Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit was reversible under Section 17(2) where cattle-feed supplies were exempt and no input tax credit had been availed on their purchase, subject to any common input or input-services credit; and (ii) Whether differential tax based on a disparity between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 could be determined without considering the claimed corrections and explanations in the annual return.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit was reversible under Section 17(2) where cattle-feed supplies were exempt and no input tax credit had been availed on their purchase, subject to any common input or input-services credit.

Analysis: Section 17(2) restricts credit where goods or services are used partly for taxable supplies and partly for exempt supplies, while Rules 42 and 43 prescribe the mechanism for reversal of common credit. Credit reversal can arise only where input tax credit has actually been availed on inputs, input services, or capital goods used for both taxable and exempt supplies. No reversal is warranted in respect of exempt traded goods on which no input tax credit was taken; however, common input-services credit, if any, requires verification and proportionate computation.

Conclusion: Reversal is confined to actual common input tax credit, if any, and its existence and quantum require verification.

Issue (ii): Whether differential tax based on a disparity between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 could be determined without considering the claimed corrections and explanations in the annual return.

Analysis: The annual return under Section 44 permits correction of figures declared in periodic returns. The asserted clerical explanation for the difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 requires consideration along with the relevant records before determining whether any differential tax remains payable.

Conclusion: The claimed corrections and explanation for the return difference must be considered before determining any differential tax liability.

Final Conclusion: The tax, interest, and penalty demands require fresh merits determination after verification of actual common input tax credit and consideration of the annual-return reconciliation, with an effective opportunity to produce evidence and be heard.

Ratio Decidendi: Credit reversal under Section 17(2) is limited to input tax credit actually availed on common inputs or input services attributable to exempt supplies.

Issues: Whether GST can be demanded from a job worker solely on the value shown in e-way bills without evidence that the job worker made undisclosed taxable supplies.

Analysis: Section 143 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises movement of a principal's goods for job work. Under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, an e-way bill may be generated by the registered person causing movement of goods; in an inter-State job-work movement, it may be generated by either the principal or the registered job worker. The identity of the person generating the e-way bill is therefore not determinative of taxable supply. The supporting records established that the goods belonged to the principal, moved under delivery challans for job work, and were returned after processing, while the job-work charges were separately invoiced and disclosed. A mismatch between return data and e-way-bill values, without investigation or independent evidence of supply of goods, receipt of consideration, or tax evasion, does not establish undisclosed taxable turnover.

Conclusion: GST cannot be demanded merely from the value declared in e-way bills in the absence of independent evidence establishing an undisclosed taxable supply. The tax demand and consequential interest and penalty are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether B2B supplies were erroneously reported as B2C supplies in Form GSTR-1 and re-reported in March 2020, resulting in duplicate reporting and artificial inflation of turnover and tax liability; (ii) Whether rectification of the erroneous classification in Form GSTR-1 for March 2020 in respect of preceding months of the same financial year was permissible under Section 39(9) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether B2B supplies were erroneously reported as B2C supplies in Form GSTR-1 and re-reported in March 2020, resulting in duplicate reporting and artificial inflation of turnover and tax liability.

Analysis: Verification of the Form GSTR-1 returns, recipient GSTINs, tax invoices and tabulated supply details established that supplies shown as B2C were actually made to registered recipients. Tax on the supplies made from June 2019 to February 2020 had already been discharged through the corresponding Form GSTR-3B returns. Their re-reporting as B2B supplies in the March 2020 Form GSTR-1, together with the March 2020 supplies, duplicated the entries and artificially increased the turnover and liability reflected in Form GSTR-1.

Conclusion: Yes. The actual supplies were B2B supplies, and duplicate reporting in Form GSTR-1 caused the apparent mismatch and inflated liability. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether rectification of the erroneous classification in Form GSTR-1 for March 2020 in respect of preceding months of the same financial year was permissible under Section 39(9) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 39(9) permitted rectification of omissions or incorrect particulars in the return for the month or quarter in which the error was noticed, subject to the prescribed outer deadline and to the rectification not arising from scrutiny, audit, inspection or enforcement activity. The provision did not require rectification only in returns of the subsequent financial year. The correction was made voluntarily within the statutory outer time limit, while the tax on the underlying outward supplies had already been paid; the reporting errors were consequently revenue-neutral.

Conclusion: Yes. Rectification in the March 2020 Form GSTR-1 for errors in returns of preceding months of the same financial year was legally permissible under Section 39(9) of the Act. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The variance between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B arose from a timely permissible correction of supply classification and duplicate reporting, and did not establish an enforceable additional tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 39(9) permits a registered person to rectify omissions or incorrect particulars in a subsequent return of the same financial year when the error is noticed, provided the statutory conditions and outer time limit are satisfied; it does not confine rectification to returns of the following financial year.

Issues: Whether input tax credit could be denied because IGST paid on imports was not reflected on the GST portal due to a technical integration failure.

Analysis: Import tax data is transmitted between ICEGATE and GSTN, systems maintained by the authorities. The non-reflection of the tax was prima facie attributable to a failure of integration between those systems, in which the taxpayer had no role. Documents supporting payment had been produced, while the impugned orders relied on non-reflection on the portal.

Conclusion: Denial of input tax credit on that basis was improper. The authorities must reconcile and reflect the IGST paid, and reconsider the matter afresh with all parties' contentions on the merits open.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit cannot be denied solely because tax paid is not reflected on the portal due to a technical lapse attributable to systems controlled by the authorities.

Issues: (i) What is the tariff classification of the ophthalmic equipment and medical furniture? (ii) What GST rate applies to their supply?

Issue (i): What is the tariff classification of the ophthalmic equipment and medical furniture?

Analysis: The Harmonized System Explanatory Notes to heading 9018 exclude medical and surgical furniture. The notes to heading 9402 cover specialized medical furniture, including seats for doctors and surgeons, operating and examination tables, and instrument tables and trolleys.

Conclusion: Motorized surgeons' chairs, doctors' sitting stools and ophthalmic refraction chair units are classifiable under tariff item 94021090. Eye operating tables, ophthalmic instrument trolleys and ophthalmic instrument tables are classifiable under tariff item 94029090. The classification is against the assessee's claim for heading 9018.

Issue (ii): What GST rate applies to their supply?

Analysis: Entry 611 of Schedule II to Notification No. 09/2025-Central Tax (Rate) covers goods under heading 9402 and specifies a 9% central tax rate.

Conclusion: All the products attract GST at 18%, comprising 9% CGST and 9% SGST, against the assessee's proposed 5% rate.

Final Conclusion: The supplies receive the tariff treatment applicable to medical and surgical furniture rather than ophthalmic instruments.

Ratio Decidendi: Specialized medical or surgical furniture covered by heading 9402 is excluded from classification as instruments and appliances under heading 9018.

Issues: (i) Classification of compostable polymer-based or biodegradable plastic substitute carry bags. (ii) Applicability of the concessional GST rate for biodegradable bags.

Issue (i): Classification of compostable polymer-based or biodegradable plastic substitute carry bags.

Analysis: The bags are made principally from compostable polymers or biodegradable plastic substitutes. The tariff headings preceding heading 3926 contain no specific entry for such goods, requiring consideration of the residual heading for other plastic articles.

Conclusion: The bags are classifiable under HSN 39269099 in Chapter 39.

Issue (ii): Applicability of the concessional GST rate for biodegradable bags.

Analysis: Entry 319 of Schedule I to the rate notification covers paper sacks or bags and biodegradable bags under Chapters 39 and 48. The entry's background and purpose support coverage of biodegradable polymer-based bags. Certification and an interim test report were supplied; the report recorded biodegradation of the tested sample but noted that other tests remained outstanding.

Conclusion: The bags qualify for GST at 5%, subject to the validity of the claim that they are biodegradable.

Final Conclusion: The classified bags receive the concessional rate only if their claimed biodegradability is valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The concessional notification entry for biodegradable bags extends to polymer-based bags within Chapter 39, subject to the validity of their claimed biodegradability.

Issues: (i) Whether the proposed tea-and-accessory bundles are composite or mixed supplies and what GST rates apply. (ii) Which HSN codes should be used for those mixed supplies.

Issue (i): Whether the proposed tea-and-accessory bundles are composite or mixed supplies and what GST rates apply.

Analysis: A composite supply requires taxable supplies to be naturally bundled in the ordinary course of business, with one principal supply. The relevant indicators include customer expectations, industry practice and whether the accompanying items are integral to the overall supply. Customers do not ordinarily expect tea to be bundled with the proposed accessories, similar businesses do not generally provide them together, and the accessories are not essential to the enjoyment of tea. The items can be supplied separately, while the proposed bundles have a single price. A mixed supply attracts the highest GST rate applicable to any component.

Conclusion: The bundles are mixed supplies, not composite supplies, against the assessee on classification. Bundles containing a stainless steel spoon, plastic spoon or glass cup attract 18% GST; bundles containing a wooden honey dipper attract 5% GST.

Issue (ii): Which HSN codes should be used for those mixed supplies.

Analysis: A mixed supply is treated as the component attracting the highest GST rate. The legislation is silent on HSN selection where both components attract the same rate.

Conclusion: Where rates differ, the HSN code of the higher-rated component must be used: 82159900 for stainless steel spoons, 39241090 for plastic spoons and 70139900 for glass cups. Where tea and a wooden honey dipper both attract 5%, either component's HSN code may be used.

Final Conclusion: The proposed bundles are taxable and classified as mixed supplies rather than automatically following tea as the principal supply.

Ratio Decidendi: Separately supplyable goods bundled for a single price without natural bundling constitute a mixed supply, taxable and classified by reference to the highest-rated component; where the components attract equal rates, either component's HSN code may be used.

Issues: (i) Whether the rice husk composite board is classifiable under heading 4411; (ii) What GST rates apply to the board before and from 22 September 2025.

Issue (i): Whether the rice husk composite board is classifiable under heading 4411.

Analysis: The tariff headings and Harmonised System explanatory notes distinguish particle boards from fibreboards made of wood or other ligneous materials. The submitted manufacturing details described extracted rice husk fibres bonded with PVC resin, while laboratory reports and clarification identified the rice husk-derived fraction and a PVC content exceeding the proportion normally mentioned for particle-board binders. Classification depends on composition, manufacturing characteristics and essential character; Indian Standard specifications are not mandatory for determining the primary tariff heading.

Conclusion: The board is classifiable as fibreboard under heading 4411 of Chapter 44, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): What GST rates apply to the board before and from 22 September 2025.

Analysis: The applicable rate notifications specifically list rice husk board: entry 92 of Schedule II of the 2017 notification and entry 292 of Schedule I of the 2025 notification, effective from 22 September 2025.

Conclusion: The board attracts GST at 12% before 22 September 2025 and 5% from that date, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification and applicable rates are determined on the submitted materials, subject to their authenticity.

Ratio Decidendi: Classification of a composite board depends on its constituent materials and manufacturing characteristics; a board of extracted ligneous fibres bonded with resin falls under the fibreboard heading rather than the particle-board heading.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor for a pre-resolution-plan period when the tax claim was not part of the approved plan. (ii) Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor to collect evidence concerning former management or third parties.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor for a pre-resolution-plan period when the tax claim was not part of the approved plan.

Analysis: Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code makes an approved resolution plan binding on governmental creditors, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. The clean slate principle protects the successful resolution applicant from unprovided pre-plan liabilities. No income-tax claim formed part of the approved plan, which addressed pre-closing dues; the adjudicating authority's treatment of statutory obligations was assessed in that context.

Conclusion: The pre-plan tax claim stood extinguished, and the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment could be initiated against the corporate debtor to collect evidence concerning former management or third parties.

Analysis: Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act concern income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment. A reassessment notice requires the corporate debtor to file a return and participate in proceedings, while other statutory powers are available for inquiry into former management or third parties.

Conclusion: Reassessment against the corporate debtor could not be initiated to collect evidence against former management or third parties. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The approved plan protects the corporate debtor's clean slate; lawful action against former management or third parties remains available, and the merits of the alleged additions remain open.

Ratio Decidendi: An approved resolution plan binds the revenue and extinguishes pre-plan statutory claims not included in it, precluding reassessment against the corporate debtor in respect of those claims.

Issues: Whether the stay application could be rejected for non-payment of 20% of the demand without considering the financial hardship raised by the petitioner.

Analysis: The appellate authority rejected the stay application for non-payment of the stipulated deposit without considering the asserted financial hardship. The underlying statutory appeal remains pending.

Conclusion: The rejection of the stay application was unsustainable, and the application requires fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority must consider financial hardship raised by an applicant before rejecting a stay application solely for failure to make the stipulated deposit.

Issues: Whether a tax claim submitted 896 days after the liquidation claim deadline was admissible or warranted condonation of delay where the assessment was completed after liquidation commenced.

Analysis: The liquidation regulations contemplate claims as at the liquidation commencement date, while the Code recognises disputed or unquantified rights to payment as claims. Permission to assess tax during liquidation does not restart the claim-filing deadline. A timely challenge to the liquidator's rejection is distinct from timely submission of the underlying claim. The explanation addressed the period after assessment but not the preceding delay; reopening the stakeholder list could disrupt time-bound liquidation and distribution. Alternatively, a claim first arising after liquidation commenced would fall outside the claims contemplated by the regulations.

Conclusion: The claim could not be admitted and the delay did not warrant condonation.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission to assess tax during liquidation does not restart the deadline for submitting a claim to the liquidator.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was within the statutory limitation period or the delay could be condoned. (ii) Whether the unpaid provident fund claim had to be provided for in the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal was within the statutory limitation period or the delay could be condoned.

Analysis: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prescribes thirty days for an appeal, with a maximum further period of fifteen days upon sufficient cause. Limitation runs from pronouncement, not knowledge of the order. No application for a certified copy was shown. The resolution professional's duty to intimate claimants of the payment formula cannot enlarge the statutory period.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred and the delay could not be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the unpaid provident fund claim had to be provided for in the resolution plan.

Analysis: Provident fund dues are excluded from the liquidation estate and protected from the ordinary distribution waterfall. Interest and damages not determined before insolvency commenced may be contingent liabilities for which the committee of creditors may decide whether to provide. The unpaid balance was not broken down into contributions, interest and damages; the plan provided in full for the admitted dues. A dissatisfied claimant may challenge claim verification during the insolvency process, while claims omitted from an approved plan stand extinguished.

Conclusion: The unpaid balance was not shown to be a protected contribution requiring provision in the plan; relief on merits was refused.

Final Conclusion: The approved plan remains effective, with provision for the admitted provident fund dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Lack of knowledge of an order or failure to give plan intimation cannot extend the statutory outer limit for an insolvency appeal.

Issues: Anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation into alleged wrongful availment, utilisation and passing on of input tax credit.

Outcome: Notice was issued and protection from coercive steps was granted until the next hearing, subject to the petitioner joining the investigation. The bail application remains pending and has not been finally adjudicated.

Issues: Whether an e-way bill was required for the transaction on 19 February 2018.

Analysis: The penalty proceedings arose under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicable precedents addressed the e-way bill requirement for the period from 1 February to 31 March 2018, within which the transaction occurred.

Conclusion: No e-way bill was required for the transaction on 19 February 2018.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement to submit an e-way bill did not apply during the period from 1 February to 31 March 2018.

Issues: Whether the deadline for replying to a show cause notice and the date of personal hearing could be fixed on the same day.

Analysis: The procedural requirement adopted from the governing precedent places the deadline for a reply before the date of personal hearing. The order was made on consent and expressly declared not to be a precedent. Entitlement to input tax credit was left for fresh determination.

Conclusion: Fixing the reply deadline and personal hearing on the same day was procedurally irregular.

Issues: Whether a penalty for belated filing of returns was justified.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed under the general penalty provisions of the Central and Uttar Pradesh GST enactments. The statutory late fee had been paid, and there was no finding of a deliberate attempt to file the returns late.

Conclusion: The penalty was unjustified and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable late fee has been paid, a penalty for belated filing of returns is unjustified in the absence of a finding of deliberate delay.

Issues: Whether the assessee qualified as an infrastructure developer for the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than as a works contractor or subcontractor.

Analysis: Section 80-IA(4) provides a deduction for eligible enterprises developing infrastructure facilities under agreements with government or specified authorities; a mere works contractor is not entitled to the benefit. The work orders were issued directly to the assessee or its consortium. The assessee invested funds, carried out development work, deployed technical personnel and equipment, and assumed entrepreneurial and investment risks. It also undertook maintenance during the defect liability period.

Conclusion: The assessee qualified as a developer, not a works contractor or subcontractor, and was entitled to the deduction. The question was answered in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An enterprise that itself invests in and executes infrastructure development under a government agreement, assuming entrepreneurial and investment risks, qualifies as a developer rather than a mere works contractor for the infrastructure development deduction.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 4,35,68,678 for alleged bogus purchases was sustainable.

Analysis: The disputed purchase amount had not been shown to appear in the assessee's books. The assessing officer had not resolved the assessee's claim that purchases amounted to Rs. 15,150 and did not furnish the requested remand report. The Tribunal referred to a 6% restriction in comparable accommodation-entry cases and noted that no distinguishing facts had been identified. The first appellate authority regarded the smaller purchase amount as insignificant in the diamond trade.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 4,35,68,678 does not survive.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice was valid when it was dated 31 March 2021 but received by email on 1 April 2021.

Analysis: The email evidence recorded receipt after expiry of the applicable limitation period, while the assessing officer's report did not establish earlier delivery. The adopted precedent addressed the change in the reassessment notice procedure under the Income-tax Act, 1961, effective from 1 April 2021.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and the reassessment was void ab initio.