Issues: (i) Whether, during 2017-18, receipt of supplier credit notes by itself required the recipient to reverse input tax credit; and (ii) Whether excess IGST paid while correcting the credit-note treatment could be adjusted against CGST and SGST liabilities in the December 2017 GSTR-3B.

Issue (i): Whether, during 2017-18, receipt of supplier credit notes by itself required the recipient to reverse input tax credit.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 then regulated reduction of the supplier's output tax liability and did not impose a corresponding mandatory reversal of input tax credit on the recipient. The matching mechanism under Section 43 was never operationalised, while Rule 37 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 applied only where the recipient failed to pay the supplier within 180 days. The later amendment expressly linking the supplier's credit note to reversal by the recipient could not govern the period in dispute.

Conclusion: During 2017-18, a supplier's credit note did not, by itself, create a statutory obligation for the recipient to reverse input tax credit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether excess IGST paid while correcting the credit-note treatment could be adjusted against CGST and SGST liabilities in the December 2017 GSTR-3B.

Analysis: Circular No. 26/26/2017-GST permitted correction of past-period errors on a net basis in the GSTR-3B for the period in which the error was noticed. Although an excess IGST amount could ordinarily be adjusted against future IGST liability or claimed as refund under Section 54, a refund of tax discharged through the electronic credit ledger would, under Rule 92(1A), be recredited as IGST input tax credit. Such recredited IGST credit was capable of prescribed cross-utilisation for CGST and SGST under Section 49. The direct cross-head adjustment bypassed that procedure, but was a bona fide procedural lapse during the initial GST period and caused no revenue loss.

Conclusion: The direct adjustment was procedurally irregular but, being bona fide and revenue-neutral, did not sustain recovery of tax, interest or penalty, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed fiscal liability arising from the credit-note correction and wrong-head adjustment cannot be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether suspension of the customs broker licence was justified on allegations of breach of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(m) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018; (ii) Whether continuation of the suspension without initiating action within the prescribed timeframe under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 rendered the suspension unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether suspension of the customs broker licence was justified on allegations of breach of Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(m) and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.

Analysis: Regulations 10(d), 10(e), 10(m) and 10(n) require a customs broker to exercise prescribed diligence, but a breach cannot rest on general or unsubstantiated allegations. The customs broker had obtained statutory identification and KYC documents, did not proceed with clearance after departmental instructions, and no evidence established collusion, knowledge of misdeclaration, or a specific contravention of the Regulations. A customs broker is not required to physically verify the importer's premises or independently determine the transaction value of imported goods.

Conclusion: The suspension was unwarranted and the issue is decided in favour of the appellant customs broker.

Issue (ii): Whether continuation of the suspension without initiating action within the prescribed timeframe under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 rendered the suspension unsustainable.

Analysis: The statutory timelines governing proceedings against a customs broker are mandatory. Suspension cannot be continued indefinitely without the timely initiation and completion of the prescribed procedure. No show-cause notice under the licensing regulations had been issued despite the prolonged suspension.

Conclusion: The continued suspension was procedurally unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the appellant customs broker.

Final Conclusion: The suspension orders have no continuing legal effect, with consequential relief following in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspension of a customs broker licence requires evidence of a specific regulatory breach and strict adherence to mandatory timelines; unsubstantiated findings and prolonged suspension without timely statutory action cannot sustain the measure.

Issues: (i) Whether the available CENVAT credit balance could be adjusted against the confirmed service-tax demands and consequential interest; (ii) Whether penalty was imposable for failure to file ST-3 returns and disclose taxable services.

Issue (i): Whether the available CENVAT credit balance could be adjusted against the confirmed service-tax demands and consequential interest.

Analysis: The appellant had a sufficient CENVAT credit balance as on 30 June 2017 to meet the liabilities arising under both show-cause notices. The availability of such credit did not excuse the failure to file service-tax returns, but the credit balance was available for adjustment against the confirmed service-tax liabilities.

Conclusion: The CENVAT credit balance was permitted to be adjusted against the service-tax demands; consequently, no service-tax demand or interest remained payable.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was imposable for failure to file ST-3 returns and disclose taxable services.

Analysis: The appellant had not filed the ST-3 returns within time and had not declared the taxable services. These defaults warranted penal consequences despite adjustment of the tax liability through available credit.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 78 was sustained but reduced to 25% of the service tax payable.

Final Conclusion: The available CENVAT credit extinguished the tax and interest consequences of the confirmed demands, while a reduced statutory penalty remained payable for non-compliance with return-filing and disclosure obligations.

Issues: Whether contract manufacture of alcoholic liquor for a brand owner was liable to service tax for the disputed periods.

Analysis: Under the Negative List Regime, with effect from 1 June 2015, alcoholic liquor for human consumption was excluded from the exclusion available to processes amounting to manufacture or production of goods. Binding Precedent distinguished manufacture by and for oneself from Contract Manufacturing or Job Work undertaken for another person for consideration; the latter constitutes a taxable service. The authorities relied on by the appellant did not address the applicable negative-list framework and were therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: Contract manufacture of alcoholic liquor for a brand owner constituted a taxable service, and service tax was payable on the activity.

Outcome: The writ petition was allowed; the impugned original and appellate orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration from the show-cause-notice stage.

Issues: Whether an assessment order based on a show-cause notice uploaded only on the GST portal after cancellation of registration, and passed without a personal hearing, is sustainable.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an effective opportunity of personal hearing. Uploading a notice on the portal is a valid mode of service; however, where repeated portal notices receive no response, the proper officer must explore other modes of service available under Section 169(1), particularly when the registration has been cancelled. Passing an ex parte assessment without taking reasonable steps to ensure effective service, and without affording a personal hearing, amounts to a breach of principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order passed without effective notice and personal hearing is unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration should be set aside and a further opportunity granted to seek revocation of registration.

Analysis: Having regard to the stated reasons for the failure to pursue available remedies and the difficulties faced by assessees who are not technically equipped, a further opportunity was considered appropriate. The relief was conditioned on applying for revocation, furnishing proposed returns, payment of due taxes, and substantiating the intended place of business.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside, with directions for consideration of the revocation application and restoration of registration if the request is accepted.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under sections 148A and 148 could be initiated on the basis of material found during a search conducted before 1 April 2021, instead of invoking the search-assessment mechanism under sections 153A/153C.

Analysis: The statutory saving under section 149 preserves the search-assessment regime for searches initiated on or before 31 March 2021. Since the search was conducted on 11 April 2017, the jurisdictional route available on the basis of the search material was under sections 153A/153C. Reassessment under sections 147/148 may be invoked only on material independently obtained after the search, subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions; it cannot replace the prescribed search-assessment procedure for incriminating material found in the search.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148A(b), the order under section 148A(d), and the consequential notice under section 148 were without jurisdiction and were quashed.

Issues: (i) Whether BNR Udyog Ltd., Firstsource Solutions Ltd., HCL Technologies Ltd. and Fortune Infotech Ltd. should be excluded as comparables because of significant related-party transactions; (ii) Whether the assessee could seek exclusion of comparables originally selected in its transfer-pricing study; (iii) Whether Maple Esolutions Ltd., Triton Corp Ltd., Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Ltd., Wipro Ltd. and Iservices India Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded because of material differences affecting comparability.

Issue (i): Whether BNR Udyog Ltd., Firstsource Solutions Ltd., HCL Technologies Ltd. and Fortune Infotech Ltd. should be excluded as comparables because of significant related-party transactions.

Analysis: A related party transaction filter serves to exclude an uncontrolled entity whose operating profitability may be materially influenced by controlled dealings. The filter is not confined to related-party sales, since related-party operating costs and other operating transactions may also affect the net margin. The verified related-party transaction percentages of the disputed entities substantially exceeded the 25% threshold applied in the comparability analysis, and no factual error in the underlying financial data was established.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the four related-party transaction comparables is sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could seek exclusion of comparables originally selected in its transfer-pricing study.

Analysis: The prior remand expressly required adjudication of the assessee's challenge to those comparables. A comparability analysis under Rule 10B is directed at determining a reliable arm's length price; initial selection of an entity does not prevent its exclusion where subsequent examination establishes that it fails the applicable comparability parameters. There is no estoppel against determination of the correct arm's length price.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to seek exclusion of the originally selected comparables, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Maple Esolutions Ltd., Triton Corp Ltd., Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Ltd., Wipro Ltd. and Iservices India Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded because of material differences affecting comparability.

Analysis: Rules 10B(2) and 10B(3) require evaluation of functions performed, assets employed, risks assumed, and other factors materially affecting profitability. Maple Esolutions Ltd. and Triton Corp Ltd. had unreliable or abnormal financial results arising from an acquisition and extraordinary growth. Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Ltd. reflected a materially different outsourcing model and unreliable segmental profitability due to unallocated corporate expenses. Wipro Ltd. had diversified operations, substantial product revenue, significant scale and valuable brand intangibles, unlike a contact-centre service provider. Iservices India Pvt. Ltd. rendered diversified and higher-end web, hosting, domain and email-management services, with no reliable segmental data isolating any comparable activity. TNMM tolerates only differences that do not materially affect net margins or can be neutralised through reliable adjustments.

Conclusion: The exclusion of Maple Esolutions Ltd., Triton Corp Ltd., Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Ltd., Wipro Ltd. and Iservices India Pvt. Ltd. is sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arm's length price is to be determined without the excluded entities through a comparability analysis compliant with Rule 10B.

Ratio Decidendi: Under TNMM, an entity cannot be retained as a comparable where controlled transactions, material functional or business-model differences, extraordinary events, valuable intangibles, or unreliable segmental results materially affect profitability and cannot be neutralised by reliable adjustments.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 271G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could survive after the transfer-pricing adjustment forming its basis had been deleted in the quantum proceedings.

Analysis: An identical penalty on substantially similar facts for an earlier assessment year had been deleted, and that deletion had been sustained. The quantum addition underlying the impugned penalty had also been deleted and the deletion affirmed. Since the foundation for the penalty no longer existed, the same approach was applied consistently.

Conclusion: The deletion of penalty under Section 271G was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment-initiation steps could be sustained when the computation and material supporting the alleged undisclosed turnover, and other adverse propositions, were not disclosed before the determination under Section 148A(3).

Analysis: The statutory process requires that the assessee be notified of the definite information and propositions proposed to be relied upon and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before a determination leading to reassessment proceedings. The notice identified alleged undisclosed turnover, but did not disclose its computation. The response explained that bank credits could not automatically be treated as turnover and offered further particulars. The subsequent determination additionally relied on allegations concerning use of firms for parking or rotating funds, unsecured loans, expenses and accounting practices, none of which formed part of the show-cause notice or was supported by disclosed material. Proceeding without supplying these details would convert reassessment into a roving enquiry. Approval is to be granted after examination of all relevant material.

Conclusion: The impugned reassessment-initiation order, approval and notice could not stand without disclosure of the computation and supporting material and a fresh reasonable opportunity to respond; the matter requires reconsideration in accordance with that process.

Issues: Whether an order treating a case as fit for reassessment under Section 148A(3) and the consequent notice under Section 148 could be sustained without examining the assessee's explanation and supporting material regarding the alleged undisclosed turnover.

Analysis: Section 148A(3) requires consideration of the response and documents furnished before forming an opinion that the case is fit for reassessment. The material explaining that the impugned credits comprised cash deposits, capital transactions, unsecured loans and advances towards land sales required examination to determine whether they constituted business turnover. A bare reference to absence of reconciliation and documentary evidence, without first undertaking that examination and recording cogent reasons, did not meet this requirement.

Conclusion: The order under Section 148A(3) and the consequent notice under Section 148 could not stand and were set aside for fresh consideration after due consideration of the explanation and material furnished.

Issues: Whether the contractor was entitled under Clause 42.1 of the contracts to reimbursement of CGST and SGST paid in relation to the contracted works.

Analysis: Clause 42.1 obligated reimbursement of Central and State sales and other taxes paid by the contractor upon proof of payment. The undisputed GSTR-3B documents established payment of CGST and SGST. The contractual clause remained binding notwithstanding the absence of Part-II of Schedule-A, since that omission was attributable to the department that drafted the agreement. Denial of reimbursement despite proof of payment was arbitrary, illegal and inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which requires fairness in governmental contractual dealings.

Conclusion: The contractor was entitled to reimbursement of the CGST and SGST paid under the subject contracts, with interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of tax payment.

Issues: (i) Whether the original directors could be summoned to disclose assets under Section 477(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, notwithstanding an earlier order; (ii) Whether fresh e-bidding for Lot No. 1 was required because technical glitches prevented genuine bidders from participating.

Issue (i): Whether the original directors could be summoned to disclose assets under Section 477(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, notwithstanding an earlier order.

Analysis: Section 477(1) empowers the competent forum, after appointment of a provisional liquidator or a winding-up order, to summon persons suspected of possessing company property or capable of providing information concerning its affairs. The earlier order had addressed the request with reference to Section 454(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, without considering Section 477(1). Consequently, the present exercise of power under Section 477(1) was not barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: The original directors shall be summoned to disclose, by personal affidavits, their movable and immovable assets, including assets acquired after the debentures were floated.

Issue (ii): Whether fresh e-bidding for Lot No. 1 was required because technical glitches prevented genuine bidders from participating.

Analysis: The acknowledged technical lag on the e-bidding platform had prevented certain bidders from participating. Direct acceptance of an individual bid could prejudice creditors and debenture holders, whereas a fresh bidding process would permit fair participation and protect the liquidation estate.

Conclusion: Fresh e-bidding proceedings for Lot No. 1 shall be initiated within the stipulated period.

Final Conclusion: Asset disclosures from the original directors and a renewed bidding process were directed to safeguard the interests of the company's creditors and debenture holders.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue the pending application before the NCLT in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether a service-tax demand for the extended period can be sustained solely on Form 26AS and income-tax return data without independent corroborative evidence of taxable services.

Analysis: Service-tax liability cannot be established merely from data received from the Income Tax Department. Form 26AS and income-tax returns do not, by themselves, prove the rendition of taxable services or the taxable value thereof. Independent evidence corroborating the nature of receipts and taxable services is necessary; mechanical reliance on such income-tax data is insufficient.

Conclusion: The demand for the extended period is unsustainable for want of corroborative evidence. Any service tax and interest lawfully payable for the normal period remains recoverable.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on furnace oil used in a captive power plant for generating electricity supplied to the grinding unit and jetty; and (ii) whether penalties under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on furnace oil used in a captive power plant for generating electricity supplied to the grinding unit and jetty.

Analysis: Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the CENVAT credit scheme were applied in light of the accepted factual finding that the clinker unit, grinding unit and jetty formed part of the manufacture of the assessee's final products. The electricity generated by the captive power plant was supplied exclusively to those units and was neither sold nor diverted to outsiders. The distance between the units and their separate registration did not affect eligibility. Inputs could be directly used for producing intermediate electricity through a job-work arrangement, and failure to follow the prescribed procedure was only a procedural irregularity that could not defeat the substantive credit benefit.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on furnace oil used to generate electricity supplied to the grinding unit and jetty was admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the assessee was substantively entitled to the disputed CENVAT credit, the foundation for imposing penalty did not survive.

Conclusion: The penalties under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Credit entitlement extends to inputs used for captive generation of electricity consumed in the connected manufacturing units and jetty where the electricity is not sold or diverted outside the manufacturing operations.

Ratio Decidendi: CENVAT credit cannot be denied for inputs used to generate electricity outside the immediate factory premises when the electricity is captively consumed in manufacturing final products, and a procedural lapse in following job-work formalities does not defeat substantive entitlement.

Issues: Whether an assessment confirming the show-cause proposals without the petitioner having availed a personal hearing warranted setting aside and fresh consideration.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires an effective personal hearing. Although hearing opportunities had been notified, the petitioner could not participate due to ill health and the failure of its consultant to attend the enquiry. The assessment was consequently passed by confirming the show-cause proposals without hearing the petitioner, offending the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order could not stand and required fresh adjudication after an effective opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: Whether a final electronic assessment passed without considering the assessee's timely response to the draft assessment order violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The assessment was made under the electronic-assessment framework in Sections 143(3), 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The record established that the response was uploaded within the stipulated time, acknowledged on the e-filing portal, and confirmed by departmental email. The final assessment nevertheless proceeded on the incorrect premise that no reply had been furnished and made the proposed addition under Section 56(2)(viib). Such non-consideration of a timely response offended the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice and was set aside.

Issues: Whether reassessment action could be sustained where the order determining fitness for reassessment relied on propositions and material not disclosed in the notice or supplied to the assessee.

Analysis: Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 requires that the assessee be informed of the material and propositions forming the basis for deciding whether reassessment proceedings should be initiated and be afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond. Although the initial notice was issued within the limitation under Section 149(1)(b), it only referred to alleged undisclosed turnover based on bank credits. The subsequent order additionally relied upon allegations concerning parking and rotation of funds through firms, unsecured loans, expenses and accounting practices, without disclosing the underlying information or furnishing the computation of the alleged turnover. Proceeding on such undisclosed matters would deny the assessee notice of the case to be met and permit a roving enquiry rather than an enquiry on definite aspects.

Conclusion: The reassessment action based on undisclosed propositions and undisclosed computation could not be sustained; the authorities must furnish the relevant computation and material and provide a reasonable opportunity before reconsidering the matter.