Issues: Whether differential National Calamity Contingent Duty on chewing tobacco for the post-GST period could be demanded by applying MRP-based valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 pursuant to Notification No. 49/2008-CE (N.T.) dated 24.12.2008.

Analysis: The settled position applicable to the disputed period was that the MRP-valuation mechanism under the notification was not an operating provision after 01.07.2017, as the notification continued to refer to the repealed Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was not correspondingly amended. The settled position had also been affirmed on appeal.

Conclusion: The differential NCCD demand founded on Section 4A MRP-based valuation for the disputed period is unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Validity of State GST adjudication and rectification orders for a period for which Central GST proceedings had already been initiated; (ii) Validity of the ex parte Central GST adjudication order made without a fresh communicated hearing after the dates previously fixed.

Issue (i): Validity of State GST adjudication and rectification orders for a period for which Central GST proceedings had already been initiated.

Analysis: The Central GST show-cause notice had been issued before the State GST notice for the same period. The later State GST adjudication could not stand alongside the first-initiated Central GST proceedings, and the rectification order consequential to that adjudication also could not survive.

Conclusion: The State GST adjudication order and consequential rectification order were invalid and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Validity of the ex parte Central GST adjudication order made without a fresh communicated hearing after the dates previously fixed.

Analysis: Natural justice requires an effective opportunity of hearing before adjudication. Although dates had earlier been fixed and a reply had been filed, the order was passed substantially later without communicating a fresh hearing date, resulting in ex parte adjudication without an effective opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The Central GST ex parte adjudication order was invalid for breach of natural justice and was set aside; a fresh hearing and speaking order were required, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: For the same taxable period, first-initiated Central GST proceedings prevail over later State GST adjudication, while any fresh Central GST determination must follow an effective hearing and a reasoned decision.

Issues: Whether an appeal against cancellation of GST registration was time-barred where the original order was only uploaded on the GST portal and was not communicated to the affected person in the prescribed manner.

Analysis: Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 makes the three-month period for appeal run from communication of the decision or order. Section 169(1) prescribes the modes for service of an order. Since the Appellate Authority may condone delay only for the limited additional period stipulated by Section 107(1), effective communication of the order is mandatory for commencement of limitation. Uploading the order on the common portal, without service in accordance with the prescribed modes, does not amount to communication for this purpose. The exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act reinforces the requirement of strict compliance with the statutory procedure for service.

Conclusion: Limitation for filing the appeal had not commenced merely upon upload of the cancellation order on the GST portal; the appeal could not be rejected as barred by limitation, and the delay was liable to be condoned for adjudication on merits.

Issues: Whether a confiscation order passed on the same day as the show-cause notice, despite the notice allowing seven days for filing a reply, violated the requirement of an effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The notice granted seven days for submission of a reply, but the confiscation order was issued on the date of service itself, before expiry of that period and without any written objection having been filed. A direction to appear on the date of issuance did not afford a real and reasonable opportunity to respond. Payment made to secure release of detained goods and conveyance could not constitute admission, acquiescence, or waiver of the right to contest the demand. The appellate finding that the appellant had participated in the proceedings was inconsistent with the confiscation order, which recorded that no objections had been filed.

Conclusion: The confiscation order, consequential demand order, and appellate order were set aside for breach of principles of natural justice, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after allowing a written reply and personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether one-time, non-refundable membership fees from time-share members could be recognised over the membership period rather than fully in the year of receipt; (ii) Whether payments to resident suppliers for renewal of software licences in assessment year 2008-09 constituted royalty requiring tax deduction under Section 194J and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia); (iii) Whether the expression "payable" in Section 40(a)(ia) includes amounts already "paid".

Issue (i): Whether one-time, non-refundable membership fees from time-share members could be recognised over the membership period rather than fully in the year of receipt.

Analysis: The consistently followed accounting method apportioned membership receipts over the period during which membership benefits were available. The identical issue had been resolved by applying the regular method of accounting instead of bringing the entire receipt to tax in the year of collection.

Conclusion: Membership fees were eligible for recognition over the membership period and not taxable in full in the year of receipt; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payments to resident suppliers for renewal of software licences in assessment year 2008-09 constituted royalty requiring tax deduction under Section 194J and disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

Analysis: Section 194J applies to payments for specified services or royalty. The statutory clarification treating a right to use computer software, including a licence, as royalty was held to operate prospectively from 1 April 2012. Consequently, licence-renewal payments in assessment year 2008-09 did not constitute royalty. Tax treatment of payments to non-resident suppliers did not establish taxability of payments to resident suppliers.

Conclusion: The software-licence renewal payments did not attract tax deduction under Section 194J or disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia); in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the expression "payable" in Section 40(a)(ia) includes amounts already "paid".

Analysis: The interpretation excluding amounts already paid from the scope of Section 40(a)(ia) had been reversed by the Supreme Court. The provision applies to amounts paid as well as amounts remaining payable.

Conclusion: The expression "payable" includes amounts already paid; in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeds on recognition of membership fees and on the non-applicability of tax deduction requirements to the pre-2012 software-licence payments, while the statutory interpretation of "payable" is affirmed in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the Binding Term Sheet was a binding but conditional arrangement, and the extent of the acquirer's funding obligations under it and the Addendum; (ii) Whether the advances of Rs.23.45 crore constituted acquisition consideration and whether the acquirer showed readiness and willingness to perform; (iii) Whether interim and ad-interim protection under Section 9 was warranted to preserve the shares, transaction and corporate assets pending arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether the Binding Term Sheet was a binding but conditional arrangement, and the extent of the acquirer's funding obligations under it and the Addendum.

Analysis: The express final-and-binding clause established that the Term Sheet created enforceable obligations. However, the payment structure, due diligence, regulatory approvals, escrow requirements, pre-conditions and contemplated Definitive Agreements showed that completion of the acquisition remained conditional. The Addendum provided for a Rs.20 crore infusion under one clause and a further Rs.20 crore creditor payment subject to pre-conditions under another clause. The contractual framework did not support either an absolute limit of Rs.20 crore on the acquirer's obligations or an unlimited and unconditional obligation to fund all liabilities of the target company.

Conclusion: The Term Sheet was binding in favour of the acquirer's contention, but it was not an unconditional completed transfer or an unconditional right to complete the acquisition. The competing absolute funding positions were not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the advances of Rs.23.45 crore constituted acquisition consideration and whether the acquirer showed readiness and willingness to perform.

Analysis: The Inter-Corporate Loan Agreement pre-dated the Term Sheet, provided for loan tranches, repayment and interest, and the first substantial payment followed its execution. Contemporaneous correspondence and the draft Definitive Agreement described the advances as loan tranches. The transaction documents could be read together for the limited purpose of understanding the overall arrangement, but loan advances did not thereby become share-purchase consideration. Under the staged payment clause, Rs.52.50 lakh became payable on the earlier of completion of due diligence or the thirtieth day from the Term Sheet; it was not shown to have been paid before the termination notice. The principle of reciprocal promises did not excuse that independently due instalment.

Conclusion: The Rs.23.45 crore advances were not established as acquisition consideration, and the acquirer failed to establish compliance with its payment obligations or readiness and willingness to perform. This issue was decided against the acquirer.

Issue (iii): Whether interim and ad-interim protection under Section 9 was warranted to preserve the shares, transaction and corporate assets pending arbitration.

Analysis: Interim protection requires a sufficient prima facie case and a present need to preserve the subject matter without granting control-oriented or mandatory relief beyond what is necessary. The incomplete pre-conditions, unexecuted Definitive Agreements, disputed performance, and unpaid instalment prevented the asserted right to immediate completion from being treated as established. The communication directing maintenance of status quo over the escrow shares materially reduced the apprehended immediate risk. The disputed status of the remaining securities did not justify a mandatory injunction, while restraints over corporate management, operational assets, permits and contracts would exceed limited preservative protection.

Conclusion: The acquirer did not establish a sufficient prima facie case, irreparable injury, or an immediate threat warranting the requested interim or mandatory protection. This issue was decided against the acquirer.

Final Conclusion: The contractual acquisition, accounting of advances, validity of termination and any appropriate protective measures remain matters for determination in arbitration, without the requested court-imposed restraints over the company or its securities.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim protection for a proposed acquisition cannot be granted where material contractual conditions remain unfulfilled, the applicant has not established performance of an independently due obligation, and no present risk requiring preservative or mandatory relief is shown.

Issues: (i) Whether tax could be levied on projected revenue for Blocks 12 and 13 solely on the basis of planning approval before construction commenced; (ii) Whether the assessment order could stand when adequate opportunity to file a detailed reply was not afforded.

Issue (i): Whether tax could be levied on projected revenue for Blocks 12 and 13 solely on the basis of planning approval before construction commenced.

Analysis: The tax demand for Blocks 12 and 13 was computed from projected revenue solely because planning approval had been granted. Construction in respect of those blocks had not commenced, and planning approval alone did not justify levy based on projected revenue.

Conclusion: Levy of tax on the projected revenue of Blocks 12 and 13 was improper, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment order could stand when adequate opportunity to file a detailed reply was not afforded.

Analysis: The records showed that time had been sought for filing a detailed reply, but sufficient opportunity to place the defence was not afforded. A fresh determination must comply with the principles of natural justice by considering objections and supporting material after personal hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment order could not stand without adequate opportunity to reply, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Fresh adjudication is required after the stipulated deposit, submission of objections and a personal hearing; the bank-account attachments are to be lifted upon proof of deposit.

Issues: Whether an ex parte adjudication under Section 74, passed without deciding the matter on the scheduled hearing date and without notice of a subsequent hearing date, was valid.

Analysis: Where the adjudicating authority does not decide the proceedings on the date fixed for hearing, it must fix and communicate a further hearing date. Failure to communicate the fresh date deprives the assessee of an effective opportunity of personal hearing and results in an ex parte order contrary to principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication was set aside, with a direction to grant personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) whether an advance ruling may be issued for an ongoing import activity; (ii) whether die cut tape and tape in roll are classifiable under the claimed tariff items; and (iii) whether both goods qualify for concessional basic customs duty under Serial No. 295 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025.

Issue (i): whether an advance ruling may be issued for an ongoing import activity.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits an advance ruling for an ongoing import activity where the goods are not involved in a pending dispute or already settled matter. Such a ruling operates prospectively in respect of the goods covered by it.

Conclusion: An advance ruling may be issued for the ongoing import activity, with prospective operation.

Issue (ii): whether die cut tape and tape in roll are classifiable under the claimed tariff items.

Analysis: Under the General Rules for Interpretation and the relevant Section and Chapter Notes, the die cut tape is imported in pre-cut, non-rectangular, battery-specific and ready-to-use form. Its exclusive or principal use as an insulating and heat-protection component of lithium-ion battery packs makes it a part of an electric accumulator under Note 2(b) to Section XVI; it is not a plastic article of general use. As it is neither an accumulator case nor a battery separator, it falls under the residual entry for other accumulator parts.

Analysis: Tape in roll is imported as a continuous, pressure-sensitive self-adhesive plastic tape, without battery-specific shape or dimensions, and is capable of use in diverse electronic and electrical applications. Subsequent cutting after import cannot alter its tariff identity. It is consequently excluded from Section XVI as a general-use plastic article and falls under heading 3919; the declared roll width not exceeding 20 cm places it under the applicable eight-digit tariff item.

Conclusion: Die cut tape is classifiable under CTI 8507 90 90, and tape in roll of width not exceeding 20 cm is classifiable under CTI 3919 10 00, subject to verification of the declared dimensions at import.

Issue (iii): whether both goods qualify for concessional basic customs duty under Serial No. 295 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025.

Analysis: Serial No. 295 applies to eligible goods under Chapter 85 or any other Chapter when used in the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries or battery packs. The die cut tape is a battery-specific part or component under clause (i), while tape in roll is a sub-part used to manufacture insulating battery components under clause (ii). The concessional treatment is contingent on specified end use and compliance with Condition No. 3 and the prescribed concessional-duty procedure.

Conclusion: Both die cut tape and tape in roll qualify for the concessional basic customs duty rate of 2.5%, subject to fulfilment of the stipulated end-use condition and procedural requirements.

Final Conclusion: The ruling prospectively confirms the tariff treatment of the two imported products and their coverage under the concessional-duty entry for lithium-ion battery-pack manufacture.

Issues: Whether the limitation for completing the assessment recommenced upon receipt of the digitally signed order setting aside the earlier special-audit direction, rather than upon later receipt of its certified copy, and whether the subsequent special audit and assessment proceedings were consequently valid.

Analysis: Clause (iv)(b) of Explanation 1 to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 refers to receipt of a copy of the order setting aside a special-audit direction, unlike clause (ii), which expressly requires receipt of a certified copy. The earlier order required all concerned to act upon a digitally signed copy produced by email or fax. The digitally signed order was communicated to the departmental authorities by 10 January 2026 and emailed to the Principal Commissioner by 12 January 2026; the departmental instruction also required prompt dissemination of uploaded High Court orders. The statutory period therefore expired, at the latest, on 13 March 2026. Limitation must be strictly applied, and action after its expiry is without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment became time-barred by 13 March 2026; the special-audit direction dated 25 March 2026 and consequential audit report were without jurisdiction, no valid assessment order could thereafter be made, and the returned income stood deemed accepted.

Issues: Validity of a faceless assessment adding gross sale proceeds as capital gains while disregarding documentary material supporting the cost of acquisition, transfer expenses and reinvestment claims.

Analysis: The assessment under Sections 143(3) and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerned claims for computation of capital gains, including deductions for acquisition cost and transfer expenses under Section 48 and reinvestment benefits under Sections 54 and 54EC. The record showed that the relevant sale deeds, acquisition documents, evidence of legal expenses and documents supporting the reinvestments had been furnished through the assessment portal. No specific deficiency in that material was identified, nor was any enquiry, verification or reasoned consideration undertaken before denying the claims. The assessment also failed to address the admitted material relating to the reinvestment benefits.

Conclusion: The assessment was legally infirm; the assessee was entitled to a fresh, reasoned assessment after a personal hearing.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit could be denied for payment of excise duty during the period of default under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis: The demand was founded on the requirement under Rule 8(3A) that duty during the default period be paid without utilisation of CENVAT credit. The appellant subsequently discharged the outstanding duty along with applicable interest. The applicable precedents had declared Rule 8(3A) ultra vires and recognised that CENVAT credit could not be denied for duty payment during the defaulted period. The facts were found to be squarely covered by that settled position.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit could not be denied for payment of duty during the default period under Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for new plant and machinery installed in captive and wind power plants; and (ii) Whether revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly invoked to revise the assessment allowing that claim.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for new plant and machinery installed in captive and wind power plants.

Analysis: Section 32(1)(iia) allows additional depreciation where new plant or machinery is acquired and installed after 31.03.2005 by an assessee engaged in manufacture or production of an article or thing. The new machinery was admittedly acquired and installed after the prescribed date. Electricity is movable property capable of transmission, transfer, delivery and possession; its generation constitutes production. The assessee was also engaged in manufacturing mineral products, and the power generated through the captive and wind power plants was used in its manufacturing operations.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was validly invoked to revise the assessment allowing that claim.

Analysis: Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263(1) requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; both conditions must coexist. Since the additional depreciation claim was legally allowable and had been correctly accepted in assessment, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Conclusion: Invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid. This issue was decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment allowing additional depreciation remains effective, while the revisional order setting it aside has no legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee satisfies the conditions for additional depreciation on new machinery used in manufacture or production, the allowance is legally sustainable and cannot be revised under Section 263(1) absent an assessment order that is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether the pending first appeals for the relevant assessment years were required to be decided expeditiously notwithstanding the priority framework under the departmental circular.

Analysis: Section 250(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 contemplates disposal of appellate proceedings within one year from the end of the financial year in which the appeal is filed or transferred, where possible. The departmental circular prescribing priority categories for disposal of appeals cannot prevail over the statutory framework where the appeals have remained undecided despite compliance with notices.

Conclusion: The National Faceless Appeal Centre appellate authority must decide the pending appeals within three months after affording proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessees.

Issues: (i) Whether, under the amended Section 270AA, an application for waiver of penalty may be entertained where the penalty concerns under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income; and (ii) Whether a second waiver application filed after receipt of a penalty order is maintainable despite an earlier application having been rejected under the pre-amendment provision.

Issue (i): Whether, under the amended Section 270AA, an application for waiver of penalty may be entertained where the penalty concerns under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income.

Analysis: The Finance Act, 2026 substituted Section 270AA with effect from 1 March 2026. The amended provision permits waiver of a penalty already levied, including a penalty arising in the circumstances specified in Section 270A(9), provided the conditions in Section 270AA(1), including payment of the prescribed additional income-tax under Section 270AA(1)(b), are fulfilled. Section 270AA(3) makes grant of waiver mandatory upon fulfilment of those conditions and expiry of the statutory appeal period.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. Misreporting of income does not bar consideration or grant of waiver under the amended Section 270AA.

Issue (ii): Whether a second waiver application filed after receipt of a penalty order is maintainable despite an earlier application having been rejected under the pre-amendment provision.

Analysis: Amended Section 270AA(2) permits an application within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment or reassessment order and the penalty order are received. This introduced a new entitlement to seek waiver after receipt of a penalty order, which was unavailable under the earlier provision. The fulfilment of the statutory conditions was undisputed.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The second application was timely and maintainable, and the earlier rejected application did not preclude it.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of waiver was inconsistent with the amended statutory scheme; waiver of the penalty and immunity from proceedings under Sections 276C and 276CC were required to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee fulfils the conditions of amended Section 270AA, the Assessing Officer must grant waiver of penalty, including for misreporting of income, and an earlier application under the unamended provision does not bar a timely post-penalty application created by the amendment.

Issues: (i) Whether penalties under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) survive after the quantum additions forming their basis are wholly deleted and tax liability is recomputed at nil; (ii) Whether the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices is liable to be sustained in the circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether penalties under section 270A and section 271AAC(1) survive after the quantum additions forming their basis are wholly deleted and tax liability is recomputed at nil.

Analysis: Sections 270A and 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 operate upon the determination of under-reported or unexplained income and the resulting tax liability. The additions on which the penalties were founded were wholly deleted in the subsequent quantum proceedings, and the giving-effect order determined income only at the interest amount with nil tax liability. The foundation for the consequential penalty proceedings had therefore ceased to exist.

Conclusion: The penalties under sections 270A and 271AAC(1) are unsustainable and are deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices is liable to be sustained in the circumstances.

Analysis: Section 272A(1)(d) concerns failure to comply with statutory notices and stands on a footing distinct from penalties linked to quantum additions. However, the assessee subsequently participated in the appellate proceedings, furnished the required details, and the reassessment additions were ultimately deleted. These peculiar circumstances warranted deletion of the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 272A(1)(d) is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: All the impugned penalties are unsustainable, and the appellate orders dismissing the penalty appeals are set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where quantum additions constituting the basis of penalties for under-reported or unexplained income are wholly deleted and no tax liability remains, the consequential penalties cannot survive.

Issues: Whether payments made towards rural infrastructure and road development levy and forest transit fee were taxes exempt from service tax or fees for services liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis: Service tax is not leviable on statutory taxes paid to a State Government, but is payable where the payment constitutes consideration or a fee for services. Following the binding decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the payments were characterised as fees for services and not taxes. As reverse-charge payment entitled the appellant to corresponding Cenvat credit, no mala fides were attributable; the demand was confined to the normal limitation period. Any Cenvat credit accruing after payment is refundable in cash under Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The payments are fees for services and are liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism, against the assessee.

Issues: Whether a service-tax demand against a subcontractor could be sustained by invoking the extended period where the main contractor had discharged tax on the entire contract value.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period requires suppression, misstatement, fraud, collusion, or a similar default with intent to evade tax. The subcontractor entertained a bona fide belief that no separate liability arose because tax had already been paid by the main contractor on the full contract consideration. The taxability of subcontractors was subject to conflicting views, and no ingredient warranting the extended period was established.

Conclusion: The extended-period demand was unsustainable and barred by limitation.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to summons seeking information and documents during GST proceedings was premature.

Analysis: The summons sought information and documents, and the petitioner had responded by representation with copies of the relevant records. The record did not establish coercive recovery, a threat of arrest, or any adverse order arising from the impugned summons.

Conclusion: The writ challenge was premature and no interference with the summons was warranted.

Issues: Whether deletion of the addition under Section 69A, based on uncorroborated search and survey material and a retracted statement, gave rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: Although technical rules of evidence do not strictly govern income-tax proceedings, additions must rest on relevant material and cannot be founded on suspicion, conjecture or surmise. The underlying evidentiary principles and principles of natural justice require corroborative evidence for an adverse inference. The material obtained in the brokers' search related to a period preceding the relevant financial year; the prompt retraction of the survey statement was not displaced by independent evidence; and the alleged cash-loan entries were unsupported by statements of the identified brokers or other material establishing investment or interest income. The factual finding that the documentary material did not corroborate the alleged unexplained money was neither irregular nor perverse.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the deletion of the Section 69A addition was sustained.