Issues: (i) Whether road restoration charges paid to the PWD for restoration after pipeline-related road cutting constitute consideration for a taxable supply of service rather than compensatory damages; (ii) Whether the road restoration service qualifies as a non-supply or exempt sovereign-function activity under Article 243G or Article 243W of the Constitution of India and Notifications No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and 14/2017-Central Tax (Rate); (iii) Whether GST on the road restoration service was validly payable by the recipient under reverse charge and refundable on the ground of alleged double taxation; (iv) Whether refund sanctions issued by proper officers in other State jurisdictions bind the Tribunal or create res judicata; (v) Whether the refund rejection proceedings were invalid because of a vague show-cause notice, absence of a physical DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether road restoration charges paid to the PWD for restoration after pipeline-related road cutting constitute consideration for a taxable supply of service rather than compensatory damages.

Analysis: Section 2(31) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 gives consideration a broad scope, while Section 7(1) covers services supplied for consideration. The payment arose from a voluntary, pre-arranged request for permission to cut public roads and for their physical restoration, with charges determined by the extent of excavation and repair. This established reciprocal, fee-for-service performance, unlike damages for a unilateral breach or injury.

Conclusion: Road restoration charges constitute consideration for a taxable supply of service and not compensatory damages. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the road restoration service qualifies as a non-supply or exempt sovereign-function activity under Article 243G or Article 243W of the Constitution of India and Notifications No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and 14/2017-Central Tax (Rate).

Analysis: Section 7(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 were invoked for activities connected with functions entrusted to local bodies. Routine public-road upkeep differs from customised repair work undertaken on request for a business entity's commercial pipeline project. The expression "in relation to" could not be expansively applied to override the restrictive conditions governing exemptions, including the exclusion for services supplied to business entities under Entry 6(d) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Conclusion: The request-driven road restoration service is neither protected as a non-supply sovereign function nor exempt from GST. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether GST on the road restoration service was validly payable by the recipient under reverse charge and refundable on the ground of alleged double taxation.

Analysis: Entry 5 of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 places the reverse-charge liability on a business entity receiving taxable services from the Government or a local authority. No clear evidence established that the service provider had issued a GST invoice or deposited GST under forward charge for the particular transaction. The statutory reverse-charge obligation could not be displaced by a general allegation of revenue neutrality or double taxation.

Conclusion: GST was validly payable under reverse charge and the amount so paid was not refundable. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether refund sanctions issued by proper officers in other State jurisdictions bind the Tribunal or create res judicata.

Analysis: A refund sanction issued by a proper officer in another State jurisdiction is not a binding judicial precedent and does not operate as res judicata against an independent appellate determination. An administrative order inconsistent with the applicable statutory conditions cannot control the application of the GST provisions in the present matter.

Conclusion: Refund sanctions in other States did not bind the Tribunal or entitle the assessee to a similar refund. The issue is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the refund rejection proceedings were invalid because of a vague show-cause notice, absence of a physical DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The show-cause notice sufficiently identified the factual and legal basis for denying the claimed non-supply treatment, and the detailed reply demonstrated that no prejudice or surprise resulted. The proceedings were conducted through the authenticated GST portal, where the application, notice, response and orders were electronically generated and available. The absence of a physical DIN did not undermine the identity, source, integrity or authenticity of the electronic proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings were valid and did not violate principles of natural justice. The issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Payments for customised restoration of public roads undertaken for a business entity's commercial project remain taxable under the statutory reverse-charge framework, and the amount paid cannot be recovered as a refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A government authority's customised road-restoration work performed for consideration at the request of a business entity is a taxable supply, and public-function exclusions or exemptions cannot be extended to defeat the prescribed reverse-charge liability.

Issues: (i) Whether charges paid to a government department for request-driven restoration of roads cut for a business pipeline project constituted a taxable supply of services liable to Reverse Charge Mechanism, rather than compensatory damages or exempt/non-supply sovereign functions; (ii) Whether refund orders issued in other State jurisdictions bound the Tribunal; (iii) Whether the show-cause notice and refund adjudication were invalid for vagueness, absence of a physical Document Identification Number, or breach of principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether charges paid to a government department for request-driven restoration of roads cut for a business pipeline project constituted a taxable supply of services liable to Reverse Charge Mechanism, rather than compensatory damages or exempt/non-supply sovereign functions.

Analysis: The payment was made under a planned arrangement for permission to cut public roads and for targeted physical restoration thereafter. The restoration activity was a distinct service rendered for a fee calculated with reference to the work, establishing bilateral reciprocity and consideration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, rather than liquidated damages for a breach or unilateral injury. Routine public road maintenance as a sovereign function was distinguishable from a custom service provided to facilitate a business entity's commercial activity. Applying strict construction of exemption notifications, the public-function exclusions and exemptions did not extend to the targeted service supplied to a business entity. The applicable reverse charge notification placed the tax liability on the recipient, and no proof established payment of GST under a parallel forward-charge transaction.

Conclusion: The charges were consideration for a taxable supply of services, were liable to Reverse Charge Mechanism, and did not qualify for non-supply treatment or exemption; the refund was consequently inadmissible. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund orders issued in other State jurisdictions bound the Tribunal.

Analysis: A refund sanction by a proper officer in another State was an administrative determination and did not operate as binding precedent or res judicata against an independent appellate authority. Such orders could not displace the applicable statutory requirements.

Conclusion: Refund sanctions issued in other State jurisdictions did not bind the Tribunal or establish entitlement to refund. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the show-cause notice and refund adjudication were invalid for vagueness, absence of a physical Document Identification Number, or breach of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The notice adequately identified the factual and legal basis for denying the claim, and the detailed response demonstrated absence of surprise or prejudice. The refund proceedings, including notice, response and orders, were conducted through the authenticated electronic GST portal. In that setting, absence of a physical Document Identification Number did not undermine the identity, source, integrity or authenticity of the electronic documents, nor did it establish a breach of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The notice and electronic adjudication were valid, and the alleged procedural defects did not invalidate the proceedings. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory reverse-charge liability subsisted, and neither cross-jurisdictional administrative practice nor objections to the electronic adjudicatory process displaced it.

Ratio Decidendi: A government authority's targeted restoration of public roads for consideration at a business entity's request to facilitate commercial activity is a taxable supply, not a public-function non-supply or exemption, and is taxable under the applicable reverse-charge mechanism.

Issues: (i) Whether road-restoration charges paid to the PWD for repairing roads opened for the appellant's pipeline business constitute consideration for a taxable supply rather than compensatory damages; (ii) Whether request-driven road restoration for a business entity is excluded from supply or exempt as a function under Articles 243G and 243W, and whether the appellant must discharge GST under reverse charge; (iii) Whether favourable refund orders in other States or asserted prior tax payment eliminate reverse-charge liability; and (iv) Whether the show-cause notice and refund proceedings were invalid for vagueness, absence of physical DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether road-restoration charges paid to the PWD for repairing roads opened for the appellant's pipeline business constitute consideration for a taxable supply rather than compensatory damages.

Analysis: Sections 7(1) and 2(31) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cover a service supplied for consideration. The planned, request-based arrangement for permission to excavate public roads and their subsequent physical restoration created bilateral reciprocity: the charges were calculated for a specific restoration activity undertaken for the business entity. The payment was therefore distinguishable from liquidated damages or compensation arising from a unilateral wrongful act or contractual breach.

Conclusion: Road-restoration charges constituted consideration for a taxable supply of service and were not compensatory damages. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether request-driven road restoration for a business entity is excluded from supply or exempt as a function under Articles 243G and 243W, and whether the appellant must discharge GST under reverse charge.

Analysis: The non-supply treatment under Section 7(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax (Rate) applies to governmental activities performed as public functions. Routine maintenance of public roads for the community differs from targeted restoration undertaken at the request of a commercial entity to facilitate its private pipeline business. Further, Entry No. 6(d) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) excludes services supplied by Government or a local authority to business entities from the general exemption. Entry No. 5 of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) places the tax liability on the business recipient under reverse charge. Exemption provisions could not be expanded through the expression 'in relation to' to cover this commercial, fee-based service.

Conclusion: The activity was neither a non-supply nor an exempt governmental function, and GST was payable by the appellant under reverse charge. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether favourable refund orders in other States or asserted prior tax payment eliminate reverse-charge liability.

Analysis: Refund sanction orders of proper officers in other State jurisdictions neither operate as binding precedent nor create res judicata against an independent appellate determination. No clear proof established that the PWD had raised a formal GST invoice or discharged tax under forward charge for the same transaction. The statutory reverse-charge obligation could not be displaced on a claim of revenue neutrality or double taxation.

Conclusion: Other-State refund orders and the asserted prior tax payment did not extinguish reverse-charge liability. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the show-cause notice and refund proceedings were invalid for vagueness, absence of physical DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The notice sufficiently identified the basis for denying the benefit of Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax (Rate), and the detailed point-wise response demonstrated that no prejudice or surprise resulted. The proceedings, notices, replies, and orders were processed through the authenticated GST portal, establishing their source and integrity. The absence of a physical DIN did not invalidate the electronic adjudication or cause a breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The refund proceedings were valid and suffered from no procedural infirmity. The issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: GST paid under reverse charge on the road-restoration charges was lawfully payable, and the claimed refund was not available.

Ratio Decidendi: A Government authority's customised road-restoration service, undertaken for consideration at the request of a business entity to facilitate its commercial activity, is a taxable supply and does not receive the non-supply or public-function exemption applicable to general governmental road-maintenance functions.

Issues: (i) Whether road-restoration charges paid for permission to cut public roads constitute consideration for a taxable supply rather than compensatory damages; (ii) Whether request-driven road restoration for a business entity is excluded from supply or exempt as a function entrusted to local authorities under Articles 243G and 243W; (iii) Whether the recipient is liable to discharge GST under reverse charge notwithstanding an alleged duplicate tax incidence; (iv) Whether refund sanction orders issued for other State registrations bind the Tribunal; (v) Whether the show-cause notice and adjudication were invalid for vagueness, lack of DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether road-restoration charges paid for permission to cut public roads constitute consideration for a taxable supply rather than compensatory damages.

Analysis: The planned arrangement involved permission for road cutting and a separately quantified physical restoration service. The charges were paid in direct response to that service and possessed the requisite bilateral reciprocity to constitute consideration under the GST framework, unlike liquidated damages or compensation arising from a breach or unilateral wrongful act.

Conclusion: Road-restoration charges are consideration for a taxable supply of services, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether request-driven road restoration for a business entity is excluded from supply or exempt as a function entrusted to local authorities under Articles 243G and 243W.

Analysis: Routine maintenance of public roads forms part of governmental functions for public welfare. However, targeted restoration undertaken on the request of, and for consideration from, a business entity to facilitate its commercial pipeline activity is not covered by the non-supply treatment for functions under Articles 243G and 243W. The exemption notifications require strict construction, and services supplied by a government authority or local authority to a business entity are excluded from the general exemption.

Conclusion: Request-driven road restoration for a business entity is neither excluded from supply nor exempt, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the recipient is liable to discharge GST under reverse charge notwithstanding an alleged duplicate tax incidence.

Analysis: No evidence established that GST had been charged and deposited under forward charge for the particular service. The applicable reverse charge notification places the tax liability on the business recipient of taxable services supplied by a government authority or local authority; an unsubstantiated claim of double taxation cannot displace that statutory mechanism.

Conclusion: GST was payable by the recipient under reverse charge, against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether refund sanction orders issued for other State registrations bind the Tribunal.

Analysis: Refund orders of proper officers in other State jurisdictions do not operate as binding precedent or res judicata for an independent adjudication. A contrary administrative decision cannot override the applicable statutory conditions.

Conclusion: Parallel refund sanction orders do not bind the Tribunal, against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the show-cause notice and adjudication were invalid for vagueness, lack of DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The notice adequately identified the factual and legal basis for denial, and the detailed response demonstrated the absence of surprise or prejudice. The authenticated electronic adjudication workflow established the identity, source, and integrity of the notice and orders; absence of a physical DIN did not undermine the validity of the proceedings or principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The electronic proceedings were valid and were not vitiated by vagueness, absence of a physical DIN, or breach of natural justice, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The GST discharged on the road-restoration charges was a valid reverse-charge payment, and no refund was available under the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A request-specific road-restoration service supplied by a government authority to a business entity for consideration is a taxable supply subject to reverse charge, and does not attract exclusions or exemptions meant for governmental public-welfare functions.

Issues: (i) Whether road-restoration charges paid to the PWD under a request-driven arrangement constituted consideration for a taxable supply subject to reverse charge; (ii) Whether the service was excluded as a non-supply or exempt as an activity related to functions under Articles 243G and 243W; (iii) Whether refund sanctions in other States or an asserted prior tax payment negated reverse-charge liability; and (iv) Whether the SCN and adjudication were invalid for vagueness, absence of a DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether road-restoration charges paid to the PWD under a request-driven arrangement constituted consideration for a taxable supply subject to reverse charge.

Analysis: Sections 7(1) and 2(31) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 encompass services supplied for consideration. The payment followed a voluntary application for permission to excavate public roads for a commercial pipeline project, and the PWD undertook a specific physical restoration activity calculated with reference to the work required. This established direct transactional reciprocity, rather than compensation for a unilateral wrongful act or liquidated damages.

Conclusion: The road-restoration charges constituted consideration for a taxable supply of services, and GST was payable by the recipient under reverse charge. This finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the service was excluded as a non-supply or exempt as an activity related to functions under Articles 243G and 243W.

Analysis: Routine upkeep of public roads for the community may be a public-authority function. However, targeted restoration undertaken at the request of, and for the commercial benefit of, a specific business entity was not a sovereign public-welfare activity. The expression "in relation to" could not enlarge the non-supply or exemption provisions beyond their text, particularly where Entry 6(d) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) excludes services supplied by Government or a local authority to business entities.

Conclusion: The restoration service was neither a non-supply nor an exempt public-function service under the constitutional-function provisions or the cited notifications. This finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether refund sanctions in other States or an asserted prior tax payment negated reverse-charge liability.

Analysis: A refund sanction by a proper officer in another State did not operate as a binding precedent or res judicata. Further, no clear evidence established that the PWD had issued a GST invoice or deposited tax under forward charge for the particular transaction. The statutory reverse-charge mechanism could not be displaced by an unsubstantiated claim of dual taxation or revenue neutrality.

Conclusion: Neither refund orders in other jurisdictions nor the asserted prior payment of tax negated the reverse-charge liability or supported the refund claim. This finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the SCN and adjudication were invalid for vagueness, absence of a DIN, or breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The notice sufficiently disclosed the factual and legal basis for denying the refund, and the detailed reply demonstrated that there was no surprise or prejudice. The refund proceedings, notice, replies, and order were issued and maintained through the authenticated electronic GST portal. In those circumstances, absence of a physical DIN did not impair the identity, integrity, or authenticity of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not invalid for vagueness, absence of a DIN, or breach of natural justice. This finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reverse-charge payment on the request-specific road-restoration service was lawfully payable, and no refund entitlement arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A Government authority's request-specific road-restoration service supplied to facilitate a business entity's commercial activity for a fee is a taxable supply for consideration and does not obtain non-supply or exemption treatment as a sovereign public-function activity.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could invoke Rule 27 to support the appellate order by challenging the validity of the reassessment; and (ii) Whether reassessment for AY 2013-14 could be initiated under Section 148 where the alleged escaped income arose solely from search material and the year fell within the extended search-assessment regime of Section 153A.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could invoke Rule 27 to support the appellate order by challenging the validity of the reassessment.

Analysis: Rule 27 permits a respondent that has not filed an appeal or cross-objection to support the appellate order on a ground decided against it. The assessee was therefore entitled to raise the jurisdictional objection while defending the order under challenge.

Conclusion: The Rule 27 application was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment for AY 2013-14 could be initiated under Section 148 where the alleged escaped income arose solely from search material and the year fell within the extended search-assessment regime of Section 153A.

Analysis: The recorded reasons and assessment record showed that reopening was founded entirely on material gathered during the search, with no independent material obtained thereafter. Section 153A, commencing with a non obstante clause and using the mandatory expression "shall", constitutes the exclusive machinery for assessment or reassessment following a search and overrides Sections 147 and 148. AY 2013-14 fell within the extended relevant assessment year under the fourth proviso and Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1). The alleged income represented assets exceeding the prescribed monetary threshold, and the conditions for invoking the extended Section 153A regime stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The Section 148 notice and consequential reassessment were void ab initio for want of jurisdiction; the assessment could only have been made under the extended Section 153A procedure.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment framed pursuant to the invalid notice could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is founded solely on material obtained in a search, Section 153A provides the exclusive assessment mechanism, including for extended relevant assessment years satisfying its statutory conditions, and recourse to Section 148 is without jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether an additional disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income could be computed under rule 8D without cogent recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's voluntary disallowance; (ii) Whether depreciation for assessment year 2020-21 was allowable on goodwill, brands and distribution network identified and acquired for consideration upon demerger, although such intangibles were not recorded in the demerged company's books or block of assets; (iii) Whether the claim for deduction under section 80G required consideration after the assessment resulted in positive gross total income.

Issue (i): Whether an additional disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income could be computed under rule 8D without cogent recorded dissatisfaction with the assessee's voluntary disallowance.

Analysis: Section 14A(2) and rule 8D(1) permit application of the prescribed computation only after recording satisfaction, having regard to the accounts, that the assessee's claim is incorrect. The 2016 amendment altered the formula under rule 8D but did not remove that prerequisite. A statement that the voluntary computation was not in accordance with rule 8D did not constitute cogent dissatisfaction with the computation or the accounts.

Conclusion: The additional disallowance under section 14A is deleted and the disallowance is limited to the amount voluntarily offered by the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether depreciation for assessment year 2020-21 was allowable on goodwill, brands and distribution network identified and acquired for consideration upon demerger, although such intangibles were not recorded in the demerged company's books or block of assets.

Analysis: A tax-neutral demerger does not negate the resulting company's acquisition of identified intangible assets for apportioned consideration. Section 32 permits depreciation on acquired intangible assets used for business. The sixth proviso to section 32(1), Explanation 7A to section 43(1), and Explanation 2B to section 43(6) restrict depreciation, actual cost, or written down value only for assets already forming part of the demerged company's block of assets; they do not apply to intangibles first identified upon demerger and absent from that block. Depreciation cannot be made conditional upon capital-gains taxation of the transferor. Binding precedent treating goodwill arising on business reorganisation as a depreciable asset applies. The Finance Act, 2021 exclusion of goodwill from depreciation operates prospectively from assessment year 2021-22 and does not affect the relevant year; it also does not extend to brands and distribution network.

Conclusion: Depreciation on the goodwill, brands and distribution network arising on demerger is allowable for assessment year 2020-21, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim for deduction under section 80G required consideration after the assessment resulted in positive gross total income.

Analysis: The donations, the eligible deduction, and supporting particulars were disclosed in the tax audit report, return schedule, and computation. The claim was not entered under Chapter VIA because the returned computation reflected losses. Once assessment adjustments produced positive gross total income, the statutory deduction required consideration.

Conclusion: The section 80G claim is remitted to the Assessing Officer for determination in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessment must retain only the voluntary exempt-income disallowance and allow depreciation on the demerger-created intangibles for the relevant assessment year, while the donation deduction claim requires lawful fresh determination.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment founded exclusively on an alleged withholding-tax default and resulting disallowance could continue after the assessee was found not to be an assessee-in-default; and (ii) Whether an unspecified alternative basis could sustain such reassessment after the stated basis failed.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment founded exclusively on an alleged withholding-tax default and resulting disallowance could continue after the assessee was found not to be an assessee-in-default.

Analysis: The determination in proceedings under Sections 195 and 201 established that the payee had no tax liability, that no withholding-tax obligation arose, and that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee-in-default. The proposed disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was solely consequential to the alleged failure to deduct tax. That foundation for reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was therefore untenable.

Conclusion: Reassessment based on the alleged withholding-tax default and consequential disallowance was unenforceable.

Issue (ii): Whether an unspecified alternative basis could sustain such reassessment after the stated basis failed.

Analysis: The reassessment notice identified only the alleged default under Section 201 and the resulting disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) as the basis for income escaping assessment. An alternative ground not forming part of that stated basis could not subsequently be used to sustain the reassessment.

Conclusion: No unspecified alternative ground could support the reassessment after its disclosed basis failed.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings for the relevant assessment years were required to be closed as unenforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is initiated solely on an alleged withholding-tax default, a binding finding that no withholding obligation or assessee-in-default status exists renders the consequential disallowance and reassessment unsustainable; undisclosed alternative grounds cannot cure that failure.

Issues: Whether dupatta is classifiable as exempt woven fabric under Entries 3 to 10 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule rather than as fibres under Entry 49 of Part B of the First Schedule.

Analysis: The applicable framework requires goods to be placed in the entry that most appropriately describes their functionality and appearance. Dupatta comprises woven fabric and cannot fall within an entry confined to fibres. Its specified length does not displace its character as fabric. Under the specific-entry principle, residual classification is available only where no scheduled entry specifically covers the goods; the woven-fabric entries are the appropriate entries for dupattas according to their material.

Conclusion: Dupatta is classifiable under Entries 3 to 10 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule and is exempt from tax; classification under Entry 49 of Part B of the First Schedule is incorrect.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated where the entire payment had already been disallowed and no income prima facie remained to have escaped assessment.

Analysis: The earlier disallowance of the total payment prima facie left no income escaping assessment, indicating an absence of the jurisdictional fact necessary to invoke reassessment proceedings.

Outcome: Notice issued and reassessment proceedings stayed pending final hearing.

Issues: Whether investments in plant and machinery of two industrial units under the same ownership, situated at different locations, could be clubbed to determine their status as micro and small enterprises for concessional Central sales tax.

Analysis: The concessional-tax notification extended the benefit to dealers enjoying the status of a micro or small enterprise under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The subsequent explanation expressly provided that investments in plant and machinery of different enterprises under the same ownership shall not be clubbed. The explanation was treated as clarificatory of the applicable classification. The material did not establish mutuality of business interest, common funding, or financial flow-back between the two separately situated units. Common ownership alone was insufficient to justify non-clubbing of investments. An exemption notification is to be liberally applied once the prescribed eligibility conditions are fulfilled.

Conclusion: The two units were required to be treated as separate enterprises, and their investments could not be clubbed; the assessee was entitled to the concessional-tax benefit.

Issues: Whether an ex parte adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was served only through the common portal after cancellation of the taxpayer's registration.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were initiated through a show-cause notice uploaded only on the common portal. Following cancellation of registration, the taxpayer could reasonably remain unaware of proceedings conducted through that portal. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P.'s circular requiring physical service of notice in post-cancellation adjudication proceedings recognised this practical impediment and was binding upon subordinate authorities.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order was set aside, with liberty to submit a reply and seek cross-examination or relied-upon documents; fresh adjudication was directed after adequate prior notice of personal hearing.

Issues: Whether the net eligible GST refund could be appropriated against demands under challenge after payment of the prescribed 20% pre-deposit and the resulting statutory stay of recovery.

Analysis: Sections 112(8) and 112(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 require the prescribed pre-deposit for an appeal before the Tribunal and provide for stay of recovery of the balance demand. The assessee had paid 10% at the first-appellate stage and a further 10%, and had filed its Tribunal appeal. The CBIC Circular dated 11.07.2024 also clarified that recovery remains stayed upon payment of the prescribed pre-deposit. Consequently, recovery of the balance demand for the relevant financial years was stayed, and adjustment of the determined refund against that demand was impermissible.

Conclusion: The net eligible refund of Rs.64,01,750 could not be appropriated against the disputed demand; the appropriation was required to be reversed and the amount restored to the assessee.

Issues: Whether car radio units imported as completely built units or as unassembled semi-knocked-down kits are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8527 21 00.

Analysis: The units are automotive infotainment apparatus designed for installation in motor vehicles, dependent on the vehicle's external power supply, and equipped with FM/AM radio reception and integrated sound-reproducing functionality through an amplifier and connection to vehicle speakers. Their touchscreen, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, USB, camera-input, audio/video playback and phone-mirroring functions are integrated or ancillary features and do not displace their essential character as motor-vehicle radio-broadcast receivers. The specific tariff description under Heading 8527 therefore applies. The SKD components, when imported together, comprise the principal components of the unit and require only simple fastening, limited soldering, testing and configuration after import. They consequently possess the essential character of the finished unit and are to be treated as the complete article under Rule 2(a).

Conclusion: Car radio units imported as CBU units or as SKD kits possessing the essential character of the finished unit are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8527 21 00, subject to compliance with applicable BIS certification requirements at import.

Issues: Whether ex parte adjudication under Section 73 based solely on notices uploaded to the common portal could be sustained after cancellation of the assessee's registration.

Analysis: In proceedings under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, portal-only service was treated as inadequate in the post-cancellation context, particularly where physical-mode service had already been regarded as necessary in the earlier proceedings. Repetition of the same mode of service deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to respond and violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte Section 73 adjudication orders were set aside, with an opportunity to file a reply and undergo fresh adjudication.

Issues: Whether initiation of proceedings under Section 74 on the turnover already subjected to audit and discharged by the taxpayer warranted interim protection.

Analysis: The audit material and closure intimation indicated that tax liability on the relevant turnover had been discharged. The subsequent Section 74 action treated the turnover adjustment as wilful misstatement. Prima facie, the material did not demonstrate satisfaction of the statutory conditions of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax required for invoking Section 74.

Outcome: Notice was issued and coercive action pursuant to the Section 74 order was restrained until the next hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether road-restoration charges paid for request-driven road repairs facilitating a business pipeline project constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are excluded from the claimed non-supply or exemption treatment; (ii) Whether GST on those charges is payable by the recipient under reverse charge and whether the tax is refundable under Section 54; (iii) Whether the absence of a physical DIN and the alleged vagueness of the refund notice invalidate the electronic adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether road-restoration charges paid for request-driven road repairs facilitating a business pipeline project constitute consideration for a taxable supply and are excluded from the claimed non-supply or exemption treatment.

Analysis: Sections 7(1) and 2(31) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cover a planned arrangement under which permission to cut a public road is followed by specifically quantified restoration work for a fee. The payment had direct reciprocal nexus with the road-repair service and was not liquidated damages or unilateral compensation for breach. Although routine public-road maintenance may constitute a sovereign function under Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution of India, customised restoration undertaken at the request of a business entity to facilitate its commercial project was not a public utility service for the general populace. The non-supply treatment under Section 7(2)(b) and Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax (Rate), and the exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), were unavailable. Strict construction of exemption notifications also applied, particularly because Serial No. 6(d) excludes services supplied by Government or a local authority to a business entity from the general exemption.

Conclusion: The road-restoration charges are consideration for a taxable supply and do not qualify for non-supply or exemption treatment. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GST on those charges is payable by the recipient under reverse charge and whether the tax is refundable under Section 54.

Analysis: Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 13/2017-Central Tax (Rate) places the reverse charge liability on a business entity receiving taxable services from Government or a local authority. No evidence established that tax on the specific service had been charged and deposited under forward charge. The statutory reverse charge mechanism could not be displaced by an assertion of double taxation or revenue neutrality.

Conclusion: GST was correctly payable by the recipient under reverse charge, and no refund of that tax is available under Section 54. The finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a physical DIN and the alleged vagueness of the refund notice invalidate the electronic adjudication.

Analysis: The notice sufficiently disclosed the factual and legal basis concerning the taxability of request-driven commercial road restoration, and the detailed reply demonstrated absence of prejudice. The application, notice, reply, and orders were processed through the authenticated GST portal, establishing their source, integrity, and authenticity. The absence of a physical DIN did not occasion a breach of principles of natural justice or invalidate the electronic proceedings.

Conclusion: The electronic adjudication remains valid despite the absence of a physical DIN, and the procedural objections fail. The finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Payments for the customised restoration of public roads undertaken to enable a business project remain subject to GST under reverse charge, with no substantive or procedural basis to disturb the rejection of the refund claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment for customised road restoration undertaken by a Government authority at the request of a business entity is consideration for a taxable service and is outside the public-function non-supply and exemption treatment, making the recipient liable under reverse charge.

Issues: Whether reopening the assessment for the relevant assessment year was sustainable where the alleged unsecured loans had been received in the preceding assessment year and only interest entries appeared during the year under consideration.

Analysis: Reassessment under Section 148, following the procedure under Section 148A, requires material indicating income chargeable to tax that escaped assessment in the assessment year sought to be reopened. The undisputed records showed that the unsecured loans had been availed in the preceding year and disclosed in the ledger, whereas only interest expenditure was credited during the relevant year. The amounts stated as unsecured loans in the reopening material also did not correspond with the interest amount reflected in the ledger.

Conclusion: The reopening for the relevant assessment year lacked a sustainable basis, as the alleged loan transactions did not pertain to that year. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated on the premise that Bitcoin transactions were not disclosed, when the assessee had disclosed the relevant sales, purchases, stocks and income in the return and supporting material.

Analysis: Sections 148 and 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 require the formation of a valid basis for treating income as having escaped assessment. The return, the reply to the show-cause notice and the reconciliation statement disclosed the cryptocurrency sale transactions, purchases, opening and closing stock, and resulting income. The absence of a separate reporting head for cryptocurrency transactions in the return form did not establish non-disclosure. The premise that the Bitcoin transactions had not been disclosed was therefore factually incorrect.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment on the capital loss arising from sale of immovable properties could be initiated after scrutiny assessment without any fresh tangible material.

Analysis: The original scrutiny proceedings specifically sought details concerning the sale consideration, capital gains or loss, purchase deeds, co-owners' shares and supporting land records. The assessee furnished the requisite material, and the assessment completed under Section 143(3) accepted the disclosed long-term capital loss. The subsequent reopening concerned the same transactions and computation, without any fresh tangible material or information indicating escapement of income. It was therefore founded solely on a change of opinion.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and notice were invalid as they were based on a mere change of opinion and were quashed.