Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under Section 147, rather than proceedings under Section 153C, was valid; (ii) Whether the addition for alleged bogus purchases should be sustained and, if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under Section 147, rather than proceedings under Section 153C, was valid.

Analysis: The reopening was based on information received from the Investigation Wing concerning the assessee's transactions and modus operandi, rather than on seized material obtained in the third-party search. In those circumstances, recourse to Section 153C was not required and reassessment under Section 147 was proper.

Conclusion: The reassessment under Section 147 was valid. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition for alleged bogus purchases should be sustained and, if so, to what extent.

Analysis: The purchase particulars were doubtful and the modus operandi was similar to that considered in relation to accommodation entries connected with the searched group. A consistent approach required estimation of profit embedded in the disputed purchases instead of sustaining the entire purchase amount.

Conclusion: The addition is sustained at 6% of the disputed purchases. This issue is decided partly in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment remains valid and an addition at 6% of the disputed purchases survives.

Ratio Decidendi: Information derived from a third-party search, without reliance on seized material from that search, may support reassessment under Section 147 without attracting proceedings under Section 153C.

Issues: Validity of a reassessment notice issued beyond three years where the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: Section 149(1)(a) bars issuance of a notice under Section 148 after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the conditions for the extended period under Section 149(1)(b) are met. For the extended period, the escaped income represented by an asset, expenditure, or book entry must amount to or be likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakh or more. The notice for assessment year 2016-17 was issued after five years, while the alleged escapement was quantified at Rs. 12,35,500.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(b), and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

Issues: Whether reassessment under Section 147 was valid where the recorded reasons relied on investigation information concerning alleged circular transactions and deemed dividend without demonstrated independent inquiry or application of mind.

Analysis: Reassessment requires the Assessing Officer to form an independent reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Information received from an investigation wing may trigger examination, but cannot by itself establish escapement in the assessee's hands. The recorded reasons did not disclose any independent verification of the assessee's actual receipt of amounts, his specific role in the group-company transactions, or fulfilment of the statutory conditions for deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). A prima facie nexus between the information and taxable income escaping assessment was therefore absent; mere suspicion could not substitute reason to believe.

Conclusion: The reopening under Section 147 was invalid in law. The reassessment order and the appellate order sustaining the reassessment and consequential addition were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether share capital and share premium received from corporate subscribers could be added as unexplained cash credits; (ii) Whether unsecured loans could be added as unexplained cash credits; and (iii) Whether the specified industrial subsidies, duty exemption and tax remissions were capital receipts excludible in computing total income and, where adjudicated, book profit.

Issue (i): Whether share capital and share premium received from corporate subscribers could be added as unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: Section 68 requires proof of the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. The remand reports recorded that the corporate subscribers responded to statutory notices, furnished audited financial statements, tax records, bank statements and source details, and that their directors appeared and gave statements. The documented material established the subscribers' financial capacity and banking trail, and no adverse inference arose from the verification of the source and second-source records. Once the burden of proof had been discharged through such documentary traceability and the remand findings contained no adverse conclusion, the Revenue could not maintain the additions merely on suspicion.

Conclusion: The share-capital and share-premium additions under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were unsustainable and were directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether unsecured loans could be added as unexplained cash credits.

Analysis: The loan creditors were supported by confirmations, permanent account details, audited financial statements and bank records, and the loans were repaid in the relevant or subsequent years. No defect was identified in this evidence, nor was an effective independent inquiry undertaken into it. Reliance on an inspector's report without furnishing it or affording cross-examination could not displace the evidentiary record.

Conclusion: The unsecured-loan addition under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unsustainable and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the specified industrial subsidies, duty exemption and tax remissions were capital receipts excludible in computing total income and, where adjudicated, book profit.

Analysis: Applying the purpose test, the transport, interest and insurance subsidies, excise-duty exemption, and VAT and CST remissions were found to have been granted under industrial-incentive schemes to induce the establishment and expansion of industry in the North-Eastern region, promote investment and employment, and address regional industrial backwardness. Their character did not depend on the form of payment or their connection with operational expenditure. They were therefore capital receipts rather than assistance for earning higher trading profits. A receipt that is not income is also not includible in book profit for minimum alternate tax purposes under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Conclusion: The specified subsidies, excise-duty exemption and VAT and CST remissions were capital receipts and were directed to be excluded from normal computation; the transport subsidy and VAT and CST remission were also directed to be excluded from book profit where that claim was adjudicated, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The verified credit transactions satisfied the evidentiary requirements for acceptance, while the industrial incentives and remissions retained their capital character for the stated income-computation purposes.

Issues: Whether redevelopment of a co-operative housing society may proceed in respect of an ED-attached flat while maintaining the attachment and the enforcement interests in the replacement flat and redevelopment benefits.

Analysis: The existing attachment had been confirmed under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000. The safeguards undertaken for redevelopment preserved the attached flat's status through a specifically identified replacement flat, continued attachment and possession in favour of the Enforcement Directorate, disclosure of the attachment in redevelopment documents, prohibition on transfer or encumbrance, and direct deposit of all redevelopment accruals into an account designated by the Enforcement Directorate. These measures adequately protected the enforcement interest. A bank guarantee was not warranted, as it would impose financial pressure on the society when the developer and redevelopment terms had not yet been finalised. The development documents are required to be vetted by the Enforcement Directorate insofar as they concern the attached flat, and the concerned Special Court is to be apprised of the arrangement.

Conclusion: Redevelopment was permitted, and issuance of a no-objection certificate was directed, subject to strict compliance with the safeguards preserving the attachment, replacement flat, and all associated accruals for the Enforcement Directorate.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, with the Appellate Authority permitted to consider delay condonation liberally.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment's input tax credit determination under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could stand; (ii) Whether the assessment on the remaining issues was vitiated by failure to afford effective notice and a personal hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment's input tax credit determination under Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could stand.

Analysis: The limitation issue concerning input tax credit under Section 16(4) was covered by the prior common decision relied upon in the order, under which the corresponding departmental determination had been quashed.

Conclusion: The impugned determination concerning input tax credit limitation under Section 16(4) was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment on the remaining issues was vitiated by failure to afford effective notice and a personal hearing.

Analysis: The show-cause notice and subsequent communications had only been uploaded on the common portal. Where no response is received and alternative statutory modes of service are available, an effective mode of service must be adopted instead of repeatedly placing notices on the portal. The absence of effective service deprived the assessee of an opportunity to respond and be heard.

Conclusion: The assessment determinations on the remaining issues were set aside for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to file objections and receive a personal hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The limitation-based input tax credit determination cannot survive, while the remaining tax controversies require adjudication afresh consistently with natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory alternatives for service are available and a taxpayer has not responded to portal-uploaded notices, the authority must employ an effective mode of service and afford a meaningful opportunity of hearing before making an adverse assessment.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of the admitted differential 6% GST amount for the civil construction works executed.

Analysis: The liability to pay the differential 6% GST was admitted by the concerned authority, which also confirmed that the payment was due and would be made within three weeks.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to payment of the differential 6% GST within three weeks.

Issues: (i) Whether proof of intent to evade tax is required for detention and penalty under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the penalty was sustainable where the e-way bills had expired six days before interception and the claimed vehicle breakdown was unsubstantiated.

Issue (i): Whether proof of intent to evade tax is required for detention and penalty under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 129(1) is attracted by transportation of goods in contravention of the Act or Rules and does not prescribe intent to evade tax as a condition for its invocation. Applying strict construction of taxing statutes, the provision's plain language establishes a civil penalty for the contravention; mens rea is not an essential ingredient.

Conclusion: Proof of intent to evade tax is not required for imposition of penalty under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty was sustainable where the e-way bills had expired six days before interception and the claimed vehicle breakdown was unsubstantiated.

Analysis: The third proviso to Rule 138(10) permits extension of e-way bill validity within eight hours of expiry. The e-way bills had expired six days before interception, no timely extension was obtained by the supplier, recipient, or transporter, and no repair records or other evidence substantiated the asserted vehicle breakdown. Interstate stock transfer does not exempt the movement from e-way bill compliance. An adverse inference arose from withholding evidence that could have established the claimed breakdown; alleged procedural lapses caused no prejudice because the explanation and evidence could be placed before the final fact-finding authority. The Circular did not apply because the consignments were not accompanied by valid e-way bills.

Conclusion: The expired e-way bills, without a valid extension or substantiated justification, constituted a contravention attracting penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Transportation of goods with e-way bills that have long expired, unsupported by credible evidence of a disabling breakdown or a timely extension, attracts the statutory detention and penalty consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is contravention-based and may be imposed for transportation under an expired e-way bill without proof of intent to evade tax.

Issues: Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used in manufacturing leather products for domestic supplies not liable to Compensation Cess qualifies for refund under the inverted tax structure category.

Analysis: Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confines refund of unutilised input tax credit to the specified statutory categories. For refund on account of an inverted duty structure, the accumulation must arise from the rate of tax on inputs being higher than that on output supplies, subject to the exclusion relating to nil-rated or fully exempt supplies. Accumulation resulting from Compensation Cess on coal and absence of Compensation Cess on domestic outward supplies does not, by itself, establish satisfaction of that test. Eligibility to avail input tax credit under Sections 16 and 17(5), its restricted utilisation under the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, and entitlement to refund are distinct matters. The utilisation restriction does not by itself absolutely bar refund, but neither does it create an independent refund entitlement. Rule 89(5) provides a computation mechanism only after the substantive conditions under Section 54(3) are fulfilled. The cited circulars concern qualifying zero-rated supplies and do not establish refund eligibility for the domestic supplies in question.

Conclusion: The accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit was not shown to meet the statutory conditions for refund under Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and was not refundable under the inverted tax structure category.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of input tax credit and its restricted utilisation do not, without fulfilment of the independent conditions prescribed for refund, confer a right to refund unutilised credit.

Issues: (i) Whether the plea of non-service of FORM GST MOV-07 was sustainable and whether procedural deficiencies permitted affirmation of the existing adjudication; (ii) Whether a confined fresh adjudication by the original adjudicating authority was legally warranted; and (iii) Whether the payment made for release constituted a waiver or final determination of liability.

Issue (i): Whether the plea of non-service of FORM GST MOV-07 was sustainable and whether procedural deficiencies permitted affirmation of the existing adjudication.

Analysis: Section 160(2) applies where the recipient has acted upon the notice. The contemporaneous MOV records recorded service, and the appeal materials and written representation evidenced a response to the notice in the detention proceeding. The absence of a copy of MOV-07 in the appellate record did not displace that cumulative material. However, Sections 129(3) and 129(4) require notice, an opportunity of hearing, and reasoned adjudication of the explanation. The unidentified enclosure to MOV-09, unresolved primary records, and material errors in the appellate chronology prevented reliance on the existing findings as a reliable determination of the defence.

Conclusion: The service objection to FORM GST MOV-07 was rejected against the assessee, but the existing adjudication could not be affirmed without a proper determination of the representation and procedural safeguards.

Issue (ii): Whether a confined fresh adjudication by the original adjudicating authority was legally warranted.

Analysis: Section 113(1) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 authorises a direct reference to the original adjudicating authority, whereas Section 107(11) does not confer that power on the first appellate authority. The actual movement, route, destination, timing of the alleged diversion, and the point at which e-way bill compliance was required could not be reliably resolved without contemporaneous primary material. Later e-way bills cannot retrospectively cure an established breach, but neither can liability be founded on disputed secondary recitals. An independent mens rea requirement is not built into Section 129; nevertheless, penalty is not automatic and requires an assessment of the established breach, bona fides, and whether any lapse was technical or substantive.

Conclusion: A confined fresh adjudication by the original adjudicating authority was legally warranted on the existing notice and original allegation, with disclosure of relied-upon contemporaneous material and a reasonable opportunity of hearing; the merits of liability remain undecided.

Issue (iii): Whether the payment made for release constituted a waiver or final determination of liability.

Analysis: Payment made to secure release after submission of objections does not displace the statutory requirement of adjudication or extinguish the challenge to the demand. Section 129(5) does not convert such payment into a waiver of the statutory remedy or a conclusive determination of liability.

Conclusion: The release payment was neither a waiver nor a final determination of liability and must be reconciled against the fresh determination, with consequential adjustment or refund if due.

Final Conclusion: The service objection is closed, while the existence and character of any transit contravention and the resulting fiscal liability must be resolved through a procedurally fair, evidence-based determination of the original defence.

Ratio Decidendi: Detention penalty under Section 129 requires an established transport contravention and reasoned consideration of the assessee's explanation; independent proof of intent to evade is unnecessary, but penalty is not automatic.

Issues: (i) Whether delayed additional invoices and bilties were sufficient to establish the genuineness of transportation of the goods; (ii) Whether the appellant established that the goods belonged to genuine buyers or sellers and were moved from Delhi to Gwalior via Uttar Pradesh; (iii) Whether the transit-state precedent relied upon by the appellant applied to the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether delayed additional invoices and bilties were sufficient to establish the genuineness of transportation of the goods.

Analysis: The legal framework requires goods in transit to be supported by reliable accompanying documents. The documents initially produced did not cover the goods found on physical verification, and the driver had stated that all documents in his possession had been produced. The subsequently produced invoices and bilties lacked corroboration connecting them to the undeclared goods; their delayed production, discrepancies in invoicing and transport documents, and the absence of reliable supporting evidence undermined their credibility.

Conclusion: The delayed invoices and bilties did not establish that the undeclared goods were genuinely covered by valid transportation documents. This issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant established that the goods belonged to genuine buyers or sellers and were moved from Delhi to Gwalior via Uttar Pradesh.

Analysis: The asserted inter-State movement required credible proof of the identity and business credentials of the buyers and sellers, their connection with the consignment, and the stated destination. No buyer or seller acknowledged the transaction or claimed the goods, and no satisfactory material established their genuineness, authority, or business presence. The documentary material did not reliably establish either ownership or the claimed out-of-State destination.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove that the goods belonged to genuine transacting parties or were genuinely being transported from Delhi to Gwalior through Uttar Pradesh. This issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the transit-state precedent relied upon by the appellant applied to the facts of the case.

Analysis: The relied-upon precedent concerned documented transactions involving identifiable registered parties, acknowledged transactions and an established destination outside the transit State. Those foundational facts were absent here because the goods were found undeclared and the later documents were not shown to be genuine or connected with the consignment. The precedent was therefore factually distinguishable.

Conclusion: The transit-state precedent was inapplicable to the facts of the case. This issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The finding that the goods were undeclared and unsupported by reliable evidence justified sustaining the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim of inter-State transit cannot defeat action concerning undeclared goods unless the transporter establishes, through reliable contemporaneous evidence, the genuineness of the documents, transacting parties and stated destination.

Issues: (i) Whether intention to evade tax is a jurisdictional pre-condition under Section 129(1); (ii) The effect of Section 10(1)(b) to the claimed onward sale during transit, and the movement-document requirements; (iii) Whether the still-live first e-way bill covered the movement after diversion from Bhilai towards the location of interception or Raipur; (iv) Whether the second e-way bill truthfully and validly corresponded to that movement, having regard to its Bhilai dispatch declaration, expiry and the interception location; (v) Whether the cumulative defects were merely technical or constituted substantive contravention; and (vi) The effect of DRC-03 payment and whether the impugned order calls for interference.

Issue (i): Whether intention to evade tax is a jurisdictional pre-condition under Section 129(1).

Analysis: Section 129(1) is attracted where goods in transit are transported or stored in contravention of the Act or the rules. Unlike confiscation provisions, it does not make intention to evade tax an independent condition. Nevertheless, the explanation for the alleged contravention must be considered, and penalty cannot follow automatically from every minor discrepancy.

Conclusion: Intention to evade tax is not an independent jurisdictional pre-condition for penalty under Section 129(1).

Issue (ii): The effect of Section 10(1)(b) to the claimed onward sale during transit, and the movement-document requirements.

Analysis: Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act permits an intermediate purchaser to make an onward supply during transit without first taking physical delivery. That place-of-supply deeming provision does not alter the actual destination in existing transport records or dispense with Section 68 and the requirements under Rules 138 and 138A that movement documents accurately correspond to the physical movement.

Conclusion: The onward sale during transit was legally permissible, but it did not exempt the movement from valid and accurate e-way-bill documentation.

Issue (iii): Whether the still-live first e-way bill covered the movement after diversion from Bhilai towards the location of interception or Raipur.

Analysis: The first e-way bill remained valid in time and correctly described the original dispatch from Visakhapatnam to Bhilai. The contemporaneous movement record, subsequent invoice and second e-way bill produced at interception established that the destination had changed towards Raipur. Temporal validity alone could not make the first e-way bill correspond to the diverted movement.

Conclusion: The first e-way bill did not cover the altered movement merely because it had not expired.

Issue (iv): Whether the second e-way bill truthfully and validly corresponded to that movement, having regard to its Bhilai dispatch declaration, expiry and the interception location.

Analysis: The second e-way bill described a regular movement originating from Bhilai although the goods admittedly never reached Bhilai. It had expired before interception, with no extension, replacement document, exceptional circumstance, or contemporaneous transport record explaining the continued movement. The recorded interception location and route were not displaced by the alternative map evidence.

Conclusion: The second e-way bill was materially inaccurate as to its physical origin and was invalid on account of expiry at the time of interception.

Issue (v): Whether the cumulative defects were merely technical or constituted substantive contravention.

Analysis: The original e-way bill retained the displaced Bhilai destination, while the onward e-way bill falsely declared dispatch from Bhilai and had expired. The actual route was unsupported by contemporaneous time-stamped transport material. Matching goods description, quantity and vehicle number did not reconcile the conflicting origin and destination declarations or establish an uninterrupted movement.

Conclusion: The combined defects constituted substantive contravention of the movement-document requirements, not a technical or venial breach.

Issue (vi): The effect of DRC-03 payment and whether the impugned order calls for interference.

Analysis: Payment through DRC-03 to procure release of goods and conveyance neither constituted a conclusive admission nor extinguished the statutory right of appeal. On independent scrutiny, the established substantive contraventions attracted the prescribed penalty; the payment remained liable to be appropriated against that liability.

Conclusion: The payment did not bar appellate review, but no interference with the penalty was warranted.

Final Conclusion: A change in the actual destination during transit must be supported by valid movement documents that truthfully describe the physical journey; an expired e-way bill containing a materially incorrect dispatch point attracts penalty under Section 129(1)(a) without separate proof of mens rea.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 129(1) applies where the e-way bill fails to validly and truthfully correspond to the actual movement of goods, and proof of intention to evade tax is not an independent requirement for such civil penalty.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires proof of intent to evade tax. (ii) Whether the penalties for transporting goods with e-way bills expired for six days were sustainable on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires proof of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129(1) is attracted where goods are transported in contravention of the Act or the Rules. Its text makes the contravention the trigger for detention and penalty, without making actual tax evasion or guilty intention a condition. The penalty is adjudicatory for breach of a civil obligation; consequently, mens rea is not an essential ingredient.

Conclusion: Proof of intent to evade tax is not required for penalty under Section 129(1)(a); this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties for transporting goods with e-way bills expired for six days were sustainable on the facts.

Analysis: The third proviso to Rule 138(10) permits extension of an e-way bill within eight hours of its expiry. The e-way bills had expired six days before interception, and no repair records or other cogent evidence substantiated the asserted vehicle breakdown. Neither the supplier, recipient nor transporter sought extension during that period. Stock transfer, invoices and e-invoices did not dispense with the obligation to maintain valid e-way bills. The exception in Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST applies where a valid e-way bill accompanies the goods and was therefore inapplicable. The alleged procedural deficiencies caused no prejudice because a full opportunity to produce explanation and evidence was available before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The prolonged expiry of the e-way bills and absence of substantiated justification established statutory contravention; the penalties were sustainable against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Transportation under e-way bills that have ceased to be valid, without substantiated justification or timely extension, attracts the statutory detention-and-penalty consequences even where the movement is by stock transfer.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, transportation in contravention of the statutory requirements is sufficient; proof of intent to evade tax is unnecessary.

Issues: (i) Whether an e-way bill was legally required for the movement in question; (ii) Whether the penalty could be sustained on the basis of the adjudication undertaken under Section 129; and (iii) What consequential order was appropriate under Section 113.

Issue (i): Whether an e-way bill was legally required for the movement in question.

Analysis: Rule 138(14)(d) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Rules, read with Notification No. F 10-31/2018/CT/V(46) dated 19.06.2018, retained the e-way bill requirement for specified beverages moving between districts in Chhattisgarh where the consignment value exceeded the prescribed threshold. The movement fell within that retained e-way bill requirement. No e-way bill had been generated, and the claimed portal failure and business urgency lacked contemporaneous supporting material on the existing record.

Conclusion: The movement was prima facie subject to the e-way bill requirement and no e-way bill was generated; this issue is against the assessee, without a final determination of penalty liability.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty could be sustained on the basis of the adjudication undertaken under Section 129.

Analysis: Section 129(4) mandates an effective opportunity of hearing before determination of penalty. This safeguard requires a reasoned order addressing the relevant explanation and material. The notice allowed seven days for a response, but the penalty order followed the next day and contained unselected alternatives and drafting placeholders without a clear determination of the explanation, accompanying documents, or basis of penalty. Payment through DRC-03 to obtain release did not amount to waiver of the statutory challenge, and non-appearance in the first appeal did not cure the defective original adjudication.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained on the defective adjudication under Section 129; the issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What consequential order was appropriate under Section 113.

Analysis: Section 113(1) authorises referral to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. As the defect originated in the original adjudication and the explanation for non-generation of the e-way bill required factual consideration, fresh adjudication by the original authority was appropriate. The scope of remand is confined to the allegation in the existing notice, without any new factual foundation or charge, and liability to penalty remains open.

Conclusion: The appellate order and penalty order were set aside, and the original adjudicating authority was directed to undertake fresh adjudication within the existing scope of the notice.

Final Conclusion: The defective penalty determination and its appellate confirmation were nullified, while the question whether any penalty is ultimately payable remains open for lawful determination after an effective hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty determination under Section 129 cannot rest on a non-speaking order issued without an effective statutory hearing, and payment made to secure release of goods does not cure that defect or waive the right to challenge it.

Issues: Whether accumulated Compensation Cess input tax credit on coal used for manufacturing domestic outward supplies not liable to Compensation Cess qualifies for refund under the inverted tax structure category.

Analysis: Section 54(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 confines refund of unutilised input tax credit to the prescribed categories. A claim under the inverted tax structure category requires establishment that the accumulation results from a higher rate of tax on inputs than on output supplies and that the statutory exclusions do not apply. Eligibility to avail Compensation Cess credit under Section 16, and the absence of a blocked-credit restriction under Section 17(5), are distinct from entitlement to obtain that credit as a cash refund.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 11(2) of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 restricts utilisation of Compensation Cess credit to payment of Compensation Cess. Although that restriction is not by itself an absolute bar to every refund, inability to utilise the credit against other liabilities does not independently create a refund entitlement. Rule 89(5) supplies a computation mechanism only after the substantive conditions of Section 54(3) are met. The cited circulars concern qualifying zero-rated supplies and do not establish refund eligibility for domestic outward supplies merely because the finished product is not subject to Compensation Cess.

Conclusion: The accumulated Compensation Cess credit attributable to the domestic supplies was not shown to satisfy the independent statutory requirements for refund under Section 54(3); the refund claims were therefore not admissible. This conclusion is against the assessee.

Issues: Whether costs could be imposed on the department while allowing its application to summon and examine a witness and place additional documents on record under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 311 confers discretion to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a witness at any stage of proceedings, and mandates such exercise where the evidence is essential to a just decision. The additional documents were found necessary for deciding the facts in issue, and their proof was necessary after they were permitted to be brought on record. The provision operates to secure truth and justice without favouring either side.

Conclusion: Costs could not be imposed on the department in the circumstances while granting its application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed on a finding that the proposed evidence is necessary for deciding the facts in issue, costs are unwarranted in the circumstances merely for permitting its production and proof.

Issues: (i) Whether a prescribed income-tax authority may issue a notice under Section 143(2) despite centralisation of the assessee's case with a designated Assessing Officer; and (ii) whether writ interference is warranted against notices issued under Section 142(1) at the information-gathering/show-cause stage.

Issue (i): Whether a prescribed income-tax authority may issue a notice under Section 143(2) despite centralisation of the assessee's case with a designated Assessing Officer.

Analysis: Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 recognises both the Assessing Officer and the prescribed income-tax authority as authorities empowered to issue a notice. Rule 12E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 enables the Board to prescribe such an authority. The prescribed status of the issuing authority was admitted, and the notification conferring that status was neither challenged nor shown to exclude the assessee's case. The expression "as the case may be" does not restrict a prescribed income-tax authority to a residual role or exclude its competence merely because the case is centralised with an Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: A duly prescribed income-tax authority may issue a notice under Section 143(2) notwithstanding centralisation of the case with an Assessing Officer; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether writ interference is warranted against notices issued under Section 142(1) at the information-gathering/show-cause stage.

Analysis: Notices under Section 142(1) seek information and do not determine liability or finally prejudice rights. The assessee has an opportunity to raise jurisdictional and factual objections in the assessment proceedings and, if required, through the statutory appellate framework. Writ jurisdiction is not intended to supervise preliminary steps in an assessment when effective statutory remedies remain available.

Conclusion: Writ interference at the preliminary information-gathering/show-cause stage is unwarranted; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Centralisation with an Assessing Officer does not displace the authority of a duly prescribed income-tax authority, and objections may be pursued through the assessment and statutory appellate framework.