Issues: (i) Exemption for dam protection and flood security works; (ii) exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction; (iii) exemption for construction and improvement of public roads; (iv) exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office; (v) reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments; (vi) reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments; (vii) reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses; (viii) reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions; and (ix) invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Exemption for dam protection and flood security works.

Analysis: Entry 12(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers specified construction and repair services relating to canals, dams and other irrigation works supplied to government. The records connected the ghat construction with prevention of dam erosion and the flood protection work with the extended irrigation department contract.

Conclusion: Both works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Exemption and subcontractor liability for medical college construction.

Analysis: The relevant exemption under Entry 12(a) had been withdrawn before the contract. A larger bench ruling established that payment of service tax by the main contractor does not itself exempt a subcontractor; earlier conflicting decisions were relevant to limitation.

Conclusion: The subcontract was not exempt and was taxable in principle, against the assessee, subject to the limitation finding.

Issue (iii): Exemption for construction and improvement of public roads.

Analysis: Entry 13(a) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST covers construction or repair of roads for use by the general public. The evidence addressed the public character of the riverfront pathway, neighbourhood and approach roads, and connected the other payments with road construction or improvement.

Conclusion: The road-related works qualify for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Exemption for interior decoration of a governmental authority's office.

Analysis: Entry 12A(a) covers specified work, including repair and renovation, on qualifying civil structures supplied to a governmental authority. The recipient was a governmental authority and the interior decoration was treated as repair of a civil structure.

Conclusion: The interior decoration qualifies for exemption, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Reverse-charge liability for goods transport and related payments.

Analysis: Reverse charge applies to qualifying goods transport agency services. Supplier invoice amounts and loading and unloading expenses were distinguished from payments for those services; a payment to a freight carrier was identified as taxable.

Conclusion: The non-transport payments are not liable on that basis; the identified freight-carrier payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vi): Reverse-charge liability for legal and other professional payments.

Analysis: Notification No. 30/2012-ST provides for reverse charge on services supplied by an advocate to a business entity. Payments to other professionals and for incidental expenses were distinguished from the identified advocate payment.

Conclusion: The other professional and incidental payments are not liable as advocate services; the advocate payment is taxable in principle, subject to limitation.

Issue (vii): Reverse-charge liability for labour and subcontract expenses.

Analysis: The burden of proof rested on the revenue to establish that the payments were for manpower supply or works contract services. No corresponding contracts were identified, and the demands rested on assumptions drawn from accounting descriptions.

Conclusion: The demands on labour and subcontract expenses cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): Reverse-charge liability on royalty deductions.

Analysis: Government services were taxable under the applicable negative-list framework and reverse-charge notification. No transaction granting a right to use natural resources was identified, and one deducting authority was neither government nor a local authority.

Conclusion: The demand on royalty deductions cannot be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): Invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The disputes involved interpretation of service tax provisions. Returns had been regularly filed, the information came from the assessee's books, and no fraud or suppression was established.

Conclusion: The extended period is unavailable and the entire demand is time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service tax demand or related penalty survives for the period, although the medical college subcontract and identified transport and advocate payments were taxable in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: A reverse-charge service tax demand cannot be sustained solely on accounting descriptions or assumptions without proof of the taxable service.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the special leave petition was disposed of with liberty to prefer a statutory appeal.

Issues: (i) Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents; (ii) Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Issue (i): Whether a transit-state GST authority may seize goods and impose a penalty under Section 129 where the supply originates and is destined outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Analysis: Inspection and verification are distinct from the powers to seize goods and impose penalties. Freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 informs the limits of transit-state penal jurisdiction. The goods originated and were destined outside the transit state, with no tax incidence arising there; a perceived documentary deficiency could be referred to the jurisdictional authorities in the origin or destination state.

Conclusion: No. The transit-state authorities lacked jurisdiction to seize the goods and impose the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a one-day mismatch between outward dispatch documents and an internal stock-transfer invoice justifies a 200% penalty under Section 129 when the goods are covered by valid invoices and e-way bills.

Analysis: Section 129 addresses deliberate tax evasion during transit, including movement of untaxed or unaccounted goods and use of fake bills. Valid tax invoices and e-way bills covered the outward movement; the date mismatch concerned a revenue-neutral internal accounting sequence between registrations of the same business.

Conclusion: No. The internal invoice-date mismatch did not justify the penalty. The issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty demand is quashed, and any penalty or security collected is refundable with interest in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A transit-state authority may inspect an interstate consignment but cannot exercise penal jurisdiction under Section 129 where the supply originates and ends outside that state, no tax incidence arises there, and the movement is supported by the required documents.

Issues: Whether fines and penalties in lieu of confiscation were sustainable for excess or unaccounted stock discovered during surveys of business premises.

Analysis: Section 35 of the GST Acts requires registered persons to maintain true and correct accounts and provides for determination of tax on unaccounted goods as though supplied, applying sections 73 or 74. Binding High Court decisions address excess stock discovered during surveys by reference to those assessment provisions rather than confiscation proceedings.

Conclusion: No. The confiscation proceedings and resulting fines and penalties were unsustainable, and their setting aside was upheld. The issue was decided in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excess or unaccounted stock is found during a survey of business premises, tax is to be determined under sections 73 or 74 rather than through direct confiscation proceedings under section 130.

Issues: Whether transportation under an expired e-way bill justified the GST penalty.

Analysis: Section 129 of the GST enactments addresses detention and penalties, while Rule 138 governs e-way bills. The e-way bill had expired and recorded a vehicle registration different from the vehicle carrying the goods, although the goods and other documents matched. Repair slips for the alleged breakdown were produced during adjudication rather than at interception, the driver had not reported a breakdown, and no FASTag movement was shown. Fiscal penalties were treated as civil liabilities, while intention to evade tax under section 129 was stated to be ascertainable from the surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The expired e-way bill amounted to no valid e-way bill, and the penalty was justified against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Transportation under an expired e-way bill may attract a GST penalty where the surrounding circumstances support an inference of intention to evade tax.

Issues: Whether eligible transitional input tax credit could be denied because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column in Form TRAN-1.

Analysis: Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 govern the transition of eligible credit through Form TRAN-1. The credit's eligibility and quantum were undisputed, and the declaration was filed within time. The revenue's objection concerned the category under which the credit was declared. The unutilised credit was treated as a vested right that could not be defeated on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The transitional credit was admissible and could not be denied merely because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column. The decision was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Admitted eligible transitional input tax credit cannot be denied solely because it was declared under an incorrect provision or column in Form TRAN-1.

Issues: (i) Whether GST paid under the CGST and SGST heads can be transferred to the IGST head; (ii) Whether payment of GST under the wrong head justified proceedings and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Issue (i): Whether GST paid under the CGST and SGST heads can be transferred to the IGST head.

Analysis: The revenue did not dispute payment under the CGST and SGST heads. Section 77 of the CGST Act provides for refund where a transaction treated as intra-State is subsequently held to be inter-State. Section 19 of the IGST Act provides that no interest is payable on the IGST in those circumstances. Rule 4 of the GST Refund Rules provides for adjustment of a refund against an outstanding demand. These provisions permit transfer of the amount paid under the wrong heads.

Conclusion: The amount paid under the CGST and SGST heads is to be transferred to the IGST head, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether payment of GST under the wrong head justified proceedings and penalty under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Analysis: Section 74 requires satisfaction that fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression caused the relevant shortfall, with foundational facts apparent from the notice. Payment under the wrong head was not accompanied by a deliberate attempt to evade tax.

Conclusion: The Section 74 proceedings and penalty were not justified, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transferred payment is to be credited towards IGST; the quantum of IGST and any liability beyond the amount already paid remain undetermined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST has been paid under an incorrect head without fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, the payment may be transferred to the correct head and does not by itself justify proceedings under Section 74.

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond three years could be sustained through exclusion of time when the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh; (ii) Whether the approval for reassessment was valid without independent consideration of the material and limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment notice issued beyond three years could be sustained through exclusion of time when the alleged escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: Section 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 distinguishes the ordinary three-year period from the extended period available where the prescribed escaped-income threshold is met. Its fifth and sixth provisos concern exclusion of specified time and extension of a short residual period. The assessing authority had quantified the alleged escaped income at Rs. 47.29 lakh, and no court order had stayed the proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation, and the provisos did not save it. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval for reassessment was valid without independent consideration of the material and limitation.

Analysis: Section 151 requires the sanctioning authority to apply its mind independently to the material, including the taxpayer's reply, the quantum involved and the applicable limitation. The record contained no such consideration or contemporaneous reasons invoking the exclusion of time; reasons supplied later could not supplement the approval.

Conclusion: The approval was invalid. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment and penalty could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: The exclusion provisions for reassessment limitation cannot be used to invoke the extended limitation period where the prescribed escaped-income threshold is not met.

Issues: Whether interest on enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is taxable as income from other sources.

Analysis: Interest awarded under Section 28 is an accretion to the value of the acquired land and forms part of the compensation as a capital receipt. The adopted precedent explains that the amendments to Section 145A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 do not alter that character.

Conclusion: The interest was not taxable as income from other sources, and the addition was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forms part of enhanced compensation and is not taxable as interest income from other sources.

Issues: (i) Whether the former complainant and successor authorised representatives should be impleaded in the disciplinary appeal; (ii) whether subsequent events and documents could be introduced to contest the former representative's authority and the disciplinary order.

Issue (i): Whether the former complainant and successor authorised representatives should be impleaded in the disciplinary appeal.

Analysis: Under the complaint-handling framework, the Board acts on a complaint and conducts the disciplinary process. A complainant's participation in an insolvency professional's appeal is not mandatory, and impleadment ordinarily follows the complainant's request. Protection against vexatious litigation must be balanced against any need for the complainant's presence for just disposal. The appeal concerns the legality and propriety of the disciplinary order.

Conclusion: Neither representative is to be impleaded. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent events and documents could be introduced to contest the former representative's authority and the disciplinary order.

Analysis: Replacement of an authorised representative operates prospectively and does not nullify acts validly performed during the predecessor's tenure. The Board had found the complaint maintainable and disciplinary proceedings had culminated in an order. The order's correctness falls to be assessed on the material before the disciplinary committee.

Conclusion: The subsequent material is not to be taken on record, and the professional cannot reopen the complainant's locus at this stage. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary order remains subject to adjudication in the pending main appeal on the material before the disciplinary committee.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disciplinary appeal by an insolvency professional, a complainant is not a mandatory party and cannot be impleaded against the complainant's wishes merely because of subsequently discovered facts, unless the Tribunal requires the complainant's presence for just disposal.

Issues: (i) Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation; (ii) whether the notice and consequential order disclosed independent application of mind; (iii) whether the proceedings violated binding judicial directions and natural justice; (iv) whether the record justified applying the works-contract tax rule for failure to maintain accounts.

Issue (i): Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 32 of the Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005 prescribes a four-year limit for revisional jurisdiction. The revised notice and consequential order were issued beyond that period when measured against either order proposed to be revised. A change of officer or a pending audit objection could not revive the expired jurisdiction. Section 174 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 preserved the limitations and safeguards applicable to pre-GST proceedings.

Conclusion: The revision proceedings were barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice and consequential order disclosed independent application of mind.

Analysis: Section 32 and Rule 50 require an opportunity to show cause and independent formation of opinion by the revisional authority. The notices reproduced the audit objection without independently verifying the relevant record. The consequential order also misunderstood the identity of the appellate authority, undermining its reasoning.

Conclusion: The notice and consequential order were vitiated by lack of independent application of mind, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings violated binding judicial directions and natural justice.

Analysis: A prior judicial direction prohibited a fresh notice and expressly permitted objections concerning limitation and jurisdiction. The revised notice was issued despite that direction, and the petitioner was instructed not to raise those objections.

Conclusion: The proceedings violated the binding directions and natural justice, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the record justified applying the works-contract tax rule for failure to maintain accounts.

Analysis: Rule 17 provides for taxation on total consideration and denial of input tax credit where the requisite accounts are not maintained. The petitioner produced contract-wise ledgers, tax deduction returns and audited financial statements. The allegations concerning accounts and supporting details rested on an unverified audit observation and were substantially answered by that material.

Conclusion: Reliance on the works-contract tax rule was not sustained, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The revision was legally untenable on jurisdictional, procedural and evidentiary grounds; migration to GST did not remove the safeguards applicable to the pre-GST proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory limitation period governing revisional jurisdiction cannot be extended or revived by an audit objection or administrative change.

Issues: Whether cheque dishonour proceedings could be maintained for cheques issued against a tax and penalty assessment that had been set aside.

Analysis: The cheque dishonour offence requires a legally enforceable debt or liability. The underlying assessment had been set aside because the investigating and reporting officer had also adjudicated the matter. The applicable VAT legislation permits cash, bank guarantees or bank drafts, but not cheques, as security for release of goods. It separately provides for penalties and recovery, including as arrears of land revenue.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable because the cheques did not discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A dishonoured cheque cannot sustain prosecution where it was taken against a tax and penalty assessment subsequently set aside and the governing security provision does not recognise cheques.

Issues: Whether defence evidence should be reopened to summon bank officials concerning the closure of the account in cheque dishonour proceedings.

Analysis: The application to summon witnesses was made under the witness-summoning provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at the judgment stage. The account balance at closure was Rs. 8,383, grossly insufficient to honour the cheque. The decisions relied upon by the petitioners contained no comparable finding of insufficient funds.

Conclusion: Reopening defence evidence and summoning the bank officials was rightly refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening defence evidence to summon a witness may be refused where the proposed testimony would not assist the defence on the material facts.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed integrated tax input credit was admissible; (ii) whether the remaining central and state tax demands required appropriation from amounts already paid; (iii) whether the penalties for alleged wrongful availment of credit were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed integrated tax input credit was admissible.

Analysis: Revenue verification of the invoices and the chartered accountant's certificate, including its unique document identification number, supported the disputed credit. Revenue conceded the demand on that basis.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the disputed integrated tax credit is admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining central and state tax demands required appropriation from amounts already paid.

Analysis: Payments of Rs. 10,792 each towards central and state tax had been made, but only Rs. 10,269 each had previously been appropriated. The remaining demands arose from incomplete appropriation.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: Rs. 522 each towards central and state tax is to be appropriated from the amounts already paid.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties for alleged wrongful availment of credit were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 73(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act provides for payment of tax and interest within the prescribed period following notice. Revenue confirmed timely payment in relation to the central and state tax penalties. The same reasoning was applied to the integrated tax penalty, with Revenue reporting that the disputed penalty was unsupported by the records.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the penalties under central, state and integrated GST are not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: No tax remains due under the disputed heads, and the consequential interest demand also falls.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment of tax and interest within the prescribed period following notice precludes penalty under the applicable GST provisions.

Issues: Whether a final assessment order could be passed against an eligible assessee without first serving a draft assessment order.

Analysis: The faceless assessment provisions apply the draft-assessment procedure to an eligible assessee where a transfer-pricing variation is prejudicial. The procedure requires service of a draft assessment order to enable objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel. The final assessment order was issued without that step, depriving the assessee of the opportunity to object.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was invalid for want of jurisdiction and was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A final assessment made against an eligible assessee without first serving the mandatory draft assessment order is vitiated by an incurable jurisdictional error.

Issues: How interest on enhanced acquisition compensation is characterized for income tax purposes and how claims for refund of tax deducted from agricultural-land compensation are to be assessed.

Analysis: Section 28 governs interest on excess compensation, whereas Section 34 addresses delay in payment; an acquisition award may also include additional compensation and solatium. The adopted precedent provides for the Assessing Officer to assess the nature of the land and refund claims where deducted tax has been deposited with the Income Tax Department.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 28 forms part of enhanced compensation, unlike interest under Section 34 for delayed payment. Agricultural-land refund claims are to be determined by the Assessing Officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on excess compensation under Section 28 forms part of the enhanced value of acquired land, while interest under Section 34 is compensation for delay in payment.

Issues: Whether expenditure could be disallowed under Section 14A where no exempt income was earned during the relevant assessment year.

Analysis: Section 14A and Rule 8D govern disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income. Appellate jurisdiction under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law. The concurrent findings that no exempt income was earned were not shown to be unsupported by the record or perverse. Binding precedent addressed disallowance in the absence of exempt income.

Conclusion: No disallowance was permissible in the absence of exempt income, and no substantial question of law arose. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 14A for an assessment year in which no exempt income is earned.

Issues: (i) Whether a late or absent reply to a demand notice precludes reliance on a pre-existing dispute, and whether the holding response constituted notice of dispute; (ii) whether the correspondence established a pre-existing dispute concerning the operational debt.

Issue (i): Whether a late or absent reply to a demand notice precludes reliance on a pre-existing dispute, and whether the holding response constituted notice of dispute.

Analysis: Sections 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provide for communication of a dispute following a demand notice and rejection of an application where notice of dispute has been received. The statutory scheme does not make a timely detailed reply the sole means of placing material concerning an earlier dispute before the adjudicating authority. The holding response withheld admission of the demand, although it contained no specific details.

Conclusion: A late or absent reply does not preclude reliance on material establishing a pre-existing dispute. The holding response was in the nature of a notice of dispute. The issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the correspondence established a pre-existing dispute concerning the operational debt.

Analysis: The applicable test requires a plausible dispute supported by evidence, without deciding whether the defence is likely to succeed. Communications preceding the demand notice addressed outstanding credit notes, detention and demurrage charges, reconciliation and the amount payable. A subsequent email expressly disputed the claimed balance and sought adjustment of pending credit notes. These communications were linked to the transactions underlying the claim.

Conclusion: A genuine pre-existing dispute barred initiation of the insolvency process. The issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor is restored to independent management, and the insolvency process and consequential orders cease to operate.

Ratio Decidendi: An operational creditor's insolvency application must be rejected where material establishes a plausible, non-illusory dispute predating the demand notice; failure to provide a detailed reply within the prescribed period does not preclude the debtor from producing that material.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals involving place of supply fall within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the support and software services qualify as exports rather than intermediary services. (iii) Whether additional grounds for rejecting one refund claim were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals involving place of supply fall within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 reserves cases involving an issue relating to place of supply to the Principal Bench. The intermediary classification affects whether the place of supply is in India or outside India under Section 13 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The appeals fall within the Principal Bench's jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the support and software services qualify as exports rather than intermediary services.

Analysis: The definition of intermediary requires facilitation of a separate supply between other persons and excludes supplies made on the supplier's own account. The agreements established a principal-to-principal relationship, without agency or authority to bind the overseas recipient. Applying ejusdem generis, the expression covering other persons was read in the context of brokers and agents. The export requirements include an overseas place of supply and receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange. The separately incorporated parent and subsidiary were not merely establishments of a distinct person.

Conclusion: The services are exports, not intermediary services, and qualify for refund of unutilised input tax credit, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether additional grounds for rejecting one refund claim were sustainable.

Analysis: The notice did not specify the alleged mismatches, missing invoice details or lack of input nexus sufficiently, and the first appellate authority recorded no reasoned findings on them. Rejection on those grounds went beyond the notice and violated natural justice.

Conclusion: The additional grounds for rejection are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification and additional objections do not bar refund of the unutilised credit with statutory interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A service supplied on the supplier's own account on a principal-to-principal basis is not an intermediary service merely because it facilitates the recipient's business.