GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-II(IMPORT) CUSTOM HOUSE, NO.60, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600001 F.No. CUS/APR/MISC/1247/2025-PI DATED: 07-10-2026 PUBLIC NOTICE No. 138/2026 Subject: - Attention of all the Importers, Customs Brokers and all relevant stakeholders associated with Chennai Customs House under Project Import Scheme are invited towards Project Import Regulations, 1986, CBIC Circular No... ... ...

P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ. JUDGMENT BHAGWATI, J. The facts giving rise to these appeals are set out in the judgment about to be delivered by our learned brother S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and we do not think it necessary to reiterate them. So far as Civil Appeals 572-574 of 1972 are concerned, it would be sufficient to state briefly the following facts as these are the only facts necessary for appreciating the question of law which arises for determination in these appeals. In the a... ... ...

Natural justice in GST adjudication requires the Proper Officer to consider a taxpayer's representation under section 74(9) read with rule 142(4). Form GST DRC-06 need not be furnished exclusively through the electronic portal; a manually filed reply acknowledged at personal hearing cannot be disregarded solely because it was unavailable online. Issuing a demand order before expiry of time allowed for supporting documents, without addressing the reply or jurisdictional objection, denies a meaningful hearing. Such procedural defects support writ intervention despite an alternative statutory remedy. The demand order was set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication, with jurisdictional and merits objections left open.

Recipient input tax credit did not require reversal solely because a supplier issued credit notes during the relevant period: neither the Act nor the Rules imposed that obligation, the statutory matching mechanism was inoperative, and Rule 37 concerned non-payment to suppliers. Accordingly, the premise for reversal failed. Excess IGST adjusted against CGST and SGST liabilities was procedurally irregular because the prescribed refund, re-credit or subsequent IGST-adjustment route was not used. However, as a bona fide first-year GST correction causing no revenue loss, it did not justify a fresh tax demand, interest or penalty; the departmental appeal was dismissed.

Assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot to a third party is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a GST-taxable supply. A binding High Court ruling on that characterisation remains operative absent a stay or recall, notwithstanding an intended review. GST is therefore not leviable on such assignment, and the appellate order rejecting the departmental challenge stands sustained.

Retrospective contractual price escalation fixes the true value of pre-GST clearances from their original clearance date. Section 142(2)(a) permits GST-compliant debit notes and post-transition reporting of differential tax, but does not create a new taxable event or defer accrual of the enhanced value. Differential tax on the increased value is therefore due from inception, making statutory interest mandatory despite the absence of formal provisional assessment. Penalty under section 122 is not warranted where the differential tax is voluntarily paid after price finalisation under a bona fide understanding of complex transitional provisions, without suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement or deliberate evasion.

Credit notes validly issued for returned or rejected supplies reduce taxable turnover and are deductible from adjusted total turnover under the zero-rated supply refund formula. Credit notes issued during the refund period against invoices for Financial Year 2019-20 after expiry of the statutory time limit cannot be excluded from adjusted total turnover and must be included on recomputation. As the recomputed refund remained within the maximum permissible amount, the refund already sanctioned remained admissible and the Revenue challenge failed.

For inverted duty structure refunds, credit notes issued for returned or rejected supplies generally reduce taxable turnover and adjusted total turnover. Credit notes relating to invoices from an earlier financial year but issued after the statutory period for issuing and declaring them cannot be excluded from adjusted total turnover. Their value must therefore be included when recomputing accumulated input tax credit refund under Rule 89(5), reducing the refund to the permissible amount and requiring recovery of any excess refund.

Departmental GST appeals challenging only a penalty must assess the disputed penalty against the applicable monetary threshold under the departmental litigation policy. An exception to that policy must be specifically identified and supported by the relevant facts and basis; it cannot be presumed. Commissioner authorisation to file an appeal under section 112(3) does not independently establish an exception or dispense with compliance with the monetary-limit policy. Absence of material showing a recorded case-specific opinion under a residual exception makes the appeal non-maintainable, without determination of the underlying tax merits.

GST demands alleging bogus inward supplies require proof that the supplier firm was non-existent or that tax evasion occurred. Registration of the firm and filing of relevant statutory returns supported its existence. In the absence of evidence disproving those facts or establishing tax evasion, the allegation of a bogus or non-existent firm could not sustain the GST demand or penalty. The deletion of the demand and penalty was consequently maintained, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Departmental GST appeals below the prescribed monetary limit are governed by binding litigation-policy circulars. The disputed amount must be computed under the circular, and Revenue must establish a recognised exception. Reliance on the residual interest-of-justice-or-revenue exception requires the Commissioner's recorded, case-specific opinion and its basis; a general appellate authorisation is insufficient. Without such exception or supporting record, the departmental appeal was unmaintainable and dismissed at the threshold, leaving the underlying tax merits undecided.

Assignment by sale and transfer of leasehold rights in industrial plots allotted by GIDC is treated as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property rather than a taxable supply under GST. On that basis, GST is not leviable on assignments to third-party assignees. An intention to seek review does not displace a binding ruling unless it is stayed or recalled.

The purpose test for subsidy receipts requires examination of the scheme's operative provisions rather than its nomenclature, source, form or payment timing. Electricity subsidy under the Pondicherry power subsidy scheme was payable after production and calculated as a percentage of actual energy charges. Because it directly reduced the cost of power used in manufacturing and was not linked or earmarked to capital expenditure or creation of a capital asset, it constituted operational assistance. The subsidy was therefore treated as a taxable revenue receipt rather than a capital receipt, and the appeal was dismissed.

Faceless assessment must comply with principles of natural justice by providing precise notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse quasi-judicial order affecting civil consequences is issued. Allowing less than three working days to respond was treated as inadequate where the assessee could not upload material on the portal and instead emailed a reply and supporting documents. Disregarding material acknowledged as forwarded to the Assessment Unit, and recording non-compliance contrary to the record, caused serious prejudice. The assessment order was quashed and remanded for fresh assessment after reasonable hearing and consideration of the response and documents already submitted.

Failure to consider an adjournment request uploaded through the income-tax portal can deny the taxpayer an effective opportunity to respond to a show-cause notice and breach principles of natural justice. Portal-generated confirmation and subsequent communication established that the request had been filed but was not placed before the Assessing Officer. The final assessment was therefore set aside and remitted for fresh assessment, with an opportunity to submit a reply and receive a hearing.

Minimum alternate tax does not apply to a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Leave-salary or leave-encashment liability may accrue under mercantile accounting, but its deduction is deferred until actual payment; an unpaid provision is not deductible. An uninterrupted power supply used solely to support a computer system, without evidence of independent use, forms an integral part of that system and qualifies for depreciation at the computer-equipment rate. The tax treatment therefore excludes regulated banking companies from minimum alternate tax and allows the higher computer-equipment depreciation rate, while denying deduction for unpaid leave-encashment provisions.

Political-party donation deduction under section 80GGC was denied because search-proceeding admissions supported the finding that the contribution was bogus, and no rebuttal evidence was furnished. Interest on borrowed capital claimed for house construction requires verification of the construction and supporting evidence where the loan is described as a personal loan; the claim was remitted for examination. Credit for tax deducted at source was directed to be allowed on recomputation. Professional-tax deduction omitted from the return requires proof of payment and was remitted for verification in accordance with law.

Commencement of the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 is appointed for 30 November 2023 only for serial number 42 and the related Schedule entries concerning the Aadhaar Act. The specified Aadhaar-related component of the Jan Vishwas amendments takes effect from that date, with the operative scope confined to amendments connected with targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits and services.

Related-party commission expenditure under section 40A(2)(b) is not disallowable solely because payment is made to a related person. Excessiveness or unreasonableness must be assessed against the fair market value of services, legitimate business needs, and benefit derived. A benchmark from an unrelated line of business, unsupported by comparable material, cannot establish that commission is excessive. Verification remains necessary to confirm services rendered and their commercial justification. Applying these principles, the related-party commission disallowance was deleted.

On-money forming part of consideration for sale of flats accrues when the sale deed is executed and title transfers, rather than on mere receipt as an advance, under the project-completion method. Disclosed on-money offered in the respective years of sale-deed registration cannot be taxed wholly in the earlier assessment year without verifying later-year tax offerings. Balance additions require limited verification of income offered within the stipulated undertaking periods; verified amounts must be deleted, while amounts not offered may be taxed in the earlier year. No further deferment beyond those stipulated periods is permitted.