Issues: Whether failure to submit a reply to a GST show-cause notice deprives the assessee of an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: The show-cause notice required a reply but recorded the date, time and venue of personal hearing as not applicable. An oral opportunity could enable the assessee to present its position independently of a written reply.

Conclusion: Failure to submit a reply did not dispense with the opportunity of personal hearing. The substantive tax liability remains undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-submission of a written reply to a GST show-cause notice does not, by itself, dispense with the opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit for departmental appeals; (ii) whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for alleged excess stock detected by visual estimation.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit for departmental appeals.

Analysis: The litigation policy prescribed a monetary threshold but excluded matters involving interpretation of statutory provisions. The dispute concerned the application of the confiscation provisions as opposed to the regular demand and assessment provisions.

Conclusion: The monetary limit did not bar the departmental appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for alleged excess stock detected by visual estimation.

Analysis: Confiscation under the GST enactments requires proof of the applicable statutory prerequisites, including intent to evade tax. The stock quantities were visually estimated rather than physically weighed, and the verification sheets contained material inconsistencies. Accounts were available for comparison, returns were regularly filed, and there was no independent corroborative evidence of manipulation or evasion. Tax liability arising from stock discrepancies is to be determined under the appropriate demand and assessment provisions.

Conclusion: The alleged stock discrepancy did not sustain confiscation or penalty, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge was maintainable, but the confiscation and penalty remained set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A stock discrepancy alone cannot justify confiscation or penalty without proof of the applicable statutory prerequisites, including intent to evade tax.

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable despite the monetary limit for departmental appeals; (ii) Whether the penalty for transporting goods without Part-B conveyance details was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue's appeal was maintainable despite the monetary limit for departmental appeals.

Analysis: The departmental litigation policy excludes recurring issues from the monetary limit. The question concerning mobile-squad enforcement jurisdiction arises repeatedly during transportation checks.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty for transporting goods without Part-B conveyance details was sustainable.

Analysis: Rule 138 provides an exemption from furnishing Part-B conveyance details for qualifying intrastate movements of up to 50 kilometres from a consignor to a transporter for onward transportation. An automated portal warning cannot override that exemption. The recorded movement was a local haul to the transporter's depot; the goods matched the invoices, and e-invoices had been generated before departure. The burden of proof of clandestine diversion rested on the Revenue, while the driver's statement and contemporaneous documents did not substantiate the alleged route deviation. A technical or minor infraction without evidence of intent to evade tax does not itself justify the penalty.

Conclusion: The exemption applied and the penalty was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The qualifying short-haul movement remained protected from the disputed penalty notwithstanding the maintainability of the departmental appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For a qualifying intrastate movement to a transporter within 50 kilometres for onward transportation, the statutory exemption dispenses with Part-B conveyance details and cannot be overridden by an automated portal warning.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and on merits.

Issues: Whether the tax demand used to determine the payment required for a stay of recovery was correctly computed on the footing that exemption was available for only one residential unit.

Analysis: Section 54F provides for a proportionate capital gains exemption where the cost of the qualifying residential house is less than the net consideration. The assessment added the entire cost of the second unit, while the computation sheet recorded capital gains exceeding the aggregate sale consideration. The Revenue did not dispute the alternative computation based on the statutory proportion.

Conclusion: The addition of the entire cost of the second unit was incorrect. The tax for determining the stay condition was Rs. 32,50,541, and 20% was Rs. 6,50,108. The assessee was directed to pay that amount, with recovery of the balance amount specified in the order stayed pending disposal of the statutory appeal and for four weeks thereafter. Entitlement to exemption for both units remains undecided. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the qualifying residential investment is less than the net consideration, the exemption is calculated as the corresponding proportion of capital gains; the cost of an excluded unit cannot simply be added as taxable income.

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and Tribunal orders concerning transactions before 10 August 2016 should be set aside in light of an earlier decision.

Analysis: The transactions underlying the attachment under the amended Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, predated 10 August 2016. The case was treated as covered by an earlier decision, which both sides accepted applied.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and Tribunal orders were set aside.

Issues: Whether the delay in applying to recall the order directing ex parte proceedings warranted condonation.

Analysis: Article 122 of the Limitation Act was applied as prescribing a 30-day period from dismissal rather than knowledge. The appellants knew of the ex parte order on 16 October 2025 but sought recall only on 5 January 2026 and filed for condonation on 24 August 2026, despite earlier permission to do so. The explanation concerning former counsel lacked credible supporting material or evidence of diligence; no objection from that counsel was shown as contemplated by Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The time-bound character of insolvency proceedings was also relevant.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned, and the ex parte order remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of an inordinate delay in seeking recall of an ex parte order may be refused where no plausible explanation establishes reasonable diligence.

Issues: (i) Whether coal transportation involving incidental loading is taxable as cargo handling service. (ii) Whether the earlier decision concerning the same activity governed its tax treatment for the subsequent period.

Issue (i): Whether coal transportation involving incidental loading is taxable as cargo handling service.

Analysis: Classification of a composite service depends on its substance and essential character. The statutory definition of cargo handling service excludes transportation of goods. The work orders concerned movement of coal between specified locations, with loading by pay loaders ancillary to that movement. The invoices and records treated the activity as transportation, and recipients, including a principal recipient, had paid service tax on that footing.

Conclusion: The activity was transportation of goods and was not taxable as cargo handling service. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision concerning the same activity governed its tax treatment for the subsequent period.

Analysis: The earlier decision concerning substantially the same activity and classification had attained finality. The subsequent proceedings disclosed no change in the nature of the activity or the governing legal position and identified no material distinction from the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The earlier decision governed the subsequent period. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The activity retained its transportation character for the disputed period, and the earlier ruling governed the unchanged activity.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite service whose essential character is transportation cannot be classified as cargo handling merely because loading is incidental to that transportation.

Issues: (i) Whether target-based incentives, discounts and customer-scheme reimbursements received by a principal-to-principal dealer are subject to service tax as consideration for a declared service; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether target-based incentives, discounts and customer-scheme reimbursements received by a principal-to-principal dealer are subject to service tax as consideration for a declared service.

Analysis: The dealer purchased goods for its own inventory and sold them to customers on its own account. Section 65B of the Finance Act, 1994 excludes a mere transfer of title in goods by sale from the definition of service, while Section 66D places trading in goods on the negative list. The incentives and reimbursements were commercial benefits linked to those sales. Sales targets, best-efforts obligations and implementation of customer discounts did not establish a separate activity undertaken for the manufacturer for consideration under Section 66E.

Conclusion: The incentives, discounts and reimbursements were not subject to service tax as consideration for a declared service. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The assessee filed returns and supplied records when requested. The dispute arose from the interpretation of taxability, and the investigation produced no material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment of disputed tax could not establish suppression with intent to evade.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand beyond the normal period was barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service tax demand and consequential interest and penalties against the assessee do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Performance-linked incentives or reimbursements arising from principal-to-principal sales are not consideration for a declared service where no independent service is identified.

Issues: (i) Whether refund claims may cover tax periods across financial years; (ii) whether the deemed export refund claim was within limitation; (iii) whether the required Form A prior intimation was furnished; (iv) whether the supplier was eligible for refund despite the alleged duplicate claim by the recipient.

Issue (i): Whether refund claims may cover tax periods across financial years.

Analysis: The circular governing refund applications permits clubbing successive tax periods, and the subsequent circular withdrew the restriction on bunching claims across financial years.

Conclusion: Claims may cover tax periods across financial years. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the deemed export refund claim was within limitation.

Analysis: Section 54 prescribes a two-year period from the relevant date, which for deemed exports is the date of furnishing the return relating to the supplies. The application concerned supplies made between December 2023 and May 2024; the earlier period entered in the form did not add earlier supplies to the claim.

Conclusion: The claim was within limitation. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the required Form A prior intimation was furnished.

Analysis: The applicable circular requires prior intimation to the supplier and the jurisdictional officers. The record contained the recipient's Form A and an email forwarding it before the first supply; its filing was not disputed.

Conclusion: The required prior intimation was furnished. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the supplier was eligible for refund despite the alleged duplicate claim by the recipient.

Analysis: Rule 89 permits a supplier to claim deemed export refund where the recipient has not availed input tax credit and furnishes the requisite undertaking. The recipient's undertakings and declaration addressed the five invoices, while no recipient refund application or supporting material was identified.

Conclusion: The supplier was eligible for the refund, and the alleged duplicate claim did not justify rejection. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund of Rs. 77,188 is admissible, together with any statutory interest payable under Section 56.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for a deemed export refund is determined by reference to the return relating to the supplies claimed, not merely by the period entered in the application.

Outcome: The special leave petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and merits.

Issues: Whether the Revenue could pursue an appeal below the monetary limit under the exception for information received from law enforcement agencies.

Analysis: The applicable 2018 circular excepted certain cases based on information from external law enforcement agencies from the monetary limit for Revenue appeals. A binding ruling on identical facts treated the Sales Tax Department as outside that exception. The 2024 circular was issued after the Tribunal's decision and was not applicable.

Conclusion: The exception does not apply to information received from the Sales Tax Department, and no substantial question of law arises.

Ratio Decidendi: Information received from the Sales Tax Department does not invoke the law enforcement agency exception to the monetary limit under the applicable 2018 circular.

Issues: (i) Classification of brown rice protein powder under tariff item 3504 0099 or 2106 1000; (ii) applicability of the extended limitation period; (iii) confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for the claimed misclassification.

Issue (i): Classification of brown rice protein powder under tariff item 3504 0099 or 2106 1000.

Analysis: Revenue bears the burden of proving a different classification. The technical opinion identified cereal proteins in the powder and was not rebutted by testing or a counter-expert opinion. The HSN explanatory notes distinguish cereal proteins from textured protein substances; the stated 90% protein content for vegetable isolates is a general observation, not a mandatory threshold for cereal proteins. Rule 3 prefers a specific description, while Rule 4 applies only where the preceding rules cannot determine classification. Foreign customs rulings are not binding under Indian customs law.

Conclusion: The classification analysis supports tariff item 3504 0099 in favour of the assessee, but a subsequent finding states tariff item 2106 1000 instead.

Issue (ii): Applicability of the extended limitation period.

Analysis: The goods were correctly described and the declared classification was known to the department. The dispute involved interpretation of tariff entries and explanatory notes, without suppression or wilful misstatement.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended limitation period is invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty for the claimed misclassification.

Analysis: Confiscation and penalties were based on the declared tariff classification, not an incorrect description or value. The goods were unavailable for confiscation, and the classification dispute involved no mala fide conduct.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The differential duty demand, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under the impugned determination do not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue bears the evidential burden of displacing an importer's classification and cannot discharge it by substituting subjective assumptions for an unrebutted technical opinion.

Issues: Whether the court-directed deposit was refundable with interest or barred by the limitation applicable to customs duty refunds.

Analysis: The cash deposit and bank guarantee secured release of the goods before assessment by the proper officer. A bank guarantee is not a payment of customs duty, and the amounts secured were directed toward prospective duty liability. The adopted precedents distinguish deposits from duty payments for purposes of statutory refund limitation.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of Rs. 18,91,396 with applicable interest from the date of deposit until refund; the statutory time limit for duty refunds does not apply.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount deposited under court directions toward prospective customs duty liability, before assessment, is not a payment of customs duty subject to the statutory limitation for duty refunds.

Issues: (i) Whether reasonable belief existed for seizure and shifting the burden of proof; (ii) Whether the evidence established the smuggled character of the gold and justified confiscation and penalties.

Issue (i): Whether reasonable belief existed for seizure and shifting the burden of proof.

Analysis: Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires reasonable belief founded on objective material available at seizure, rather than suspicion. The gold bore no identifiable foreign markings, and its 99.5% purity was not distinctive of foreign origin. An unexplained possession of gold and its purity alone did not provide an objective basis for the belief.

Conclusion: Reasonable belief was absent, and the burden under Section 123 did not shift to the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established the smuggled character of the gold and justified confiscation and penalties.

Analysis: The Department retained the burden of proving foreign origin and smuggling. The retracted statements lacked independent corroboration, follow-up searches yielded no incriminating material, and the statements omitted material details of the alleged smuggling. The requirements of Section 138B for reliance on statements were not met.

Conclusion: The alleged smuggling was not established; confiscation and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The Department remained responsible for establishing the foreign origin and smuggled character of the gold.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden under Section 123 cannot shift without reasonable belief based on objective material at seizure; where that burden remains with the Department, uncorroborated retracted statements cannot alone establish the smuggled character of unmarked gold.

Issues: Whether objections to a creditor's locus and the maintainability of an insolvency application against a personal guarantor can be adjudicated before appointment of a resolution professional.

Analysis: Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the resolution professional examines the application and submits a recommendatory report under Section 99. Judicial adjudication of objections, including jurisdictional and limitation objections, occurs at the Section 100 stage. The decision concerning a debtor's application under Section 94 was distinguished from a creditor's application under Section 95.

Conclusion: The objections to locus and maintainability cannot be adjudicated before the Section 100 stage. The creditor's substantive entitlement to initiate proceedings remains undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Objections to a creditor's locus or the maintainability of a Section 95 application are adjudicated at the Section 100 stage, after the resolution professional's report, rather than before appointment of the professional.

Issues: (i) Whether the insolvency application was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether non-compliance with the MSME revival framework precluded admission of the insolvency application.

Issue (i): Whether the insolvency application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation assessment took account of the instrument acknowledging the debt and multiple settlement proposals admitting liability.

Conclusion: The insolvency application was within limitation, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the MSME revival framework precluded admission of the insolvency application.

Analysis: The MSME revival framework requires a borrower seeking its benefit to substantiate its status and invoke the prescribed procedure. The corporate debtor's MSME status had expired, no response claiming the framework's benefit was given to the statutory demand notice, and no prescribed application was made. The status claim was raised belatedly without supporting registration evidence; letters produced for the first time on appeal did not establish compliance. The insolvency assessment concerned debt and default, with the recorded default exceeding the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The MSME revival framework did not preclude admission of the insolvency application, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor remains in insolvency resolution, with precise quantification of the claim left to the resolution process.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated and unsupported claim to MSME status, without invocation of the prescribed revival framework, does not bar insolvency proceedings founded on established debt and default.

Issues: Whether the remand order should be recalled for non-impleadment of the enforcement authority and for challenges concerning attached properties.

Analysis: The remand order directed reconsideration of the resolution plan without setting aside the provisional attachment or adjudicating the enforcement authority's rights. The authority learned of the order while a statutory appeal remained available but did not pursue it; the subsequent plan approval was also not challenged. Recall jurisdiction does not extend to rehearing the merits or granting a fresh substantive declaration, and an unchallenged approved resolution plan acquires finality.

Conclusion: No grounds for recall were established, and the declaration sought was outside recall jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Recall jurisdiction cannot be used to obtain a rehearing or a substantive declaration on merits, particularly where the order did not adjudicate the applicant's rights and a statutory appeal was available.