HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) FOR THE PETITIONER(S) NO. 1,2 M/S TRIVEDI AND GUPTA(949) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 7 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 4,5,8,9 MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 1,2 MR RJ OZA(520) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 3,6 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S) NO. 1 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT) 1. In this petition, the... ... ...

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) Cell Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House PO: Sheva, Tal Uran, Navi Mumbai-400707 Date :28-09-2026 Public Notice No. 117/2026 Subject: - Reg. Attention of all Importers, Exporters, Customs Brokers, Shipping Lines/Shipping Agents, Freight Forwarders, Port Terminal Operators, Custodians, Customs Cargo Service Providers (CCSPs), CONCOR, Container Rail Road Services Pvt. Ltd. (DP World Group) M/s Gat... ... ...

Approval under section 45(4)(b) is granted to Jai Research Foundation for scientific research as a Research Association for tax years 2026-2027 through 2030-2031. The approval is subject to compliance with rule 33. For each tax year in which donations are received, the Foundation must submit a Form No. 15 statement by 31 May immediately following that tax year and furnish donors Form No. 16 certificates specifying donation amounts.

Eligibility for an inverted duty structure refund on cotton yarn depends on factual verification of whether the claimant manufactured yarn using cotton fibre, packing materials and consumables, or merely traded in yarn. Documentary examination must establish the nature of the activity before refund eligibility is determined. Refund-rejection and appellate orders were quashed, with the claims remitted for factual verification and fresh final orders.

Reliance on a previously quashed departmental circular could not sustain rejection of an inverted-duty refund claim for cotton-yarn clearances. High Court quashed the appellate order because it rested on that circular and required fresh examination of the inputs procured and their use in manufacturing and clearing cotton yarn before refund eligibility could be determined. The refund claims were remitted for fresh examination, with refund to be granted if eligibility is established.

Transitional input tax credit claimants could file or revise Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 within the extended window available to aggrieved registered assessees. Claims filed or revised through that facility remain subject to verification on merits after a reasonable opportunity is provided. The extended mechanism therefore preserves access to transitional credit claims while requiring substantive verification before credit is granted.

Statutory personal hearing under GST requires a real and effective opportunity where a taxable person requests a hearing before an adverse adjudication. Failure to provide a post-reply hearing vitiates the original adjudication and requires fresh consideration. A reasoned order must address the taxpayer's explanation, relevant facts, evidentiary basis, and grounds for inferring an additional taxable supply; a bare rejection of the reply is insufficient. Non-cancellation of a duplicate e-way bill is a material but non-conclusive circumstance, requiring cumulative assessment with primary evidence and surrounding facts. Following amendment, pre-show-cause intimation is enabling, so its non-issuance does not independently require remand.

Reasoned and speaking appellate orders require consideration of the appellants' material grounds and cited authorities; a bare affirmation of original orders in identical terms fails to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Where original adjudication proceeded ex parte and objections concerning notice, relied-upon documents, and personal hearing remain unexamined, remand preserves the effective appellate remedy rather than a merits decision at the appellate stage. The appellate and original orders were set aside, with fresh adjudication requiring identification and availability of relied-upon documents, reasonable time to reply, an effective personal hearing, and reasoned orders.

Sections 35G and 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allocate appellate jurisdiction by excluding High Court appeals involving questions related to the rate of duty or value for assessment. Taxability and excisability fall within that excluded category. Determinations of whether services constitute intermediary services or qualify as exports of services may involve service classification, excisability and valuation for assessment. Appeals raising those issues must therefore be pursued before the Supreme Court under Section 35L rather than before the High Court.

Appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act exclude disputes concerning the rate of duty or value for assessment, which fall within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Section 35L. Taxability and excisability form part of this excluded category. Characterising services supplied to an overseas entity as intermediary services, and determining whether they qualify as export services, concerns classification, excisability and assessable value. Challenges to such determinations are therefore not maintainable under Section 35G and must be pursued under Section 35L.

Restoration of property attached under the PMLA during trial is confined to claimants with a legitimate interest and quantifiable loss, subject to framing of charge and a hearing for the owner under the Restoration of Property Rules. An association that is not itself a homebuyer and has no quantifiable loss cannot qualify; the restoration order obtained on its application was set aside. Assets of former promoters or other entities remain outside the corporate debtor's insolvency estate, and an insolvency professional's undertaking cannot alter that position. An independent monitoring committee will verify genuine homebuyers and maintain asset data, while liquidation or restoration remains deferred pending attachment challenges and available remedies.

Forensic audit directions concerning commercial transactions and relationships between the judgment debtors, FHL, FHHPL and the banks are confined to those transactions. Relevant clauses do not authorise a general examination of the banks' affairs beyond that scope. The audit therefore cannot become a fishing and roving inquiry into the banks' entire affairs.

Reasoned appellate orders must address material factual and legal grounds, evidence and authorities relied upon; conclusory confirmation of original orders does not provide an effective appellate determination and undermines natural justice. Where first appellate review omits those grounds, deciding the dispute only at the second appellate level may deprive the party of a statutory appellate level. Fresh original adjudication should ensure identification and access to relied-upon documents, reasonable opportunity to respond, effective personal hearing, and a reasoned determination.

Requested personal hearings and reasoned orders are required where an adverse GST determination turns on disputed factual evidence. Denial of a post-reply hearing and failure to address explanations concerning duplicate e-way bills, a single supply, and alleged additional taxable transactions breach the requirements of Sections 75(4) and 75(6). Later appellate hearings do not automatically rectify that original-stage defect. Rule 138(9) does not create a new charge; failure to cancel an e-way bill is relevant but not conclusive of an additional supply. The dispute requires fresh adjudication confined to the existing notice, with primary records, a meaningful hearing, and a speaking order.

Supreme Court directions permitted aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise Form GST TRAN-1 and Form GST TRAN-2 for availing transitional input-tax credit. The relief allowing Form GST TRAN-1 filing for transitional credit corresponded with that concession, leaving no basis to disturb it and preserving the assessee's ability to seek the credit. Transitional credit may therefore be pursued through the filing or revision mechanism specified in those directions.

Cross-examination must be afforded where an assessing authority treats third-party statements as credible and relies on them directly to deny an input tax credit claim. Although cross-examination is not an absolute right in every assessment, natural justice and fair-hearing requirements require an effective opportunity to rebut materially relied-upon statements. Denial of that opportunity vitiates the assessment and requires fresh adjudication after the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the relevant individuals.

Inverted-duty GST refund eligibility for cotton-yarn manufacturing requires fresh factual verification of the inputs purchased, manufacturing activity, output-tax payment and accumulated input tax credit. Rejection based on Circular No. 135/05/2020-GST is unsustainable where that circular has already been quashed in relation to the same refund issue. The Department should also maintain consistency where comparable refund claims have been sanctioned. Refund must be granted once the factual requirements for eligibility under the inverted duty structure are established.

Refund eligibility under an alleged inverted duty structure required verification of whether outward supplies comprised cotton yarn manufactured using cotton fibre, packing material and consumables, or cotton yarn traded without manufacturing. Supporting records had to establish the actual nature of the claimant's activities before refund entitlement could be determined. The impugned orders were quashed, and the refund claims were remitted for fresh determination on that factual verification.

Amended Section 16(4) of the GST enactments, effective from 27 September 2024, regularises belated availment of input tax credit. Credit eligibility remains subject to compliance with all other applicable statutory and rule-based conditions. Demands concerning delayed input tax credit availment require fresh adjudication under the amended provision. Fresh adjudication of demands unrelated to Section 16(4) is conditional on payment of 50% of the disputed tax in cash and submission of a reply supported by relevant material.

Cancelled GST registration may be restored where the registered person satisfies the applicable restoration requirements. A penalty proceeding for failure to furnish required information, where no reply to the show-cause notice was filed and hearing opportunities were not used, may undergo fresh adjudication after a 10% cash deposit of the disputed tax and submission of a reply supported by documents. The existing penalty order is to operate as an addendum to the show-cause notice, requiring a merits determination after the prescribed compliance.