TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
By creating an account you can:
of 45
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
of 45Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Daily Newsletter
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original was liable to be entertained and the order quashed despite the statutory appeal remedy and the petitioner's grievance regarding service and visibility of the show cause notice on the GST portal.
Analysis: The petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice and had also not filed an appeal within limitation under the statutory appellate remedy. The Court noted that the order had been passed ex parte, that the remedy of appeal was available, and that the challenge in writ jurisdiction did not warrant quashing of the adjudication order. At the same time, since the limitation for appeal had already expired and the petitioner had approached the Court, the Court found it to grant a limited opportunity to have the matter reconsidered upon compliance with specified conditions.
Conclusion: The impugned order was not quashed. The petitioner was granted one opportunity to submit a reply along with deposit of 50% of the tax amount with penalty, excluding interest, within one month, whereafter the Assistant Commissioner is to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not allowed on merits, but limited conditional relief was granted by permitting reconsideration before the adjudicating authority upon compliance with the directed deposit and filing of reply.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appeal remedy exists and the assessee has allowed the adjudication to become ex parte and time-barred, writ interference with the assessment order is ordinarily unwarranted, though the Court may grant a limited conditional opportunity in the interests of justice.
Challenged the order passed under Section 73 - Visibility of notices on GST portal - Show cause notice was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab - Ex parte adjudication -Alternative statutory remedy - failed to file a reply or a timely statutory appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the petitioner had neither replied to the show cause notice nor availed the statutory appeal within limitation. It accepted the respondents' stand that, after 16.01.2024, the GST portal displayed the tabs for notices and additional notices side by side and that notices uploaded under the additional tab were visible. In that view, the decisions dealing with notices uploaded before such portal upgradation were held inapplicable, and the ex parte order was not found liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction when an appellate remedy under Section 107 was available. [Paras 6, 7, 8]
The impugned order was not quashed on merits of the challenge founded on alleged non-visibility of the notice, and the Court treated the statutory appellate remedy as the ordinary course.
Although the Court declined to interfere with the adjudication on the ground urged, it considered that the appeal limitation had expired while the writ petition remained pending. On that basis, it granted a conditional opportunity to the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice along with deposit of 50% of the tax amount with penalty, excluding interest, within the time fixed, whereupon the Assistant Commissioner was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. [Paras 9]
Reconsideration was permitted only on the petitioner's making the prescribed deposit and filing its reply within one month.
Final Conclusion: The writ court declined to set aside the ex parte order on the plea that the notice was placed under the additional notices tab, holding that after the portal upgradation the tab was visible and the statutory appellate remedy was available. However, as the appeal limitation had expired during pendency of the writ petition, a conditional opportunity for reconsideration was granted on deposit and filing of reply.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to respond to the show cause notice and the matter be left for fresh consideration by the tax authority.
Analysis: The petition challenged orders passed under Section 74 of the J&K GST Act, 2017 on the ground of non-service and breach of natural justice. Without entering into the merits of the disputed tax liability, the Court accepted that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place a reply to the show cause notice already supplied in Court. The respondents were directed to consider that reply and pass an order in accordance with law within the stipulated time.
Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to respond to the show cause notice, and the authority was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering the reply.
Limitation for filing statutory appeal against order under Section 74 - default in payment of the tax - violation of principle of natural justice - suppression of turnover - Alternative Remedy - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has impugned the above mentioned orders on the ground that the petitioner had not committed any default in payment of the tax and the orders impugned have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It is further stated that the order dated 04.04.2023 under section 74 of the Act was never served upon the petitioner till date and it was only after the bank account of the petitioner was attached by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes (Recovery) Jammu in furtherance of the recovery proceedings, the petitioner came across order dated 04.04.2023. It is further stated that the petitioner made several attempts to file statutory appeal under Section 107 of the J&K GST Act, 2017 but the petitioner was given to understand that the limitation for filing statutory appeal against order under Section 74 is only three months and in case the appeal is filed by the petitioner, the same will be rejected on the ground of limitation.
Without examining the merits of the challenge to the proceedings under Section 74 of the J&K GST Act, the Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice within the time granted and directing the authorities to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after considering such reply.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging GST demand orders were maintainable in view of the alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the CGST Act, 2017, and whether the case fell within the exception permitting exercise of writ jurisdiction despite such remedy.
Analysis: The petitioners had an efficacious appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the impugned orders had themselves informed them of that remedy. The plea that the orders were wholly without jurisdiction was not accepted, because the controversy depended upon factual examination of the transactions on which GST had been levied. The asserted constitutional immunity of municipal bodies from all GST liability was not treated as a complete bar to taxation on every transaction, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to justify bypassing the statutory appeal. The challenge did not involve a direct attack on the constitutional validity of any provision.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertainable and the petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with liberty to pursue appeals without being met with limitation objections if filed within the stipulated period.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available and the dispute turns on factual determination, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised merely on a claim of lack of jurisdiction, absent exceptional circumstances.
Writ jurisdiction for GST demands by municipal bodies - right to appeal -Efficacious appellate remedy under Section 107 - Exceptional Circumstances.
Alternative efficacious remedy - Writ jurisdiction - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the existence of an alternative and efficacious appellate remedy warranted relegation of the petitioners to that remedy. It found that the challenge could not be treated as one of orders being wholly without jurisdiction, since even the objection based on alleged immunity from GST would require examination of the nature of the transactions sought to be taxed and the adjudicating authority had already undertaken that factual exercise. As the controversy involved factual determination and no exceptional circumstance such as a challenge to the vires of the statute was made out, exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined. While doing so, the Court left all contentions open and protected the petitioners by directing that, if appeals were filed within the time granted and with statutory compliances, the appellate authority should decide them on merits without adverting to limitation. [Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]
The petitioners were relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, with liberty to file appeals within the time granted, and all merits were expressly left open.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions against the adjudication orders, holding that the petitioners must pursue the statutory appeals under the CGST Act. Appeals filed within the time granted were directed to be heard on merits without objection as to limitation, and all substantive contentions were left open.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the GST demand order in view of the statutory appellate remedy, and whether there was any violation of natural justice for want of personal hearing under the GST framework.
Analysis: The notices and final order were treated as proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. The petitioners did not file replies to the show-cause notices and did not request a personal hearing, while the statute contemplates hearing upon appropriate request. The Court held that, in these circumstances, there was no violation of Section 75(4) of the GST Act or of the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the impugned order raised issues that were available to be challenged in appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, and the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked after the appellate limitation had expired. Rule 142 of the CGST Rules was not accepted as a basis to bypass the statutory remedy.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy and seek condonation of delay as available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxable person does not respond to the show-cause notice or seek a hearing, and an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ relief is ordinarily not maintainable absent a demonstrable breach of natural justice.
Writ Maintainability - Alternative statutory remedy - violation of natural justice for want of personal hearing under Section 75(4) - GST demand order - wrong availment/utilisation of input tax credit - Appealability of summary order in DRC-07 - Condonation of Delay - failed to avail that remedy within limitation.
Personal hearing under Section 75(4) - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, on the language of Section 75(4), a personal hearing is to be granted upon demand. Since the petitioner admittedly did not file any reply to the show-cause notice and did not ask for a personal hearing, the proper officer could not be expected to assume that the petitioner wished to advance oral submissions. In such circumstances, the plea of breach of natural justice was held to be untenable. The decisions cited by the petitioner were treated as distinguishable because they concerned cases where replies had been filed but personal hearing was denied. [Paras 10, 12]
There was no violation of Section 75(4) or of the principles of natural justice.
Alternative statutory remedy - Appealability of summary order in DRC-07 - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the petitioner had been served with notice under Section 73 and had not challenged its validity before the authority by filing a reply. It further held that the impugned order itself showed that it was a summary order issued under Section 73 in DRC-07, and therefore the grounds raised in the writ petition were matters to be urged before the appellate authority. Having failed to participate in the proceedings and having allowed the appeal period to expire, the petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction to assail the order on merits or technical grounds. [Paras 9, 11, 12]
The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, and the writ petition was dismissed as not fit for interference under writ jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that no breach of natural justice was made out because the petitioner had neither replied to the show-cause notice nor sought a personal hearing, and that the impugned order under Section 73 in DRC-07 was appealable under the statute.
Issues: Whether the order cancelling GST registration was liable to be quashed for travelling beyond the show cause notice and for denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: The show cause notice proceeded on the basis of alleged fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order, however, was founded on a different alleged default, namely failure to furnish the final return in Form GSTR-10 under Section 39(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and also invoked Rule 21(a) and Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without any prior notice on those grounds. The order therefore did not answer the reply on the basis on which notice had been issued and resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to meet the case.
Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable and was quashed and set aside. The respondent was left free to issue a fresh show cause notice with specific allegations.
Cancellation of registration beyond show cause notice - fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Section 29(2)(e) - Denial of opportunity of hearing.
Cancellation of registration beyond show cause notice - HELD THAT:- The Court found that the show cause notice was founded on the allegation that registration had been obtained by fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, supported by the site visit report. The petitioner had replied to that notice by relying on the rent agreement and other documents. However, the impugned order did not examine that reply on its own terms and instead cancelled the registration on an altogether different basis, namely violation of Section 39(1), and also relied on Rule 21(a) and (e) although no notice on those grounds had been served. An order resting on grounds foreign to the show cause notice was held to be contrary to the notice itself and to amount to denial of opportunity of hearing. [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
The cancellation order was quashed, with liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice containing specific imputations, and consequential steps were directed to follow including unsealing of the ledger accounts.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed on the ground that the registration was cancelled on bases not set out in the show cause notice and without proper consideration of the reply. The respondent was left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings through a proper notice.
Issues: Whether a single composite show cause notice and a single composite assessment order could validly cover multiple assessment years or tax periods under the GST enactments.
Analysis: The Court followed the binding interpretation that the expressions used in Sections 73 and 74 contemplate notices and assessments with reference to a tax period, and that a composite proceeding covering more than one assessment year is unsustainable. The challenged proceedings related to multiple years, and the respondents did not dispute that the issue was covered by the earlier Division Bench ruling. Since the impugned notice and assessment order were issued as composite proceedings for different assessment years, they could not be sustained in law.
Conclusion: The composite notice and composite assessment order were held invalid, and the petitioner succeeded.
Validity of the single composite show cause notice and a single composite assessment order issued for multiple assessment years under the GST enactments - Tax period-wise assessment - Limitation exclusion on fresh proceedings.
Composite show cause notice - HELD THAT: - Following the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in SJ Constructions Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and others [2025 (9) TMI 1215 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], the Court held that assessment proceedings have to be confined to the relevant tax period and cannot be clubbed by issuing one composite notice or one composite assessment order for more than one assessment year. Since the impugned DRC-01 notice covered multiple years and the impugned assessment order was also passed on a composite basis, the proceedings were held to be unsustainable. The fact that Form DRC-07 had been issued separately did not cure the defect in the composite assessment. [Paras 3, 4, 7]
The impugned composite assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year, and the period from the impugned order till receipt of the present order was directed to be excluded for limitation purposes.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the composite assessment order on the ground that a single notice and assessment for multiple assessment years is impermissible. Liberty was reserved to commence fresh proceedings year-wise, with corresponding exclusion of time for limitation.
Issues: (i) Whether refund of the amount deposited as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeal was governed by Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or fell within Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as "any other amount"; (ii) Whether rejection of the refund application solely on the basis of an alleged pending SFIO investigation could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether refund of the amount deposited as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeal was governed by Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or fell within Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 as "any other amount".
Analysis: The amount in question was not a tax refund in the strict sense, but a pre-deposit made to maintain the appeal. Such a deposit does not acquire the character of tax, interest, penalty, or fee. Consequently, the limitation and refund machinery under Section 54(1) was held inapplicable. The broader language of Rule 89, which also covers "any other amount" due and payable, was treated as the proper procedural route. The references to Section 56 and Section 115 were found misplaced in the context of this refund claim.
Conclusion: The refund application was not governed by Section 54(1) and had to be considered under Rule 89 as a claim for "any other amount".
Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the refund application solely on the basis of an alleged pending SFIO investigation could be sustained.
Analysis: The authorities had rejected the application only because of a communication suggesting that no refund should be processed during a supposed SFIO investigation. The subsequent material placed before the Court showed that no investigation was pending, initiated, or completed against the petitioner. Once that premise disappeared, the sole foundation of the rejection collapsed and the order ceased to be legally sustainable.
Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the ground of SFIO investigation was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the competent authority was directed to release the amount, with the refund claim to be kept alive for the limited purpose of consequential processing and interest, if otherwise payable.
Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit made for maintaining an appeal is not a refund of tax under Section 54(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but is refundable as "any other amount" under Rule 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and a rejection founded solely on a non-existent investigation cannot stand.
Refund of the amount deposited as a pre-condition for maintaining the appeal - Scope of refund provisions - Unjust enrichment - Withholding of refund on extraneous grounds - Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and duly communicated to the authorities that pending such investigations - Applicability of the provisions contained under Section 56 of the Act by way of reference.
Refund of pre-deposit - Section 107(6) vis-a-vis Section 54 - Any other amount under Rule 89 - HELD THAT: - The Court held, following State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited [2026 (1) TMI 639 - SC ORDER], that where the refund claimed is relatable to the statutory pre-deposit made for filing an appeal under Section 107(6), recourse is not to be taken to Section 54. It further held that such deposit does not partake the character of tax in the strict sense and, therefore, falls within the expression any other amount under Rule 89 of the Rules. On that reasoning, the Department's reliance on Section 54, Rule 89 as read restrictively, and Section 56 to sustain rejection of the refund claim was held to be misplaced. [Paras 8, 10, 11]
The refund application could not be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 54 or on the footing that the claim was not maintainable under the statutory scheme.
Withholding of refund on extraneous grounds - Non-existent pending investigation - HELD THAT:- The Court found that the authorities had rejected the refund claim solely because of a communication stating that no refund should be processed in view of an alleged SFIO investigation. Once materials produced before the Court, including the later communication from SFIO, showed that no investigation had been initiated, was pending, or had been completed against the petitioner, the very foundation of the rejection ceased to exist. The Court therefore held that withholding the amount on that basis was legally unsustainable. [Paras 11, 12]
The impugned order rejecting refund on the basis of a supposed pending investigation was set aside, and release of the amount was directed.
Final Conclusion: The Court held that refund of the appellate pre-deposit could not be tested under Section 54 of the CGST Act and that the rejection founded on an alleged pending SFIO investigation was unsustainable once it was shown that no such investigation was pending. The impugned order was set aside and the competent authority was directed to release the amount, with interest if payable in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the order-in-appeal was liable to be set aside for want of proper notice of hearing and whether the appeal should be remitted for fresh adjudication.
Analysis: The record disclosed repeated hearing dates, but it could not be ascertained with certainty that the intimations had actually been served on the assessee. In view of this uncertainty, the dispute whether notice was in fact served was not gone into in depth. The appellate order had proceeded on the assumption that hearing opportunities were served, yet the uncertainty surrounding service meant that the assessee may have been deprived of an effective opportunity to present its case. In such circumstances, adherence to the principles of natural justice required that the matter be reopened and heard afresh by the appellate authority.
Conclusion: The order-in-appeal was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity of hearing.
Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained a remand on the ground of denial of effective hearing, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal afresh by a reasoned order within the stipulated time.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service of hearing notice is uncertain and effective opportunity of hearing is not established, an appellate order decided ex parte cannot be sustained and the matter must be remanded for fresh decision after hearing the assessee.
Right of Hearing - Ex Parte Adjudication - Violation of principles of natural justice - want of proper notice of hearing.
Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the appellate authority had proceeded on the assumption that notices fixing dates of hearing had been served. In view of the statement made on behalf of the revenue that, on verification of the record, it could not be ascertained whether certain intimations had in fact been served and that some documents were returned or not traceable, the Court accepted the petitioner's grievance that it had been deprived of an opportunity of hearing. On that procedural defect alone, without entering into the merits of the tax dispute, the Court held that the impugned appellate order required to be set aside and the appeal restored for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing. [Paras 8, 9]
The impugned appellate order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the appellate authority for fresh decision on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the ex parte appellate order on the ground of failure to establish service of hearing notices. The appeal was remitted to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merits after due opportunity of hearing, within the time fixed by the Court.
Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be set aside for want of an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. (ii) Whether the proceeding reflected in the subsequent notice should be clubbed with the remitted show cause notice in view of overlapping subject matter.
Issue (i): Whether the ex parte order passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be set aside for want of an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice.
Analysis: The order was passed without the benefit of any reply from the petitioner and was treated as an ex parte adjudication. In view of the serious civil consequences flowing from the demand, the absence of an effective opportunity to place a reply and supporting material justified interference and remand.
Conclusion: The ex parte order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
Issue (ii): Whether the proceeding reflected in the subsequent notice should be clubbed with the remitted show cause notice in view of overlapping subject matter.
Analysis: The later proceeding was still at the stage of reply and the subject matter overlapped with the earlier notice. To avoid parallel adjudication and to enable a composite consideration of the petitioner's response, both notices were directed to be taken up together before the same authority.
Conclusion: The subsequent proceeding was directed to be clubbed with the remitted show cause notice and both were to be pursued together.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition resulted in setting aside the impugned adjudication and a remand for fresh consideration after reply, with the connected notice also brought into the same proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte GST adjudication passed without a reply to the show cause notice may be set aside and remitted when fairness requires an opportunity to respond, and overlapping proceedings may be clubbed to ensure coherent adjudication.
Validity ex parte order passed u/s 74 - want of an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice - wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit - Clubbing of show cause notices - Parallel proceedings.
Ex parte adjudication - HELD THAT:- The Court noted the petitioner's stand that the notice had not been served and that the impugned adjudication had proceeded ex parte without the benefit of any reply. Having regard to the consequences flowing from the demand order, the Court held it appropriate to restore the matter to the stage of reply so that the petitioner could place material in support of its case. Consequentially, third-party notices issued for recovery were directed to be rescinded, and the adjustment in the Electronic Credit Ledger was made subject to the fresh adjudication. [Paras 3, 4, 5]
The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was granted liberty to reply to the show cause notice, with consequential recovery measures made subject to fresh adjudication.
Parallel proceedings - Clubbing of show cause notices - HELD THAT: - Since the second proceeding was still only at the stage of reply, and the earlier adjudication had already been set aside and remitted to the reply stage, the Court directed that both show cause notice proceedings be taken up together before the same authority. The Court did not decide the objection on merits but preserved all contentions relating to the second notice for consideration in the combined proceedings. [Paras 7, 8, 9]
Both show cause notices were directed to be dealt with together by the competent authority, and the petitioner's objections to the second notice were left open.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the ex parte adjudication order and remitting the matter to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The related proceeding at the reply stage was ordered to be clubbed with the remitted proceeding, with all contentions kept open.
Issues: Whether the adjudication/assessment order could be sustained when no personal hearing was granted despite the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The show cause notice and reminder disclosed no date, time or venue for personal hearing, and the record showed that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the adverse adjudication order was passed. Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires that an opportunity of hearing be granted where a request is received or where an adverse decision is contemplated. The absence of a written reply did not dispense with that statutory obligation, because the assessee was still entitled to a hearing before an adverse order was made.
Conclusion: The impugned adjudication/assessment order was unsustainable for breach of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice, and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The matter was allowed with liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh in accordance with law after granting the mandatory opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: Before passing an adverse GST adjudication order, a statutory and effective opportunity of hearing must be granted, and this requirement is not obviated by the taxpayer's failure to file a written reply.
Validity of the adjudication/assessment order - No Personal Opportunity of hearing - statutory mandate under Section 75(4) - Violation of principles of natural justice.
Opportunity of hearing - Section 75(4) - Natural justice - HELD THAT: - The Court found that both the show cause notice and the reminder recorded the date, time and venue of personal hearing as not applicable, and therefore no hearing was in fact afforded. Construing Section 75(4), the Court held that where an adverse decision is contemplated, grant of hearing is a statutory obligation and is not dependent upon filing of a written response. The absence of a reply could not dispense with that requirement, since a hearing would still enable the assessee to produce records or make submissions in defence. The adjudication order was therefore vitiated for breach of the statutory mandate and the principles of natural justice. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10]
The adjudication/assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the revenue to proceed afresh only in accordance with law, including compliance with Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed on the ground that no personal hearing had been granted before passing the adverse order. The impugned adjudication/assessment order was set aside, with liberty to the revenue to take fresh action in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger could continue beyond one year from the date of imposition under Rule 86A(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Analysis: The restriction under Rule 86A(3) ceases to have effect on the expiry of one year from the date on which it is imposed. The blocking in question was imposed on 21.11.2024, and the continued operation of the restriction beyond the one-year period was contrary to the express statutory mandate. The continuation of the blocking after expiry of twelve months was therefore unsustainable.
Conclusion: The continued blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger beyond one year was illegal, and the restriction was deemed to have ceased after twelve months. The authorities were directed to unblock the Electronic Credit Ledger forthwith.
Electronic credit ledger blocking - beyond one year from the date of imposition under Rule 86A(3) - Automatic cessation of restriction - HELD THAT:- The Court applied Rule 86A(3) and held that a restriction imposed by blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger ceases to have effect on expiry of one year from the date on which it was imposed. Since the blocking was stated to have been effected on 21.11.2024 and was asserted to be continuing thereafter, the continuance of such restriction beyond the statutory period was contrary to the mandate of the Rule. The Court therefore treated the blocking as having ceased to operate on completion of twelve months from the date of imposition. [Paras 5]
The continuance of blocking was declared illegal, the restriction was deemed to have ceased after twelve months, and the authorities were directed to unblock the Electronic Credit Ledger forthwith.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by declaring that the blockage of the Electronic Credit Ledger could not continue beyond the one-year period prescribed under Rule 86A(3). The respondents were directed to unblock the ledger forthwith.
Issues: Whether the assessment order and consequential recovery proceedings were liable to be set aside for want of service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice.
Analysis: The materials placed before the Court showed that the notice sent by post was returned with the endorsement that no such addressee was available at the office, and the alleged e-mail service did not establish effective service on the petitioner. On that basis, the Court found that notice was not served either before the assessment order was passed or thereafter. Since the assessment had been made without effective notice and opportunity, the proceedings suffered from breach of natural justice.
Conclusion: The assessment order and the consequential recovery proceedings were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh completion of assessment after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the impugned assessment and recovery, but the revenue was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law after proper notice.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made without effective service of notice and a real opportunity of hearing is unsustainable for breach of natural justice and may be set aside with remand for fresh adjudication.
Validity of the assessment order and consequential recovery proceedings - want of service of notice - denial of opportunity of hearing - Principles of natural justice - Service of notice - violation of principles of natural justice. - HELD THAT: - The Court found from the material placed by the respondents that the postal notice had been returned unserved with an endorsement that no such addressee was available at the office address, and that the alleged e-mail communication did not establish effective service. On that basis, the Court held that no notice had been served either before or after the assessment order. Since the petitioner was not put on notice and was denied an opportunity to challenge or respond to the assessment, the order was held to be in breach of principles of natural justice. [Paras 5, 6, 7]
The impugned assessment order and recovery proceedings were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh completion of assessment after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed on the ground of non-service of notice and denial of hearing. The assessment and recovery proceedings were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment after proper service of notice, with exclusion of the intervening period for limitation.
Issues: Whether the demand raised under Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the recoveries made pursuant to it could survive after approval of the resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Analysis: Once a resolution plan is approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims covered by the plan stand frozen and are binding on all stakeholders, including governmental authorities. Claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished, and no proceedings can be initiated or continued in respect of such claims. The demand in question was not included in the approved resolution plan, and the subsequent recoveries were therefore inconsistent with the statutory effect of approval of the resolution plan.
Conclusion: The demand notice was unsustainable and was set aside. The recoveries already made were directed to be refunded with applicable interest.
Demand and recovery orders post insolvency plan approved -Extinguishment of claims under approved resolution plan - Income-tax demand not forming part of resolution plan
HELD THAT: - The Court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, the claims provided in the plan stand frozen and all claims not forming part of the plan stand extinguished. Since the impugned tax demand was admittedly not included in the petitioner-company's approved resolution plan, the Revenue was not entitled to initiate or continue proceedings for recovery of that amount. The subsequent recoveries adjusted against refunds were therefore also unsustainable and liable to be returned with applicable interest. [Paras 10, 11]
The demand notice was set aside and the amounts already recovered were directed to be refunded forthwith with applicable interest.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed. The Court quashed the impugned demand for the relevant assessment year as being impermissible after approval of the resolution plan, and directed refund of the recovered amounts with applicable interest.
Issues: Whether section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 11UA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 applies to a company's buy-back of its own shares, so as to treat the difference between the buy-back price and fair market value as taxable income.
Analysis: The transaction was a lawful buy-back undertaken under section 68 of the Companies Act, 2013, pursuant to the prescribed approvals and procedure. A buy-back of a company's own shares is not a purchase of an asset in the ordinary sense, but a statutory reduction of share capital, followed by extinguishment and destruction of the bought-back shares. The premise of section 56(2)(x) is acquisition of property at less than fair market value; that premise fails where the very shares bought back cease to exist on completion of the transaction. The Revenue's broad reading of the provision was held to be inconsistent with the corporate law character of buy-back and with the underlying tax hypothesis of acquisition of property.
Conclusion: Section 56(2)(x) and Rule 11UA do not apply to buy-back of a company's own shares, and the addition made on that basis was unsustainable. The assessee succeeds on this issue.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory buy-back of a company's own shares, being a reduction of share capital that results in extinction of the shares, does not amount to acquisition of property at a concessional value for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Buy-back of own shares - Reduction of share capital - Receipt of property for inadequate consideration
Whether Buy-back by a company of its own shares in accordance with section 68 of the Companies Act does not amount to acquisition of property so as to attract section 56(2)(x) on the difference between the buy-back price and the fair market value? - HELD THAT: - The Court held that a company's own shares, in its hands, are not to be treated as a capital asset acquired by it on buy-back in the same manner as shares of another company.
A buy-back u/s 68 of the Companies Act is in substance a reduction of share capital; the statutory scheme itself requires the bought-back shares to be extinguished and physically destroyed. Once the shares stand extinguished, the premise that the company has acquired property at a price lower than fair market value collapses.
AO's assumption that buy-back of own shares generated deemed profit u/s 56(2)(x) was held to be legally untenable. The Court added that, although the Tribunal's reliance on VITP Private Limited, Hyderabad [2022 (8) TMI 220 - ITAT HYDERABAD] was misplaced because that decision concerned section 56(2)(viia), the Tribunal had independently affirmed the correct view taken by the CIT(A). [Paras 25, 26, 27, 29, 30]
Section 56(2)(x) was held inapplicable to the assessee's buy-back of its own shares, and the deletion of the addition was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleting the addition made on buy-back of the assessee's own shares. Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the ground that such buy-back is a capital reduction and not receipt of property attracting section 56(2)(x).
Issues: Whether initiation and completion of proceedings under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years were barred by limitation, and whether the proviso to section 201(3) saved the proceedings.
Analysis: The show-cause notice issued on 02.12.2010 was treated as the first proper notice under section 201(1), earlier letters being regarded only as requests for information. On the facts, the period for initiating proceedings for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 had already expired before the insertion of section 201(3), and the proviso permitting completion of proceedings for financial years commencing on or before 01.04.2007 applied only to pending proceedings and did not revive time-barred matters. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's view that the proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible period.
Conclusion: The proceedings under section 201(1) for the relevant years were barred by limitation, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal left undisturbed the Tribunal's quashing of the demand raised under section 201(1) for the relevant assessment years.
Ratio Decidendi: A belated show-cause notice cannot revive proceedings under section 201(1) where limitation had already expired, and the saving proviso to section 201(3) protects only proceedings that were actually pending within its temporal window.
Limitation for initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) - no Show-cause notice as commencement of proceedings issued - Proviso to section 201(3) confined to pending proceedings
HELD THAT: - The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the earlier communications issued by the TDS Officer were only letters calling for information and could not be treated as commencement of proceedings u/s 201(1). The first proper show-cause notice was issued only on 02/12/2010. Accepting the Tribunal's reasoning, the Court held that the proviso to section 201(3) permitting completion of matters up to 31/03/2011 applied only to pending proceedings and not to fresh initiation in cases where limitation had already expired. Since, for the years in question, the period for initiation had expired much earlier, no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's conclusion that the entire proceedings were time-barred. [Paras 12, 13]
The Tribunal was justified in holding that the initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) for AYs 2000-01 to 2004-05 was barred by limitation, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Tribunal's view that the proceedings under section 201(1) had been initiated only on issuance of the show-cause notice in 2010 and were, for the years concerned, barred by limitation.
Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 was exempt as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deserved condonation.
Analysis: The appeal before the first appellate authority had been dismissed in limine for delay without examination on merits. The explanation for the delay was found to be bona fide, and the dispute involved a substantive claim already accepted in several coordinate bench decisions. In such circumstances, substantial justice was held to prevail over the procedural lapse.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 was exempt as retrenchment compensation under section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The compensation was treated as retrenchment compensation arising from the BSNL voluntary retirement scheme and not as ordinary taxable salary income. Following consistent coordinate bench rulings, the receipt was regarded as a capital receipt falling within section 10(10B), with consequential exemption and refund relief available on verification of revised computation.
Conclusion: The compensation was held to be exempt under section 10(10B) and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appellate order was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the assessee was granted the exemption claim with consequential relief, including verification-based refund, if due.
Ratio Decidendi: When a delay in appeal is shown to arise from bona fide reasons and the underlying exemption claim is supported by consistent coordinate bench authority, procedural delay should not defeat adjudication on merits and BSNL VRS compensation of the relevant nature is to be treated as retrenchment compensation exempt under section 10(10B).
Retrenchment compensation - compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Exemption u/s 10(10B) - Capital receipt - HELD THAT: - Following the consistent view taken by Coordinate Benches, the Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2019 partook the character of retrenchment compensation and fell within section 10(10B). On that basis, the receipt was to be treated as a capital receipt exempt from tax. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer was therefore required to allow the exemption on verification of necessary details on the basis of revised computation to be filed by the assessee. [Paras 7]
The assessee was held entitled to exemption under section 10(10B) in respect of the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019, subject to verification by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay, held that the assessee's claim could be entertained in appeal, and ruled that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 was exempt under section 10(10B) as retrenchment compensation constituting a capital receipt. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant consequential relief after verification.
Issues: Whether the addition made on account of alleged on-money payment / unexplained investment in purchase of land was sustainable when the co-owner's similar transaction had already been accepted by the Revenue.
Analysis: The appeal was decided on the merits of the addition. The assessee's case was found to be on the same footing as the co-owner's case, and no material was brought by the Revenue to distinguish the two or to displace the prior acceptance of the same transaction in the co-owner's hands. Following the principle that similarly placed parties in respect of the same transaction should receive similar treatment, the addition could not be sustained. Once relief was granted on this substantive issue, the additional legal grounds were rendered academic and did not require adjudication.
Conclusion: The addition for alleged unexplained investment / on-money payment was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive tax addition, and the ancillary legal objections were left undecided as they had become academic.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue has accepted the same transaction in the hands of a co-owner, another similarly situated co-owner cannot be singled out for a different tax treatment without a distinguishing basis.
Unexplained investment made by purchase of land u/s 69 - Parity in treatment of co-owners
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal followed the co-ordinate Bench decision in Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel [2021 (2) TMI 941 - ITAT SURAT] and held that, where the Revenue has accepted the tax position arising from the same transaction in the case of a co-owner, the assessee cannot be subjected to a different treatment on identical facts. As no change in facts or law was shown and no material was produced by the Revenue to dislodge the applicability of that decision, the addition made as unexplained investment on account of alleged on-money payment for purchase of land was liable to be deleted. [Paras 10, 11]
The addition was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed on merits.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made towards alleged unexplained investment in land purchase. The additional legal grounds were left unadjudicated as academic, the appeal having been allowed on merits.
Issues: Whether an ad hoc disallowance out of cash expenses could be sustained where the assessee's business was carried on in forest areas with practical difficulty in using banking channels, the books of account were not rejected under section 145(3), and no independent enquiry was made at the appellate stage.
Analysis: The assessee was engaged in trade of tendu leaves in forest and tribal where cash payments to labourers and others were stated to be unavoidable due to absence of banking facilities. The authorities accepted the genuineness of the books and the underlying transactions, yet made and sustained an estimated disallowance without invoking rejection of books. In such circumstances, an ad hoc addition over and above the recorded transactions was held impermissible. The appellate authority was also found not to have conducted the necessary independent enquiry contemplated by section 250(4) and section 250(6), while still confirming part of the disallowance.
Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted, resulting in relief to the assessee.
Ad hoc disallowance of cash expenditure - non Rejection of books of account - Business exigency of cash payments - nature of the assessee's business - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that, in the assessee's line of business involving procurement of tendu leaves through forest areas and engagement of tribal persons in locations lacking banking facilities, the practical necessity of cash payments had to be appreciated while examining the claim of expenditure.
It found that the Revenue had accepted the genuineness of the transactions recorded in the books and had neither doubted the books nor invoked the statutory course for their rejection. In such circumstances, an ad hoc disallowance over and above the recorded transactions was impermissible.
The appellate authority also could not sustain such disallowance without any independent inquiry while accepting the genuineness of the book results. [Paras 5, 6]
The disallowance sustained by the appellate authority was set aside and the AO was directed to delete the addition.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the residual disallowance of cash expenses was unsustainable. Since the books and recorded transactions were accepted as genuine and the business circumstances explained the cash payments, the entire addition was directed to be deleted.
Issues: Whether the addition made as unexplained money under section 69A, on account of cash found in a locker in the assessee's name, was sustainable when the surrounding material showed that the cash formed part of the cash balance of a group company and no contrary material was brought to disprove that explanation.
Analysis: The cash balance reflected in the seized books and post-search chart was not uniformly attributed by the Assessing Officer, and the working of the amount treated as belonging to the assessee was found to be inconsistent. The explanation that the cash kept in the locker represented cash in hand of the group company was supported by its cash book and related records, and that company's cash balance had not been doubted in its own assessment. In the absence of any contrary evidence showing that the cash belonged exclusively to the assessee, the addition could not be sustained merely because the locker stood in the assessee's name.
Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was deleted and the assessee succeeded on the issue.
Unexplained money u/s 69A - Cash found in locker - Source explained from group company's accepted cash balance - balance was computed on the basis of cash found recorded in the books of accounts of various Group Companies in Tally data seized during the course of search
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found an internal inconsistency in the assessment order as to the manner in which the AO bifurcated and attributed the cash found during search.
While the AO referred to the seized Tally data and worked out different figures, no basis was disclosed for treating the impugned amount as unexplained in the assessee's hands.
At the same time, the group company, M/s. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., had disclosed substantially higher cash in hand after completion of its cash book, and that availability of cash was not doubted in its own assessment. Once no adverse inference was drawn in the case of that company regarding the availability of cash, the assessee's explanation that part of such cash was kept in the locker for safe custody could not be rejected in the absence of any contrary material. The appellate authority was held to have failed to notice this anomaly. [Paras 9, 10, 11]
The addition made under section 69A was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Final Conclusion: For Assessment Year 2023-24, the Tribunal held that the cash found in the locker could not be assessed as unexplained money in the assessee's hands when the explained source from the accepted cash balance of the group company was not disproved. The addition was therefore deleted and the appeal was allowed.
Issues: Whether, after a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer could validly complete the year's assessment under section 143(3) without issuing notice under section 148 and obtaining the requisite approval under section 148B.
Analysis: The assessment year was already pending when the search took place. The decision proceeds on the footing that, once search material existed relating to the assessee, the assessment could not continue as a normal scrutiny under section 143(3). The special reassessment route under section 148, with prior approval under section 148B, was treated as the mandatory statutory channel. On that reasoning, continuation of proceedings under section 143(3) was held to be without valid jurisdiction, and the assessment was quashed. Since the legal ground succeeded, the remaining grounds on merits were treated as academic.
Conclusion: The assessment under section 143(3) was invalid for want of proper jurisdiction after the search, and the assessee succeeded on the legal ground.
Search-triggered reassessment procedure - Invalid assumption of jurisdiction - normal assessment under section 143(3) after search - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that once a search under section 132 had taken place in the assessee's case, the Assessing Officer could not proceed with a normal scrutiny assessment under section 143(3).
Following its earlier decision in Montage Enterprises Put. Ltd. [2025 (12) TMI 1815 - ITAT DELHI] and the decisions referred to therein, it accepted that in such a situation the jurisdiction had to be exercised through the special statutory route contemplated after search, and not by continuing with the ordinary assessment machinery. Since the Revenue could not dislodge that position, the assessment was held to suffer from invalid assumption of jurisdiction. [Paras 6]
The legal ground was allowed and the assessment framed under section 143(3) was quashed; the remaining grounds on merits were rendered academic.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by holding that, after search in the assessee's case, the assessment could not be sustained under the regular scrutiny provision. The impugned assessment was quashed and the grounds on the additions were left academic.
Issues: Whether, in the case of a non-searched person, the assessment year 2017-18 had to be assessed under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the date on which seized material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and whether an assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid.
Analysis: The seized material relating to the assessee was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 26.03.2019. The first proviso to section 153C treats that date as the reference point for the non-searched person, and the six assessment years are to be reckoned with reference to that deemed date of search. On that basis, the assessment years falling within the permissible block included AY 2017-18. The assessment, however, was framed under section 143(3) instead of under section 153C. Since the statutory route for assessment of a non-searched person was not followed, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 143(3) was not sustainable.
Conclusion: The assessment for AY 2017-18 was required to be made under section 153C, and the assessment framed under section 143(3) was invalid.
Assessment u/s 153C - Search assessment of other person - relevant date for determining the block of assessment years - validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 143(3)
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal accepted the finding that, in the case of an other person, the relevant date for determining the block of assessment years is the date on which the seized material is handed over by the Assessing Officer of the searched person to the AO having jurisdiction over such other person. On the facts recorded, the satisfaction in the searched person's case and handing over of the material took place on 26.03.2019. Consequently, AY 2017-18 fell within the block to be dealt with u/s 153C. Since the AO nevertheless completed the assessment under section 143(3), the assumption of jurisdiction under that provision was held to be invalid. [Paras 10, 11]
The assessment framed under section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2017-18 was without valid jurisdiction, and the Revenue's challenge to the relief granted by the first appellate authority failed.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that, for Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee's case could only be assessed under section 153C and not under section 143(3). The Revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Issues: Whether ad hoc additions made to purchases, expenses, and current liabilities could be sustained when the books of account were not rejected and the same liabilities were already reflected in the accounts.
Analysis: The assessment made ad hoc additions of 25% of purchases, 10% of expenses, and 25% of current liabilities without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition relating to current liabilities also covered creditors arising from purchases that had already been subjected to addition, resulting in duplication. The liabilities included opening balances and other business or statutory dues, which could not be brought again to tax merely on a presumptive basis. In these circumstances, the additions lacked a sustainable basis.
Conclusion: The ad hoc additions were not justified and the additions relating to current liabilities and creditors were liable to be deleted.
Ratio Decidendi: Presumptive additions to purchases, expenses, or liabilities cannot be sustained without rejection of books of account, and the same amount cannot be taxed twice under different provisions.
Ad hoc additions without rejection of books - Double addition on purchases and creditors - Section 68 addition on outstanding liabilities
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made a percentage addition to purchases on an ad hoc basis without rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) and without disturbing the corresponding sales accepted in assessment. It further held that the increase in creditors during the year represented outstanding amounts relatable to the same current-year purchases, and once part of those purchases had already been added, making a further addition under section 68 on the corresponding creditors resulted in double taxation of the same item. [Paras 7]
The additions on purchases and on the related creditors were deleted, and the additional grounds as well as the grounds challenging those additions were accepted.
Section 68 addition on outstanding liabilities - Outstanding creditors not written back - Outstanding creditors forming part of current liabilitie added under section 68 where they continued to stand in the balance sheet and had not been written back - HELD THAT: - Applying CIT vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Tribunal held that where the assessee had not written back the amounts to the profit and loss account and the liabilities continued to be reflected as existing debts, the addition of such creditors included in current liabilities was not justified. On that basis, the addition referable to creditors included in the current liabilities was held liable to be deleted. [Paras 7]
The addition under section 68 in respect of the creditors included in current liabilities was held to be unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by deleting the impugned ad hoc additions on purchases and the related current liabilities/creditors. It held that, in the absence of rejection of books and where the liabilities continued to subsist, the additions were unsustainable and resulted in double taxation to that extent.
Issues: Whether reopening of the assessment under sections 147 and 148 was valid when the original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), the share capital issue had already been examined, and the reopening was based on information from the Investigation Wing.
Analysis: The original assessment had been framed after scrutiny and inquiry into the share capital receipts, including verification from the share applicants. The reasons recorded for reopening were founded on information from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries through the Himanshu Verma group, but the reasons did not disclose any independent inquiry or fresh tangible material linking the assessee to escapement of income. The record showed that the material regarding the search and the alleged beneficiary list was already available when the original assessment was completed. In such circumstances, reopening on the same material amounted to a mere change of opinion and reflected borrowed satisfaction rather than an independently formed belief based on a live link between material and escapement.
Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the reassessment could not be sustained; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) has already examined the relevant issue, reassessment under sections 147 and 148 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction or unverified investigation information unless the Assessing Officer records an independent belief founded on tangible material showing a live nexus with escapement of income.
Reassessment after scrutiny assessment - Change of opinion - Borrowed satisfaction - Reason to believe - Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts - reassessment was initiated only on the basis of investigation wing information - Non independent inquiry or fresh tangible material
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3), the very issue of receipt of share capital had been scrutinised and the AO had made independent verification, including by issuing notices u/s 133(6), before accepting the returned income. The information relating to the alleged entry operator and beneficiaries had already been circulated within the department before completion of the original assessment, and the assessee had furnished confirmations, bank statements, balance sheets and return particulars of the share applicants. In these circumstances, there was no failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The reasons recorded for reopening merely reproduced the investigation wing report and did not disclose any fresh tangible material, any independent inquiry by the Assessing Officer, or any live nexus between the material and the belief of escapement. The reopening therefore rested on borrowed satisfaction and amounted to a change of opinion, which could not sustain reassessment. [Paras 10, 13, 14, 18]
The reassessment was quashed and the grounds challenging reopening were allowed.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the reassessment for A.Y. 2012-13 was not sustainable in law, as it was founded on borrowed satisfaction and amounted to a change of opinion after full scrutiny of the same issue in the original assessment. The reassessment order was accordingly quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Issues: Whether the reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment were valid in law.
Analysis: The reopening was founded on information from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged client code modification, but the recorded reasons did not show any specific failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts. The original assessment had been completed under section 143(3), and reopening beyond four years required satisfaction of the proviso to section 147. The Tribunal found that the case rested on borrowed information, without independent application of mind, and that the reasons did not establish a live link between the material and any escapement of income in the assessee's hands. It also noted procedural infirmities, including non-furnishing of complete reasons and material, absence of the sanction material, and denial of effective opportunity in the reassessment process.
Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and the consequential assessment was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Reassessment beyond four years - Failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts - Change of opinion- valid reason to believe reasons solely based on report of Investigation Wing -Reason to believe - sanction u/s 151
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that where the original assessment had been completed u/s 143(3), reopening beyond four years could be sustained only if the escapement was attributable to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
On the record, the reopening was based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding alleged client code modification, but the reasons did not contain any specific allegation of such failure by the assessee.
Tribunal further found that the impugned commodity transaction and the resultant profit stood reflected in the contract notes and had been offered to tax in the return, while no specific allegation of fraudulent activity by the assessee was shown from the recorded reasons. It also held that the original assessment had been completed after due application of mind and that the reopening was therefore a mere change of opinion.
Tribunal additionally noted that only a gist of the reasons was furnished, the Investigation Wing report was not supplied, and no sanction u/s 151 was provided during reassessment proceedings. On that cumulative basis, the reassessment was held to be illegal. [Paras 75, 76, 77, 78, 79]
The reassessment proceedings were set aside, and the grounds challenging jurisdiction were allowed.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the reassessment itself was invalid and illegal. Since the jurisdictional challenge succeeded, the grounds on merits were left open as academic.
Issues: Whether the assessment additions and disallowances were liable to be set aside for breach of the mandatory requirement of a show cause notice under section 144B(1)(xii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and violation of natural justice.
Analysis: The assessment was originally proposed on an ad hoc basis at 8% of turnover, but the final assessment was completed on different grounds by making additions under section 68 and disallowances under section 37 without issuing a further show cause notice specifically proposing those variations. In faceless assessment, the statutory requirement is to intimate the assessee of variations prejudicial to its interest and give an opportunity to explain them. Since the final additions were not covered by the proposed variation, the earlier notice did not satisfy the mandatory procedure. The breach of section 144B(1)(xii) also attracted the consequence under section 144B(9).
Conclusion: The procedural challenge succeeded, and the additions and disallowances were rightly held unsustainable for want of compliance with section 144B(1)(xii) and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: In faceless assessment, final variations prejudicial to the assessee cannot be made without a specific show cause notice covering those variations, and an assessment made in breach of that mandatory procedure is invalid.
Faceless assessment - violation of provision of Section 144B(1)(xii) - Mandation to issue show cause notice
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the requirement under section 144B(1)(xii) to issue a show cause notice specifying the variation prejudicial to the assessee is mandatory. The notice issued proposed only an ad hoc addition by estimating income at 8% of turnover. The final assessment, however, abandoned that proposal and instead made separate additions on account of unsecured loans and disallowances of interest and other expenses.
Since those final variations were not the variations put to the assessee in the show cause notice, the earlier notice became ineffective for the purpose of the completed assessment, and the assessment order could not be treated as having been preceded by compliance with the statutory requirement. On that basis, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's view that there was breach of section 144B(1)(xii) and of natural justice.
Revenue's challenge failed, and the deletion of the impugned additions and disallowances was sustained on the legal ground of non-compliance with section 144B(1)(xii).
Final Conclusion: The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the relief granted to the assessee on the ground that the final additions and disallowances were made without a show cause notice covering those specific prejudicial variations in the faceless assessment proceedings.
Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained when the corresponding quantum addition had been restored for fresh adjudication and the penalty appeal had become premature.
Analysis: The quantum addition for the relevant assessment year had already been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. As the foundation for the penalty was still subject to fresh adjudication in the quantum proceedings, the penalty controversy could not be finally decided at that stage and had to abide by the outcome of the quantum matter.
Conclusion: The penalty appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for decision in the light of the outcome of the quantum proceedings, and the assessee obtained only a consequential procedural relief.
Final Conclusion: The penalty dispute was sent back for fresh consideration and no final adjudication on the merits of the penalty was rendered.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the quantum addition forming the basis of a penalty remains open for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceeding is premature and should be decided only after the quantum issue is concluded.
Penalty u/s 270A dependent on survival of quantum addition - Prematurity of penalty adjudication - underlying quantum addition restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the very addition forming the basis of the penalty had been restored by the coordinate bench to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the applicable double taxation avoidance agreement. Since the foundation of the penalty was no longer final, the penalty appeal had become premature. The proper course was to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide the initiation of penalty proceedings in accordance with the outcome of the quantum proceedings. [Paras 9, 10]
The penalty matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to be considered afresh depending upon the result of the quantum adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal was premature because the quantum addition itself had already been restored for fresh adjudication. The penalty matter was accordingly sent back to the Assessing Officer to be decided after the outcome of the quantum proceedings.
Issues: Whether the deletion of additions made on account of unexplained unsecured loans and consequential interest expenditure required interference, or whether the matter had to be restored for fresh adjudication.
Analysis: The assessee's loan creditors were private limited companies, but the directors were not produced before the Assessing Officer and the creditors were not traceable at the stated addresses. Although responses were received to notices under section 133(6), the surrounding facts created doubt about the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. At the same time, the assessment order did not clearly bring out the complete factual basis for scrutiny, and the first appellate authority had deleted the additions without calling for a remand report or ensuring examination of the creditor directors. In these circumstances, the issue could not be finally decided on the existing record and required a fresh factual inquiry by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The deletion of the additions was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after examining the creditors and the transaction record. The revenue's appeal succeeded only for statistical purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the record does not adequately establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan creditors, and the appellate authority has deleted additions without a proper remand or fresh verification, the matter may be restored for de novo assessment.
Unexplained cash credits - identity, creditworthiness and genuineness - additions made on account of unsecured loans and corresponding interest - CIT(A) deleted addition - revenue argued deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A) without granting an opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the facts
HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that although some creditors had responded to notices under section 133(6), none of the directors of the creditor companies had been produced for examination, the summons under section 131 were not served, and the entities were stated to be untraceable at the given addresses. In such circumstances, mere production of documents showing availability of funds was held insufficient to conclusively establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions, particularly in the case of private limited companies where the onus on the assessee is heavier. The Tribunal further held that the appellate authority ought not to have deleted the additions outright and should at least have called for a remand report and required production of the directors before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessment order also did not properly bring out the facts for which scrutiny was undertaken and even contained a computation error, the matter required fresh examination.
The decision of Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 902 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] relied upon by the assessee, was found inapplicable on the facts, and the Tribunal noted the relevance of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj to the issue of shell companies and non-traceable creditors. [Paras 9]
The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after examining the scrutiny reasons, giving opportunity of hearing, and recording categorical findings on the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors and transactions.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the appellate deletion of the additions relating to unsecured loans and corresponding interest, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal was accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Outcome: Delay was condoned and the civil appeals were dismissed, with the interlocutory applications disposed of.
Condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- Delay was condoned, and the civil appeals were dismissed as the Court found no ground to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment [2023 (7) TMI 774 - CESTAT MUMBAI] in view of the dismissal of Civil Appeal [2025 (4) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT], titled "Gastrade International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla".
Issues: Whether show-cause notices could be issued to foreign exporters for an alleged customs contravention relating to imports into India before the 2018 amendment to Section 1(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; and whether penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA could be sustained against such exporters in the absence of a legally established role in the alleged mis-declaration by the importers.
Analysis: The liability for assessment, declaration, and compliance in respect of imported goods rests primarily on the importer under Sections 17, 46, and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. On the facts, the alleged misdeclaration was by Indian importers, while the foreign exporter was outside India and the Department did not establish a legally supportable role attributable to it. The amendment to Section 1(2), which introduced limited extraterritorial application with effect from 29 March 2018, was held to operate prospectively and could not be invoked for pre-amendment conduct. In the absence of ingredients necessary to attract Section 112, and consequently Section 114AA, the proposed penalties could not stand. Reliance on the cited tribunal decision was found unhelpful in view of the differing facts and the later contrary distinction on prospective operation.
Conclusion: The show-cause notices and consequential recovery action were held to be without jurisdiction and unsustainable against the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, and the impugned notices were quashed as the Customs Act did not justify fastening liability on the foreign exporter for the pre-amendment transactions alleged against the Indian importers.
Ratio Decidendi: A foreign exporter cannot be subjected to customs penal proceedings for pre-amendment conduct unless the statute, as applicable at the relevant time, clearly confers such extraterritorial reach and the necessary ingredients of the penal provisions are independently established against that person.
Jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices to the foreign exporter in respect of the pre-amendment period -Extraterritorial operation of customs law - Liability of foreign exporter for importer's misdeclaration - Penalty for abetment and false declaration - Strict Interpretation of Penal Provisions - Doctrine of Judicial Discipline.
Extraterritorial operation of customs law - HELD THAT: - The Court held that Petitioner No. 1 was admittedly situated outside India and, at the relevant time, the Act did not extend to territory outside India. The amendment to Section 1, brought into force from 29th March 2018, introduced extra-territorial applicability only thereafter and to the limited extent stated therein; it could not govern the earlier transactions in question. The scheme of the Act, particularly the provisions dealing with entry, assessment and confiscation of imported goods, places responsibility after importation on the importer. In the facts of the case, no material was shown to establish any legal basis to hold the foreign exporter liable for the alleged misdeclaration by the importers, and the Department's reliance on the Tribunal decision cited by it was held misplaced as that decision turned on different facts and had been distinguished by a Division Bench on the prospective operation of the amendment. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 21]
The impugned show-cause notices, insofar as they were issued to the Petitioners on this footing, were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Penalty for abetment - HELD THAT:- The Court found that the Department had neither made out nor established any act or omission on the part of Petitioner No. 1 that would render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, nor any conduct showing that the Petitioners dealt with goods knowing them to be liable to confiscation. The allegation of abetment or aiding the importers was unsupported by evidence of any active role in the alleged misdeclaration. For the same reason, penalty under Section 114AA was also held inapplicable, since neither Petitioner No. 1 nor Petitioner No. 2 had made, signed, used, or caused submission of any false or incorrect declaration or document in the transaction of business under the Act; the import-related compliance remained the responsibility of the Indian importers. [Paras 18, 19, 20]
The penalty proposals against both Petitioners under Sections 112 and 114AA had no legal foundation and could not survive.
Final Conclusion: The Court allowed all three writ petitions and quashed the impugned show-cause notices, holding that the Customs Act could not be applied to fasten liability on the foreign exporter for the pre-amendment period and that the proposed penalties were unsupported by the statutory requirements.
Issues: Whether the timelines prescribed under Regulation 17(1) and Regulation 17(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 are mandatory, and whether breach of those timelines vitiates the show cause notice and inquiry report.
Analysis: The Court noted that the material dates were undisputed. The show cause notice was issued beyond the period calculated from receipt of the offence report, and the inquiry report was submitted well after the 90-day period from the show cause notice. It followed the view that the timelines under the Regulations are mandatory and declined to adopt the contrary view that the provisions are merely directory because no consequence is expressly provided.
Conclusion: The timelines under Regulation 17(1) and Regulation 17(5) are mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the proceedings. The impugned show cause notice and inquiry report were quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the challenge to the customs proceedings was accepted in full.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations prescribe fixed periods for issuance of the show cause notice and submission of the inquiry report, those periods are mandatory, and breach of either timeline invalidates the proceedings.
Challenged the Show Cause Notice and Inquiry Report - barred by limitation as provided under Regulations 17(1) & 17(5) - Mandatory statutory timeline - Vitiation of Proceedings. - HELD THAT:- This Court in a series of cases, while considering the Regulation 17(1) of CBLR, 2018, has held that the timelines prescribed under the Regulations are mandatory. In the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs [2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of this Court reiterated that the timelines prescribed under CBLR, 2018 are mandatory.
The Court proceeded on the undisputed dates and held that, irrespective of the controversy as to computation of time for issuance of the show cause notice, the inquiry report had admittedly been submitted after expiry of 90 days from the date of the show cause notice. Following the consistent view of this Court that the timelines under Regulation 17 are mandatory, the Court declined to accept the contention that the prescription was merely directory for want of express consequences. On that basis, non-adherence to Regulation 17(5) was held sufficient to invalidate the proceedings. [Paras 5, 7, 8]
The impugned show cause notice and inquiry report were quashed, the proceedings having been vitiated by breach of the mandatory timeline under Regulation 17(5).
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed. The Court held that failure to submit the inquiry report within the prescribed period under Regulation 17(5) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 rendered the proceedings invalid and, consequently, the impugned show cause notice and inquiry report were quashed.
Issues: Whether the show cause notice and the inquiry report were liable to be quashed for having been issued beyond the timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Analysis: The prescribed period of ninety days for issuance of the notice after receipt of the offence report, and the stipulated period for completion of the inquiry, were treated as mandatory. The Court followed the binding view that these timelines are integral to the regulatory scheme and that failure to comply with them vitiates the proceedings. Since the notice was issued long after the offence report and the inquiry report was also delayed beyond the prescribed period, the challenge succeeded on the ground of non-adherence to the statutory schedule.
Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice and the inquiry report were quashed as being time-barred and unsustainable, in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the consequential proceedings arising from the delayed initiation and completion of the customs broker disciplinary process were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 are mandatory, and breach of those timelines invalidates the notice and the ensuing inquiry proceedings.
Validity of the show cause notice and the inquiry report -Mandatory time limit for revocation proceedings under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations -prescribed period of ninety days for issuance of the notice after receipt of the offence report - Delayed show cause notice and inquiry report. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the question was no longer open in view of the consistent view of the Madras High Court [2025 (4) TMI 529 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], held that the timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 are mandatory. Since the offence report was received on 11.06.2023, the show cause notice ought to have been issued within ninety days therefrom, but was issued only on 29.06.2024. The inquiry report also was not submitted within ninety days from the show cause notice. In view of the binding precedents of this Court, the explanation offered by the respondents for the delay and the contrary view cited from the Kerala High Court [2024 (12) TMI 753 - KERALA HIGH COURT] could not prevail. Once the show cause notice was invalid for breach of the mandatory timeline, the consequential inquiry report also could not survive. [Paras 5, 6, 8]
The impugned show cause notice and the consequential inquiry report were set aside for non-adherence to the mandatory timelines under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the show cause notice and the inquiry report, the Court holding that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and continued beyond the mandatory timelines prescribed under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018.
Issues: (i) whether the seized gold was proved to be of foreign origin and smuggled into India so as to justify confiscation and the application of the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether penalty and confiscation could be sustained on the basis of the appellant's statement and call records in the absence of corroborative evidence; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to release of the seized gold on restitution.
Issue (i): whether the seized gold was proved to be of foreign origin and smuggled into India so as to justify confiscation and the application of the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The seized gold bore no foreign markings. The appellant's statement attributing foreign origin and smuggling to a third person was treated as hearsay because it was not based on his personal knowledge. The statement could not safely be relied upon as the sole basis for concluding foreign origin, particularly when the adjudicating authority had not examined whether the statement was voluntary in the manner required before placing reliance on it. The call records only showed contact between persons and did not disclose the subject matter of the conversations. The CRCL report establishing gold purity did not by itself prove foreign origin. In the absence of independent corroboration, the department failed to discharge the initial burden of showing that the goods were smuggled.
Conclusion: The seized gold was not proved to be foreign-origin smuggled goods, and Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether penalty and confiscation could be sustained on the basis of the appellant's statement and call records in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Analysis: Since the core allegation of smuggled foreign-origin gold was not established by admissible and corroborated evidence, the confiscation under the cited customs provisions could not stand. Once confiscation failed, the penalty imposed on the appellant also lacked a legal foundation. Mere telephonic contact and an uncorroborated statement were insufficient to sustain penal consequences.
Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside.
Issue (iii): whether the appellant was entitled to release of the seized gold on restitution.
Analysis: As the seizure culminated in an unlawful confiscation, the appellant was required to be restored to the position he occupied before seizure. The ownership dispute was not decided against him, and the customs law did not bar release to the person from whose possession the goods were seized in the circumstances of the case. Restitution therefore justified return of the goods.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to release of the seized gold.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to confiscation and penalty succeeded, and consequential relief including release of the seized gold was granted to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of independent corroboration, a hearsay statement and call records showing only contact do not suffice to prove foreign origin or smuggled nature of gold, and the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not shift to the possessor.
Smuggling - foreign origin gold - confiscation of small piece of gold - Admissibility ofHearsay evidence - Burden of proof for smuggled goods - Reasonable belief for seizure - absence of corroborative evidence - Restitution of seized goods - imposition of penalty - Whether the gold is of foreign origin.
Foreign origin gold -HELD THAT:- Hearsay evidence and its admissibility has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta vs. State [2022 (12) TMI 1490 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. Following the same, Therefore, hearsay evidence is a derivative, transmitted and second-hand evidence in which a witness is merely reporting not what he himself saw or heard but what he learned from a third person and therefore, hearsay evidence is inadmissible except when it is corroborated by substantive evidence.
The Tribunal held that though a statement recorded under Section 108 is admissible, the adjudicating authority was still required to examine whether it was voluntary, and the order had proceeded on that assumption without undertaking that exercise. More importantly, the appellant's statement about the gold having been smuggled from Bangladesh was not based on his personal knowledge but only on what he had allegedly been told by another person, and was therefore hearsay evidence. Such evidence could be acted upon only if supported by substantive corroborative material. The call detail records merely showed contact between the persons concerned and, without the contents of the conversations, did not establish foreign origin or smuggling. The CRCL report also did not support the Revenue's case of foreign origin. In the absence of foreign markings, cogent evidence was necessary to show that the gold was of foreign origin; mere recovery at a public place and prior intelligence could at best justify further inquiry, but not a legally sustainable seizure on the footing that the goods were smuggled. The Tribunal therefore held that the Revenue had failed even prima facie to prove foreign origin, with the result that the burden under Section 123 could not be shifted to the appellant. Once the confiscation itself failed, the penalty also could not survive. [Paras 20, 21, 23, 26, 28]
The confiscation was set aside on merits and the penalty imposed on the appellant was also set aside.
Restitution of seized goods - Release to person from whose possession seized - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal held that once the seizure and consequential confiscation were found unsustainable, the principle of restitution required restoration of the position existing before seizure. As the alleged owner had not come forward and his ownership could not be determined in these proceedings, there was no legal impediment to releasing the goods to the person from whose possession they had been seized. The Tribunal also noted that the Customs Act did not prohibit such release where the owner was not known or did not claim the goods. [Paras 29]
Release of the seized gold was directed in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the Revenue had failed to establish by admissible and corroborated evidence that the seized gold was of foreign origin or smuggled, and that the burden under Section 123 could not therefore be invoked against the appellant. The confiscation and penalty were set aside, and release of the gold was directed in favour of the appellant on the principle of restitution.
Issues: Whether the delay of 471 days in refiling the company appeal deserved condonation.
Analysis: The delay was prolonged and occurred in multiple spells. The explanation based on the medical complications of one appellant was found insufficient because the appeal involved several appellants, including surviving appellants who could have supported the application, and no supporting material was produced to establish the nature or duration of the alleged medical condition. The explanation was therefore held to be neither substantiated nor plausible.
Conclusion: Condonation of delay in refiling was rejected, and the appeal consequently stood dismissed.
Condonation of delay - delay of 471 days in refiling the company appeal - Sufficiency of cause - Medical complications - suffered from unprecedented medical complications, due to which the defects could not be rectified earlier. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Tribunal held that condonation of inordinate delay in refiling must rest on genuine and logically established grounds. The explanation founded on the medical complications of one appellant was found insufficient, since several other surviving appellants could have taken steps to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal further found that no material was placed on record to disclose the nature or duration of the alleged medical condition so as to justify the prolonged delay. In the absence of substantiating documents and a satisfactory explanation, the cause shown was held not to warrant condonation. [Paras 9, 10]
The application for condonation of delay in refiling was rejected, and the appeal stood dismissed as a consequence.
Final Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal declined to condone the delay in refiling, holding that the explanation offered was unsupported and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the interlocutory application was rejected and the company appeal was dismissed.
Issues: Whether the order dismissing the restoration application for non-appearance was liable to be set aside on the ground that the appellant had shown sufficient explanation for the absence of counsel and sought an opportunity to contest the matter.
Analysis: The record showed that counsel had not appeared on the relevant dates, but the explanation offered was that he was engaged before the Supreme Court on one date and was also absent on an earlier date due to ill health. The Tribunal accepted the service position, noted the supporting material, and found the explanation for non-appearance to be genuine and sufficient. It further considered that the appellant intended to contest the matter bona fide and that no prejudice would be caused by restoring the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the restoration application was revived, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.
Seeking an opportunity to contest the matter - Sufficient cause for non-appearance - absence of counsel - restoration of petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sufficient cause for non-appearance - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant's counsel had remained absent only on two occasions and that, on the relevant date, his presence before the Supreme Court [2025 (5) TMI 1519 - SC ORDER], stood borne out from the order produced by the appellant. Though an adjournment ought to have been sought before the Adjudicating Authority, the explanation for non-appearance on the date of dismissal was held to be genuine and sufficient. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant should be afforded an opportunity to contest the matter and that the restoration application required fresh consideration after hearing the parties and keeping in view the defence taken regarding the absence on 16.05.2025. [Paras 16, 17, 18]
The impugned order was set aside, the restoration application was revived to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, and it was directed to be decided afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed on the ground that the appellant had furnished a sufficient and genuine explanation for its counsel's absence. The order rejecting restoration was set aside and the restoration application was remitted for fresh disposal without any expression on the merits of the underlying case.
Issues: (i) Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated on the basis of claims arising from a single real estate project should be confined to that project alone; (ii) Whether stakeholders of other projects of the corporate debtor can pursue their claims independently and whether the resolution professional should invite and update claims project-wise.
Issue (i): Whether the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated on the basis of claims arising from a single real estate project should be confined to that project alone.
Analysis: The claims before the adjudicating authority arose from allottees of one identified project. The settled approach in real estate insolvency is that where financial creditors in a class invoke Section 7 on the basis of default in a particular project, the resolution process should ordinarily remain project-specific so that solvent or unrelated projects are not brought within the same insolvency umbrella. That approach protects homebuyers of the concerned project while avoiding collateral prejudice to stakeholders of other projects.
Conclusion: The corporate insolvency resolution process was required to be confined to the specific project concerned, namely Krishna Housing Scheme, and not to the corporate debtor as a whole.
Issue (ii): Whether stakeholders of other projects of the corporate debtor can pursue their claims independently and whether the resolution professional should invite and update claims project-wise.
Analysis: Since the insolvency was confined to one project, claims had to be collated and updated in relation to that project alone. Other stakeholders and financial institutions asserting rights in respect of different projects were not required to be absorbed into this project-specific process and were free to pursue their own proceedings in accordance with law. The resolution professional was therefore required to issue a corrigendum inviting claims only for the concerned project and to update the claims already received, including payments made under the court's interim directions.
Conclusion: Other project-wise stakeholders were left free to proceed independently, and the resolution professional was directed to handle claims only for Krishna Housing Scheme.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the insolvency process was narrowed to the concerned real estate project, with consequential directions for project-specific claim collation and preservation of remedies of stakeholders of other projects.
Ratio Decidendi: In a real estate insolvency initiated by allottees or financial creditors of one project, the corporate insolvency resolution process should ordinarily be confined to that project alone and should not extend to other independent projects of the same corporate debtor.
Initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process - Project-wise corporate insolvency resolution process - Real estate insolvency - Homebuyers as financial creditors - Claims confined to the project under CIRP.
Project-wise corporate insolvency resolution process - Real estate project-specific CIRP - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal held that the Section 7 applicants were all allottees of a single real estate project, namely Krishna Housing Scheme, and the default pleaded also related only to that project. Following its earlier decision in Navin M. Raheja Vs. Vipul Jain & Ors.[2026 (3) TMI 1324 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI], and the principles reiterated in Gagan Tandon & Ors. vs. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.[2026 (1) TMI 661 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI], Flat Buyers Association Winter Hills - 77, Gurgaon vs. Umang Realtech Pvt. Ltd. through IRP & Ors. [2020 (2) TMI 1409 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI], and Mansi Brar Fernandes Vs. Shubha Sharma & Anr. [2025 (9) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT], the Tribunal held that in real estate insolvency, where the triggering creditors belong to one project, the CIRP must proceed on a project-specific basis unless circumstances justify otherwise. It observed that extending the insolvency to other projects of the corporate debtor would prejudice homebuyers and stakeholders of those separate projects. The impugned admission order was therefore modified by restricting the CIRP to Krishna Housing Scheme. [Paras 15, 16]
The impugned order was modified and the CIRP was confined to the project Krishna Housing Scheme.
Claims confined to the project under CIRP - Independent proceedings for other projects - HELD THAT: - Having held that the insolvency process could continue only project-wise, the Appellate Tribunal further held that the claims to be received and processed in the present CIRP must also be confined to Krishna Housing Scheme. It clarified that admission of claims was a matter for the IRP/RP under the CIRP Regulations and that, at this stage, the Tribunal would not adjudicate individual claims of intervening financial institutions or other creditors. To align the process with the project-specific CIRP, the IRP/RP was directed to issue a corrigendum to the earlier publication, invite claims pertaining to Krishna Housing Scheme within a further period, and update the claims of the original homebuyers to reflect payments already received. Creditors and financial institutions relating to other projects were expressly left at liberty to prosecute their independent proceedings in accordance with law. [Paras 18, 19]
The IRP/RP was directed to invite and process claims only for Krishna Housing Scheme, and proceedings concerning other projects were left unaffected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by modifying the admission order and restricting the CIRP to Krishna Housing Scheme alone. The IRP/RP was directed to invite and update claims only in relation to that project, while creditors and stakeholders of other projects were left free to pursue their remedies independently.
Issues: Whether the order restoring the property to the second respondent under section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was valid when the appeal against the adjudication order was still pending and charges under section 4 had not been framed.
Analysis: Section 8(8) permits restoration of confiscated property to a claimant with a legitimate interest, but the second proviso operates only in the manner prescribed by the Rules. Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 makes framing of charge under section 4 a necessary precondition for moving an application for restoration during trial. The pending challenge to the adjudication order also meant that the confirmation process had not attained the finality contemplated for the statutory scheme. In view of these unmet statutory requirements, the Special Court could not grant restoration at that stage.
Conclusion: The impugned restoration order was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: An application for restoration under the second proviso to section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be entertained only after the statutory conditions prescribed by the Rules are satisfied, including framing of charge where required, and it cannot override a pending appellate challenge to the adjudication order.
Restoration of confiscated property - Conditions precedent under Section 8(8) second proviso - Pendency of appeal against adjudication order - Whether the impugned order restoring the property to the second respondent for it to proceed in accordance with law has been made in accordance with the Provisions of Sub-Section 8 of Section 8 of the PMLA Act.
Restoration of property during trial - Rule 3A compliance - Pendency of statutory appeal - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the right to seek restoration during trial under the second proviso to Section 8(8) is controlled by the conditions prescribed in Rule 3A of the 2016 Rules as amended. Rule 3A permits consideration of such an application only after framing of charge under Section 4. In the present case, charges had admittedly not been framed. Further, the order of the Adjudicating Authority was under challenge before the statutory Appellate Tribunal. Applying the law declared by the Supreme Court NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. [2026 (2) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT] the Court held that when the adjudication order is pending before the appellate forum, the Special Court cannot proceed in a manner that would trench upon or render infructuous the statutory appellate remedy. In these circumstances, the restoration order was premature and unsustainable. [Paras 18, 19, 21]
The impugned order restoring the property to the bank was set aside as being contrary to the statutory scheme governing restoration during trial.
Final Conclusion: The Criminal Revision was allowed. The High Court held that restoration of the attached property under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the PMLA could not be granted at this stage, since the appeal against the adjudication order was pending and the statutory condition of framing charges had not been satisfied.
Issues: (i) Whether advisory services in relation to merger and acquisition of shareholding were classifiable under Management or Business Consultancy Service for the relevant period, and (ii) whether service tax could be demanded under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 from individual shareholders on the footing of import of service.
Issue (i): Whether advisory services in relation to merger and acquisition of shareholding were classifiable under Management or Business Consultancy Service for the relevant period.
Analysis: The service in question was transactional advisory connected with corporate restructuring, acquisition and sale of shares, and not management consultancy in the sense of advice on business management. The services were of the kind that had been recognised as falling within banking and financial services, and the later specific inclusion of such services in the taxable category of Business and Other Financial Services indicated that classification under Management Consultancy Service for the relevant period was not sustainable.
Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The services were not liable to be classified under Management or Business Consultancy Service for the relevant period.
Issue (ii): Whether service tax could be demanded under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 from individual shareholders on the footing of import of service.
Analysis: The services related to sale of shares held by individual shareholders and were connected with transfer of a capital asset, not with any business activity of the individuals. Section 66A was held inapplicable where the service was not received for use in business or commerce. The company and its shareholders were distinct juristic persons, and tax could not be fastened on individual shareholders for services allegedly received by the company merely because they held the entire shareholding.
Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. No service tax liability arose under Section 66A in the hands of the individual shareholders.
Final Conclusion: The demands and penalties could not be sustained on the facts and the appeals succeeded on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Advisory services confined to merger, acquisition and share sale transactions are not Management Consultancy Service for the relevant period, and Section 66A does not apply where the service is not received in the course of business or commerce by the person sought to be taxed.
Classification of merger and acquisition advisory services - Management or Business Consultancy Service - Taxability of imported services for personal share sale transactions - Reverse Charge Mechanism - Separate legal personality of company and shareholders - Whether the services received by the appellants in relation to merger and acquisition are liable to service tax under the category of “Management or Business Consultancy Service” under Reverse Charge Mechanism, or whether such services fall under another taxable category and further whether the demand can be sustained on individual shareholders.
Classification of merger and acquisition advisory services - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the nature of the service was transactional and corporate restructuring advisory connected with acquisition and sale of shareholding, and not consultancy in relation to management of an organisation. It accepted the line of decisions treating merger and acquisition advisory as falling under Banking and Financial Services and noted that such services were specifically brought under that taxable category only with effect from 16.07.2001. On that basis, classification of the impugned service under Management Consultancy Service was found unsustainable. [Paras 13, 14, 17, 18, 19]
The demand could not be sustained on the footing that the impugned service was taxable as Management or Business Consultancy Service.
Taxability of imported services for personal share sale transactions - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal in the case of HSBC Securities and Capital Market (I) Pvt Ltd.[2013 (12) TMI 1020 - CESTAT MUMBAI], has held that such services may fall under Management Consultancy Service prior to a certain period and thereafter under Business and Financial Services; however, such classification depends on the exact nature and scope of service provider. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the foreign consultants were providing management consultancy service in relation to rendering management of business, rather the services were confined to transactional advisory for acquisition/sale of shares of individual shareholders, which resulted in acquisition of said company by buyers.
The Tribunal found that the services were rendered in relation to transfer of shares held by the individuals and the transaction was one of transfer of a capital asset, not a business activity of the shareholders. It therefore held that the service was not received for use in business or commerce and fell outside the ambit of taxable import of services in the hands of the individuals. The Tribunal further held that the company remained a separate juristic entity distinct from its shareholders, and demand on the shareholders for services allegedly received by the company was fundamentally flawed merely because they together held the entire shareholding. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 19]
The individual shareholders were not liable to service tax under Section 66A on the impugned services.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that merger and acquisition advisory in relation to sale of shareholding was not taxable as Management or Business Consultancy Service for the relevant period and that no reverse charge liability could be fastened on the individual shareholders for such services.
Issues: (i) whether the demand under the head of Construction of Complex Service was sustainable where the underlying activity was a composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods; (ii) whether the demand relating to Consulting Engineer Service received from outside India was barred by limitation because the extended period had already been invoked earlier on the same facts; and (iii) whether interest and penalties could survive once the tax demands were held unsustainable.
Issue (i): whether the demand under the head of Construction of Complex Service was sustainable where the underlying activity was a composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods.
Analysis: The activity undertaken was admitted to be a composite works contract. Such indivisible contracts cannot be split up and taxed under other service categories merely because a separate taxable entry did not exist for the relevant period. A composite works contract is taxable only under the specific entry created for Works Contract Service, and not under Construction of Complex Service.
Conclusion: The demand under Construction of Complex Service was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the demand relating to Consulting Engineer Service received from outside India was barred by limitation because the extended period had already been invoked earlier on the same facts.
Analysis: The record showed that a prior show cause notice had already been issued on the same issue invoking the extended period. Once the department was aware of the material facts, the extended period could not be invoked again on the same set of facts in a subsequent notice. The later demand was therefore hit by limitation.
Conclusion: The demand on Consulting Engineer Service was barred by limitation and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether interest and penalties could survive once the tax demands were held unsustainable.
Analysis: Interest and penalties were purely consequential to the tax demands. Since the demands themselves could not stand, no independent basis remained for levy of interest or imposition of penalties.
Conclusion: The interest and penalty demands also failed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained on either the merits of classification or on limitation, and the assessee obtained complete relief in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: An indivisible composite works contract cannot be vivisected and taxed under another service category, and where the department has already invoked the extended period on the same facts, a subsequent notice cannot again rely on the extended period for the same matter.
Demand raised under the head of Construction of Complex Service - composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods - Demand relating to Consulting Engineer Service received from outside India - barred by limitation - Repeated invocation of extended limitation.
Composite works contract - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal recorded that the appellant's activity was admittedly a composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods. Applying the principle laid down in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs L & T Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT], it held that such indivisible contracts could not be taxed under other service categories prior to introduction of works contract service, and even thereafter such contracts were taxable only under that specific category and not under Construction of Complex Service. [Paras 13, 14, 15]
The service tax demand under Construction of Complex Service was set aside.
Extended period of limitation - Reverse charge - Consulting engineer service - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found from the record that the Department had earlier issued a show cause notice on the same issue by invoking the extended period. On that basis, it held that a further notice invoking the extended period on the same facts was impermissible. Relying on M/s Nizam Sugar Factory Vs CE [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT] it concluded that once the Department was already aware of the facts, the extended period could not be repeatedly invoked. [Paras 17, 18]
The demand on Consulting Engineer Service was held time-barred, and consequential interest and penalties were held unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order in entirety. It held that the demand under Construction of Complex Service on composite works contracts was legally unsustainable and that the demand on Consulting Engineer Service was barred by limitation, with the result that interest and penalties also could not survive.
Issues: (i) Whether service tax under reverse charge mechanism was payable on the licence fee paid to Indian Railways for permission to operate food stalls and onboard catering services. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the demand covering the period 2012-13 to 2016-17.
Issue (i): Whether service tax under reverse charge mechanism was payable on the licence fee paid to Indian Railways for permission to operate food stalls and onboard catering services.
Analysis: The demand was founded on the premise that the licence fee constituted consideration for support services allegedly rendered by the Railways. The licensing arrangement, however, was treated as a permission to carry on catering activity and not as a taxable service with a service-provider and service-recipient relationship. The licence fee was found to be unrelated to any alleged support service and not to be quid pro quo for a taxable activity. The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions on identical facts and held that when the activity itself does not constitute a taxable service, the demand cannot survive.
Conclusion: Service tax under reverse charge mechanism was not payable, and the demand was unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the demand covering the period 2012-13 to 2016-17.
Analysis: The notice was issued on 25.04.2018, and the demand related to a period partly beyond the normal limitation period. Since the underlying activity was held to be non-taxable, no intent to evade tax could be attributed to the appellant. The conditions for invoking the extended period were therefore not satisfied, and the demand for the earlier period was time barred.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked, and the demand for the period prior to 25.10.2015 was barred by time.
Final Conclusion: The impugned demand was set aside in full, with the appellant succeeding on both taxability and limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Licence fee paid for permission to operate catering activity on railway premises is not, by itself, consideration for a taxable support service; where the underlying activity is non-taxable, the demand fails and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent an element of suppression or intent to evade.
Reverse charge mechanism - Taxability of licence fee paid to Indian Railways for permission to operate food stalls and onboard catering services - Support services - Extended period of limitation.
Reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal held that the controversy stood covered by its earlier decisions in M/s. Express Food Services vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Bhopal [2025 (5) TMI 66 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], and M/s. Ambuj Hotels and Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director General of GST Intelligenc [2023 (4) TMI 322 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. The licence fee paid to Railways was not consideration for any taxable support services. It was linked to the grant of authorisation or permission to carry on catering business and was based on assessed sales turnover, and therefore could not be treated as quid pro quo for any support service rendered by Railways. Since the activity identified in the show cause notice was not taxable as framed, the demand could not be sustained. [Paras 6, 7]
The demand of service tax on licence fee under reverse charge was held unsustainable.
Extended period of limitation - Time-barred demand - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that, once the appellant's activity was found to be non-taxable, no intention to evade payment of tax could be attributed to the appellant. On that basis, invocation of the extended period was held to be erroneous. Consequently, the demand for the period prior to 25.10.2015 was time-barred, and the balance demand for the normal period also failed in view of the finding on merits. [Paras 8]
The extended period was wrongly invoked; the demand prior to 25.10.2015 was barred by limitation, and the remaining demand was also not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. It held that licence fee paid to Railways for catering permission was not taxable under reverse charge as support service, and further held that the extended period of limitation had been wrongly invoked.
Issues: (i) Whether the duty and interest already paid by the appellant were liable to be appropriated against the confirmed demand and whether any further demand could be raised. (ii) Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustainable in the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether the duty and interest already paid by the appellant were liable to be appropriated against the confirmed demand and whether any further demand could be raised.
Analysis: The confirmed duty and interest were not disputed on merits. Since the amounts had already been paid, they were required to be adjusted against the adjudicated liability. Once such payment is taken into account, no further recovery could be made towards the same confirmed duty and interest.
Conclusion: The already paid duty and interest were directed to be appropriated and no further demand could be raised on that account.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustainable in the facts of the case.
Analysis: Rule 25 permits penalty where the specified contraventions occur, and clause (d) specifically covers contraventions committed with intent to evade duty. The record showed that the earlier setting aside of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not result in setting aside of penalty under Rule 25. The adjudicating authority had limited the penalty to 10% of the duty, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in invoking Rule 25 on that basis.
Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 25 was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The demand of duty and interest was sustained, the amount already paid was ordered to be appropriated, and the penalty under Rule 25 was maintained, resulting in only limited relief to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Where duty and interest already stand paid, they must be appropriated against the confirmed liability, and penalty under Rule 25 can be sustained within the statutory framework even where the penalty is confined to a lower quantification consistent with the governing provisions.
Appropriation of duty and interest already paid - denial of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 03/2006-CE - levy of penalty under Rule 25 - Intent to evade payment of duty - fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression.
Appropriation of duty and interest already paid - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal recorded that the correctness of the confirmed duty demand and interest was no longer in dispute. Since those amounts had admittedly already been paid to the department, their non-appropriation on the ground that the appellant had pursued appeal proceedings, or had not paid the penalty, was held unjustified. Once payment of the confirmed duty and interest stood admitted, those amounts had to stand appropriated against the confirmed liability, and no further demand could be raised in respect thereof. [Paras 7, 10]
The confirmed duty and interest were upheld, but the amounts already paid were directed to stand appropriiated, with no further demand surviving on that account.
Penalty under Rule 25 - Intent to evade payment of duty - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that its earlier order had set aside penalty under section 11AC and Rule 26, but had not set aside penalty under Rule 25. On construction of Rule 25, it observed that clause (d) specifically requires intent to evade duty, whereas clauses (a), (b) and (c) do not expressly require proof of mala fides. It further held that the appellant's contention that absence of fraud or suppression excluded penalty altogether was not correct, because section 11AC(1)(a) also covers cases where such elements are absent and permits penalty within the prescribed limit. Since Rule 25 operates subject to section 11AC, and the adjudicating authority had restricted the penalty to 10% of the duty determined for the normal period, the imposition was found consistent with Rule 25 and free from infirmity. [Paras 8, 9, 10]
The penalty imposed under Rule 25, restricted to 10% of the duty, was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. While the confirmed duty, interest and penalty under Rule 25 were sustained, the duty and interest already paid were directed to be appropriated, and no further demand could be raised in respect of those components.
Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to pay an amount under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of non-excisable goods cleared from the factory.
Analysis: Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 prohibits credit on inputs used exclusively for exempted goods, requires separate accounts where both dutiable and exempted goods are manufactured, and mandates payment under Rule 6(3) where common credit is taken without maintaining separate records. After the amendment with effect from 01.03.2015, non-excisable goods are included within exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 6. On the facts established by the Chartered Accountant's certificate, the appellant had not availed CENVAT credit on inputs used for the non-excisable goods or on common inputs used up to the stage of emergence of such by-products.
Conclusion: The appellant had complied with Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2), and no liability arose under Rule 6(3).
Final Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where no CENVAT credit is availed on inputs used for exempted or non-excisable goods, and no common credit is taken in relation to both dutiable and such goods, the payment obligation under Rule 6(3) does not arise.
CENVAT Credit - Demand under Rule 6(3) - non-excisable goods - cleared from the factory - common inputs.
Rule 6(3) liability on non-excisable goods - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules operates only where CENVAT credit is availed on inputs used in exempted goods, or on common inputs used for dutiable and exempted goods without maintaining separate accounts. Though with effect from 01.03.2015 non-excisable goods stood included within exempted goods for the purposes of Rule 6, the Chartered Accountant's certificate produced before the Tribunal showed that no CENVAT credit had been availed on inputs used in the manufacture of the non-excisable goods or on any common inputs. On that factual position, the appellant had complied with its obligations under Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2), and the occasion to invoke Rule 6(3) did not arise. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]
The demand of amount under Rule 6(3), with interest and penalty, was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that, despite the post-01.03.2015 inclusion of non-excisable goods within exempted goods for Rule 6 purposes, no amount was payable under Rule 6(3) since no CENVAT credit had been taken on inputs used for such goods or on common inputs. The impugned order demanding the amount with interest and penalty was therefore set aside.
Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable when the irregularly availed CENVAT credit was reversed and the applicable interest was paid before adjudication, and the records showed regular disclosure in returns.
Analysis: The appellant reversed the irregular credit immediately after it was pointed out by the Audit / Anti-Evasion wing. The record also showed that interest attributable to the extent of credit actually utilised was quantified and paid before adjudication, though after issuance of the notice. Regular filing of returns and disclosure of credit availment negatived the allegation of wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. In these circumstances, the ingredients necessary for imposing penalty were not established.
Conclusion: Penalty was not imposable and the penalty order was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where irregular CENVAT credit is reversed, applicable interest is paid, and there is no proved suppression of facts or intent to evade, penalty under the CENVAT Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable.
Validity of Penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC for irregular CENVAT credit - Suppression of facts - Reversal of credit with interest - Scope of Section 11A(2).
Scope of Section 11A(2) - Payment of interest before show cause notice - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal held that the plea founded on Section 11A(2) could not succeed because, though the irregular CENVAT credit had been reversed earlier, the applicable interest had not been paid before issuance of the show cause notice. In such circumstances, the notice could not be treated as unnecessary under that provision. [Paras 10]
The contention that no show cause notice could have been issued was rejected.
Penalty for irregular CENVAT credit. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal recorded that the irregularly availed credit had been reversed immediately after it was pointed out by the Audit/Anti-Evasion wing, and that interest on the excess utilised portion was also paid before adjudication. It further found that the appellant had been regularly filing returns disclosing availment of credit. On these findings, the allegation of wilful suppression with intent to avail inadmissible credit was held to be unsubstantiated. Since the foundation for penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC was absent, penalty could not be sustained. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]
The penalty was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that, although the show cause notice was not barred since interest had not been paid before its issuance, penalty could not be sustained because the credit had been reversed, interest on the utilised portion was paid before adjudication, and wilful suppression was not established. The appeal was accordingly allowed by setting aside the penalty.
Issues: Whether the excess amount paid on inputs cleared as such on stock transfer to sister concerns, after valuation on CAS-4 basis, was recoverable under Section 11D(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 required payment equal to the credit availed when inputs were removed as such. Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies only where an assessee collects an amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined from the buyer of such goods as representing duty of excise and fails to pay it to the Government. The Tribunal held that the present clearances were stock transfers to sister concerns and not sales to buyers. It further held that the amount collected through the transaction value adopted by the appellant had already been credited to the Government, even though paid through the Cenvat credit account.
Conclusion: Section 11D(2) was held inapplicable, and the demand could not be sustained. The orders confirming recovery were set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 11D can be invoked only where duty-like amounts are collected from a buyer and remain unpaid to the Government; where the transaction is a stock transfer and the amount has already reached the Government, no recovery under Section 11D lies.
Cenvat Credit - Recovery under Section 11D(2) - excess duty paid on inputs cleared as such to the appellant's sister concern on stock transfer basis - Sale to buyer - Collection of duty as representing excise duty - Payment to the credit of the Government.
Whether excess amount of duty paid on the inputs cleared ‘as such’ by determining the value of stock transferred goods to sister concern applying principle of CAS4 method i.e. 110% of the cost of production be recoverable applying Section 11D(2) of CEA, 1944 being collected from the sister concern. - HELD THAT:- While clearing the goods on stock transfer basis, instead of following the procedure laid down under Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 by debiting the credit availed on such inputs, the appellant had discharged duty on such inputs by determining its value applying CAS4 method prescribed for stock transferred goods. The Department proposed to recover the excess duty paid and collected from the sister concern under Section 11D(2) of CEA, 1944.
The Tribunal held that Section 11D applies where an amount collected as representing duty, in excess of the duty assessed or determined and paid, remains unpaid to the credit of the Government. On a plain reading of the provision, recovery under sub-section (2) arises only when the amount required to be credited under sub-section (1) has not been so paid. In the present case, the excess amount arose because, instead of reversing the credit under Rule 3(5), the appellant discharged duty on stock-transferred inputs by adopting CAS-4 based valuation; however, that amount had already been credited to the Government. The Tribunal also accepted the contention that the clearances were stock transfers to a sister concern and not sales to a buyer. Since there was no amount outstanding to be paid to the Government, and the transaction itself was not a sale attracting the mischief contemplated under Section 11D, the provision was held inapplicable. [Paras 9, 10, 11]
The demands confirmed under Section 11D(2) were set aside and both appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal held that Section 11D(2) was not attracted to the excess duty paid on inputs cleared as such to the sister concern, since the amount had already been credited to the Government and the transaction was only a stock transfer. The impugned orders were therefore set aside and the appeals allowed.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to concessional tax treatment in the absence of timely production of original C and F Forms, and whether the rejection of the claim for want of such forms was sustainable.
Analysis: The relevant assessment years were 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Rule 12(1) of the CST Rules required C and F Forms to be furnished within three months. The forms were not produced before the adjudicating authority, the first appellate authority, the Tribunal, or the Court, and remained absent from the record. The governing principle is that production of the original forms is mandatory and not a mere technicality. Strict compliance is required for claiming concessional treatment under the CST regime.
Conclusion: The rejection of the assessee's claim for want of C and F Forms was upheld, and the issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the statutory condition for concessional treatment was not satisfied on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: A dealer cannot claim concessional tax treatment under the CST framework without strict compliance with the requirement to furnish the original statutory forms within the prescribed time.
Entitlement to concessional treatment in respect of inter-State stock transfers despite non-production of the original C and F Forms within the prescribed time - Compliance with statutory requirements -Concessional rate on inter-State transactions.
C and F Forms - Strict compliance with statutory forms - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Agencies vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru [2004 (12) TMI 372 - SUPREME COURT],
The Court held that, under the applicable rule, C and F Forms are required to be furnished within three months and that production of the original forms along with the returns is mandatory, not a mere technical requirement. Since the assessee had not produced the forms before the assessing authority, the first appellate authority, or the Tribunal, and the forms were not on record even before the Court, the rejection of the claim for concession was in accordance with law. The request for another opportunity was declined as the absence of the statutory forms went to the root of the claim itself. [Paras 7, 9, 10]
The denial of the claimed concession for want of original C and F Forms was upheld, and the revision petition was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the concurrent orders of the authorities and the Tribunal holding that, in the absence of original C and F Forms on record, the assessee could not claim the concessional treatment sought. The revision petition was accordingly rejected.
TaxTMI 