Issues: (i) Whether notional interest on interest-free security deposits from tenants is taxable absent a contractual right to interest or suppressed rent; (ii) Whether a partnership firm can be assessed under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for capital introduced by an identified partner after the contribution is verified as having come from the partner's bank account; (iii) Whether cash deposits can be added to the extent they duplicate verified partner capital, and the treatment of the balance uncorrelated cash deposit; (iv) Whether an ad hoc expenditure disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable where the assessee earned no exempt income and no specific expenditure defect was found.

Issue (i): Whether notional interest on interest-free security deposits from tenants is taxable absent a contractual right to interest or suppressed rent.

Analysis: The deposits were interest-free, received from the same tenants whose rental payments had been offered to tax, and no contractual entitlement to interest was established. There was also no finding that the rent was understated or that the deposits replaced rental income. Taxability requires real income to have accrued or arisen, rather than a hypothetical return from a commercial advantage.

Conclusion: The notional-interest addition is unsustainable and must be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a partnership firm can be assessed under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for capital introduced by an identified partner after the contribution is verified as having come from the partner's bank account.

Analysis: The partner's identity was undisputed and the remand verification confirmed that the capital reached the firm from the partner's bank accounts. In the absence of material showing that the funds actually belonged to the firm and were routed through the partner, an inquiry into the ultimate source in the partner's hands cannot support an addition in the firm's assessment.

Conclusion: The section 68 addition for the partner's capital contribution cannot be sustained and must be deleted to the extent of the amount subsisting after rectification, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether cash deposits can be added to the extent they duplicate verified partner capital, and the treatment of the balance uncorrelated cash deposit.

Analysis: The amount of Rs. 7,58,500 was part of the partner's capital contribution already considered in the assessment, and no independent source was shown for a separate addition. The remaining Rs. 1,60,000 was not correlated with the capital contribution to the same extent; the cash-book figures and supporting material required reconciliation.

Conclusion: The cash-deposit addition must be deleted to the extent of Rs. 7,58,500, in favour of the assessee; the balance Rs. 1,60,000 requires fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.

Issue (iv): Whether an ad hoc expenditure disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable where the assessee earned no exempt income and no specific expenditure defect was found.

Analysis: Exempt income during the relevant year is a necessary precondition for invoking section 14A. No exempt income was earned, and the ad hoc disallowance was made without identifying any non-business expenditure or a specific defect in the supporting evidence, most of the expenditure having been incurred through banking channels.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance is unsustainable and must be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment must exclude the notional interest, the verified partner-capital addition, the duplicate cash-deposit addition, and the ad hoc expenditure disallowance, while the uncorrelated balance cash deposit remains subject to fresh verification.

Issues: (i) Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Limitation for the final assessment under sections 144C and 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) Deductibility of HO/OB direct expenses under section 37(1) rather than the section 44C limitation; (iv) Independent Indian taxation of interest paid by Indian branches to the HO/OB under the India-France DTAA; (v) Arm's-length adjustment for derivative-marketing remuneration; (vi) Arm's-length adjustment for ECB marketing/support remuneration; (vii) Arm's-length adjustment for back-to-back guarantee commission; (viii) Nil ALP determination for HO cost allocation; (ix) Taxation of ECB interest of HO/OB after PE attribution; (x) Surcharge and health and education cess over treaty rates; (xi) Grant of tax deducted at source credit on interest, FTS, and ECB interest; (xii) Treaty rate on section 244A interest; (xiii) Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

Issue (i): Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessment record and DRP directions recorded issuance of a notice on 31 May 2023, whereas the challenge referred to a different notice dated 23 June 2024. No material reconciled this discrepancy or established that the assessment was founded solely on the latter notice.

Conclusion: Against the assessee; the challenge to the notice under section 143(2) fails.

Issue (ii): Limitation for the final assessment under sections 144C and 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The final order was passed within the period specified by section 144C(13) after the DRP directions. The controversy concerning the interaction between sections 144C and 153 remained unresolved by a binding majority decision, following a split verdict. On the facts, the limitation plea could not be accepted.

Conclusion: Against the assessee; the final assessment is not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Deductibility of HO/OB direct expenses under section 37(1) rather than the section 44C limitation.

Analysis: Direct expenditure incurred by the HO/OB for, and attributable to, the Indian branch is distinguishable from general head-office expenditure. The principle of consistency applied because no factual or legal distinction from the earlier years was shown. Such direct expenditure is governed by section 37(1), subject to verification of supporting invoices and allocation to the Indian branch, rather than the limitation in section 44C.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the direct expenses are allowable under section 37(1), subject to verification.

Issue (iv): Independent Indian taxation of interest paid by Indian branches to the HO/OB under the India-France DTAA.

Analysis: Although the domestic-law amendment to section 9(1)(v) deems the interest to accrue in India, the more beneficial treaty treatment under Article 12(5) read with Article 7 prevails. Interest paid by the Indian PE to the HO/OB cannot be independently taxed in the hands of the same enterprise under the treaty.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the additions for interest paid by the Indian branch to the HO/OB are deleted.

Issue (v): Arm's-length adjustment for derivative-marketing remuneration.

Analysis: The Indian branch performed marketing functions, while the HO/OB bore the trading risks. Attribution of the entire commercial mark-up or initial dealer spread to the Indian branch was made without application of a prescribed method for arm's-length price determination.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the transfer-pricing adjustments for derivative-marketing remuneration are deleted.

Issue (vi): Arm's-length adjustment for ECB marketing/support remuneration.

Analysis: The earlier accepted methodology required application of 20% only to fees and other charges, excluding interest, with credit for remuneration already offered. An adjustment cannot survive where the remuneration already offered equals or exceeds the arm's-length remuneration so determined.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of remand; the ECB remuneration adjustment is restored for recomputation under the specified methodology.

Issue (vii): Arm's-length adjustment for back-to-back guarantee commission.

Analysis: The guarantee arrangement involved reissuance by the Indian branch against counter-guarantees of the HO/OB, requiring fresh benchmarking with reference to the actual functions, assets, risks, volume, and risk differences. The Chartered Accountant's certificate and other contemporaneous material require consideration, including while testing any internal comparable uncontrolled price.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of remand; the guarantee-commission transaction is restored for de novo benchmarking.

Issue (viii): Nil ALP determination for HO cost allocation.

Analysis: Once an international transaction for allocation or recharge of common costs exists, its arm's-length price must be determined under a prescribed method. The ALP cannot be fixed at nil merely upon a subjective view of commercial expediency or the benefit test without examining evidence of services, the cost base, allocation keys, and mark-up. Verification remains necessary for shareholder, stewardship, duplicative costs, allocation keys, and overlap with the section 44C restriction, so that the same cost is not disallowed twice.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of remand; the nil ALP determination is set aside for fresh determination under a prescribed method without duplicate disallowance.

Issue (ix): Taxation of ECB interest of HO/OB after PE attribution.

Analysis: The taxable amount of ECB interest requires recomputation after giving effect to income already attributed to the Indian PE. The computation must avoid double taxation of the same income, including the component considered with reference to section 194LC.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of remand; the ECB-interest taxability is restored for recomputation after PE attribution.

Issue (x): Surcharge and health and education cess over treaty rates.

Analysis: Where the applicable treaty article prescribes the maximum rate at which interest or FTS may be taxed in India, surcharge and health and education cess cannot be separately added so as to exceed that treaty rate ceiling.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; tax on the relevant interest and FTS income must be computed at the treaty rate without separate surcharge and cess.

Issue (xi): Grant of tax deducted at source credit on interest, FTS, and ECB interest.

Analysis: Tax deducted at source credit requires verification from Form 26AS, withholding certificates, and other supporting evidence. Consequential credit arising from the determinations in this order must also be allowed in accordance with law.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of verification; due tax deducted at source credit must be granted in accordance with law.

Issue (xii): Treaty rate on section 244A interest.

Analysis: The binding treatment in the assessee's earlier years requires tax on interest received under section 244A to be computed at the rate prescribed under the India-France DTAA.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; section 244A interest must be taxed at the applicable treaty rate.

Issue (xiii): Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

Analysis: Interest under these provisions is mandatory and consequential upon the correct computation of assessed income and tax. The claim concerning timely filing of the return also requires verification for section 234A purposes.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent of recomputation; interest is to be recomputed, if leviable, while giving effect to the assessment revisions.

Final Conclusion: The assessments require deletion of unsustainable additions, application of treaty protection and treaty rates, and fresh verification or recomputation of the remanded transfer-pricing, ECB-interest, credit, and consequential-interest matters; the notice-validity and limitation objections remain rejected.

Issues: Whether penalty for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sustainable in respect of depreciation and amortisation claimed on transactions treated as bogus.

Analysis: Section 270A(9) covers misrepresentation or suppression of facts and recording of false entries in books of account. The material obtained during survey and subsequent independent enquiries established that the counterparty was a non-existent accommodation-entry provider and that the claimed transactions lacked genuine business substance. The assessee surrendered the expenditure only after detection of the adverse material and did not revise its return to disclose the additional income. Such surrender was not a voluntary disclosure merely because it was stated to have been made to buy peace or avoid litigation. Section 270A(8) overrides the protection otherwise available under Section 270A(6) where under-reported income results from misreporting.

Conclusion: The penalty for under-reporting of income consequent upon misreporting under Section 270A(9) was rightly sustained against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under Section 54F was available for the entire investment in a new residential flat purchased within one year before transfer of the original asset, notwithstanding that the flat was financed through a loan; (ii) Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under Section 54F was available for the entire investment in a new residential flat purchased within one year before transfer of the original asset, notwithstanding that the flat was financed through a loan.

Analysis: The new residential flat was purchased before the transfer of the original asset and fell within the one-year period prescribed by Section 54F. Section 54F does not require that the consideration received on transfer of the original asset must itself be used to acquire the new asset. Financing the acquisition through a loan did not curtail the eligible investment. Since the investment in the new asset exceeded the capital gain, no capital-gains addition survived.

Conclusion: Deduction under Section 54F was allowable for the entire investment in the new residential flat, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for unexplained cash deposits was sustainable.

Analysis: No documentary material was produced to establish the source of the cash deposits or rebut the findings that the explanations regarding the deposits were inconsistent.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained cash deposits was sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Full capital-gains exemption was available on the qualifying residential investment, while the addition relating to unexplained cash deposits remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 54F does not require a direct nexus between the sale proceeds of the original asset and the funds used to acquire the new residential asset within the prescribed period.

Issues: Whether the attached property constituted direct or indirect proceeds of crime, or the value thereof, and was consequently liable for confirmation of attachment.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 encompasses property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, including its value. Registration of scheduled offences does not by itself establish that every asset is proceeds of crime; however, the cumulative money trail, rather than isolated transactions, may establish the requisite prima facie nexus. The bank-account analysis and statements recorded under Section 50 showed that project escrow funds were utilised towards acquisition of the property. The existence of independent business income, accounting disclosure of the investment, and the fact that only part of the consideration originated from the project account did not sever that nexus. The material furnished sufficient reason to believe under Section 5(1) and justified confirmation under Section 8.

Conclusion: The attached property constituted proceeds of crime or its value and was liable to be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether the adjudication and appellate orders required interference where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the portal tab "Additional Notice and Orders", the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the merits were not considered.

Analysis: The appellate remedy under Section 107 was rejected solely on limitation. Uploading the show-cause notice only in the specified portal tab without separate intimation prevented a response to the notice and constituted a violation of principles of natural justice. The circumstances warranted interference and a merits-based reconsideration.

Conclusion: The adjudication order and the limitation-based appellate order were quashed, and the appeal was directed to be reconsidered on merits after affording a hearing to the assessee. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order under Section 74, allegedly uploaded only under the Additional Notice and Orders tab without separate intimation and without a post-reply hearing, warranted interference.

Analysis: The order records a prima facie case based on the manner of uploading the adjudication order and the absence of separate intimation. No determination was made on the underlying tax demand or the alleged statutory violations; reconsideration was directed after considering the reply and affording a hearing.

Outcome: The adjudication order was set aside for fresh reasoned adjudication after an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice and consequential adjudication and appellate orders were liable to be set aside for denial of natural justice arising from portal-only communication of the notice, despite dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was uploaded only under the portal tab titled "Additional Notice and Orders", without separate intimation. This prevented the petitioner from responding to the notice and constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate remedy under Section 107 had been rejected solely on limitation and without adjudication on merits; in the peculiar circumstances, judicial interference was warranted.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, adjudication order and appellate order were quashed, with directions for issuance of a fresh notice, opportunity of hearing and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether a discrepancy between the operative portion of an order-in-original and the consequential Form GST DRC-07 is rectifiable under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 161 excludes the six-month limitation where rectification is purely for a clerical or arithmetical error arising from an accidental slip or omission. The adjudicating authority had itself recorded a discrepancy between the operative order and Form GST DRC-07, but treated it as not being a patent or undisputed error. The discrepancy in the tax demand stated in Form GST DRC-07, as against the demand and adjustments recorded in the detailed order, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The mismatch between the order-in-original and Form GST DRC-07 is a rectifiable apparent error within Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the setting aside of tax and penalty solely on a chart correlating cancelled E-Way Bills with fresh E-Way Bills, without portal-based factual verification, was sustainable.

Analysis: Cancellation of an E-Way Bill does not by itself establish transport of goods without payment of tax; equally, generation of a fresh E-Way Bill does not conclusively prove that the cancelled bill was never used. The chart furnished by the dealer required transaction-wise verification against contemporaneous electronic records, including the reasons and timing of cancellation, corresponding fresh bills, identity of transaction particulars, actual movement of goods, and any nexus between cancelled bills and transportation. The Department must establish such nexus through appropriate factual verification, while the dealer must be afforded an opportunity to substantiate its explanation and supporting documents.

Conclusion: The prior appellate and adjudication orders could not be sustained without the required factual verification; the actual tax liability must be determined afresh after transaction-wise examination of the electronic records and opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether tax, penalty and fine could be imposed through confiscation proceedings for excess or unaccounted goods found at the registered business premises.

Analysis: Section 35(1) requires maintenance of true and correct accounts, while Section 35(6) treats unaccounted goods or services as deemed supplies for determination of tax under Sections 73 or 74. The statutory scheme therefore requires recourse to the tax-determination mechanism for excess or unaccounted stock found during survey and does not permit direct initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 130 on that basis.

Conclusion: Direct confiscation proceedings under Section 130(2), and the consequential tax, penalty and fine, were unsustainable for unaccounted stock found during survey; the annulment of those demands was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether unutilised ITC on packing materials used in supplying packaged tea is refundable under the inverted duty structure when bulk tea and packaged tea are both taxed at 5%; (ii) Whether Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 and Circular No. 173/05/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 apply to the refund claims.

Issue (i): Whether unutilised ITC on packing materials used in supplying packaged tea is refundable under the inverted duty structure when bulk tea and packaged tea are both taxed at 5%.

Analysis: Section 54(3)(ii) permits refund where credit accumulates because the tax rate on inputs exceeds that on output supplies. The definition of input under Section 2(59) covers goods used in the course or furtherance of business without distinguishing between principal and ancillary inputs. Packing materials used for marketing packaged tea are eligible inputs; their higher tax rate of 18%, compared with the 5% rate on the output supply, caused the accumulation. A comparison confined only to bulk tea and packaged tea improperly ignores those inputs.

Conclusion: Accumulated ITC on eligible packing materials is refundable under the inverted duty structure; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST dated 31.03.2020 and Circular No. 173/05/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 apply to the refund claims.

Analysis: Circular No. 135/5/2020-GST concerns accumulation arising from a reduction in the tax rate on the same goods at different points in time, whereas the tea supplied as input and output remained taxable at 5%. Circular No. 173/05/2022-GST concerns supplies under concessional notifications and merely clarifies the earlier circular; no such concessional notification governed these claims. An executive circular cannot curtail a statutory refund entitlement.

Conclusion: Neither circular applies to deny the refund claims; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The grant of refunds of accumulated ITC for both periods remains legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For inverted-duty refunds, all eligible business inputs, and not merely the principal commodity, must be considered in determining rate-based ITC accumulation; circulars confined to rate-reduction or concessional-supply situations cannot exclude a claim outside those situations.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit for invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A was inadmissible because the supplier-tax-payment condition was not satisfied; (ii) Whether interest on the sustained ineligible ITC could be recovered despite its absence from the show-cause notice, and whether its computation was valid; and (iii) Whether interest based solely on ITC exceeding the provisional-credit limit under Rule 36(4) was valid.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit for invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A was inadmissible because the supplier-tax-payment condition was not satisfied.

Analysis: Section 16(2)(c) made actual payment of tax by the supplier a condition for ITC. Although Section 41 permitted self-assessed credit on a provisional basis, the matching, reversal and reclaim scheme under Section 42 treated supplier non-disclosure of invoices in the prescribed manner as non-payment for reversal purposes, while allowing reclaim upon subsequent disclosure. The recipient admitted that the relevant invoices were not uploaded and did not establish tax payment by the suppliers.

Conclusion: The ITC denial and the sustained tax demand were confirmed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the sustained ineligible ITC could be recovered despite its absence from the show-cause notice, and whether its computation was valid.

Analysis: Interest under Section 42(8) was mandatory and incidental to recovery of ineligible ITC, notwithstanding that interest had not been expressly proposed in the show-cause notice. Its determination required invoice-level matching to identify the unreported invoices, the relevant dates, and the corresponding ITC, so that interest could be calculated from availment until reversal or payment. The existing computation did not conform to that statutory mechanism.

Conclusion: Interest on the sustained ineligible ITC is recoverable notwithstanding its absence from the show-cause notice, but it must be recomputed invoice-wise under Section 42(8), in favour of the assessee only as to recomputation.

Issue (iii): Whether interest based solely on ITC exceeding the provisional-credit limit under Rule 36(4) was valid.

Analysis: Rule 36(4) limited the extent of provisional ITC but did not render such credit absolute. However, the separate interest levy founded on the excess over that limit had not been contemplated in the show-cause notice and was outside the scope of the original proceedings.

Conclusion: The interest levied by reference to Rule 36(4) was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand survives; interest liability is confined to a fresh statutory calculation on identified unreported invoices, with no separate Rule 36(4)-based interest levy.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the pre-amendment ITC matching scheme, provisional credit relating to undisclosed supplier invoices remains reversible with interest, and such interest must be determined through the statutory invoice-specific matching mechanism.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was sustainable for failure to reverse input tax credit where payment to suppliers was not made within the stipulated period.

Analysis: Invocation of Section 74(1) required a specific factual and legal foundation establishing the statutory ingredients of wilful suppression. The show cause notice did not identify the material facts allegedly suppressed, the particular information required to be declared, or the statutory return, statement, report, or document in which such disclosure was mandated. Mere contravention of Section 16(2)(d) did not automatically attract penalty under Section 74(1). Detection of the discrepancy during audit could not, by itself, establish wilful suppression. The burden to establish suppression remained on Revenue and could not be shifted to the assessee. Further, grounds not contained in the show cause notice could not be introduced or supplemented at the second appellate stage.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 74(1) was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether a tax demand confirmed under Section 74(1) can stand after the appellate authority finds that Section 74 is inapplicable; and (ii) Whether penalty under Section 73(9) may be imposed where the show-cause notice proposed penalty only under Section 74(1).

Issue (i): Whether a tax demand confirmed under Section 74(1) can stand after the appellate authority finds that Section 74 is inapplicable.

Analysis: The appellate authority expressly found that there was no fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression and that Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was inapplicable. It nevertheless retained the tax demand under Section 74(1). That finding on the inapplicability of Section 74 was not challenged by Revenue. Retaining the demand under the very provision found unavailable was internally contradictory and reflected non-application of mind. The possibility that a demand might hypothetically have been within the limitation applicable to Section 73 could not validate a demand raised and confirmed under Section 74.

Conclusion: The tax demand under Section 74(1) cannot stand and is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 73(9) may be imposed where the show-cause notice proposed penalty only under Section 74(1).

Analysis: The show-cause notice proposed penalty under Section 74(1) alone. After finding that such penalty was unsustainable, the appellate authority suo motu imposed penalty under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, despite no charge under that provision in the notice. The appellate authority thereby travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed under Section 73(9) is null and void and is set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The unchallenged finding excluding the application of Section 74 precluded both retention of the tax determination under that provision and substitution of a penalty provision not invoked in the show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot sustain a tax determination under a provision it finds inapplicable or impose a penalty under a provision not invoked in the show-cause notice.

Issues: (i) Whether a demand could be confirmed on a statutory basis not alleged in the show-cause notice; and (ii) Whether payment of GST under the CGST/SGST heads instead of the IGST head, due to a clerical error, constituted non-payment or short payment actionable under section 73.

Issue (i): Whether a demand could be confirmed on a statutory basis not alleged in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The show-cause notice alleged an IGST mismatch and non-rectification of returns, but did not invoke section 16(2)(a). The demand was nevertheless confirmed on the distinct basis of section 16(2)(a), without addressing the explanation that the corresponding tax had been paid under the CGST/SGST heads.

Conclusion: The demand could not be confirmed on the unalleged section 16(2)(a) basis. This issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment of GST under the CGST/SGST heads instead of the IGST head, due to a clerical error, constituted non-payment or short payment actionable under section 73.

Analysis: Section 73 applies where tax remains unpaid or short paid. Binding jurisdictional authority, followed as a matter of judicial discipline, recognizes that a clerical allocation of tax under an incorrect GST head does not create substantive non-payment where the corresponding amount is already deposited. The electronic credit ledger is to be considered for set-off of the excess CGST/SGST amount against the IGST deficit. The unrefuted reconciliation showed that a net balance remained after such set-off.

Conclusion: Payment under the CGST/SGST heads instead of the IGST head did not itself amount to non-payment or short payment actionable under section 73. The excess CGST/SGST amount was to be set off against the IGST liability, with only the remaining net amount recoverable in cash with applicable interest.

Final Conclusion: Tax deposited under the wrong GST head must be appropriated against the corresponding IGST liability rather than treated as a fresh short payment, while recovery remains confined to the verified balance, if any.

Ratio Decidendi: A clerical wrong-head payment of GST cannot be treated as unpaid or short-paid tax under section 73 to the extent that the corresponding amount is available for set-off in the electronic credit ledger; only a net deficit remains recoverable.

Issues: (i) Whether assignment for consideration of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot and building to a third-party assignee is subject to GST; (ii) Whether the extended-period demand under Section 74 and the associated penalties could be restored or enhanced on account of delayed invoicing and payment of tax.

Issue (i): Whether assignment for consideration of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot and building to a third-party assignee is subject to GST.

Analysis: The binding jurisdictional interpretation treats assignment and transfer of leasehold rights in land and building as transfer of benefits arising from immovable property. Such a transaction falls outside the scope of taxable supply under Section 7(1)(a), Schedule II and Schedule III, and is not chargeable under Section 9. Classification as "other miscellaneous services" under Serial No. 35 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) was inapplicable. The dismissal of the departmental challenges to that interpretation left it binding in the absence of any stay or recall.

Conclusion: Assignment of the leasehold rights was not a taxable supply and was not liable to GST.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended-period demand under Section 74 and the associated penalties could be restored or enhanced on account of delayed invoicing and payment of tax.

Analysis: Delayed issuance of the invoice and delayed payment, without a deliberate non-disclosure directed at evading tax, do not establish suppression with intent to evade. The initial treatment of the transaction as non-taxable was founded on a plausible and bona fide interpretation which was subsequently supported by binding judicial interpretation. Mere non-payment or delay is insufficient for invocation of Section 74 or its penal consequences.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 74 and restoration or enhancement of penalties were unwarranted.

Final Conclusion: No basis existed for imposing or reviving the Section 74 penal consequences; the unchallenged determination under Section 73 and the residual penalty were outside the scope of adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 74 penal consequences cannot arise where a binding interpretation establishes the transaction as non-taxable and the taxpayer's earlier treatment rests on a bona fide, plausible view that negates suppression with intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether excess or unaccounted goods detected during a survey of business premises could be subjected directly to confiscation proceedings under Section 130(2), instead of tax-determination proceedings under Sections 73 or 74.

Analysis: Section 35(1) requires registered persons to maintain true and correct accounts. Under Section 35(6), unaccounted goods are to be treated as supplied for determining tax, with the procedure under Sections 73 or 74 applying for that determination. The statutory scheme, reinforced by binding High Court precedent, confines the consequence of excess or unaccounted stock found during a survey to proceedings under Sections 73 or 74; Section 130 cannot be directly invoked for confiscation and consequential fine and penalty in such circumstances.

Conclusion: Direct proceedings under Section 130(2) for excess or unaccounted stock found at business premises were not authorised. The first appellate authority correctly set aside the orders imposing tax, penalty and fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where unaccounted goods are detected during a business-premises survey, tax liability must be determined under the statutory procedure for such determination and cannot be subjected directly to confiscation proceedings.

Issues: (i) Whether adjustment of the amount recovered in the Section 129 proceedings for the same unloaded goods was legally proper; (ii) Whether the delayed manual invoices and related documents established lawful inward supply and warranted interference with the residual liability.

Issue (i): Whether adjustment of the amount recovered in the Section 129 proceedings for the same unloaded goods was legally proper.

Analysis: The amount recovered for release of the goods in the parallel detention proceedings was adjusted against the demand arising from the same goods and cause of action. Since two parallel proceedings under the CGST/UPGST regime could not be maintained for the identical cause, the adjustment was sustained.

Conclusion: The adjustment was legally proper, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the delayed manual invoices and related documents established lawful inward supply and warranted interference with the residual liability.

Analysis: Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rules 138 and 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, requires prescribed transit documents, including a tax invoice and valid e-way bill, to accompany goods during movement. No such documents were produced at the time of interception. Manual invoices produced more than three months later, without electronic corroboration, lacked evidentiary credibility and could not retrospectively cure the breach or rebut the presumption of intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: The delayed documents did not establish lawful transit or justify interference with the residual liability, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjustment relating to the identical detention proceedings remains intact, while the remaining determination based on undocumented movement of goods continues to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods moved without mandatory transit documentation cannot be retrospectively validated by manual invoices produced after interception without credible contemporaneous corroboration.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of amounts tendered towards an individual partner's outstanding income-tax demand on the assertion that they were coercively recovered from a partnership firm.

Analysis: The fixed deposits and cheque were tendered voluntarily, and the existence of a bank attachment did not establish forcible recovery. The revenue authorities had not been informed, when the payment was tendered, of the alleged change from proprietorship to partnership. Any payment by the firm towards a partner's demand consequently gave rise, at most, to an inter se dispute between the partners and disclosed no illegality, error, or arbitrariness in the departmental action.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the claimed refund.