Issues: Whether the addition for unaccounted receipts based on an impounded document was sustainable despite the assessee's retraction and denial of the document, and whether a substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: Section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates a rebuttable presumption concerning the ownership and truth of documents found during a survey. Part of the impounded document corresponded with recorded receipts. The retraction was treated as an afterthought, and no cogent material was produced to rebut the presumption. The addition rested on the document rather than the survey statement alone.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 4,06,360 was sustained against the assessee; no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A corroborated document found during a survey may support an addition where the statutory presumption of its ownership and truth is not rebutted by cogent evidence.

Issues: Whether the assessment could be revised for failing to question the stamp duty valuation of properties sold.

Analysis: Section 43CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits substitution of actual consideration with stamp duty value where the latter exceeds it. The valuation certificates covered the entire property, and no sale was identified where stamp duty value exceeded actual consideration. The revisional authority's objection concerned the correctness of the stamp duty authority's valuation certificate.

Conclusion: The assessment was not shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; the revision was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities cannot question a stamp duty authority's valuation certificate under Section 43CA as a basis for treating an assessment as erroneous in revision under Section 263.

Issues: Whether the share-sale gains were liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits and denied long-term capital gains exemption.

Analysis: Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee supplied contract notes, broker and demat account details, transaction statements, ledgers and bank records, and had paid securities transaction tax. The scrip and brokers had not been blacklisted during the relevant period. The assessing and appellate authorities recorded no findings connecting the assessee's transactions to the alleged market-price fluctuations.

Conclusion: The exemption and deletion of the addition were upheld. No substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: General information about share-price manipulation, without findings linking it to the assessee's documented transactions, does not justify treating the gains as unexplained cash credits or denying the exemption.

Issues: (i) Whether the proprietor-subcontractor was liable for the full service tax on the works contract; (ii) whether the confirmed demand for the extended period was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the proprietor-subcontractor was liable for the full service tax on the works contract.

Analysis: The services were supplied by a proprietary firm as subcontractor. Notification No. 30/2012-S.T. provided for partial reverse charge, with the recipient responsible for half the tax. The calculation also accounted for tax already deposited by the subcontractor.

Conclusion: The subcontractor was liable for only 50% of the service tax, with the balance payable by the recipient, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the confirmed demand for the extended period was sustainable.

Analysis: Conflicting tribunal decisions on subcontractors' liability preceded resolution by a larger bench, making the issue interpretational. The demand was substantially reduced after valuation and consideration of partial reverse charge, and there was no evidence that the subcontractor had charged service tax to the main contractor.

Conclusion: The confirmed demand for the extended period was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax demand cannot be recovered.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a subcontractor's non-payment arises from a bona fide belief supported by conflicting tribunal decisions and suppression is not established, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal was filed 28 days after the three-month filing period, within the additional month contemplated by Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Although supporting documents had not been produced before the appellate authority, the explanation for the delay appeared genuine.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the rejection of the appeal was set aside. The appeal was directed to be re-presented for determination on merits after a hearing.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be revoked and the registration restored.

Analysis: The petitioner had not filed returns from July 2025 and had not responded to the show-cause notice, leading to cancellation of registration. Financial difficulties were accepted as a genuine explanation for the default. Revocation and restoration were made conditional upon enabling portal access, filing all pending returns, and payment of tax dues, interest, and belated-filing fees without adjustment against unutilised or unclaimed input tax credit. Any input tax credit may be utilised only after departmental scrutiny and approval.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was revoked and GST registration was directed to be restored, subject to the stipulated compliance conditions, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the assessee's appeal, filed 29 days after the ordinary appeal period but within the statutory condonable period, could be rejected solely for delay.

Analysis: Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits extension of the appeal period by one month on sufficient cause. The appeal was filed on 09.10.2026, within the one-month condonable period following expiry of the three-month period on 10.09.2026. The stated reason for delay, namely the director's maternity leave, was found genuine.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal for delay was set aside, and the 29-day delay was condoned.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST order based solely on notices uploaded to the GST portal, despite repeated non-response, constituted effective service and satisfied the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises portal uploading as a valid mode of service, but also provides other modes. Where repeated portal notices elicit no response, the issuing officer must make a genuine effort to serve the taxpayer through other prescribed modes, preferably registered post, rather than merely complete a formal requirement. Exclusive reliance on portal uploading in such circumstances does not amount to effective service.

Conclusion: The service adopted was ineffective in the circumstances and the ex parte order violated the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment based solely on notices uploaded on the online portal, despite no response to repeated notices, violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Uploading a notice on the GST portal is a valid mode of service. However, where repeated notices elicit no response, Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires the officer to explore other prescribed modes of service, preferably registered post with acknowledgment due, to secure effective service. Mere portal upload in such circumstances amounts to an empty formality and does not afford a meaningful opportunity to reply or be heard.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment was vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice and was set aside for fresh adjudication after receipt of objections and grant of a clear personal-hearing notice. The bank-account attachment could not survive the setting aside of the assessment.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST assessment based solely on portal-uploaded notices, without resort to other statutory modes of service after repeated non-response, violates principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides multiple valid modes for service of notices. Though uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode, repeated non-response requires the officer to make a genuine effort to effect effective service through other prescribed modes, preferably registered post. Reliance solely on portal uploads in such circumstances amounts to an empty formality and denies a meaningful opportunity to reply and be heard.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment, having been made without effective service and a meaningful opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy despite delay in challenging the assessment order.

Outcome: Liberty was granted to file an appeal before the appellate authority, which was directed not to raise limitation.

Issues: (i) Eligibility of a Government-controlled university for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) where UGC grants and capital grants in kind are included in Government funding under Rule 2BBB; (ii) Sustainability of penalty for under-reporting or misreporting where the underlying addition is deleted.

Issue (i): Eligibility of a Government-controlled university for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) where UGC grants and capital grants in kind are included in Government funding under Rule 2BBB.

Analysis: Exemption requires the institution to be a university or educational institution existing solely for education and not profit, and to be wholly or substantially financed by Government. Rule 2BBB treats this financing condition as fulfilled where Government grants exceed 50% of total receipts in the relevant previous year. Statutory control over the university's finances, expenditure, staffing and immovable property established Government control over its affairs.

Analysis: UGC funds originate from Central Government allocations and are distributed to universities through the statutory commission; they consequently form part of Government grants. Capital assistance in the form of Government-granted land was also includible for the financing computation. On including the UGC grant and the value attributable to the land grant, Government funding constituted 50.76% of total receipts, exceeding the prescribed threshold.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) is allowable and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Sustainability of penalty for under-reporting or misreporting where the underlying addition is deleted.

Analysis: The penalty was founded solely on the addition resulting from denial of the exemption. Once that addition ceased to survive, there remained no basis for penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty is unsustainable and is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The income is to be computed after giving effect to the statutory exemption, and the penalty founded exclusively on the resultant addition has no subsisting basis.

Ratio Decidendi: For the Government-financing test, funds routed through a statutory Government intermediary and Government capital grants in kind may be included in Government funding; where such funding exceeds the prescribed threshold, the educational institution is entitled to exemption.

Issues: Whether an adjudicating authority may confirm a tax demand exceeding the demand proposed in the show-cause notice, contrary to Section 75(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of a demand exceeding that proposed in the show-cause notice. The notice proposed a substantially lower tax demand, interest and penalty than those confirmed in the adjudication order. Breach of this mandatory restriction rendered the excess confirmation jurisdictionally invalid.

Conclusion: An adjudicating authority cannot confirm a demand beyond that proposed in the show-cause notice; the impugned excess demand was invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether service of GST notices solely through portal uploads, despite repeated non-response and without recourse to other statutory modes of service, rendered the ex parte assessment and appellate rejection violative of principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Uploading notices on the GST portal is a valid mode of service. However, where repeated notices elicit no response, the proper officer must apply their mind and explore other modes available under Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, preferably registered post with acknowledgement due. Mere portal uploads in such circumstances amount to an empty formality rather than effective service, particularly where no meaningful opportunity of hearing is afforded.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the ex parte assessment and appellate rejection were vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice.

Issues: Whether general insurance services availed by a manufacturer after 1 April 2011 qualify as input services eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The post-amendment definition in Rule 2(l) deleted the expression "activities relating to business" to align the scope of input services with inputs. The specified exclusions concern, inter alia, construction-related services, motor-vehicle-related services and services primarily meant for employees' personal use or consumption. General insurance used in relation to the manufacturing activity was not covered by those exclusions and retained a direct or indirect nexus with manufacture of final products. The departmental clarification on sales commission did not restrict credit for services otherwise satisfying the principal limb of the definition.

Conclusion: General insurance service used in relation to manufacture remains an input service eligible for CENVAT credit after 1 April 2011; no substantial question of law arose.

Issues: (i) Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; and (ii) Whether the Department's challenge remained maintainable after it implemented the order by restoring registration.

Issue (i): Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(1) prescribes the ordinary limitation period and Section 107(4) permits condonation only within its fixed additional period. The First Appellate Authority, being a statutory authority, has no inherent power to extend that outer limit. Directions issued by a High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on their particular facts, do not enlarge the statutory appellate jurisdiction. Equity follows the law and cannot override an express limitation provision.

Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority could not condone delay beyond the statutory maximum; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department's challenge remained maintainable after it implemented the order by restoring registration.

Analysis: The Department restored the registration pursuant to the impugned order, and the assessee thereafter continued business and filed returns on that basis. Having implemented the restoration and altered the assessee's legal and commercial position, the Department was estopped from seeking to invalidate that relief, since no effective appellate relief could then be granted.

Conclusion: The Department's challenge was not maintainable after restoration of registration; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the condonation exceeded the First Appellate Authority's statutory power, the restoration already implemented by the Department could not be undone through the present challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority cannot extend a legislatively fixed outer limitation period, and a department that has acted upon an order restoring registration cannot subsequently seek its ineffective reversal.

Issues: Whether an individual investor's compensation claim against a statutory auditor for a fraudulent prospectus under Section 35 of the Companies Act, 2013, could be adjudicated in a civil suit after insolvency proceedings and proceedings under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had been initiated against the company.

Analysis: Section 35 ordinarily confers upon an investor who subscribed to securities on the basis of a fraudulent prospectus a personal right to seek compensation from persons liable for the resulting loss. However, where the company is in insolvency and the alleged fraudulent conduct is subject to Section 66 proceedings, recoveries for such conduct form part of the collective insolvency process and are available for the benefit of the creditors. In those circumstances, the otherwise personal claim assumes the character of an action in rem and cannot be pursued for the exclusive benefit of a single creditor through a separate civil suit.

Conclusion: The claim against the statutory auditor could not be adjudicated in the civil suit; the available recourse lay under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for the collective benefit of creditors.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted where the accused had undergone substantial pre-trial incarceration, cognizance had not been taken, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Analysis: The relevant bail inquiry was whether continued custody remained necessary pending trial. The appellant had remained incarcerated for about one year and three months; cognizance had not been taken and the trial was at a nascent stage. The anticipated duration of trial, coupled with bail granted to arrested co-accused and the non-arrest of several others, did not justify continued incarceration.

Conclusion: Continued incarceration was unwarranted, and regular bail was granted on terms to be fixed by the Trial Court.

Issues: (i) Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone a delayed appeal beyond the outer limit under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the Department's appeal remained maintainable after it implemented the order restoring registration.

Issue (i): Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone a delayed appeal beyond the outer limit under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(1) prescribes a three-month period for filing an appeal, while Section 107(4) permits condonation only for a further one month upon sufficient cause. The First Appellate Authority, being a statutory authority, has no inherent or plenary power to extend the outer limitation period. Directions issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the facts of particular writ proceedings do not enlarge the Authority's jurisdiction. Equity or hardship cannot override an express statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the maximum period under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department's appeal remained maintainable after it implemented the order restoring registration.

Analysis: The Department had acted upon the impugned order, restored the registration, and enabled continuation of business and return filing. Reversal after such implementation would unsettle the assessee's intervening commercial transactions and legal position. Estoppel and orderly administration precluded the Department from seeking ineffective relief against an order it had already implemented.

Conclusion: The Department could not maintain its challenge after implementing the restoration of registration, as no effective relief could be granted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the condonation of delay exceeded the First Appellate Authority's statutory jurisdiction, the restoration of registration remains unaffected because the Department's own implementation precludes effective appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the express outer limit fixed by law; however, where the Department has implemented the impugned restoration of registration, it cannot subsequently obtain relief that would unsettle that implemented position.

Issues: (i) Whether the additions for capital introduction and bank-credit discrepancies should be sustained in light of the claimed sources and bank reconciliation; (ii) Whether GST late fees for delayed payment are deductible as business expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether the additions for capital introduction and bank-credit discrepancies should be sustained in light of the claimed sources and bank reconciliation.

Analysis: Section 69 concerns unrecorded investments whose nature or source is not satisfactorily explained. The capital introduction was disclosed and claimed to originate from personal funds. The assessee bears the burden of substantiating the claimed sources through bank reconciliation, borrower confirmation and documents supporting insurance maturity and fixed-deposit overdraft receipts.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee to the extent that both additions were set aside for fresh verification; their ultimate tax treatment remains open.

Issue (ii): Whether GST late fees for delayed payment are deductible as business expenditure.

Analysis: Explanation 1 to Section 37 excludes expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law. The statutory late fee was described as a payment intended to compensate the exchequer for delay, unlike expenditure incurred for a prohibited purpose.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee; the GST late-fee disallowance was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The tax treatment of the disputed capital and bank credits remains subject to verification, while GST late fees are not excluded from business expenditure merely because they arise from delayed payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory GST late fee for delayed payment is not expenditure incurred for an offence or a purpose prohibited by law and is not disallowable on that ground.