanced interest was payable; the issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The decree founded on the licensed surveyor's assessment remains undisturbed, and no additional interest or costs are recoverable.

Ratio Decidendi: A licensed surveyor's assessment may be relied upon for determining an insurance loss unless it is displaced by cogent and reliable contrary evidence.

Issues: Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used in manufacturing leather products sold through domestic outward supplies not liable to Compensation Cess was refundable under the inverted tax structure category.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund of unutilised input tax credit only where accumulation results from the rate of tax on inputs being higher than that on output supplies, subject to the statutory exclusions. Eligibility to avail Compensation Cess credit under Section 16 and the absence of a blocked-credit restriction under Section 17(5) establish neither an independent entitlement to cash refund nor compliance with Section 54(3). The restriction under the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 confines utilisation of Compensation Cess credit to payment of Compensation Cess; while this does not absolutely prohibit every refund, inability to utilise the credit against other liabilities cannot itself create a refund entitlement. Rule 89(5) is procedural and cannot create a substantive right absent satisfaction of Section 54(3). The cited circulars concern Compensation Cess credit attributable to qualifying zero-rated supplies and do not grant an unconditional refund for domestic supplies merely because the finished goods do not attract Compensation Cess.

Conclusion: The accumulated Compensation Cess credit relating to domestic supplies was not shown to satisfy the conditions for refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the disputed refund claims were inadmissible.

Issues: (i) Whether the sale proceeds from the shares could be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether an estimated commission at 3% of the sale proceeds could be added as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the sale proceeds from the shares could be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The purchase and sale transactions were executed through recognised stock exchanges and registered brokers, supported by demat records, securities transaction tax payments, and banking-channel receipts. The documentary evidence remained uncontroverted and no assessee-specific material established participation in accommodation entries, price rigging, or manipulation. General investigation material concerning the scrip and assumptions drawn from the company's financials could not displace the evidentiary burden after the transactions had been substantiated. The short-term capital loss had also not been used for any tax set-off.

Conclusion: The sale-proceeds addition under section 68 was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an estimated commission at 3% of the sale proceeds could be added as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The estimated commission addition rested entirely on the assumption that the share-sale proceeds represented a non-genuine arrangement. With the foundational addition deleted and no evidence of any commission payment, the estimate had no independent basis.

Conclusion: The addition for estimated commission under section 69C was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside to the extent of the impugned additions.

Ratio Decidendi: Uncontroverted documentary evidence of stock-exchange transactions through recognised intermediaries and banking channels cannot be displaced by general investigation information or suspicion without material linking the assessee to a sham arrangement.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice and consequential assessment were invalid because the approval required under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the specified higher authority; (ii) Whether the reassessment assessment was invalid for want of a notice under Section 143(2) after the original return was treated as a return filed in response to the notice under Section 148; (iii) Whether Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applied to the purchase of a flat where the agreement, payment and possession were completed in financial year 2012-13, though the conveyance was registered later.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice and consequential assessment were invalid because the approval required under Section 151(ii) was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the specified higher authority.

Analysis: As the reassessment notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, Section 151(ii) required prior sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, or other specified higher authority. Approval by the Principal Commissioner did not satisfy that jurisdictional requirement.

Conclusion: The approval, reassessment notice and consequential assessment were invalid and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment assessment was invalid for want of a notice under Section 143(2) after the original return was treated as a return filed in response to the notice under Section 148.

Analysis: The assessee's communication requesting that the original return be treated as the return in response to the notice under Section 148 constituted compliance with that notice. Once such return was available on record, issuance of notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory before completing the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment made without a notice under Section 143(2) was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 56(2)(vii)(b) applied to the purchase of a flat where the agreement, payment and possession were completed in financial year 2012-13, though the conveyance was registered later.

Analysis: The agreement for purchase, full payment of consideration and possession of the flat occurred in financial year 2012-13, relevant to assessment year 2013-14. The expanded provision covering acquisition of immovable property for inadequate consideration became effective only from assessment year 2014-15; subsequent registration did not alter the year in which the substantive purchase transaction was completed.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was inapplicable, and the addition was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment failed for independent jurisdictional and procedural defects, and the addition relating to the flat purchase could not be sustained under the subsequently effective provision.