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 demand order passed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained when the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal after cancellation of the petitioner's registration and no alternative mode of service was ied.
Analysis: After cancellation of registration, the petitioner was not required to keep checking the GST portal. In such a situation, service of the show cause notice had to be effected through an alternative and proper mode. Since the impugned proceedings were founded on portal-based notice service without effective service on the petitioner, the process suffered from a violation of natural justice.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the department was left at liberty to issue a proper notice and proceed in accordance with law.
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - a SCN was uploaded on the GST portal and subsequent to the same, the order impugned was passed under Section 74 of UPGST Act - violation of Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Once the registration has been cancelled, the petitioner is not obligated to check GST portal. The mode of service of any show cause notice has to be by way of alternative means to the petitioner.
There has been violation of the principle of natural justice, and accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 and 22.8.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. The department shall be at liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and act in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
Issues: Whether the impugned GST order deserved to be quashed and the matter sent back for fresh consideration despite the delay in approaching the Court, having regard to the non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and the merits of the dispute.
Analysis: The order records that no reply was filed to the show cause notice before the impugned order, though a post facto reply was later filed and not accepted. It also notes that the impugned order addressed only one aspect of the dispute and did not deal with the petitioner's grievance on apportionment between exempted and taxable turnover, which went to the merits. Although limitation for appeal had expired, the Court granted relief by treating the impugned order as not having fully dealt with the matter and by requiring compliance with a monetary condition and a fresh reply before reconsideration.
Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed conditionally, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh on merits after the petitioner's reply and deposit of 25% of the disputed tax; relief was thus granted in part to the petitioner.
Excess claim of IGST in GSTR 10, late fee liability - petitioner submits a reply to the show cause notice in respect of all aspects and the same has not been considered in the impugned order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order stands quashed subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax, in cash to the Electronic Cash Register, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order within such time. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice. The respondents shall endeavour to pass a fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible after hearing the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of tax paid in excess where the alleged excess arose from mistakes in information uploaded in GSTR-1 for the 2018-19 period but corrections were made in GSTR-3B and in the annual return GSTR-9.
2. Whether the claim for refund (or correction of returns) can be rejected on the ground that the return in GSTR-9 was filed after the statutory/portal cutoff (three-year bar introduced by the Finance Act, 2023) and the effect of the Advisory of the GSTN regarding implementation of the three-year restriction.
3. Whether the Writ Court should entertain the merits of disputed tax liability/refund at the admission stage or remit the dispute for detailed consideration by the Appellate Commissioner, leaving open all contentious issues.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Entitlement to refund of tax paid in excess where mistakes in GSTR-1 were corrected in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9
Legal framework: The statutory and procedural scheme for GST returns and adjustments requires outward supplies to be declared in GSTR-1, liabilities to be discharged in GSTR-3B, and the annual reconciliation in GSTR-9; refunds or adjustments arise where tax has been paid in excess.
Precedent treatment: No judicial precedents were cited or applied in the order. The Court proceeded on the factual and statutory matrix as presented.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the petitioner's case that duplications/mistakes in GSTR-1 were rectified in GSTR-3B (monthly return) and again in the annual return GSTR-9, and that tax, interest and penalty earlier paid flowed from an order based on the uncorrected information. On a prima facie assessment the petitioner had made out a case that excess tax was paid and that a refund may therefore be due; the Court relied on the sequence of filings and the petitioner's submissions rather than resolving the factual and accounting intricacies at the admission stage.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court held that a prima facie case for refund exists where corrections in GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 show that tax was paid in excess due to earlier erroneous uploads in GSTR-1. Obiter - No definitive finding was made on the quantum or propriety of refund; those aspects were left for appellate consideration.
Conclusion: The petitioner prima facie entitled to pursue a refund claim, but entitlement, computation and admissibility must be considered and decided by the Appellate Commissioner on merits.
Issue 2 - Effect of three-year bar (Finance Act, 2023) and GSTN Advisory on late filing of GSTR-9 and its impact on refund/re-filing rights
Legal framework: The Finance Act, 2023 introduced a temporal bar disallowing filing of specified GST returns after expiry of three years from the due date of furnishing the return (covering GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9, etc.), with implementation on the GST portal to be effected from July 2025 tax period as per the GSTN Advisory.
Precedent treatment: No authority was cited to resolve conflicts between the statutory bar, portal implementation, and the consequences for pending or post facto filings; the Court confined itself to the advisory as placed on record.
Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order rejected the refund claim on the ground that GSTR-9 was filed after the last date (allegedly 31.12.2020) and therefore the claim was barred. The Court observed the existence of the Finance Act, 2023 amendment and the GSTN Advisory highlighting the three-year bar and its portal implementation timeline. However, the Court refrained from adjudicating the legal effect of the three-year restriction on the petitioner's specific claim, noting that the matter required detailed consideration by the Appellate Commissioner - particularly whether the statutory bar as amended, and its operational implementation on the portal, preclude the petitioner's entitlement or remedy.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - The Court's references to the Finance Act, 2023 and the Advisory were for contextual and prima facie assessment only; no binding determination was made on the applicability of the three-year bar to the petitioner's refund claim.
Conclusion: The applicability and effect of the three-year bar on the petitioner's retrospective correction and refund claim remain open questions to be adjudicated by the Appellate Commissioner; the Court did not uphold the bar as a conclusive basis to deny relief at the admission stage.
Issue 3 - Appropriate forum and relief: remit to Appellate Commissioner versus decide in writ jurisdiction
Legal framework: Principles of judicial restraint and administrative adjudication permit remittal of disputed tax assessments/refund claims to the appropriate appellate authority for detailed consideration, particularly where contested factual and accounting matters and statutory interpretation (including recent legislative amendments) are involved.
Precedent treatment: The Court relied on exercise of judicial discretion - no specific precedents were applied in the order - to refrain from deciding the merits in writ jurisdiction at admission and instead afford the statutory appellate process.
Interpretation and reasoning: Given the factual complexity (duplicate entries, reconciliations across multiple returns), the statutory amendment (three-year bar) and the need for detailed examination of records and computation, the Court exercised restraint. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within a specified time and directed the Appellate Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits within two months, leaving all issues open for canvass. The Court thus balanced the petitioner's prima facie case for refund with the administrative competence of the appellate authority to resolve technical and evidentiary disputes.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where factual and technical issues and statutory changes require detailed inquiry, the Court will remit the matter to the appellate authority and will not determine the substantive refund claim at the admission stage. Obiter - Timelines imposed by the Court for filing and disposal are procedural directions tailored to the case.
Conclusion: The appropriate course is remittal to the Appellate Commissioner for de novo consideration on merits; the writ is disposed of by granting liberty to appeal and directing expeditious adjudication, with all substantive issues left open.
Overall Disposition and Practical Directions (Court's Conclusions)
The Court concluded that a prima facie entitlement to refund on account of excess tax paid was made out but declined to decide the substantive entitlement or the effect of the Finance Act, 2023 three-year bar. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ by permitting the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days and directing the Appellate Commissioner to decide the appeal on merits within two months, leaving all issues open for consideration; no costs were awarded.
Refund of the tax paid in excess, after deducting the amount that was earlier confirmed - mistake while uploading relevant information in GSTR 1 for the tax period 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the petitioner appears to have made out a case for refund, if the amount was paid in excess on account of the discrepancies in the informations uploaded by the petitioner in GSTR 1, which according to the petitioner stood corrected in GSTR 3B and in GSTR 9 in view of the Advisory Team of GSTN.
However, the matter would require a detailed consideration by the Appellate Commissioner. Considering the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal challenging the impugned order, dated 16.04.2025 before the Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who shall consider the same and dispose of the same on merits within a period of two (2) months thereafter.
Petition disposed off.
Issues: Whether the order recovering refund of input tax credit was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the purchases were not reflected in GSTR-2A, certain items fell within blocked input tax credit, and the petitioner had not produced supporting documents.
Analysis: The materials placed before the Court showed that some purchases did not reflect in GSTR-2A and that certain claims related to blocked input tax credit, which cannot be availed. The petitioner was required to substantiate the refund claim by producing relevant documents, but the record did not show such substantiation. The Court found no merit in the challenge to the impugned order.
Conclusion: The recovery of the refund was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.
Refund of ITC for the month of August 2017 - petitioner has adopted excess ITC and had not filed copies of the tax invoices of the entire ITC - HELD THAT:- It is evident that since certain purchases were not reflected in the GSTR-2A statement, and the certain purchases are related to the blocked ITC, the refund was ordered to be recovered. In order to substantiate their case, the petitioner has to provide the relevant documents and in absence of such documents, the impugned order has been passed. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner refer the show cause notice which was not at all marked before this Court and makes her submission and this Court does not find any force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether factual disputes regarding reversal of input tax credit (ITC) by recipients, as disclosed in the respondent's counter affidavit, render the writ remedy inappropriate and require adjudication by the Tribunal under the CGST/BGST statutory scheme.
2. Whether the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ with liberty to pursue the alternative statutory remedy before the Tribunal within the period of limitation in accordance with law.
3. Whether an interim stay on recovery of the demand should be granted by this Court, and what interim mechanism (if any) is available to the petitioner pending statutory adjudication.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Appropriateness of writ remedy where factual disputes on reversal of ITC exist
Legal framework: The CGST/BGST Act provides a statutory appellate and adjudicatory structure culminating in the Tribunal as a second appellate authority; questions involving factual matrix and verification of returns and ITC reversal are ordinarily fora for the statutory adjudicatory process.
Precedent Treatment: No specific precedent was relied upon or considered in the counter affidavit or the Court's order; the Court proceeded on statutory principle and the factual material before it.
Interpretation and reasoning: The respondent's counter affidavit (para 8) exhibited documentary material from the GST portal - GSTR-3B and GSTR-9 returns and related tables - showing that, except for two recipients, the returns record zero ITC reversal and, in many cases, a negative difference indicating higher ITC availed than eligible. These factual findings demonstrate contested issues of fact regarding whether recipients actually reversed ITC attributable to goods purportedly returned. Given that such disputed factual questions are amenable to adjudication under the CGST/BGST Act by the Tribunal (the statutory second appellate authority), the Court considered the writ forum inappropriate for resolving those matters of fact.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the respondent's material discloses disputed factual issues concerning ITC reversal that fall within the adjudicatory competence of the Tribunal under the CGST/BGST Act, the writ forum is not the appropriate vehicle to determine those factual disputes.
Conclusions: The Court determined that the matters disclosed in the counter affidavit are factual disputes to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and should not be resolved in the writ proceeding.
Issue 2 - Permission to withdraw writ and pursue statutory remedy before the Tribunal
Legal framework: The statutory scheme permits aggrieved persons to seek remedies through the appellate/adjudicatory authorities constituted under the CGST/BGST Act; procedural law recognizes withdrawal of writs with liberty to pursue alternate remedies where appropriate.
Precedent Treatment: None cited; the Court exercised its discretion based on statutory structure and the presence of an available alternative remedy.
Interpretation and reasoning: In light of the respondent's factual assertions and documentary material indicating disputed facts, the Court held that the statutory tribunal is the proper forum. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ to pursue the statutory remedy, and the State raised no objection to such withdrawal under Section 112 of the CGST/BGST Act (i.e., to pursue the alternative remedy before the Tribunal).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an alternative efficacious statutory remedy exists and disputed factual issues are to be determined by the specialized forum, the Court may permit withdrawal of a writ with liberty to approach the statutory forum within the period of limitation.
Conclusions: The Court permitted withdrawal of the writ application with liberty to avail remedy before the Tribunal as and when constituted, within the given period of limitation and in accordance with law; the writ was disposed accordingly.
Issue 3 - Interim stay on recovery of demand and interim mechanism pending adjudication
Legal framework: The CGST/BGST scheme contemplates interlocutory reliefs and administrative consideration of stay applications by the proper officer; courts exercise caution in granting interim relief where statutory remedies/procedures are available.
Precedent Treatment: No precedent was cited; the Court addressed the interlocutory request by reference to the representations made by the parties on record.
Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner sought an interim stay of recovery. The State informed the Court that an application to the proper officer for stay on recovery would be automatically considered upon deposit of 10% of the amount. The Court did not itself grant a stay; rather it directed the petitioner to avail the statutory mechanism and permitted withdrawal with liberty to pursue the Tribunal remedy. The representation by the State regarding consideration upon 10% deposit constituted the interim administrative mechanism communicated to the Court.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter (procedural guidance) - the Court's refusal to grant an independent interim stay and its direction to use the statutory/application route with the deposit condition is procedural guidance based on the parties' stand and the statutory framework; the Court did not lay down a binding rule altering statutory provisions.
Conclusions: The Court did not grant an interim stay on recovery; instead, it observed that the petitioner may apply to the proper officer for stay, which the State stated would be considered upon deposit of 10% of the amount. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy and avail any interim relief as per the statutory mechanism.
Cross-references and Administrative Directions
Where disputed facts are disclosed by respondent material (e.g., GST portal returns showing zero reversal of ITC), such issues should ordinarily be adjudicated by the Tribunal under the CGST/BGST Act (see Issue 1 and Issue 2 cross-reference).
The Court's disposition is procedural: withdrawal of the writ with liberty to proceed before the Tribunal and reliance on the statutory mechanism for interim relief (application to proper officer and deposit condition) rather than judicial grant of stay by the Court (see Issue 3 cross-reference).
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Reversal of input tax credit (ITC) by recipients - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this writ application with liberty to avail its remedy before the Tribunal as and when constituted, within the given period of limitation in accordance with law.
Application disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether a show cause notice and consequential order issued under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 directed to a deceased taxpayer are valid or are a nullity.
2. Whether, upon the death of a registered person, legal representatives become liable for tax demands under the statutory scheme, specifically having regard to Section 93 of the Act of 2017, and the consequences for issuance of notices.
3. Whether the period between issuance of a show cause notice addressed to the deceased and the service of a certified court order quashing that notice should be excluded in computing limitation for issuance of a fresh order under Section 73.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of show cause notice and order issued to a deceased person
Legal framework: Proceedings under Section 73(1) (demand for tax not paid) must be directed to a person liable to pay tax; the general principle that process and notices must be addressed to proper parties who can be lawfully proceeded against.
Precedent Treatment: No express precedent was cited in the judgment.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the notice dated 28.05.2024 and the order dated 29.08.2024 were issued against a person who had died on 17.09.2021. Where a proceeding is initiated against a dead person and the authorities were not informed of death, such issuance cannot stand as valid process directed at an existing taxable person. The Court reasoned that had the authorities been informed of the death, they would have corrected the record and directed proceedings to the legal representatives instead of the deceased.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A show cause notice and consequential order issued against a deceased person in proceedings under Section 73 are a nullity; such proceedings must be addressed to the person legally liable.
Conclusion: The show cause notice and the impugned order issued to the deceased are set aside and quashed as invalid.
Issue 2 - Liability of legal representatives after death and requirement to issue notice to them (Section 93)
Legal framework: Section 93 provides for liability of legal representatives for dues of a deceased taxable person; departmental action must be taken against persons who are legally liable.
Precedent Treatment: No authority was followed, distinguished, or overruled; the Court applied statutory language and principles of agency/representation on death.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized that liability for tax owed during the relevant financial year continued and, in the event of death, the legal representatives would be the proper persons to be proceeded against. The petitioner (daughter) was undisputedly a legal representative. The Court noted that the petitioner had continued filing returns on behalf of the deceased after his death, contributing to the department's lack of knowledge of the death; nevertheless, statutory responsibility rests with legal representatives once death is known or ascertainable.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Proceedings for tax recovery under the Act must be directed to the legal representatives upon death of the taxable person; the department retains the liberty to issue fresh notices to legal representatives under Section 73(1).
Conclusion: While the impugned proceedings against the dead person were quashed, the authorities are granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the legal representatives in accordance with Section 73(1) and Section 93 where applicable.
Issue 3 - Exclusion of period for limitation from initial notice to service of certified court order
Legal framework: Limitation for issuing orders under Section 73 is governed by the Act; courts have jurisdiction to exclude periods where equitable considerations or procedural impossibility make strict computation unfair.
Precedent Treatment: No specific precedent considered or cited; the Court applied equitable and procedural principles inherent in limitation computations.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court concluded that, because the impugned notice was directed at a deceased person and the petitioner approached the Court, the period from issuance of the impugned notice (28.05.2024) until the certified copy of the present court order is served on the departmental officer should be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation. The Court justified exclusion on the basis that the departmental proceedings were initiated against a dead person (hence null), the legal representatives had not informed the department of the death, and the petitioner sought judicial intervention; thus, excluding that period prevents penalizing the petitioner/legal representatives for a defect in departmental process and preserves the department's right to reopen proceedings within the remaining limitation period after proper service.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The period between issuance of a notice addressed to a deceased person and service of the court order quashing that notice is to be excluded in computing limitation for subsequent action by the department under Section 73, where the legal representatives had not informed the department of the death and have approached the Court.
Conclusion: The period from 28.05.2024 (date of the defective notice) until the certified copy of the Court's order is served upon the departmental officer is excluded from limitation computation for any fresh proceedings.
Remedial Direction (applying conclusions above)
Legal framework: Judicial power to quash invalid proceedings and to regulate future steps to ensure compliance with statutory scheme.
Interpretation and reasoning: On the basis that proceedings against a dead person are null, the Court quashed both the defective notice and order, and permitted the department to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal representatives with the specified exclusion of time to preserve both the departmental right and the legal position of the petitioner.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Quashing defective proceedings against a deceased person and allowing fresh proceedings against legal representatives with exclusion of the intervening period is an appropriate remedial course.
Conclusion: The Court set aside the show cause notice and order; liberty granted to issue fresh notice to legal representatives under Section 73(1); and the intermediary period is excluded for limitation computation.
Issuance of SCN to a deceased person - liability of legal representatives - HELD THAT:- From the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner’s father was liable to pay whatever tax was required during the financial year 2019-20 and in terms with Section 93 of the Act of 2017, upon the death of the father, the legal representative would be liable. There is no dispute with the fact that the petitioner herein is the daughter of Late Anil Borgohain. It is also to be taken note of that had the respondent authorities being informed about the death of the father they would have accordingly made necessary corrections and not issued the notice to Late Anil Borgohain and would have taken steps for issuance of notice upon the petitioner or other legal representatives of Late Anil Borgohain. Under such circumstances, as the said proceedings was initiated against a dead person, the same has to be construed to be a nullity and accordingly, this Court interferes with both the notice dated 28.05.2024 as well as the impugned order dated 29.08.2024.
The show cause notice dated 28.05.2024 as well as the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 are both set aside and quashed - Petition disposed off.
Issues: (i) Whether frozen chicken supplied directly to institutional consumers is exempt from GST; (ii) whether the same goods supplied through a distributor for onward supply to institutional consumers are exempt from GST; (iii) whether frozen chicken supplied to non-institutional consumers is taxable at 5% GST.
Issue (i): Whether frozen chicken supplied directly to institutional consumers is exempt from GST.
Analysis: The exemption turns on whether the goods are "pre-packaged and labelled" for the purposes of GST. Goods supplied for consumption by institutional consumers fall outside the label/declaration requirement under Rule 3(c) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, read with the statutory definitions of institutional consumer and the concept of pre-packaged commodity. Where the supply is intended for consumption by a qualifying institution and the Legal Metrology conditions are complied with, the goods are not treated as pre-packaged and labelled for GST purposes.
Conclusion: Yes. The direct supply to institutional consumers is exempt from GST under the relevant exemption notification, subject to compliance with the Legal Metrology law and the supply being for institutional consumption.
Issue (ii): Whether the same goods supplied through a distributor for onward supply to institutional consumers are exempt from GST.
Analysis: The exemption depends on the nature of the ultimate consumer and the intended use, not merely on the channel through which the goods move. If the goods are supplied in a manner that remains covered by the exclusion for institutional consumption, the route of supply through a distributor does not alter the character of the transaction. The decisive factor is that the goods are meant for consumption by a qualifying institutional consumer and the prescribed declarations and documentary trail are satisfied.
Conclusion: Yes. The supply through a distributor is also exempt, provided the goods are ultimately supplied for institutional consumption and the Legal Metrology requirements are met.
Issue (iii): Whether frozen chicken supplied to non-institutional consumers is taxable at 5% GST.
Analysis: The exemption for institutional consumption does not extend to supplies made to non-institutional or non-industrial consumers. In that situation, the goods retain the character of pre-packaged and labelled frozen poultry meat and fall within the taxable entry attracting 5% GST.
Conclusion: Yes. Supplies to non-institutional consumers are taxable at 5% GST.
Final Conclusion: The ruling grants exemption for supplies made for institutional consumption, whether direct or routed through a distributor, but confirms taxability at 5% for supplies made to non-institutional consumers.
Ratio Decidendi: For GST classification, the decisive test is the intended consumption by a qualifying institutional or industrial consumer under the Legal Metrology framework, and not the mere channel of supply; supplies outside that exclusion remain taxable as pre-packaged and labelled goods.
Exemption from GST - supply of item directly to institutional customers - supply of the same item to a distributor, who then supplies it to institutional customers - rate of tax for supply of frozen chicken [HSN0207 1200 & HSN 0207 1400] contained in a wholesale bag of 30 Kgs containing 15 small packs of 2Kgs each when made to non-institutional consumers - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 2(bc) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, an “institutional consumer” is defined as “the institution which buys packaged commodities bearing a declaration ‘not for retail sale’, directly from the manufacturer or from an importer or from a wholesale dealer for use by that institution and not for commercial or trade purposes.” Similarly, an “industrial consumer” is defined under Rule 2(bb) as one who buys packaged commodities for use by that industry, including for commercial purposes. These definitions make it clear that institutional consumers are not restricted to direct procurement from the manufacturer alone; they can lawfully source the goods from importers or wholesale dealers as well, provided that the goods are properly labelled as “not for retail sale” and are used exclusively by the institution and not resold. Therefore, where these statutory requirements are complied with including proper declarations and a verifiable documentary trail establishing that the goods are intended for consumption by a qualifying institutional or industrial consumer, the supply would fall outside the scope of “pre-packaged and labelled” goods under the GST framework and would accordingly qualify for exemption under the aforementioned notification.
However, this exemption is strictly conditional on the goods being supplied for consumption by institutional or industrial consumers, whereby such supplies fall outside the scope of “pre-packaged and labelled” goods for GST purposes. If the same goods are supplied for any other purpose, or to non-institutional or non-industrial consumers, the exclusion under Rule 3(c) would not apply. In such cases, the goods would retain the character of pre-packaged and labelled frozen poultry meat under CTH 0207, and would be liable to GST at the rate of 5% as per N/N. 41/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 14-11-2017, provided it is both frozen and bears a brand name/label.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the marketing, recruitment and referral services provided by an Indian education consultant to foreign universities/colleges constitute "intermediary" services under Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or are independent supplies of marketing/recruitment/referral consultancy.
2. If classified as intermediary services, whether such services qualify as "export of services" under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017 and thereby escape GST liability.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Classification: Intermediary vs. Independent Consultant
Legal framework: Section 2(13) IGST Act defines "intermediary" as a broker/agent/any person who arranges or facilitates supply of goods or services between two or more persons, excluding a person who supplies such goods/services on his own account. CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST provides guiding principles and illustrative scenarios distinguishing intermediary supplies (ancillary facilitation) from principal supplies (own-account services).
Precedent treatment: A consistent line of AAR/AAAR decisions has treated student recruitment/marketing services that facilitate supply of education by a foreign university to Indian students as intermediary services where the supplier does not supply the main service on its own account. Some decisions and a CESTAT order under the erstwhile Service Tax regime arrived at contrary results on narrower facts; a recent Telangana AAR reached an outlying conclusion on similar facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: Substance prevails over contractual form. Examination of the recruiting/service agreement revealed (i) commission-based remuneration contingent on successful student enrollment; (ii) operational and marketing control and guidelines imposed by the foreign institution (branding, pre-approvals); (iii) obligation to refer and submit student applications for university consideration; (iv) absence of standalone, fixed-retainer consultancy engagements or independent market/strategic advisory functions; and (v) promotional/operational expenses borne by the contractor with only pre-approved reimbursements. These features demonstrate facilitation of the university's supply of educational services rather than independent supply on the applicant's own account. The applicant's income being contingent on tuition payments and conversion indicates the applicant's role is ancillary and facilitative to the primary supply (education) and not a principal supply of consultancy services.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where a service provider (a) markets, screens and refers students exclusively for tied-up foreign institutions, (b) operates under contracting terms and university control, and (c) is remunerated by commission contingent on student enrollment, such provider meets the statutory definition of "intermediary" under Section 2(13). Obiter - observations distinguishing isolated earlier tribunal or AAR decisions under different statutory regimes or materially different fact patterns.
Conclusion: The service provider's activities constitute intermediary services within the meaning of Section 2(13) IGST Act, 2017 and not independent marketing/recruitment/referral consultancy supplied on its own account.
Issue 2 - Export of Services: Whether intermediary services qualify as export
Legal framework: Section 2(6) IGST Act defines "export of services", requiring, inter alia, that the supplier is in India, recipient is outside India, place of supply is outside India, payment is in convertible foreign exchange, and supplier is not merely a branch/establishment of a person in India. Section 13(8)(b) IGST Act provides that for intermediary services the place of supply is the location of the supplier.
Precedent treatment: Judicial and quasi-judicial authorities have upheld the competence of Parliament to treat place of supply of intermediary services as the supplier's location and have applied Section 13(8)(b) to tax intermediary supplies located in India. AAR/AAAR precedents applying Section 13(8)(b) treat similar recruitment/marketing commissions as taxable in India where the intermediary is located in India.
Interpretation and reasoning: Since intermediary services by statutory definition have their place of supply at the supplier's location (Section 13(8)(b)), and the supplier is located in India, the place of supply is India. One of the essential conditions for export of services is that the place of supply be outside India. Even where other conditions (foreign recipient, payment in foreign exchange) are met, the place-of-supply rule for intermediaries prevents these services from qualifying as exports. The contingency of commission payment upon enrollment and the integrated nature of services with the education supply chain strengthen the conclusion that place-of-supply rules apply to make the supply taxable in India.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - intermediary services supplied by a person located in India have their place of supply in India under Section 13(8)(b) and therefore do not meet the place-of-supply criterion for "export of services" under Section 2(6). Obiter - commentary on alternative fact patterns where truly independent consultancy, retainer-based marketing, or standalone services to non-enrolled individuals could qualify as exported services if all statutory export conditions including place of supply are satisfied.
Conclusion: The intermediary services do not qualify as "export of services" because the place of supply is India under Section 13(8)(b); therefore such services are taxable under IGST/GST and do not qualify for export exemption.
Ancillary issues and clarifications
On contractual form vs. substance: The contractual label "principal-to-principal" or a clause disclaiming agency or partnership does not determine character; substance and actual functional attributes govern classification for GST purposes.
On consultant characterization: "Consultant" lacks a statutory definition and must be assessed commercially; features such as strategic advisory, retainer-based remuneration, autonomy and independent client base would support a consultancy classification. Absence of those features and presence of targeted, commission-linked facilitation weigh against classification as a consultant.
On separability of services to students: If the intermediary were to supply distinct services directly to students (e.g., chargeable, independently billed visa services), those could constitute separate taxable supplies to students. In the absence of evidence of such independent supplies, support services forming part of admission facilitation are ancillary to the intermediary role.
On precedent weight: Decisions under prior Service Tax law or isolated AARs with narrow facts do not displace the interpretative consensus under GST where statutory definitions (Section 2(13), Section 13(8)(b)) and application to the contractual substance were considered by multiple authorities.
Overall Conclusions
1. The described marketing, recruitment and referral activities amount to intermediary services as defined in Section 2(13) IGST Act, 2017.
2. Such intermediary services, with place of supply at the supplier's location in India under Section 13(8)(b), do not satisfy the place-of-supply requirement for export under Section 2(6) IGST Act and therefore do not qualify as export of services exempt from GST.
Classification of services - services rendered is intermediary services as defined under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, or whether they are considered independent services of Marketing /Recruitment /Referral Consultant? - whether the services rendered by them can be treated as export of service as defined as per the IGST Act? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the main supply is made by the foreign Universities to the Indian students. The ancillary supply is the services provided by the taxpayer by facilitating or arranging the main supply. The Circular clarifies that the phrase “such goods or services” refers to the main supply being arranged or facilitated. Therefore, where a person supports or facilitates a transaction between two other persons, without supplying the same service themselves, they fall within the scope of “intermediary”.
The applicant is not providing education services themselves. They are instead engaged in facilitating the flow of education services from foreign universities to Indian students. Their services comprising marketing, counselling, student referral, and admission-related support etc are directed toward enabling this main supply of education to occur - The fact that the applicant receives payment from the foreign university only upon successful recruitment of a student further supports the conclusion that the applicant's role is contingent on arranging the supply. The fact that the service fee is commission-based rather than fixed lends further weight to the conclusion that the applicant's services are in the nature of intermediary services.
Whether the applicant can be regarded as a consultant, particularly marketing, recruitment or referral consultant, as claimed? - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to indicate that the foreign universities have sought or received any strategic, brand-positioning, market-entry or policy-level advice from the applicant. The applicant has not demonstrated that it undertook any independent market research, curriculum benchmarking, institutional promotion strategy or Similar expert-driven engagement. Instead, the applicant's role is limited to execution level facilitation promoting pre-defined programs, referring students, and providing application assistance. This excludes it from the scope of a true consultancy engagement as understood in commercial and tax parlance - the nature and structure of the applicant's role characterized by targeted 'facilitation, commission-based income, lack of strategic autonomy and transactional dependence on student admissions does not support classification as a consultant in any of the claimed categories. Instead, the applicant clearly meets the definition of an intermediary as per Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, 2017, being a person who arranges or facilitates the supply of services (i.e., education) between two other persons, namely the foreign university and the student. The legal position is thus reinforced: the services rendered are intermediary services, not consultancy, and are accordingly taxable under GST.
The contractual arrangement and the applicable legal framework including Section 2(13) of the IGST Act and CBIC Circular No. 159/15/2021-GST dated 20.09.2021, the applicant is engaged in the supply of intermediary services and is not providing services on its own account. Consequently, the services rendered are taxable under the IGST Act and do not qualify for the exemption applicable to export of services.
Whether the services provided to foreign educational institutions can be classified as “export of services” under Section 2(6) of the IGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- Section 13(8)(b) of the IGST Act states that the place of supply for intermediary services is the location of the supplier. Since the applicant is located in India, the place of supply is also in India. As one of the key conditions for export of services is that the place of supply must be outside India, this condition is not satisfied. Consequently, the services rendered by the applicant do not qualify as export of services and are taxable under GST in India.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether quit rent/lease rent paid to the Government for land used for agricultural purposes (rubber plantation) is classifiable as services under SAC Heading 9986 (support services to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry) or under SAC Heading 997212 (rental/leasing of non-residential property/real estate services).
2. Whether lease rent/quit rent collected by the Government through the Forest Department for land used for agricultural purposes is exempt from GST under Entry No. 54 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) (services under Heading 9986) and, if so, the scope of that exemption.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Classification of quit rent/lease rent: applicable SAC Heading
Legal framework: The classification question falls within Section 97(2)(a) of the GST statute concerning classification of services; relevant tariff headings are 9986 (support services to agriculture, forestry, fishing, animal husbandry) and 9972/997212 (real estate/rental of non-residential property). Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) (tariff descriptions) and the explanatory note for 9986 are relevant.
Precedent treatment: The Authority relied upon a prior Advance Ruling (Kerala AAR Order No. KER/11/2018) reaching a similar classification; that ruling is treated as persuasive precedent and was found consistent with the tariff descriptions.
Interpretation and reasoning: The quit rent is a levy paid to the Government in consideration for leasing vacant land for cultivation of rubber. The explanatory text to service code 9986 expressly includes "services relating to cultivation of plants ... by way of renting or leasing of vacant land with or without a structure incidental to such use." The nature of the land use - agricultural cultivation of rubber - brings the service within the scope of support services to agriculture, rather than within real-estate rental of non-residential property which pertains to leasing of immovable property for non-agricultural/commercial occupancy.
Ratio vs. obiter: Ratio - the quit rent/lease rent paid for land let for agricultural cultivation is properly classifiable under SAC Heading 9986 (support services to agriculture) because the tariff expressly covers renting/leasing of vacant land for cultivation. Obiter - observations distinguishing other sub-categories of real estate services (9972 series) as inapplicable were explanatory and not necessary where 9986 already squarely applied.
Conclusion on Issue 1: The quit rent/lease rent paid to the Government for land used for agricultural purposes (rubber plantation) is classifiable under SAC Heading 9986 (specifically 998619 - other support services related to agriculture, hunting, forestry, and fishing), not under SAC 997212.
Issue 2 - Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Entry No. 54 (Heading 9986)
Legal framework: Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), Entry No. 54, grants nil rate (exemption) to services falling under service code 9986, description including "renting or leasing of agro machinery or vacant land with or without a structure incidental to its use" and other services relating to cultivation of plants; questions concern whether lease rents collected by a government department for land converted to plantation fall within that exemption.
Precedent treatment: The Kerala AAR earlier ruled that quit rent/lease rent for agricultural land is covered by the exemption under Entry No. 54; the jurisdictional officer's comments were consistent with that view. The Authority treated the prior AAR ruling as confirming the meaning and scope of the exemption.
Interpretation and reasoning: The exemption text is unqualified as to the identity of the supplier (private or government) and focuses on the nature of the service - services relating to cultivation of plants including renting/leasing of vacant land for such use. The facts demonstrate that the Government leases vacant land to the applicant for conversion to rubber plantation and collects quit rent/lease rent through the Forest Department; therefore the service supplied by the Government (leasing vacant land for agricultural cultivation) matches the exempt description in Entry No. 54. No condition limiting the exemption to private lessors or excluding government receipts was identified.
Ratio vs. obiter: Ratio - lease/quit rent collected by the Government for vacant land leased for agricultural cultivation falls within the exemption under Entry No. 54 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) when classified under Heading 9986. Obiter - incidental references to audit objections or categorization by the Accountant General as 997212 are ancillary and do not affect the statutory text governing the exemption.
Conclusion on Issue 2: Lease rent/quit rent collected by the Government through the Forest Department for vacant land used for agricultural cultivation (conversion to rubber plantation) is exempt from GST under Entry No. 54 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as services under Heading 9986.
Cross-references and ancillary findings
1. The Authority admitted the application under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 97(2) (classification and applicability of notifications) and rendered rulings accordingly; the legal conclusions rest on the textual fit between the facts (lease of vacant land for cultivation) and the tariff/exemption descriptions.
2. The Authority distinguished the Accountant General's proposed SAC 997212 classification on the ground that 9972 series concerns rental/leasing of non-residential property and real estate services not intended for agricultural cultivation; this distinction is explanatory to justify classification under 9986.
3. No pending or decided GST proceedings were reported by the jurisdictional officer relating to the subject matter; the Authority's rulings address only the classification and exemption questions as framed by the applicant and do not adjudicate any separate enforcement actions.
Classification - rent paid to the Government for agricultural activities on the leased land - agricultural land leased to the applicant attracts GST at the rate of 18% under Section 7(1)(a), classified under SAC No. 997212 or under SAC 9986? - eligibility for GST exemption under Entry No. 54 of N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017.
Appropriate SAC (Services Accounting Code) applicable to the quit rent paid by the applicant for land used for agricultural purposes - to be classified under SAC Heading 9986 or 997212? - HELD THAT:- Although “quit rent” is not defined under any specific statute, it is generally understood in practice to be a levy imposed on government land leased out to private individuals for their use. In the present case, the applicant states that quit rent is paid to the Government of Kerala through the Forest Department for land used for agricultural purposes (rubber plantation). The applicant seeks a clarification on whether SAC 9986 or 997212 applies to this quit rent. From the application, it is evident that the land has been rented or leased by the Government to the applicant for agricultural use, and the quit rent is being paid in consideration for such leasing service. This service has squarely been classified under SAC 9986 under Notification No 11/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28-07-2017 - thus, renting or leasing of vacant land falls under SAC 9986. SAC 9972 pertains to real estate services and none of the sub-categories therein are found suitable to classify the quit rent paid by the applicant. Hence the quit rent paid by them is classifiable under SAC 9986.
Whether lease rent collected by the Government through Forest Department is exempted from GST vide Heading 9986 of Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)? - HELD THAT:- The service involved herein is exempted under SI No 54 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017.
Issues: Whether the interpretation of the exemption notification, read with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, was correct.
Analysis: The Court found no reason to differ from the interpretation adopted by the High Court after considering the relevant tariff provisions, the exemption notification, and the regulatory framework under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Conclusion: The interpretation of the High Court was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Import of Crude Palm Oil - high content of Acid about 10% - applicability of exemption notification 21/2002 cus dated 1.3.2003 - it was held by High Court that 'Crude palm oil imported, which falls within Serial No. 1511 having acid value of more than 4, is entitled to get benefit of exemption of duty, and such exemption cannot be taken away by adding to the words in the notification as “ between 4 and 10”.'
HELD THAT:- The interpretation of the High Court is correct. In this view of the matter, the civil appeals stand dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether invocation of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is justified where the authority alleges wilful misstatement, suppression of facts and intentional non-reversal of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC).
2. Whether an allegation that the adjudicating authority is proceeding with a pre-conceived notion is tenable as a ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction prior to adjudication.
3. Whether the administrative requirement to supply Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) to the noticee before adjudication was complied with and, if not, what remedial directions are appropriate to ensure fair adjudication.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Invocation of Section 74 CGST - Legal framework
Legal framework: Section 74 CGST permits adjudication for tax not paid due to fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, attracting higher penalties. The self-assessment trust-based regime under GST places an onus on the registered person to correctly avail and reverse ITC (including reversal under section 17(2) and Rules 42/43) and creates liability where there is breach of that trust.
Precedent Treatment
The Court considered the authority's articulated reasons in the show cause notice rather than overruling or expressly following prior case law; no earlier decisions were applied, distinguished or overruled in the oral order excerpt.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Court examined paragraph 5 of the Show Cause Notice which sets out specific factual and inferential grounds: non-payment of GST for 2021-22, detection of ineligible/excess ITC by Anti-Evasion investigations, absence of reversal in GSTR-3B, admissions in a voluntary statement under Section 70 by a company director acknowledging liability to reverse ITC attributable to exempt supplies, and the department's conclusion that these facts were not ascertainable from returns and therefore indicate suppression and mens rea. On that factual matrix the Court found that prima facie the authority has articulated reasons sufficient to invoke Section 74 and was not inclined to entertain the writ petition seeking pre-adjudicatory relief against invocation of Section 74.
Ratio vs. Obiter
Ratio: It is a ratio that where a show cause notice contains specific factual findings indicating detection of undisclosed liabilities by departmental investigation, admissions by company representatives regarding ITC reversal obligations, and plausible inferences of deliberate non-disclosure, a writ court should not ordinarily intervene to quash invocation of Section 74 prior to adjudication.
Obiter: Observations about the conceptual basis of the trust-based regime and absolute liability on breach are expository but support the ratio; no broader pronouncement on standards of mens rea required for Section 74 beyond assessing sufficiency of the show cause notice was made.
Conclusions
The Court concluded that the invocation of Section 74 in the present notice is not amenable to challenge at the pre-adjudication writ stage because the SCN sets out specific reasons and materials from which wilful suppression and misstatement are inferred; accordingly, the petition cannot be sustained on that ground.
Issue 2: Allegation of pre-conceived bias by the Adjudicating Authority - Legal framework
Legal framework: Administrative law principles require adjudicating authorities to act fairly, impartially and unbiasedly. Allegations of pre-conceived notions can, if substantiated, justify judicial intervention, but mere speculative or blanket assertions are insufficient.
Precedent Treatment
No express reliance on or departure from specific precedents is recorded; the Court applied settled administrative law principles in an evaluative manner.
Interpretation and reasoning
The Court held that a general allegation that the authority has a pre-conceived notion is not tenable as a matter of course because such an allegation could be made in many matters and is too sweeping without particulars. The Court emphasised that the adjudicating authority is expected to hear the party fairly and impartially and indicated that the correct remedy is to permit the authority to give a personal hearing and decide the matter on merits.
Ratio vs. Obiter
Ratio: A generalized, unparticularized allegation of preconceived bias will not support pre-adjudicatory interference; the appropriate course is to require a fair hearing and reasoned decision by the adjudicating authority.
Obiter: The Court's comment that the allegation could not be correct as a blanket statement is illustrative and not a comprehensive treatment of bias jurisprudence.
Conclusions
The Court declined to quash proceedings on the ground of alleged predisposition but directed that after receipt of the petitioner's reply and a personal hearing the Adjudicating Authority must decide the matter fairly and unbiasedly; the possibility of raising bias with particulars at an appropriate stage remains open.
Issue 3: Supply of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) and interim directions - Legal framework
Legal framework: Principles of natural justice and statutory fair procedure require that documents relied upon by the department which form the basis of adverse action be provided to the noticee to enable effective response; furnishing of RUDs prior to personal hearing is necessary for meaningful adjudication.
Precedent Treatment
The Court did not expressly cite precedent but applied established principles of fair procedure and disclosure.
Interpretation and reasoning
The petitioner contended that RUDs had not been supplied though a hearing date was fixed. The Court addressed this deficiency by issuing specific remedial directions: (a) supply of RUDs to the petitioner by a fixed date (30th September 2025); (b) filing of the petitioner's response by a fixed date (15th October 2025); and (c) issuance of a personal hearing notice to the petitioner and requirement that the Adjudicating Authority hear and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The Court left open the right to raise grounds regarding invocation of Section 74 during adjudication.
Ratio vs. Obiter
Ratio: Where RUDs have not been furnished, the tribunal should direct prompt disclosure of such documents and fix timelines for response and hearing; failure to furnish RUDs prior to adjudication undermines fair adjudicatory process and warrants interim directions.
Obiter: Specific timelines provided are procedural directions tailored to the facts of the matter and not binding as general rule beyond the case.
Conclusions
The Court directed immediate compliance with disclosure obligations by ordering production of RUDs by a specified date, fixation of timelines for the petitioner's response, and mandated a personal hearing followed by a reasoned decision. The petition was disposed of subject to these directions while preserving all substantive rights and contentions for adjudication.
Invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act - no fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - authorities are proceeding on a pre-conceived notion - Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) which are relied upon by the GST Department are not supplied to the Petitioner.
Invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act - no fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- The Court has considered the matter and a perusal of paragraph 5 of the SCN would show that there are specific reasons given by the authority as to why Section 74 of the CGST Act is being invoked - insofar as invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act is concerned, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on that ground.
Authorities are proceeding on a pre-conceived notion - HELD THAT:- This Court has seen a large number of orders and to make a blanket and sweeping submission that the Authority has a pre-conceived notion would not be correct. The Adjudicating Authority is expected to deal with the matter fairly and in an unbiased manner. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority, it would be sufficient to observe that after obtaining a reply from the Petitioner and after giving a personal hearing, shall decide the matter in a fair manner so that the adjudication is not tainted or tilted in any manner.
Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) which are relied upon by the GST Department are not supplied to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Let the RUDs be supplied to the Petitioner by 30th September 2025. Moreover, let the response be filed by the Petitioner by 15th October, 2025.
Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether non-uploading of an order on the common portal amounts to non-service for the purpose of commencing limitation under the CGST Act, or whether physical tendering of the order constitutes valid service under Section 169.
2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal exists and when an appellant had, in fact, received physical service of the impugned order but did not disclose the date of such receipt to the Court.
3. Whether the Court, having earlier directed upload of the order on the common portal and treated such upload as the commencement of limitation, should recall that direction on a review where material non-disclosure is shown.
4. Whether leave should be granted to file an appeal out of time where the petitioner had been physically served but failed to file an appeal within the statutory period, and if so, on what terms (including costs and leviable pre-deposit and subject to any pending higher court adjudication).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Legal framework for service and commencement of limitation
Legal framework: Section 169 of the CGST Act prescribes multiple modes of service including (a) direct/tendered physical service, (b) registered post/courier with acknowledgement, (c) email, (d) making the order available on the common portal, (e) publication, and (f) affixture in exigent circumstances. Rule 142 (CGST Rules) and the practice of uploading on the common portal are relevant operational aspects.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepts that making the order available on the common portal is one valid mode of communication but is not the exclusive mode; physical tendering remains an authorised method under Section 169(1)(a). Where a physical copy has in fact been tendered to the addressee or an authorised representative, the requirement of service under Section 169 stands satisfied.
Precedent treatment: No earlier case law is expressly overruled. The Court notes judicial practice of treating portal-upload as commencement of limitation where physical service is not established, but emphasises statutory primacy of the enumerated modes in Section 169.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Service under Section 169 can be effected by any of the specified modes; physical service is valid when shown to have been tendered. Obiter - Administrative practice favouring portal-upload as default, while common, does not negate other modes.
Conclusion: Non-uploading on the portal does not automatically constitute failure of service; proved physical service commences limitation irrespective of portal status.
Issue 2 - Maintainability of writ where alternative appellate remedy exists and duty of candour
Legal framework: Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary; where efficacious alternative statutory remedies exist (here, appeal under Section 107 CGST Act), writs are not ordinarily maintainable. Courts also expect parties to make full and candid disclosure of material facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasises that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy - an appeal - and that the writ was predicated on the assertion of non-service (lack of upload). Subsequent material showing that the petitioner had in fact received a physical copy undermined the basis for invoking writ jurisdiction. The duty to disclose the date of physical receipt was an obligation; failure to do so amounted to non-candid conduct that vitiated the earlier order disposing the writ on terms favourable to the petitioner.
Precedent treatment: The Court follows established principles restricting writ jurisdiction where alternative remedies exist and enforces the duty of candour, aligning with prior jurisprudence that non-disclosure on material facts can justify recall of orders.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Writ relief is not a substitute for statutory appeal where the appellant has been validly served; material non-disclosure justifies remedial recall. Obiter - The fact that an office was sealed and practical difficulties existed may be relevant to excuse delay, but such factual claims must be pleaded and proved.
Conclusion: The writ was not maintainable in circumstances where physical service had occurred and the petitioner failed to disclose the same; the Court was justified in recalling its earlier order once that material omission was shown.
Issue 3 - Recall of earlier order on review for material non-disclosure and restoration of petition
Legal framework: Review jurisdiction permits correction of judgments where there is material non-disclosure or mistake; courts may recall orders obtained on incomplete or misleading factual averments.
Interpretation and reasoning: On review, evidence that the petitioner actually received a physical copy on an earlier date demonstrated a material omission in the petition that formed the basis for the Court's disposal on 20.02.2024. Given that omission, the Court recalled the earlier judgment and restored the petition to its original number to enable fresh adjudication of rights and remedies.
Precedent treatment: The Court applied standard review principles - material non-disclosure can justify recall - without purporting to expand or contract review doctrine.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A judgment can be recalled where obtained without disclosure of material facts bearing on jurisdiction or relief. Obiter - Procedural mechanisms (e.g., filing of an application explaining delay) remain available when bona fide difficulties exist.
Conclusion: Recall and restoration were appropriate remedies to correct the earlier disposition obtained on incomplete disclosure.
Issue 4 - Granting leave to file appeal out of time, terms, costs and conditional directions
Legal framework: Statutory limitation for appeal under Section 107 is three months with condonation of an additional one month upon showing sufficient cause; courts have discretion to permit appeals to be filed by specified dates on terms including pre-deposit and costs, subject to higher court determinations on related legal questions.
Interpretation and reasoning: Recognising that the petitioner had in fact been physically served and that the validity of a relevant Notification (challenging question of law) was sub judice before the apex court, the Court exercised discretion to permit an appellate remedy to be filed by a specified future date. Concurrently, the Court imposed conditions because of the petitioner's failure to candidly disclose service: (a) payment of specified costs to a court-administered welfare fund within one week, (b) filing of the appeal with requisite pre-deposit by a fixed longstop date, and (c) acceptance that appellate proceedings will remain subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court matter concerning the questioned Notification.
Precedent treatment: The Court followed its practice in similar cases where leave to appeal is allowed subject to payment of costs and pre-deposit and where pending higher court determinations bear on the relief sought; no precedent was overruled.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Courts may permit belated appeals where service was effected and circumstances warrant, but may impose terms (costs, pre-deposit, timelines) and make the appeal subject to higher court outcomes. Obiter - The precise quantum of costs and the particular fund nominated are administrative choices of the Court rather than legal principles of general application.
Conclusion: The petitioner was granted leave to file an appeal by the appointed date on strict conditions (payment of costs within one week, filing with requisite pre-deposit by the longstop date), and the appeal was protected from dismissal on limitation grounds only if those conditions were met; appellate outcomes remain subject to the pending Supreme Court adjudication on the applicable Notification.
Cross-references and practical implications
1. Issue 1 (service modes) is directly connected to Issue 2 (maintainability) - proof of valid service under Section 169 negates the premise for invoking writ jurisdiction in Issue 2.
2. Issue 3 (recall on review) follows from the finding in Issue 2 that non-disclosure of receipt was material; the remedial recall enabled the Court to consider Issue 4 afresh.
3. Issue 4 balances equitable relief (permitting an appeal) with sanction for non-candid conduct (costs and conditional terms), and demonstrates the Court's approach where factual deficiencies coincide with a live legal controversy pending before a higher court.
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Valid service of order - physical tendering - non-uploading of an order on the common portal - HELD THAT:- There can be no doubt that all communications, orders and notices can be served upon the parties in any of the prescribed modes of service and issued in terms of Section 169 of the Central Good and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Usually, all the relevant documents are uploaded including the orders on the GST portal. However, for some reason, in this case, the uploading of the order had not happened and therefore, on 20th February, 2024, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the same be uploaded on the portal. The Court concurs, however, with the Respondent Department’s submission that the Petitioner had a duty to categorically state that it had received a physical copy of the order which unfortunately, it had failed to do so. Thus, the review petition came to be allowed on this ground.
The Petitioner is seeking its right to appeal in respect of the impugned order dated 16th June, 2023. In the facts and circumstances of this case where the initial order was given physically to the Petitioner, the appeal could have been filed well within the time prescribed, however, the Petitioner chose not to do so. Instead, it approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, alleging that the impugned order had not been uploaded, thereby suggesting that it did not possess a copy of the same which is contrary to the true facts.
Considering the fact that the service of the physical copy had not been candidly disclosed to the Court and the writ petition was filed on the basis that the order was not served upon the Petitioner, the Court has already recalled the said judgment dated 20th February, 2024 and has restored the present petition.
The Petitioner is given opportunity to file an appeal by 31st October, 2025 before the Appellate Authority challenging the order dated 16th June, 2023 along with the requisite pre-deposit - Petition disposed off.
Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the allegations in the final order exceeded the allegations in the show cause notice. (ii) Whether cancellation could be based on non-filing of returns for the period mentioned in the order when the statutory threshold under the Rules had not been crossed. (iii) Whether cancellation of registration is a drastic measure to be used only as a measure of last resort, and whether the impugned order was vitiated for disproportionality.
Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when the allegations in the final order exceeded the allegations in the show cause notice.
Analysis: The notice quantified suppression of turnover and tax evasion at one level, while the final order proceeded on a much higher figure. A final adverse order must remain within the scope of the notice and there must be congruence between the allegations put to the assessee and the findings in the final order. Though the ultimate demand may be lower than what was proposed, the authority cannot travel beyond the notice by enhancing the basis of demand in the final order.
Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether cancellation could be based on non-filing of returns for the period mentioned in the order when the statutory threshold under the Rules had not been crossed.
Analysis: Cancellation for non-filing of returns is governed by the statutory conditions under the Act and the Rules. The period relied upon by the authority did not satisfy the prescribed threshold for continuous default. Since the statutory preconditions had not been met and the permissible period had not expired, the ground could not justify cancellation.
Conclusion: The cancellation order could not be upheld on this ground.
Issue (iii): Whether cancellation of registration is a drastic measure to be used only as a measure of last resort, and whether the impugned order was vitiated for disproportionality.
Analysis: Cancellation of registration has severe civil and commercial consequences and therefore requires a restrained and proportionate exercise of power. The authority must consider whether lesser measures would adequately address the alleged default before taking the extreme step of cancellation. Failure to undertake that exercise amounts to non-application of mind and renders the action disproportionate.
Conclusion: The impugned cancellation was vitiated by disproportionality and non-application of mind.
Final Conclusion: The cancellation order was quashed, the registration was restored, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity to respond and comply.
Ratio Decidendi: A GST registration cannot be cancelled on a basis beyond the show cause notice, before the statutory conditions for non-filing are met, or without first considering lesser measures where cancellation would be a disproportionate and last-resort remedy.
Cancellation of GST registration - tax evasion on the part of the writ petitioner - suppression of turnover - ssessee did not file returns for the period from 01.04.2025 to 30.06.2025 - discrepancy between GSTR 7 filed by the deductors and what was reported by the assessee in his monthly returns in GSTR 3B - principle of proportionality - non-application of mind.
Suppression of turnover - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice dated 25.07.2025 reads that there was suppression of turnover to the tune of Rs. 45,19,937.77 and tax evasion to the tune of Rs. 8,13,588.79. But the final order reads that the turnover suppression of about Rs. 2,13,39,325/- with the tax evasion of CGST Rs. 1920539.25/- and SGST Rs. 1920539.25/-. It is well settled that there must be consonance between what is alleged in the show cause notice and what is found against the notice in the final order. The final demand may be less compared to what is set out in the show cause notice. But the tax demand in the final order cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice. The order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be faulted on this ground.
Assessee did not file returns for the period from 01.04.2025 to 30.06.2025 - HELD THAT:- This ground is again not sustainable. This is because as per Rule 21(h) and (I), the registration is liable to be cancelled if the registrant being required to file return under sub-section (1) of Section 39 for each month or part thereof, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months or being required to file return under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 39 for each quarter or part thereof, has not furnished returns for a continuous period of two tax periods.
Discrepancy between GSTR 7 filed by the deductors and what was reported by the assessee in his monthly returns in GSTR 3B - HELD THAT:- No doubt this would constitute a contravention of the statutory provisions. Section 29(2) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for cancellation of registration of a tax payer (dealer) - Even though the authority may have the statutory power to cancel registration, this power must be not only be reasonably exercised but must be exercised only as a measure of last resort. If one's registration is cancelled, it would spell his economic doom.
Principles of proportionality - non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- The very same approach deserves to be adopted although in a different form while testing orders cancelling a tax payer's registration. The authority must ask himself as to whether registration has to be necessarily cancelled. The authority must explore if there are less harsh measures to deal with the assessee. If this exercise is not undertaken, an order cancelling registration will have to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind and disproportionality.
The impugned order cannot be sustained. It is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent - Petition allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether, on merger of one registered person into another, the transferee/merged entity is entitled to transfer the unutilised balance of input tax credit (ITC) appearing in the electronic credit ledger of the transferor's GSTIN located in a different State/UT to the transferee's GSTIN under Section 18(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 41(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and corresponding State provisions.
2. Whether any statutory or procedural prohibition arises from the fact that the transferor and transferee GSTINs are in different States, specifically in relation to CGST, IGST and SGST balances, that would prevent interstate transfer of ITC on account of merger.
3. Whether the proposed practical method suggested by the applicant (avail credit in transferee GSTR-3B and simultaneously reverse in transferor using DRC-03) is a permissible procedure for effecting the transfer, and what the appropriate remedy is for technical portal restrictions.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Entitlement to transfer unutilised ITC on merger (interstate GSTINs)
Legal framework: Section 18(3), CGST Act, 2017 permits transfer of unutilised input tax credit where there is a change in the constitution of a registered person on account of sale, merger, demerger, amalgamation, lease or transfer of business, "in such manner as may be prescribed." Rule 41(1), CGST Rules, 2017 prescribes furnishing of FORM GST ITC-02 on the common portal to request transfer of unutilised ITC to the transferee.
Precedent treatment: The applicant referred to an advance ruling by another State authority (Andhra Pradesh AAR) which allowed interstate transfer of unutilised ITC on merger; this decision was considered for consistency but not treated as binding precedent.
Interpretation and reasoning: The statutory language of Section 18(3) and Rule 41(1) contains no express restriction that the transferor and transferee must have GSTINs within the same State/UT. The rules prescribe manner (ITC-02) but do not incorporate a substantive bar to interstate transfer. The Authority reasoned that the statutory scheme contemplates transfer of credits on change of constitution irrespective of the State locations of the GSTINs, particularly where the credits comprise CGST and IGST. The fact that SGST balances raise utilisation constraints does not create a statutory embargo on transfer per se.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Authority concluded as a matter of statutory interpretation that Section 18(3) and Rule 41(1) permit transfer of unutilised CGST and IGST balances on merger, even where the transferor and transferee GSTINs are in different States. Obiter - Observations about practical difficulties arising from SGST balances and cross-state utilisation constraints are explanatory but not central to the legal holding.
Conclusion: The transferee is eligible to transfer the closing balance of CGST and IGST appearing in the electronic credit ledger of the transferor's out-of-State GSTIN to the transferee's GSTIN on merger, under Section 18(3) read with Rule 41(1) and corresponding State law.
Issue 2: Effect of differing GST components (CGST/IGST/SGST) and interstate restriction
Legal framework: Principles of utilisation of GST credits distinguish between IGST, CGST and SGST; by law, SGST of one State is not usable to discharge SGST liability of another State. Section 18(3) and Rule 41(1) govern transferability but do not alter basic credit utilisation rules.
Precedent treatment: No binding judicial precedent was cited that limits transfer under Section 18(3) to intra-State transfers; the Authority treated the Andhra Pradesh AAR decision as persuasive consistency with this interpretation.
Interpretation and reasoning: Where the closing ITC comprises only CGST and IGST, there is no technical legal impediment in transferring such credits on merger even if the GSTINs are in different States. The Authority noted that had SGST credits been involved, technical and substantive constraints on utilisation across States would arise, but such constraints do not prevent the statutory right of transfer insofar as CGST and IGST are concerned. The distinction between types of tax components explains potential technical issues but does not negate the transfer entitlement under the statutory scheme.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Transfer of CGST and IGST balances on merger across State GSTINs is permitted; Obiter - Discussion of SGST-specific constraints and their practical consequences for utilisation is advisory and not dispositive in the facts where only CGST and IGST were involved.
Conclusion: No statutory prohibition exists on transferring CGST and IGST balances on merger between entities with GSTINs in different States; SGST involvement would raise separate utilisation issues but did not arise on the facts considered.
Issue 3: Permissibility of the applicant's proposed procedural workaround and remedy for portal restrictions
Legal framework: Rule 41(1) prescribes FORM GST ITC-02 on the common portal as the procedural mode for transfer of unutilised ITC on change of constitution. Tax administration also contemplates mechanisms for reversal and adjustment (e.g., DRC-03) but procedural compliance must support substantive entitlement and maintain audit trail.
Precedent treatment: No contrary administrative rule or precedent was cited that validates the simultaneous avail-and-reverse procedure proposed by the applicant as proper practice for transfer; the Authority evaluated procedural correctness on general administrative and evidentiary principles.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority found the applicant's suggested method - availing credit in the transferee's GSTR-3B and simultaneously reversing in the transferor via DRC-03 - to be procedurally incorrect and likely to render the credit unsupported, risking denial. The Authority attributed the need for such a workaround to technical limitations of the common portal but emphasized that a substantive right cannot be vindicated by procedurally improper steps that may compromise documentary support and compliance. Consequently, the correct course is to effect transfer in the manner prescribed (ITC-02) and to seek resolution of technical portal restrictions with the appropriate jurisdictional authority to enable the prescribed process.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Administrative/portal limitations do not validate procedural shortcuts that bypass the prescribed FORM ITC-02 mechanism; taxpayers should approach jurisdictional authorities to rectify technical issues. Obiter - Remarks about the likelihood of denial and unsupported credits are cautionary guidance.
Conclusion: The applicant's proposed simultaneous avail-and-reverse procedure is procedurally impermissible and risky; the applicant should pursue resolution of portal/technical issues with the competent jurisdictional authority and follow FORM GST ITC-02 for transfer.
Cross-references and final operative conclusion
1. The Authority considered the statutory provisions (Section 18(3) and Rule 41(1)), the corresponding State provisions, and a prior AAR on similar facts and concluded consistently that transfer of unutilised CGST and IGST balances on merger is permitted even where GSTINs are in different States.
2. The operative ruling affirmed the applicant's substantive entitlement to transfer the closing CGST and IGST balances from the transferor's out-of-State GSTIN to the transferee's GSTIN on merger, but directed that procedural/formal transfer be effected via prescribed mechanisms and that technical portal issues be addressed with the appropriate authorities rather than by ad hoc transactions that may render credits unsupported.
Eligibility to transfer closing input tax credit balance appearing in the electronic credit ledger of the Haryana GSTIN of M/s Mventus Solutions Private Limited (transferee company) to the applicant's (transferor company) Kerala GSTIN - HELD THAT:- The provisions of law does not put any embargo on transfer of ITC when a registered person is subject to change in constitution on account of sale, merger, amalgamation etc. Therefore, it is opined that the applicant is eligible to transfer closing input tax credit balance appearing in the electronic credit ledger of the Haryana GSTIN of M/s Mventus Solutions Private Limited (transferee company) to the applicant's (transferor company) Kerala GSTIN.
It is also found that the ITC proposed to be transferred includes only CGST and IGST and no SGST is involved. Since Haryana State SGST cannot be utilised to pay Kerala State SGST, there would have been technical issues that had the applicant applied for transfer of Haryana State GST by way of filing Form GST-ITC-02. However, in view of the provisions of Section 18 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 41 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 read with corresponding provisions of Kerala State GST Act and Rules, we find that there is nothing which forbids the transfer of IGST and CGST on merger of one taxpayer "with the other, even if the two GSTINs are not within the same state.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether goods issued to product specialists for demonstration/marketing purposes are to be treated as "Physicians' Samples - Not for Sale" for the purposes of GST procedural compliance.
2. Whether Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed on goods issued for demonstration by product specialists must be reversed on the ground that such issuance is equivalent to distribution of free/physicians' samples under Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Characterisation of demo goods as "Physicians' Samples - Not for Sale"
Legal framework: The concept of supply (including sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal) is governed by Section 7 of the CGST Act. Section 17(5)(h) disallows ITC on goods disposed of by way of free samples or gifts. Applicable CBIC guidance (Circular No. 92/11/2019-GST) treats free samples as not eligible for ITC.
Precedent treatment: The Authority considered the statutory scheme and administrative guidance treating free/physicians' samples as a permanent gratuitous transfer entailing blocked credit; no specific judicial precedents were invoked or overruled in the ruling.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Authority distinguished demo goods from physicians' samples on the basis of transfer of title and the nature of use. Physicians' samples are described as goods permanently relinquished to a medical practitioner and labelled "Physician's Sample - Not for Sale", constituting a disposal without consideration. By contrast, demo goods remain the property of the supplier, are entrusted to product specialists as custodians/agents for repeated demonstrations, are not distributed to customers or third parties, and are ultimately recorded as scrap and cleared on payment of GST. Issuance for demonstration is, therefore, custodial and for the furtherance of business rather than an irrevocable transfer of ownership. The Authority held that there is no "supply" at the time of issuance; the only taxable event envisaged is the eventual clearance of scrap with tax payment.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The central legal proposition adopted as binding within the ruling is that absence of transfer of title means demo goods are not disposals akin to physicians' samples for GST purposes, and issuance does not amount to supply under Section 7. Obiter - Observations contrasting marketing dynamics and hygiene-driven single-use disposals are explanatory and contextual, supporting the primary ratio.
Conclusion: Demo goods issued to product specialists for demonstration and returned or scrapped by the supplier are not to be treated as "Physicians' Samples - Not for Sale" for GST procedural compliance.
Issue 2: Requirement to reverse ITC on demo goods issued to product specialists
Legal framework: Section 16 and Section 17 of the CGST Act regulate eligibility and reversal of Input Tax Credit. Section 17(5)(h) specifically excludes ITC on goods disposed of by way of gift or free samples. CBIC circulars clarify treatment of free samples vis-à-vis ITC eligibility.
Precedent treatment: The Authority relied on statutory text and administrative clarification distinguishing free/physician samples (blocked ITC) from bona fide business assets used in the course of business; no judicial decisions were applied or displaced.
Interpretation and reasoning: Because demo goods remain the supplier's property and are used exclusively for demonstrations intended to generate taxable sales, their issuance constitutes use "in the course or furtherance of business." The disposal that triggers the blocking provision in Section 17(5)(h) occurs only where there is an irrevocable gratuitous transfer (e.g., free samples/gifts). Here, since title is not transferred at issuance and the taxable event is the eventual scrapping/clearance (on which GST is paid), the conditions for disallowance under Section 17(5)(h) are not met. The Authority emphasized the difference in business treatment and purpose between free samples and demo assets, noting that demo assets are part of the business asset pool until scrapped.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ITC on inputs/inputs contained in demo goods issued to product specialists need not be reversed because issuance does not amount to a disposal or free supply triggering Section 17(5)(h). Obiter - References to hygiene-related single-use items being disposed of after each use and the practice of scrapping on tax payment serve to illustrate application but do not expand the legal rule beyond the ratio.
Conclusion: No reversal of Input Tax Credit is required for goods issued to product specialists for demonstration purposes, provided such goods remain the supplier's property and are not permanently transferred as free samples or gifts; tax liability arises, if any, upon final scrapping/clearance when GST is paid.
Cross-references and practical implication
The conclusions on both issues are interdependent: the determination that issuance of demo goods does not transfer title (Issue 1) is dispositive of the ITC reversal question (Issue 2). The Authority's approach treats the issuance as custodial business use until final scrap clearance, and not as a taxable "supply" or a free disposal for the purposes of Section 17(5)(h).
Issuance of demo items qualifies as disposal akin to “Physicians' Samples - Not for Sale” - reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods issued for demonstration purposes.
Issuance of demo items qualifies as disposal akin to “Physicians' Samples - Not for Sale” - HELD THAT:- The issuance of demo items is not made for any consideration, nor does it fall within the ambit of “sale, transfer, barter, exchange, licence, rental, lease or disposal” as contemplated under Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. Physicians' samples typically involve a one-time, irrevocable distribution of goods free of cost, resulting in the transfer of ownership to the recipient.
The demo items in the present case are provided exclusively for demonstration and educational purposes, and are not distributed to customers or any third party. The Product Specialists merely use these goods as representatives of the applicant, and the goods continue to remain the property of the applicant throughout their lifecycle. Once worn out through repeated use, such items are recorded as scrap in the stock register and cleared on payment of applicable GST. Therefore, since there is no transfer of ownership or disposal at the stage of issuance, the act of issuing demo items cannot be equated with the distribution of physicians' samples. Legally, the first and only point of “supply” in terms of GST occurs when the goods are finally scrapped and cleared with tax payment. As such, the issuance of demo units does not amount to disposal under GST law and cannot be treated on par with 'Physicians' Samples - Not for Sale'.
Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods issued for demonstration purposes - HELD THAT:- In the case of physicians' samples, which are supplied free of cost without any expectation of return and involve a permanent transfer of ownership, the provisions of Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act, 2017 are attracted, as such goods are considered to be “disposed of by way of gift or free samples,” rendering the corresponding ITC ineligible. This position has also been clarified by the CBIC in Circular No. 92/11/2019-GST, which treats free samples as being outside the scope of eligible business use for ITC purposes. However, there is a material difference in both the purpose and business treatment of demo goods issued by the applicant. Unlike free samples, these items are intended for use in the course or furtherance of business specifically for live demonstrations to prospective customers or institutions with the ultimate aim of generating taxable sales. The demo items are not consumed or retained by-the recipient; instead, they remain under the ownership of the applicant and form part of the business asset pool until they are scrapped, at which point GST is duly paid on the scrap value - the Input Tax Credit on such demonstration items is not barred under the GST framework, and the requirement to reverse ITC does not arise.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act can be granted as a single, omnibus approval covering multiple assessees and multiple assessment years without independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee.
2. Whether an approval under Section 153D that is mechanical, perfunctory or devoid of any indication of the approving authority's thought-process vitiates the assessment passed pursuant to that approval.
3. Consequential relief: If the approval under Section 153D is found to be invalid, whether the assessments framed pursuant to such approval must be quashed.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Legality of omnibus approval under Section 153D for multiple assessees and multiple assessment years
Legal framework: Section 153D requires that the approving authority grant approval to the draft assessment order in relation to each assessment year referred to in Section 153A(1)(b). The approval process contemplates review of draft orders by a superior authority before final assessments are passed under Section 153A.
Precedent treatment: The Court relied on authoritative pronouncements holding that approval must be given for "each assessment year" and that the approving authority must apply independent mind to the draft order for each assessee and each year. Decisions of various High Courts have been cited to emphasize the need for year-wise and assessee-wise consideration; decisions refusing to uphold mechanically-granted omnibus approvals were followed.
Interpretation and reasoning: The approval impugned was a single letter granting approval in respect of 49 assessees and several assessment years, without any distinct reference to the substance of additions or indication that draft orders were perused. The Court reasoned that the legislative scheme and the express phrase "each assessment year" indicate a requirement for separate consideration; a single omnibus approval defeats that statutory mandate and is inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - approval must be granted for each assessment year and each assessee with independent application of mind; omnibus approvals absent per-year/per-assessee consideration are invalid. Obiter - practical observations on human impossibility of meaningful perusal of dozens of cases in a single day (used to reinforce the ratio).
Conclusion: Omnibus approval covering multiple assessees and multiple assessment years without individualized application of mind is impermissible and legally defective.
Issue 2: Requirement of application of mind and form of approval under Section 153D - whether mechanical/rubber-stamp approvals vitiate assessments
Legal framework: Section 153D contemplates a supervisory approval that is not merely formal; the approving authority must examine draft orders and be satisfied that relevant procedure has been followed. While elaborate reasons need not be recorded, there must be some indication that the draft orders were considered and that the approval is not a mere stamp.
Precedent treatment: The Court extensively relied on High Court judgments and subsequent judicial treatment which hold that mechanical or perfunctory approvals (rubber-stamping) are contrary to Section 153D and will render the resultant assessment vulnerable. The line of authority was followed (and where noted, decisions upholding the requirement of non-mechanical approval were treated as binding on the issue).
Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned approval contained no discussion of the issues or reference to seized material, merely stated approval for numerous draft orders. The approving officer did not indicate any thought-process or perusal; a single-day approval covering dozens of cases undermines the statutory requirement of independent scrutiny. The Court held that absence of any token indication of review converts the approval into a mechanical exercise incompatible with Section 153D.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - approving authority must apply independent mind; there must be at least an indication that draft assessment orders were examined before approval is granted. Obiter - reference to administrative manuals and practicalities (e.g., timelines for submission of drafts) serve as interpretive aids but are not the central holding.
Conclusion: The approval in question was mechanical and perfunctory; such an approval is invalid and may vitiate the ensuing assessment proceedings.
Issue 3: Consequence of defective approval - vitiation and quashing of assessment orders passed pursuant to such approval
Legal framework: Where a mandatory statutory precondition (here, valid approval under Section 153D) for issuance of a valid assessment is not complied with, the assessment may be held invalid. Approval under Section 153D is a pre-condition for passing assessments under Section 153A; compliance with the statutory mode of approval is integral to the validity of assessment.
Precedent treatment: Authorities were followed which held that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 153D (including mechanical approval) is not a mere procedural irregularity but can vitiate the assessment itself. The Court relied on these precedents to treat defective approval as fatal to the assessment.
Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the established ratio, the Court found that the ritualistic single approval for many assessees/years without application of mind meant that the statutory precondition for valid assessment was not met. Accordingly, the assessment framed pursuant to that approval could not stand.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where approval under Section 153D is granted mechanically or without application of mind, the resulting assessment is vitiated and liable to be quashed. Obiter - the Court did not adjudicate other substantive or factual grounds raised in the appeal, treating the defective approval as dispositive.
Conclusion: The assessments founded on the defective approval were quashed; the appeal on the grounds challenging the validity of the approval was allowed. Other legal and factual contentions were not decided in view of the quashment on this ground.
Transgression of requirement of approval u/s 153D - single approval for multiple assessee's - HELD THAT:-The ratio of judgment delivered in the case of Serajuddin & Co. [2023 (11) TMI 1254 - SC ORDER], Anuj Bansal [2023 (7) TMI 1214 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Shiv Kumar Nayyar [2024 (6) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Subhash Dabas [2024 (5) TMI 1502 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held in chorus that the approval granted under s. 153D of the Act, if granted mechanically, will vitiate the assessment order itself.
In the instant case, a single approval u/s 153D has been accorded in respect of 49 Assessee involving several Assessment Years, there is no mentioning of seized material in the other material to show involvement of the superior authority in the approval granted by the ACIT. Applying the ratio of judgments delivered as noted above, the assessment order based on ritualistic approval stands vitiated and thus quashed by allowing Ground of appeal of the Assessee.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the proviso to section 12A(2) applies where registration under section 12AA is granted while assessment proceedings in respect of earlier assessment years are pending in appeal before the first appellate authority, i.e., whether "assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer" includes appellate proceedings pending before the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Whether subsequent grant of registration under section 12AA (with retrospective effect) entitles a trust to claim exemptions under sections 11 and 12 for earlier assessment years for which assessment proceedings were pending, notwithstanding that earlier assessment order(s) were initially completed without registration.
3. Whether the condition in the proviso that "the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year" must be examined by the assessing authority before allowing exemption on the basis of subsequent registration, and the consequences of failure by lower authorities to undertake that examination.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Meaning of "assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer" for proviso to section 12A(2)
Legal framework: The proviso to section 12A(2) (as inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.10.2014) provides that where registration under section 12AA is granted, sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of income of any preceding assessment year "for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration". A further proviso bars action under section 147 in such cases for non-registration for that earlier year.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate Tribunal decisions have interpreted the proviso as retrospective and purposive, holding that pendency of appellate proceedings should be treated as continuation of assessment proceedings (cited decisions include tribunal orders treating appellate pendency as covered). The Supreme Court authority on computation principles (Programme for Community Organisation) was relied upon for computation approach where exemption denied.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court adopts a purposive construction: appeals filed against assessment orders are continuations of original assessment proceedings and, in substance, are co-terminus with the Assessing Officer's proceedings because the appellate authority exercises powers that derive from and continue the original proceedings. Narrowly construing "pending before the Assessing Officer" to exclude appellate pendency would frustrate the remedial and retrospective intent of the proviso designed to relieve genuine charitable trusts from hardship caused by delayed registration.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Appellate proceedings pending before the first appellate authority constitute "assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer" for the purposes of the proviso to section 12A(2), entitling trusts to benefit of subsequent registration granted during such pendency. Obiter - observations on legislative memorandum and fairness of the proviso as a policy matter.
Conclusion: The proviso is to be read to include assessment proceedings pending in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals); therefore, registration granted during appeal pendency can attract the benefit of sections 11 and 12 for the relevant earlier assessment years, subject to other conditions of the proviso.
Issue 2 - Effect of subsequent registration under section 12AA on entitlement to exemptions under sections 11 and 12
Legal framework: Sections 11 and 12 provide substantive exemptions for charitable trusts; sections 12A/12AA regulate procedural grant of registration necessary to claim those exemptions. The proviso to section 12A(2) permits retrospective application of sections 11 and 12 where registration is subsequently granted and assessment proceedings in respect of the earlier year are pending.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal decisions (including those relied upon) hold the amendment retrospective in nature and intended to prevent hardship; these decisions apply a liberal and purposive interpretation to allow substantive exemptions where procedural registration is granted subsequently during pendency of proceedings. The Supreme Court principle on manner of computation was applied in the appellate authority's earlier reasoning to compute income commercially when registration absent.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treats sections 12A and 12AA as procedural in nature; substantive entitlement to exemption is governed by sections 11 and 12. Where registration is subsequently granted while proceedings are pending (including appellate proceedings), the legislative intent favors allowing exemptive treatment for earlier years rather than penalizing for procedural non-registration. However, the proviso conditions must be satisfied.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Subsequent registration under section 12AA granted during the pendency of assessment proceedings (including appeals) entitles the trust to be considered for exemptions under sections 11 and 12 for the relevant earlier assessment years; Obiter - discussion on computation of income where registration absent and citation of Supreme Court principle on commercial computation.
Conclusion: Subsequent registration can give retrospective benefit; lower authorities denying exemption on the ground of non-registration despite registration granted during appeal pendency erred in law, subject to verification of proviso conditions (e.g., sameness of objects and activities).
Issue 3 - Requirement to examine "objects and activities remain the same" and consequential remand
Legal framework: The proviso conditions application of sections 11 and 12 to earlier years on two conditions: (i) assessment proceedings were pending as on registration date; and (ii) the objects and activities of the trust remain the same for such preceding assessment year.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal authorities have emphasised that applicability of the proviso is conditional and that factual verification of the second limb (sameness of objects/activities) is necessary before extending retrospective exemption.
Interpretation and reasoning: Even where appellate pendency is accepted as qualifying, the assessing authority must still examine whether the objects and activities during the earlier years correspond with those after registration; absent such examination, the grant of retrospective exemption is not automatic. The Tribunal therefore set aside the appellate orders and remitted the matter to the assessing officer with directions to re-examine the claim, verify objects/activities for the relevant years on evidence, and afford reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Factual verification of the proviso's requirement on sameness of objects and activities is mandatory and falls within the assessing authority's duty; failure to undertake that verification requires remand for fresh consideration. Obiter - procedural directions regarding documents to be filed by the trust.
Conclusion: The matter must be remitted to the assessing officer to re-examine the entitlement to exemption in light of subsequent registration, specifically to verify and record whether objects and activities were the same for the earlier assessment years, and to complete the exercise after affording the assessee a fair hearing and considering documentary evidence.
Disposition and Practical Outcomes
1. The Tribunal accepted that registration under section 12AA granted during pendency of appeals falls within the scope of the proviso to section 12A(2), following a purposive and retrospective interpretation of the amendment.
2. The Tribunal observed that lower authorities failed to verify the proviso condition regarding sameness of objects and activities and therefore set aside the orders under challenge and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication limited to verifying objects/activities and applying law in accordance with the proviso, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
3. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes (i.e., remitted for fresh consideration) consistent with the above conclusions.
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s12AA is granted while assessment proceedings in respect of earlier assessment years are pending in appeal before the first appellate authority - HELD THAT:- The assessment proceedings were pending during appeal when registration u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee on 02.12.2016. We have perused the order in the case of M/s. Shri Vishwakalyan Jivraksha Pratishthan[2016 (8) TMI 1000 - ITAT PUNE]
At the time of passing of the impugned orders, the assessee trust was already registered u/s 12A of the Act vide registration certificate dated 02.12.2016. Having said so, we also note that the said proviso further stipulates that the objects and activities of the trust should remain the same for such preceding assessment year (in the present case AY 2011-12 and AY 2013-14).
There is nothing on record before us which suggests that such exercise of examining whether objects and activities of the assessee trust were the same for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 under consideration or not even post obtaining the registration u/s 12A of the Act subsequently on 02.12.2016, has been done by the lower authorities. In this view of the matter coupled with the facts and legal position set enumerated above, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order(s) of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to re-examine the claim of the assessee afresh.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether addition under section 68 can be sustained for assessment year where share capital and premium credited in books pertain to earlier financial years (i.e., whether share application money received in prior years but allotted in the relevant year can be taxed under section 68 in the year of allotment).
1.2 Whether the assessee satisfactorily proved identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscribers so as to negate application of section 68 for the impugned sum.
1.3 Whether disallowance under section 14A is sustainable where it is disputed that any exempt income was earned in the relevant financial year, and what is the appropriate procedural course when the fact of exempt income is in dispute.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of section 68 where funds were received in earlier years but share allotment occurred in the impugned year
Legal framework: Section 68 applies where "any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year" and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation as to the nature and source of such credit; the provision is therefore tied to the previous year in which the sum is shown credited in the books.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on the reasoning of a higher court decision which held that conversion of amounts already appearing as liabilities/loans in books from prior years into share application money in a later year does not amount to fresh credit in the relevant previous year and hence section 68 is not attracted; that decision was followed insofar as its ratio is factually analogous.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the remand report and third-party verifications under section 133(6), including ledger confirmations, bank statements and share application/allotment documents from subscribing entities. The AO's remand report concluded on verification that the amounts were received in earlier financial years (prior to FY 2011-12) and not in the financial year relevant to the assessment year where the addition under section 68 was made. Applying the statutory language of section 68, the Court reasoned that where the sums were credited in earlier previous years (and reflected as "share application money pending allotment" and similar heads in audited financial statements), there was no fresh sum found credited in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under challenge; hence section 68 could not be invoked in that year.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where sums can be shown by contemporaneous books, bank statements and independent third-party confirmations to have been received in prior previous years, section 68 cannot be applied in a later year merely because allotment occurred later. Obiter - ancillary observations on the sufficiency of the remand procedure and the conduct of parties in the original assessment are not essential to the central holding.
Conclusion: The addition under section 68 in the impugned assessment year was erroneous and directed to be deleted because the evidence established that the funds were received in earlier years and not credited in the books for the previous year relevant to the challenged assessment year.
Issue 2 - Sufficiency of proof as to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of share subscribers
Legal framework: Section 68 requires the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of credited sums; proof of identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the source of funds is a recognized method to discharge the burden.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied established practice that ledger confirmations, bank statements and third-party replies to statutory notices (e.g., section 133(6) verifications) are relevant material to establish the nature and timing of receipts and the identity/creditworthiness of subscribers; the earlier appellate decision relied upon was followed on the point that prior receipt in books negates fresh credit.
Interpretation and reasoning: The remand report documented that notices under section 133(6) were issued and responses produced ledger confirmations, bank statements and share application/allotment advices corroborating payments in earlier years. The Tribunal treated these corroborative documents as adequate to establish the factual position that payments were made prior to the relevant financial year and to identify the subscribing entities. Because the AO, on remand, recorded that the bank statements corroborated earlier receipts and that replies to section 133(6) were on record, the Tribunal concluded that the requisites for invoking section 68 in the impugned year were absent.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - third-party confirmations and bank records showing timing of receipts are decisive in establishing whether sums were credited in the previous year and in proving identity/genuineness to exclude section 68: such evidence may negate the application of section 68. Obiter - remarks about the AO's initial refusal to examine directors in the original assessment are incidental.
Conclusion: The evidence gathered (ledger confirmations, bank statements, section 133(6) replies and financial statement disclosures) sufficed to rebut the invocation of section 68 for the impugned assessment year; therefore the addition was deleted.
Issue 3 - Disallowance under section 14A where existence of exempt income in the relevant year is disputed; appropriate procedural disposition
Legal framework: Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income; entitlement to disallowance depends on whether exempt income was earned in the relevant previous year. The AO must determine whether exempt income exists and then quantify disallowance under the statutory mechanistic or judicially evolved tests.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied the general principle that factual disputes regarding existence of exempt income and the quantum of related disallowance should be examined by the Assessing Officer with opportunity to the assessee to be heard; when primary facts are unclear on the record, remand to the AO is appropriate.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee denied earning any exempt income in the financial year in question. Given that section 14A operates only if exempt income exists, and considering that resolution of that factual question was not completed on the record before the Tribunal, the Tribunal opted not to decide the merits of section 14A on the appellate record. Instead, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify whether any exempt income was earned during the relevant year and to adjudicate the section 14A disallowance after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the presence of exempt income is contentious and not resolved on available records, the correct course is to remit the matter to the AO for fact-finding and fresh adjudication with hearing. Obiter - no determination was made on the legality of any particular method for computing the disallowance.
Conclusion: The issue of disallowance under section 14A was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying whether exempt income was earned in the relevant financial year and after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard; no final conclusion on section 14A was reached by the Tribunal on the appellate record.
Cross-references and final disposition
Where issues of timing and nature of credited sums are resolved by documentary evidence and independent third-party verifications indicating earlier receipt, section 68 cannot be invoked in a later assessment year merely because share allotment occurred later; the Tribunal deleted the section 68 addition but remitted the section 14A matter for fact-finding and fresh decision by the AO.
Addition u/s 68 - bogus share application money - as per AO assessee could not furnish any satisfactory explanation with regard to the transaction involving share allotment at such share premium either before the AO during the assessment proceeding or during the remand proceedings - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt the AO in sending the remand report has clearly stated that the amount received by the assessee company is not in FY 2011-12. Hence the provision of section 68 in AY 2012-13 does not arise. The remand report further reveals that bank statement reveals that the transaction took place in earlier years i.e. prior to financial year i.e. 2011-12 - addition u/s 68 confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous. Hence the same is hereby directed to be deleted.
Disallowance made u/s 14A - assessee submits that the assessee had no exempt income during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 - Keeping in view, the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are inclined to send this issue back before the AO to verify the same whether the assessee had earned any exempt income during FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13 and decide the case afresh.
Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, A/O is directed to decide the issue of disallowance u/s 14A after hearing and verifying the same as above.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 subsequent to insolvency proceedings - as decided by HC [2024 (11) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] no person would be entitle to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any claim for any dues relating to the period prior to approval of resolution plan.
In view of approval of resolution plan, all liabilities of all stakeholders including that of Government/ Statutory Authority shall stand extinguished after approval of the resolution plan
HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act can be levied where the Assessing Officer has made ad-hoc estimations/adjustments in assessment proceedings in respect of alleged bogus purchases.
2. Whether mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on information from the Sales Tax Department, without furnishing that information to the assessee or producing positive/independent evidence that specific purchases were bogus, suffices to constitute "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" for the purpose of Section 271(1)(c).
3. Whether the assessee's agreement to an addition "to buy peace of mind" or to avoid protracted litigation constitutes an admission amounting to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Levy of penalty where assessment additions are based on ad-hoc estimation
Legal framework: Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires satisfaction that the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Penal provisions require subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that concealment or inaccuracy was deliberate. Assessment additions may be made on estimate where books or documents are rejected under Section 145(3), but penal consequences require a higher threshold of culpability.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal and appellate authority applied precedents holding that penalty cannot be levied when the addition is sustained purely on estimation/guesswork (examples cited in the judgment). The Court referred to Division Bench decisions that ad-hoc estimation alone does not translate into concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars for penalty purposes.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Assessing Officer, while estimating profit element at 12.5% and adding unexplained commission at 1%, did not wholly reject the purchases or sales and accepted sales made by the assessee. The estimation was applied despite documents produced by the assessee (invoices, bank statements, delivery challans, stock records). The adjudicatory sequence shows the Assessing Officer used estimation as a remedial device rather than as proof of deliberate concealment. Given that the additions arose from an estimate rather than unrebutted proof of falsity, the essential subjective satisfaction required for invoking Section 271(1)(c) was absent.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - penalty cannot be imposed where additions are made on an ad-hoc estimation without positive proof of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Obiter - general observations on the need for a well-considered approach by the Assessing Officer in bogus-purchases inquiries.
Conclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified solely because an ad-hoc estimation was made; concurrent decisions deleting penalty were rightly upheld.
Issue 2: Reliance on Sales Tax Department information without furnishing it to the assessee or producing positive evidence
Legal framework: The Assessing Officer may rely on information from other departments (e.g., Sales Tax), but procedural fairness and the requirement of probative material necessitate that such information, if determinative, be placed on record and furnished to the assessee to enable response. For both assessment and penalty, conclusions should rest on evidence capable of supporting the required legal finding.
Precedent treatment: The Court relied on its own Division Bench reasoning (Pr. Commissioner v. SVD Resins & Plastics) emphasizing that generalized information from Sales Tax authorities without case-by-case verification and without furnishing to the assessee is an unsound approach and cannot sustain additions or penalty.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer's classification of bills as bogus was founded on enquiries with the Sales Tax Department and an internal "investigation" whose content was not produced to the assessee. The Court held that absent specific, recorded statements or documentary evidence proving those particular purchases to be bogus, it is improper to treat broad information as conclusive. The Assessing Officer's failure to disclose the Sales Tax material deprived the assessee of an opportunity to rebut and meant there was no independent, cogent basis for concluding deliberate concealment.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - information obtained from other departments cannot substitute for positive evidence against the assessee unless furnished and subjected to adversarial testing; such undisclosed information cannot found penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Obiter - recommended practice that Assessing Officer coordinate with Sales Tax authorities and undertake case-by-case verification.
Conclusion: Reliance on undisclosed Sales Tax information was insufficient to establish concealment or inaccurate particulars; therefore penalty could not be sustained on that basis.
Issue 3: Effect of the assessee's agreement to an addition to "buy peace of mind" on penalty liability
Legal framework: An agreement to an assessment addition for settlement or to avoid litigation is not ipso facto an admission of deliberate concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars; the legal test for Section 271(1)(c) requires culpable intent or deliberate action to misstate income.
Precedent treatment: Courts have recognized that a compromise or acquiescence for pragmatic reasons does not necessarily amount to acknowledgment of guilt or admission of fraudulent intent for penal consequences.
Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee expressly stated that its agreement to the addition did not mean it had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Court treated this position as relevant: acceptance of an ad-hoc addition to avoid litigation does not equate to conscious concealment. Given that the assessment proceeded on the basis of estimates and that the assessee had produced supporting documents, the mere agreement to an addition did not supply the necessary subjective satisfaction for penalty.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - settlement/agreement to an addition aimed at avoiding litigation does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) absent evidence of deliberate concealment. Obiter -prudential considerations about how such settlements should be treated in penalty proceedings.
Conclusion: The assessee's agreement to the addition to avoid protracted litigation was not a ground to infer concealment or to sustain penalty.
Cross-references and integrated conclusion
1. Issues 1-3 are interlinked: the assessment involved ad-hoc estimation (Issue 1) founded on undisclosed Sales Tax information (Issue 2) and the assessee's pragmatic agreement to additions (Issue 3). Taken together, these facts negated the Assessing Officer's required subjective satisfaction for invoking Section 271(1)(c).
2. The Court held that penalty proceedings are independent from assessment proceedings; however, when the assessment itself rests on estimation and undisclosed information, it cannot be retrofitted to support a penal conclusion without independent, positive evidence of deliberate concealment. The concurrent findings of the appellate authorities deleting the penalty were therefore warranted and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions made towards bogus purchases and commission on such bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
Thus, in applying the penalty provisions under Section 271(1)(c), it was necessary for the AO to reach to a conclusion, that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income and/or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income to gain an undue advantage of not offering the real income to tax. A clear subjective satisfaction of these essentials is a sine qua non for the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty. Penalty proceedings are penal in nature, as the intention of such provisions is to create an effective deterrent, which will restrain the assessee from adopting any practices detrimental to the fair and realistic assessment as the law would mandate.
In the facts of the present case, in our opinion, the approach of the assessee was certainly, not of the nature which can be recognized to involve any concealment of particulars of income and/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The reason being that the penalty could not have been levied when an ad-hoc estimation of the assessee’s income was made by the Assessing Officer who restricted the profit element in the purchases at 12.5%. This encompasses that the Assessing Officer accepted the sales made by the assessee and which were subject matter of the invoices / bills which were produced by the assessee. Thus, this is not the case where the Assessing Officer outrightly for want of a tangible material rejected the books of accounts and or the documents as submitted by the assessee in supporting such accounts, when it related to the alleged bogus purchases so as to bring to tax the entire amount of such invoices, on the alleged bogus purchases, to be added to the income of the assessee.
There cannot be two opinions that Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, would be required to be strictly construed, hence in the absence of such clear position of a concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, in the facts of the present case, penalty proceedings could not have been initiated. This more particularly when the penalty proceedings are initiated clearly on the basis of additions made in the re-opening proceedings thereby leaving no room for a doubt of the disclosures made by the assessee, warranting penalty proceedings. In the present case such material essentials were completely lacking. Assessee appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the income-tax authority was justified in rejecting an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act seeking condonation of a 12-day delay in filing an income-tax return for AY 2021-22 on grounds of hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Whether an order under Section 119(2)(b) must record reasons addressing the applicant's averments and explain the satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) of the authority that "genuine hardship" existed.
3. Whether the impugned order, insofar as it mechanically rejects condonation without considered reasoning, is sustainable and requires remand for fresh consideration.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) empowers the Board to authorize income-tax authorities to admit claims/applications after prescribed time limits "for avoiding genuine hardship" and to deal with them on merits. CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 gives guidance that condonation under Section 119(2)(b) is to be considered where a case of genuine hardship on merits is made out.
Issue 1 - Precedent treatment: Courts have construed "genuine hardship" liberally in appropriate cases to advance substantial justice (Bombay and Madras High Courts decisions noted). Supreme Court decisions interpret "genuine" as real, not feigned; authorities must guard against a party taking advantage of its own wrong. Earlier decisions emphasise that condonation power is remedial to prevent meritorious matters being thrown out for non-deliberate delay.
Issue 1 - Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the factual matrix: the return due date was extended several times up to 31.12.2021 and the return was filed on 12.01.2022 - a delay of 12 days. The applicant's averments detailed reduced office functioning, staff illness and operational disruption attributable to the pandemic waves and referenced extensions and orders (including CBDT Circular No. 01/2022 and the Supreme Court's suo motu orders) that acknowledged pandemic-related difficulties. The tax authority's conclusion rested on an observation that certain public services were functioning (metros, buses at reduced capacity) and that the assessee had sufficient time, and therefore there was no genuine hardship per CBDT Circular No. 09/2015.
Issue 1 - Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an applicant furnishes specific averments of pandemic-related operational disruption and invokes extant pandemic relief measures, a 12-day delay cannot be dismissed without consideration; an authority must evaluate sufficiency of reasons, not merely the merits of the underlying claim. Obiter - general observations about the scope of pandemic measures and timeline extensions as indicia of leniency in certain categories of taxpayers.
Issue 1 - Conclusion: The authority's rejection of condonation based on a high-level observation that some services were operating and that the applicant had "enough time" is inadequate. The impugned rejection is unsustainable on the facts because it did not engage with the applicant's specific, pleaded circumstances or the surrounding pandemic relief context.
Issue 2 - Legal framework: An officer exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 119(2)(b) must act in a reasoned manner. Judicial precedent requires statutory orders to contain the grounds on which discretion was exercised, and those grounds must be discernible from the order itself; reasons cannot be supplied subsequently to cure a reasonless order (referencing principles in Mohinder Singh Gill and related authority).
Issue 2 - Precedent treatment: This Court's precedents and cited High Court authorities hold that orders under Section 119(2)(b) must record rationale and engage with the applicant's factual assertions; mechanical or formulaic rejections without addressing material averments have been set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
Issue 2 - Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order merely states that "there was no genuine hardship" and relies on the CBDT Circular as support, but does not address the detailed averments about staff illness, office shutdowns, and contemporaneous extensions/orders relied upon by the applicant. The PCIT's brief recital that metros and buses were running at 50% capacity does not demonstrate application of mind to the applicant's facts or explain why those facts did not constitute hardship.
Issue 2 - Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an order under Section 119(2)(b) that lacks reasoning addressing material factual averments is legally deficient and must be set aside; the authority must re-consider the application de novo with reasons. Obiter - the precise quantum or length of delay that may be condoned depends on case-specific evaluation.
Issue 2 - Conclusion: The impugned order is a mechanical rejection devoid of reasoned analysis as required of a quasi-judicial exercise of power; it cannot stand and must be set aside and remitted for fresh, reasoned consideration.
Issue 3 - Relief and consequential disposition: Given the deficiencies identified, remand is the appropriate remedy. The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the carry-forward claim itself, noting CPC's disallowance of long-term capital loss in belated returns, and directed the appropriate income-tax authority to reconsider the condonation application afresh in light of the applicant's averments, applicable circulars/orders and settled principles requiring reasoned orders.
Issue 3 - Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - remand for de novo consideration is warranted where an authority's order rejecting condonation under Section 119(2)(b) fails to address material averments and gives no reasoning. Obiter - specific comparisons with other cases where facts differed (e.g., where returns were signed earlier and filed much later) underscore that applicability turns on fact-sensitive evaluation.
Issue 3 - Conclusion: The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remitted to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, requiring that the authority record reasons addressing the applicant's factual claims and the question of genuine hardship under Section 119(2)(b).
Rejection of application filed seeking condonation of delay of twelve days in filing the ITR - HELD THAT:- The exercise of power by the authority is regulated by empowering the various officers on the basis of monetary effect. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (‘PCIT’) had considered the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay and has primarily stated that in the month of December 2021, the metro, trains and buses were running with 50% capacity and as such the assessee had enough time to file his ITR. Hence, the non-filing of the ITR does not seem to be genuine.
The conclusion of the PCIT is in the light of the provisions of the CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09.06.2015 to hold that there was no genuine hardship in filing the return of the income.
Supreme Court in the case of B.M Malani [2008 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has interpreted the word ‘hardship’ and held in paragraph 16 that ‘genuine’ means not fake or counterfeit, real; not pretending. Supreme Court held, the ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof, and the legal conspectus attending thereto. For the said purpose, another well-known principle namely, a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong may also have to be borne in mind.
The Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd.[2001 (1) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that the CBDT was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained.
CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 highlights the fact that while considering the case under Section 119(2)(b), it is to be seen that the case is of genuine hardship on merits.
PCIT who admittedly exercises powers under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act acts as a quasi-judicial body, is under an obligation to pass a reasoned order.
PCIT has not dealt with the various averments made by the petitioner/applicant and has rejected the application for condonation of delay in a mechanical manner, which, according to us, is clearly unsustainable.
Suffice to state, the leaned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the other judgments as mentioned above. We do not find it necessary to deal with the same, as they reiterate the position of law as noted by us in the above paragraphs.
In the case in hand the return was filed with a delay of twelve days only and it is not a case where the return was signed much in advance, unlike the case of Lava International Limited. [2024 (6) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT] In any case, we have already held that the impugned order herein passed by the respondent is without considering the averments made by the petitioner in the application and to that extent, is an unreasoned order.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the concerned PCIT for a de novo consideration to decide the application, keeping in view our observations made above.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the authority was justified in rejecting an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act seeking condonation of a 60-day delay in filing ITR and Form 10-IC.
2. Whether negligence or inadvertence of the assessee's professional (accountant) constitutes a reasonable cause/genuine hardship entitling condonation under Section 119(2)(b).
3. Whether the authority exercising powers under Section 119(2)(b) is obliged to record adequate reasoning and apply the CBDT circulars (including Circular No. 09/2015) when deciding condonation applications.
4. Whether the authority may preclude consideration of a refund claim on technical limitation grounds where a prima facie genuine refund claim exists and delay is satisfactorily explained.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Validity of rejection under Section 119(2)(b)
Legal framework: Section 119(2)(b) empowers the Central Board to authorize income-tax authorities to admit applications/claims for exemption, deduction, refund or other relief after statutory time limits, to avoid genuine hardship and decide on merits. CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 and subsequent guidance govern exercise of this power, including monetary thresholds and criteria for condonation.
Precedent treatment: Courts have held that Section 119(2)(b) should be used to advance substantial justice and construe "genuine hardship" liberally (e.g., decisions cited from High Courts and Supreme Court principles on hardship and discretion).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the PCIT applied Circular No. 09/2015 and concluded no reasonable cause existed. However, the impugned order did not explain why the pleaded cause (accountant's inadvertence/ill-health/workload) was unacceptable. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 119(2)(b) is discretionary but must be exercised on reasons and merits; mere recitation that no reasonable cause is found is insufficient absent explanation.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An order under Section 119(2)(b) rejecting condonation must record reasoning addressing the sufficiency of the applicant's explanation and compliance with CBDT guidance; mere conclusory rejection is unsustainable. Obiter - The desirability of preferring substantial justice over hyper-technical limitation in general terms, drawn from cited authorities.
Conclusions: The rejection was set aside as the impugned order was unreasoned with respect to the core explanation; matter remanded for de novo consideration by PCIT with reasons and in accordance with law.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Negligence of professional as reasonable cause/genuine hardship
Legal framework: The authority must examine whether the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the assessee's control amounting to genuine hardship. The concept of "genuine hardship" is informed by statutory purpose and judicial pronouncements that encourage a liberal construction in favour of substantive justice.
Precedent treatment: Supreme Court and various High Court decisions recognize that an innocent party should not suffer for the default of an agent (advocate/accountant) and that ill-health or unavoidable absence of the person responsible for compliance can constitute sufficient cause (cases cited by the Court supporting non-attribution of agent's fault to the principal in appropriate circumstances).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the accountant's inadvertent omission, coupled with prompt filing after departmental notification, could amount to reasonable cause. The respondents failed to explain why the accountant's negligence could not be accepted; absence of such analysis undermined the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause. The Court drew support from precedents where poor health of the person handling affairs and agent default were held to justify condonation.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Negligence of an assessee's professional may, depending on circumstances (e.g., sudden illness, inadvertence, prompt remedial action), constitute reasonable cause/genuine hardship warranting condonation; authority must evaluate and record reasons. Obiter - General policy inclination towards not penalising principals for agent's inadvertence, subject to facts.
Conclusions: The accountant's admitted error, especially given prompt corrective action, was a plausible reasonable cause which the authority failed to evaluate properly; the matter requires fresh consideration on these aspects.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Duty to record reasons and apply CBDT circulars
Legal framework: Administrative decisions exercising quasi-judicial powers must be reasoned. CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 prescribes considerations and the manner of exercise of condonation powers under Section 119(2)(b), including monetary delegation and assessment of genuine hardship.
Precedent treatment: Courts have repeatedly held that orders lacking reasoning cannot be sustained and cannot be supplemented by post hoc affidavits; statutory functionaries must state reasons contemporaneously (Mohinder Singh Gill principle and related authorities cited).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the PCIT is a quasi-judicial authority obligated to pass a reasoned order under Section 119(2)(b). The impugned order's conclusory finding ("no reasonable cause") without addressing the applicant's factual averments or explaining the applicability of CBDT criteria meant the statutory mandate was not complied with.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A condonation order under Section 119(2)(b) must contain adequate reasoning addressing the facts and criteria in relevant CBDT circulars; failure to do so invalidates the order. Obiter - None beyond emphasis on requirement to avoid mechanical decision-making.
Conclusions: The impugned order was defective for absence of reasoning and inadequate application of the CBDT circular's approach; remand for reasoned reconsideration was required.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Technical limitation vs. prima facie genuine refund claim
Legal framework: Authorities empowered under Section 119(2)(b) are expected to adjudicate claims on merits when delay is condoned; where prima facie a refund claim appears correct and genuine, denial on mere technical limitation is to be avoided if genuine hardship is shown.
Precedent treatment: High Court authorities endorse liberal construction of "genuine hardship" and direct that refund claims not be thrown out at threshold where prima facie the claim is plausible; the authority should not prejudge merits but ensure claim is not bound to fail on its face.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the ITR filed disclosed a refund and that the petitioner promptly filed after departmental email; these facts, on their face, support a prima facie genuine claim. The PCIT did not examine the refund claim on merits because condonation was denied without adequate reasoning. Given precedents, such a mechanical bar may defeat substantive justice.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a prima facie genuine refund claim exists, the authority should give reasoned consideration to condonation and, if condoned, examine the refund on merits rather than rejecting on technical limitation alone. Obiter - Preference for substantial justice over hyper-technicality reiterated.
Conclusions: The authority ought to reassess both the condonation and, if admitted, the refund claim on merits after reasoned consideration; the impugned rejection without such assessment warranted setting aside and remand.
Final disposition directive (as applied by the Court): The impugned order rejecting condonation under Section 119(2)(b) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent authority for de novo consideration in accordance with the legal principles and CBDT guidance outlined above, with reasons recorded addressing the accountant's omission, genuineness of hardship, and the refund claim.
Condonation application u/s 119(2)(b) - delay of sixty days in filing the ITR - HELD THAT:- CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 highlights the fact that while considering the case u/s 119(2)(b), it is to be seen that the case is of genuine hardship on merits.
PCIT who admittedly exercises powers u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act would amount to a quasi-judicial body and is under obligation to pass a reasoned order.
We find, the respondents have not explained, why the reason given by the petitioner that the accountant had forgot to file the ITR cannot be accepted. In the absence of such a finding, the respondents cannot say that there is no reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee. In fact the fault on the part of the accountant surely reflects reasonable cause for non-compliance by the assessee.
As in the case of Gujarat Electric Co. Ltd [2001 (1) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that the CBDT was not justified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not satisfactorily explained, more particularly, when the returns could not be filed in time due to the ill health of the officer who was looking after the taxation matters of the petitioner.
Stand of the petitioner that after the receipt of the email from the respondent regarding the non-filing of the ITR, Form 10-IC, and the ITR were promptly filed on 29.12.2022 and 30.12.2022 is appealing. This would substantiate the explanation for filing Form 10-IC and ITR beyond time.
In the case in hand, the return was filed with a delay of sixty days only and it is not a case where the return was signed much in advance, unlike the case of Lava International Limited [2024 (6) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In any case, we have already held that the impugned order passed by the respondents is without considering the averments made by the petitioner in the application that non-filing of ITA was because of the mistake of the Accountant, and to that extent, it is an unreasoned order.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the concerned PCIT for a de novo consideration to decide the application, keeping in view our observations made above.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether payments made by the hospital to full-time consultant/honorary doctors constituted "salary" within the definition attracting TDS under Section 192, or were professional fees attracting TDS under Section 194J.
2. Whether payments by the hospital under Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs) for maintenance of medical equipment constituted fees for "technical services" attracting TDS under Section 194J, or were payments to contractors covered by Section 194C.
3. Consequentially, whether the hospital was an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) and liable to interest under Section 201(1A) for failure to deduct appropriate TDS under Sections 192/194J, having regard to the answers to Issues 1 and 2.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Characterisation of payments to consultant/honorary doctors - Section 192 v. Section 194J
Legal framework: Deduction of tax at source differs for "salary" (Section 192) and "fees for professional services" (Section 194J). Determination depends on nature of relationship (employer-employee v. independent professional) and attendant indicia such as control, fixed remuneration, attendance, social security benefits, exclusivity and mode of assessment/return filing by the recipient.
Precedent treatment: Authorities below (CIT(A) and ITAT) relied upon prior decisions treating similar honorary/consultant doctors as independent professionals; the Tribunal expressly relied on an earlier decision of the same High Court holding analogous doctors not to be employees.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined factual matrix and findings of the authorities below - absence of fixed monthly remuneration, retention of fees by hospital as a percentage of billings, absence of PF/ESIC/perquisites, lack of fixed attendance/supervisory control, freedom to practice elsewhere, and the doctors' own assessment of income under "Income from Business or Profession". The Court found that administrative rules and uniform procedures required by the hospital did not equate to supervisory control over clinical decision-making. The totality of factors pointed to independent professional status rather than employer-employee relationship.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where professionals retain professional autonomy, receive remuneration linked to services (not fixed salary), are free to practice elsewhere, and do not receive employee benefits, payments are fees for professional services under Section 194J rather than salary under Section 192. Observations about specific indicia (attendance registers, PF, leave, etc.) form part of the applied ratio. Reliance on prior analogous authority is treated as persuasive precedent, forming part of the ratio applied to the facts.
Conclusions: The Court held that the question whether payments to the consultant/honorary doctors were salary did not raise any substantial question of law. The authorities below correctly found these doctors to be independent professionals and that TDS was rightly deducted under Section 194J, not Section 192. Consequently, any consequential default under Section 201(1) premised on mischaracterisation under Issue 1 falls away.
Issue 2: Characterisation of AMC payments - Section 194C v. Section 194J
Legal framework: Distinction between payments to contractors (Section 194C) and fees for technical/professional services (Section 194J) turns on the nature of the contract and services - whether contracts are comprehensive operation/maintenance contracts involving supply of labour/materials (contractor) or remuneration for technical expertise/services (professional). Factual inquiry into terms of each AMC is necessary.
Precedent treatment: CIT(A) relied on decisions holding comprehensive operation/maintenance and routine repair/AMC contracts to fall under Section 194C (contractual services), and on authorities holding that routine AMCs do not constitute technical/professional fees under Section 194J. However, a later CIT(A) on a different assessment year found certain AMCs to be of specialized technical nature attracting Section 194J, demonstrating factual variability.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the ITAT merely reproduced the CIT(A)'s findings without independently analysing each AMC. As the ITAT is the final fact-finding authority, it ought to have examined contracts individually to determine whether services were routine maintenance/supply of labour and spare parts (Section 194C) or specialized technical services requiring skilled professional intervention (Section 194J). The presence of conflicting findings in a closely related assessment year (where some AMCs were held to be technical) reinforces need for fresh, independent factual determination by the Tribunal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - factual determination of the nature of each AMC is essential to decide applicability of Section 194C v. Section 194J; where Tribunal fails to undertake independent fact-finding, its order cannot stand. Observations criticizing the ITAT's lack of independent analysis are consequential to the Court's remand and constitute binding direction concerning appellate fact-finding procedure in tax matters.
Conclusions: The Court quashed and set aside the ITAT's order on the AMC issue for A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2010-11 and remanded the matter to the ITAT for fresh, independent examination of each AMC and determination whether TDS ought to have been deducted under Section 194C or Section 194J. All contentions on this issue were left open for adjudication by the ITAT. The AMC issue for A.Y. 2011-12 did not require reconsideration because the CIT(A) had already held certain AMCs to be technical and that order was uncontested before the Tribunal.
Issue 3: Assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A)
Legal framework: Liability as assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) is consequential upon a finding that appropriate TDS was not deducted as required by law.
Precedent treatment: The Court applied standard principle that default findings are dependent on correct characterisation of payments for TDS purposes (see Issues 1 and 2).
Interpretation and reasoning: Since the Court affirmed the authorities' factual conclusion that consultant/honorary doctors were independent professionals (Issue 1), any default predicated on failure to deduct under Section 192 is negated. As to AMC payments, whether default arises depends on the ITAT's fresh determinations on remand: if certain AMCs are found to be technical services (Section 194J), the hospital may be deemed in default for those payments; if found to be contracts (Section 194C), no default arises on that ground.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - assessee-in-default liability follows from substantive determination of character of payment; remand preserves parties' rights to litigate default only after Tribunal's fact-finding. Observations preserving parties' contentions for re-adjudication are procedural directions forming part of the operative disposal.
Conclusions: The Court held that no default survives insofar as it related to alleged misclassification of doctors' payments (Issue 1). Liability under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) in respect of AMC payments (Issue 2) was remanded for the ITAT's fresh decision; consequential default findings were therefore deferred pending that determination.
Remedies and procedural directions
The Court dismissed the substantial question framed on Issue 1. The Court set aside the ITAT's order on Issue 2 for A.Y. 2007-08 to A.Y. 2010-11 and remanded the matter to the ITAT for independent examination of each AMC and fresh findings on applicability of Section 194C v. Section 194J. All contentions on the AMC issue were left open for the ITAT. No order as to costs.
TDS u/s 192 v/s 194J - remuneration paid to these consultant/honorary doctors - Whether there exist employer-employee relationship between the Assessee and the consultant/honorary doctors? - ITAT justification in holding that there does not exist employer-employee relationship between the assessee and full-time consultant doctors and the payments made to them by the assessee come under the purview of section 194J - HELD THAT:- These doctors are appointed firstly on a probation basis, taking into consideration their qualification and expertise in the area of their specialization. Most importantly, they do not receive any fixed monthly remuneration, and it depends upon the work they do. In fact, a part of the remuneration paid by the patients towards these doctors is retained by the Hospital.
These doctors are also free to practice independently in other Hospitals, other than the Assessee Hospital. No PF or ESIC facilities are extended to these doctors and neither are any perquisites given to them. These doctors attend to their duties on the basis of the needs of the patients and they are not bound by any fixed schedule for attending the Hospital. In other words, the Assessee Hospital does not exercise any real supervisory control in respect of the work entrusted to these doctors.
All these factors clearly go to show that the relationship between the Assessee Hospital and these doctors, cannot and does not create any relationship of “employer and employee”. Another factor which is also important to note is that these very doctors filed their Income Tax Return under the head “Income from Business or Profession”. These doctors themselves also do not treat the remuneration received from the Assessee Hospital as a salary, as contended by the Assessing Officer. For all these reasons, we are clearly of the view that Question (A) as projected by the Revenue does not give rise to any Substantial Question of Law requiring an answer by this Court.
Deducting TDS under the provisions of Section 194C for payments made towards AMC charges OR the provisions of Section 194J as held by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- ITAT noted in earlier years also the Assessee has been entering into these AMCs, and whilst making payments thereunder, have been deducting TDS under Section 194C and it has never been objected to by the Revenue - Tribunal only reproduced what has been stated by the CIT(A) in the order impugned before the ITAT and has not independently analyzed the AMCs which were the subject matter of the Appeals for A. Y. 2007-08 to A. Y. 2010- 11. We say this for two simple reasons. Firstly, the ITAT is the last factfinding authority and ought to have independently examined the AMCs and thereafter come to the conclusion whether each of those AMCs were such where “technical” or “professional” services were being rendered to the Trust, or otherwise. It is only once this analysis was done could the Tribunal come to the conclusion whether TDS ought to have been deducted under Section 194C or 194J of the I.T. Act. Secondly, in the facts of the present case, for the A.Y. 2011-12, another CIT (A), by his order dated 26th November 2013, in fact differed from his predecessor and held that three out of the six AMCs were such that warranted deduction of TDS under Section 194J instead of Section 194C.
Since the ITAT is the last fact-finding authority, we are of the view that the order of the ITAT on this issue, namely, whether the AMCs entered into by the Petitioner Trust with its vendors were really for rendering any “technical services” ought to be set aside and the matter remanded to the ITAT for fresh consideration.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal (under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act) can recall/rectify its earlier order on the ground of a "mistake apparent from the record" by relying upon a judicial decision rendered by a superior court subsequent to the Tribunal's original order.
2. The scope and character of the power conferred by Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act - whether it is akin to review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and, accordingly, whether a subsequent change or reversal in the law by a superior court can constitute a ground for exercise of Section 254(2).
3. Whether the decision in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. establishes that a subsequent decision of a superior court can be the basis for rectification under Section 254(2), and, if so, whether that principle applies to the facts where the Tribunal's original order followed the then-prevailing law.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Power of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) to recall an order on the basis of a subsequent superior-court ruling
Legal framework: Section 254(2) permits the Appellate Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) for rectifying any "mistake apparent from the record". The power has been judicially equated to the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Precedent Treatment: The Court considered (i) the decision equating Section 254(2) to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; (ii) the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which expressly provides that reversal or modification of a question of law by a subsequent decision of a superior court is not a ground for review; and (iii) recent authoritative decisions holding that a change in law or a subsequent coordinate/larger-bench decision is not a ground for review.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal's power under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting manifest errors apparent from the record and does not authorize a re-hearing on merits. The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC (which bars review on the basis of a subsequent superior-court decision) is relevant by analogy and consistent with the limited remedial character of Section 254(2). Accordingly, a subsequent judicial pronouncement altering or clarifying the law cannot, by itself, convert a previously correct decision into one suffering a "mistake apparent from the record".
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 254(2) cannot be invoked merely because a subsequent decision of a superior court altered the legal position after the Tribunal's order; such subsequent rulings do not constitute a "mistake apparent from the record". Observations about the nature of Section 254(2) being akin to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and the applicability of the Explanation are ratio in this context.
Conclusions: A subsequent ruling of a superior court is not a valid ground for invoking Section 254(2) to recall a Tribunal order that, at the time it was passed, followed the law as then understood.
Issue 2: Scope of Section 254(2) vis-à-vis Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and effect of subsequent change in law
Legal framework: Section 254(2) must be exercised only to rectify mistakes apparent from the record; it is not a substantive rehearing power. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC governs review of judgments and, by its Explanation, excludes subsequent reversal/modification of a question of law as a ground for review.
Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on higher judicial pronouncements equating Section 254(2) with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and on later authorities holding that review/recall is not available merely because a later decision overruled or modified the law on which the original order was based. Decisions stating that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be employed to re-open finally decided matters on the basis of subsequent legal developments were followed.
Interpretation and reasoning: Given the narrow remedial function of Section 254(2), principles governing review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - particularly the Explanation excluding subsequent changes in law as ground for review - are applicable and persuasive. The Tribunal cannot treat Section 254(2) as a mechanism to re-open final orders whenever a superior court subsequently alters legal doctrine; doing so would convert a limited corrective power into an appellate/re-deciding power incompatible with the statutory scheme.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 254(2) is limited in scope and cannot be used to revisit an order on the basis of subsequent changes in law; reliance on the CPC Explanation and parallel Supreme Court authority is binding on the point.
Conclusions: Section 254(2) must be construed restrictively and cannot be invoked to recall an erstwhile final Tribunal order on the sole basis of a later superior-court decision that changes the legal position.
Issue 3: Precedential value of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. and its applicability where the Tribunal followed then-existing law
Legal framework: Precedent is an authority for what it actually decides; factual differences may limit precedential reach. The Court examined whether Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. supports rectification under Section 254(2) on the basis of a subsequent superior-court decision.
Precedent Treatment: The Court analyzed Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., noting that in that case the superior-court decision relied upon had existed prior to the Tribunal's order and had not been brought to the Tribunal's notice. Although that decision endorsed rectification in those facts, the Court emphasized that Saurashtra does not lay down a general principle permitting recall based on a ruling delivered after the Tribunal's order.
Interpretation and reasoning: Saurashtra was confined to its facts - non-consideration of an existing binding decision by the Tribunal - and did not establish that a subsequent decision (i.e., one delivered after the Tribunal's order) can be the basis for rectification. The Court reiterated established principles of precedent: a decision is authority only for what it actually decides; differences in facts are decisive; and reliance on a case must consider the factual matrix and reasoning. Consequently, Saurashtra was distinguished on its facts and held not to support the Tribunal's reliance on a later decision to recall its order.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Saurashtra does not authorize recall under Section 254(2) on the basis of a subsequent judgment; its authority is fact-specific where an existing binding decision was not considered. Observations in Saurashtra about retrospective operation of law were noted but not held to permit a general rule enabling recall based on later decisions.
Conclusions: Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. is distinguishable and does not furnish authority for recalling a Tribunal order on the ground of a later superior-court decision; rectification remains limited to mistakes apparent from the record as assessed at the time of the original order.
Final Conclusions and Consequential Orders (Ratio applied to the present facts)
The Tribunal's order recalling its earlier order under Section 254(2) on the ground that a subsequent superior-court decision purportedly gave rise to a "mistake apparent from the record" was beyond the scope of Section 254(2) and therefore liable to be set aside. Consequentially, the Tribunal's order dismissing the taxpayer's appeal (issued after the recall) was also set aside. The Revenue retains statutory remedies available under the law (including appeal under Section 260A) where legally permissible.
Power u/s 254(2) - “mistake apparent from the record” on the basis of a subsequent decision of the Superior Court - HELD THAT:- Powers under Section 254(2) of the IT Act are akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC clearly provides that the fact that a decision on a question of law on which the judgement of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case was not a ground for review of such judgement. Hence, the said Explanation under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC expressly bars a review on the ground that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record on the basis of a subsequent decision of a Court.
Further, this exposition of law in respect of the Explanation under Order 47 Rule 1 has been confirmed by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gracemac Corporation [2023 (8) TMI 98 - SC ORDER].
Further, in its decision in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy [2021 (2) TMI 504 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a change in law or a subsequent decision / judgement of a Co-ordinate Bench or a Larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground of review.
We hold that a subsequent ruling of a Court cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 254(2) of the IT Act. Section 254(2) of the IT Act can be invoked with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record.
Admittedly, on the date when the original order was passed by the ITAT on 5th September 2022, it followed the law as it stood then. This was overruled subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] Hence, we are of the view, that, on the date when the ITAT passed its original order dated 5th September 2022, it could not be said that there was any error or mistake apparent on the record, giving jurisdiction to the ITAT to invoke Section 254(2) of the IT Act.
Order [2024 (9) TMI 1808 - ITAT PUNE] passed by the ITAT, under Section 254(2) of the I.T. Act, is required to be set aside. Further, if the order passed by the ITAT under Section 254(2) of the IT Act is set aside, then the order passed by the ITAT under Section 254(1) dismissing the said Appeal is also required to be set aside.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act read with Rule 8D can be made by invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) despite the assessee having made a suo motu disallowance, and whether the principle of consistency or prior acceptance of the suo motu disallowance precludes application of Rule 8D.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer recorded requisite satisfaction and reasons for not accepting the assessee's suo motu disallowance and for resorting to Rule 8D(2)(iii), i.e., adequacy of AO's satisfaction.
3. Whether a disallowance under section 14A computed under Rule 8D can exceed the amount of exempt income actually earned (i.e., whether disallowance is to be limited to exempt income).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) despite suo motu disallowance and role of consistency (Legal framework)
Legal framework: Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to income exempt under the Act; Rule 8D prescribes methods of computation, including formulae under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on average investments. An assessee may make a suo motu disallowance in return.
Precedent Treatment: The assessee relied upon earlier acceptance by Revenue in its own case and Tribunal decisions in group/holding company matters where suo motu disallowance was accepted. The Court noted such decisions were urged but did not hold they bind application of Rule 8D where facts warrant its use.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether prior acceptance of an amount by Revenue or prior suo motu disallowance automatically bars the AO from applying the statutory methodology under Rule 8D. The Court found that prior acceptance or consistency arguments do not fetter the Assessing Officer's duty to apply the statutory provision and mechanistic formula when the factual matrix (investments funded by interest-bearing funds, yielding exempt income) justifies invoking Rule 8D. The Court observed that the AO applied Rule 8D after recording facts showing investments funded by interest-bearing borrowings and that the AO had taken the assessee's suo motu figure into account but nonetheless applied Rule 8D to compute a higher disallowance.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Prior acceptance of a suo motu disallowance does not, by itself, preclude the AO from applying Rule 8D where the AO records satisfaction and the statutory formula produces a different quantum. Obiter - references to the specific earlier Tribunal decisions were noted but not treated as overruling or binding; they did not displace the statutory application where facts differ.
Conclusion: The Court rejected the contention that the earlier suo motu acceptance or appellate consistency precludes the AO from applying Rule 8D; however, the Court limited relief on other grounds (see Issue 3).
Issue 2 - Adequacy of Assessing Officer's satisfaction for invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) (Legal framework)
Legal framework: Application of Rule 8D presupposes the AO's satisfaction that expenditure has been incurred in relation to exempt income; a recording of reasons is required in the assessment order to justify invoking the provision.
Precedent Treatment: The assessee argued absence of cogent reasons; Revenue relied on assessment order paragraphs where AO recorded facts. The Tribunal evaluated the assessment record for sufficiency of satisfaction.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court inspected the assessment order and found that the AO had recorded satisfaction (e.g., noting substantial interest paid and use of interest-bearing funds for investments yielding exempt income) at paragraph 4.3. The Tribunal held that such recorded observations constitute adequate satisfaction for applying Rule 8D; therefore the contention that no satisfaction was recorded was untenable.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An AO's recorded observations in the assessment order identifying use of interest-bearing funds for earning exempt income and related facts can constitute sufficient satisfaction to apply Rule 8D. Obiter - the Court did not formulate a detailed checklist of what constitutes "satisfaction"; it applied the sufficiency principle to the facts.
Conclusion: The AO's satisfaction was adequately recorded; ground contesting lack of satisfaction was dismissed.
Issue 3 - Whether disallowance under section 14A/Rule 8D can exceed exempt income (Legal framework)
Legal framework: Section 14A aims to disallow expenditure in relation to exempt income. Rule 8D provides computational method(s). A question arises whether the resulting disallowance is to be bounded by the exempt income actually earned.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal acknowledged "various judicial precedents" favoring the principle that disallowance should not exceed the exempt income and relied on those authorities in limiting the disallowance.
Interpretation and reasoning: The AO's computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii) produced a figure (Rs. 15,50,607 as 0.5% of average investments) and the AO's overall assessment had earlier recorded a higher aggregate disallowance (Rs. 33,92,916). The assessee's suo motu disallowance was Rs. 64,529, and exempt dividend income actually received was Rs. 3,33,037. The Tribunal observed that permitting disallowance larger than exempt income would be inconsistent with the compensatory character of section 14A (i.e., to attribute expenditure to exempt income). Relying on established judicial position, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance under Rule 8D be limited to the extent of exempt income actually received.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Disallowance under section 14A computed under Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income; AO's computation under Rule 8D must be limited so that the final disallowance does not surpass actual exempt income. Obiter - the detailed interplay between different limbs of Rule 8D and restrictive application in varied fact-situations remains fact-sensitive; the Court did not lay down formulaic adjustments beyond limiting disallowance to exempt income.
Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed relief by directing the AO to restrict disallowance under section 14A/Rule 8D to the quantum of exempt income (Rs. 3,33,037 in the facts), thereby partly allowing the appeal on this ground.
Cross-references
- Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interrelated: even where Rule 8D is applicable (Issue 1), the AO must record adequate satisfaction/reasons (Issue 2) - the Tribunal found both conditions satisfied on the facts, permitting Rule 8D's application.
- Issue 3 qualifies the outcome of Issues 1 and 2: notwithstanding lawful application of Rule 8D and adequate satisfaction, the resulting disallowance is subject to the limiting principle that it should not exceed exempt income actually earned; accordingly, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to that limit.
Disallowance u/s 14A read/with Rule 8D - Suo moto addition made by assessee - HELD THAT:- AO has given his satisfaction during the assessment thereby observing that the assessee company was paying substantial amounts as interest expenditure and was using those interest bearing funds for investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, there is satisfaction noted in the assessment order by the AO. Hence, the contention of the AR that there is not satisfaction recorder is not tenable. Ground no. 1.2 is dismissed.
Computation under Rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of the average investment, as per the calculation given by the Assessing Officer which itself shows that the interest paid is that of Rs. 31,13,978/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer calculated the disallowance which is more than the exempt income. The assessee made suo motu disallowance which was taken into account by the AO. But the contention of the Ld.AR that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed exempt income is justified in view of various judicial precedents. Therefore, direct the AO to limit the disallowance u/s.14A Rule 8D to the extent of exempted income. Thus, the ground no.1.1 and 1.3 is partly allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether amendment to section 11(3)(c) removing the additional one-year period following the five-year accumulation period (Finance Act, 2022, w.e.f. 01.04.2023) applies retrospectively to accumulated income arising prior to the amendment or only prospectively to accumulations arising on or after 01.04.2022, for purposes of exemption under section 11(2) and deeming under section 11(3).
2. Whether accumulated income pertaining to financial year 2016-17, utilized in the sixth year (i.e., in the year immediately following the five-year period), can be claimed as exempt under section 11(2) for assessment year 2023-24 in view of the amendment.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of the amendment to section 11(3)(c): legal framework
Legal framework: Section 11(2) permits accumulation of income for a prescribed period (five years as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016). Section 11(3)(c) provided that accumulated income not utilised "during the period referred to in clause (a) of that sub-section or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof" shall be deemed income; words creating the additional one-year window were omitted by Finance Act, 2022 effective 01.04.2023.
Issue 1 - Precedent treatment
Followed: Several ITAT decisions (Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Pune benches) interpreted the amendment as prospective, holding the extra one-year window available for pre-amendment accumulations; these decisions were applied by the Tribunal to control similar assessments.
Issue 1 - Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal reasons that the amendment, though enacted in 2022 and notified w.e.f. 01.04.2023, cannot be read so as to deprive trusts of the time-window that existed when the accumulation arose. Applying principles against construing statutes to produce impossibility (lex non cogit ad impossibilia) and against retrospective application of curative constraints that would frustrate reasonable reliance, the Tribunal holds the omission of the one-year window must be applied prospectively to fresh accumulations from the period starting 01.04.2022 onwards, and not to existing accumulations whose five-year period then carried an additional year for utilisation.
Issue 1 - Ratio versus obiter
Ratio: The operative ratio is that an amendment removing the one-year additional period is to be given prospective operation insofar as it would otherwise extinguish a time window already accrued in respect of pre-amendment accumulations; therefore, existing accumulations retain the benefit of the additional year available under the pre-amendment statutory scheme.
Issue 1 - Conclusion
The amendment to section 11(3)(c) is prospective in effect with respect to fresh accumulations post the relevant cut-off and does not apply to accumulated income arising in financial years prior to the effective date where the assessee had, under the unamended provision, an additional year to utilise the funds.
Issue 2 - Claim to exemption for accumulation of FY 2016-17 utilized in sixth year
Legal framework: Under the unamended Section 11(3)(c) the accumulated amount not utilised within five years or in the year immediately following the expiry thereof is deemed income; therefore utilisation in the sixth year satisfied the statutory requirement for accumulations arising in FY 2016-17.
Issue 2 - Precedent treatment
Followed: ITAT decisions dealing with identical facts held that utilisation in the year immediately following the five-year period (sixth year) was permissible for pre-amendment accumulations and that corresponding disallowances made under CPC intimation or AO are to be deleted.
Issue 2 - Interpretation and reasoning
The Tribunal applies the contemporaneous statutory position governing the accrual of the obligation to apply accumulated income. Since the funds were accumulated in FY 2016-17 when the law afforded a five-year plus one-year window, the assessee's utilisation in the sixth year falls within the permitted period. The Tribunal rejects strict literal application of the later amendment to deprive trust of the time already available and emphasises administrative impossibility and fairness: the assessee could not be required retroactively to meet a shortened period which, by calendar operation of the amendment's effective date, left no time to act.
Issue 2 - Ratio versus obiter
Ratio: Where accumulation arose prior to the amendment, utilisation in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period (i.e., the sixth year) qualifies for exemption under section 11(2) as per the law applicable at the time of accumulation; therefore such utilisation cannot be taxed under section 11(3) by applying the later amendment.
Issue 2 - Conclusion
The accumulated income pertaining to FY 2016-17, utilised in the sixth year, is allowable as exempt under section 11(2) for assessment year 2023-24; the addition under section 11(3) / the consequent tax under section 115BBI is to be deleted.
Cross-reference and practical effect
The Tribunal consistently relies on and aligns with coordinate benches holding the amendment prospective; where accumulated funds arose before the amendment's effective change and were utilised within the six-year window afforded by the unamended provisions, such utilisation preserves exemption and precludes deeming under section 11(3) for the later assessment year.
Accumulated income u/s 11(2) - Scope of amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 - Period of limitation for utilization of accumulated income - accumulated income pertaining to financial year 2016-17 - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the present issue is directly covered in favour of the assessee by the Ahmedabad ITAT decision in the case of Meshri Mahajan Vanda [2025 (9) TMI 285 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] in which ITAT held where assessee trust accumulated income pertaining to financial years 2016-17, assessee had time window till 31-3-2023 by which it could utilize accumulated income. The amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2022, did not debar assessee from availing said time window in respect of existing accumulations and amendment had to be read prospectively in respect of fresh accumulations for period pertaining to previous year starting from 1-4-2022 onwards.
There is merit in the contentions advanced by the assessee that as far as the accumulation relating to the period of F.Y. 2016-17 is concerned, the assessee had the time window till 31-03-2023 by which it could utilize accumulated income and in view of the matter, the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2022 does not debar the assessee from availing the said time window in respect of existing accumulations and the amendment would have to be read prospectively in respect of fresh accumulations for the period pertaining to previous year starting from 1st April, 2022 onwards.
As far as the impugned assessment year is concerned, no addition can be made for accumulation of income pertaining to financial year 2016-17 as the assessee continues to be guided by the provisions as existed at the relevant point in time and the time window of six years as provided. The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 cannot curtail the said time window and has to be applied prospectively in respect of fresh accumulations.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an assessee entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) read with Rule 2BBB can be denied that exemption solely because the return was filed in Form ITR-5 instead of the prescribed Form ITR-7.
2. Whether a bona fide, inadvertent, or technical error in selecting the incorrect statutory return form precludes substantive relief where the assessee proves satisfaction of statutory conditions for exemption.
3. Whether, on facts showing eligibility for exemption and documentary proof of substantial government financing, the matter should be remanded for verification by the Assessing Officer or the exemption allowed by the Tribunal.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Denial of exemption solely for filing wrong return form
Legal framework: Section 10(23C)(iiiab) grants exemption to certain educational/trust entities substantially financed by government; Rule 2BBB prescribes criteria. Statutory returns must be furnished in prescribed Forms (ITR-7 for entities claiming such exemptions). Processing under Section 143(1) treats returns filed in statutory form as intimation.
Precedent Treatment: The appellate orders below relied on authorities holding that claims not made in the original return cannot be entertained except by revised return within statutory time - treating form-compliance as mandatory. In contrast, several Tribunal decisions considered comparable factual mistakes in form selection and directed reconsideration or rectification where substantive eligibility was established.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether form-selection is purely procedural or a condition going to the right to exemption. It found that when substantive statutory conditions for exemption are satisfied and documentary evidence (grant orders, audited accounts) establishes substantial government financing, denial on account of inadvertent form-selection converts a technicality into a forfeiture of substantive right. The Court considered the equities: the mistake was bona fide, caused by internal administrative lapses, and discovery of the intimation/demand was delayed. Given that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied exemption solely because the return was filed on ITR-5, and the assessee had proved entitlement under the substantive provisions, the Court held such denial unsustainable.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an assessee satisfies statutory conditions for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and proves substantial government financing, mere inadvertent filing in an incorrect statutory return form (ITR-5 instead of ITR-7) does not disentitle the assessee to exemption; the assessing authority cannot deny exemption on that ground alone. Obiter - observations on administrative causes of delay and on non-receipt of intimation are contextual but not necessary to the core legal holding.
Conclusion: Denial of exemption only because the prescribed form was not used is not sustainable where substantive eligibility is clearly established; the exemption must be allowed (or the matter remanded only if factual verification is necessary).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Effect of bona fide/technical errors in return filing on substantive tax relief
Legal framework: Tax procedure requires returns in prescribed formats, and revised returns are the statutory remedy to rectify omissions; however, principles of substantive justice and interpretation of tax statutes require that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights when conditions are met.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal decisions referenced applied an approach of substance over form, treating wrong-form filings as rectifiable technical errors where the assessee's entitlement was otherwise demonstrated; some authorities instructed reassessment or remand for verification rather than outright denial.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court weighed the mandatory nature of prescribed forms against the purpose of the exemption provisions. It concluded that form compliance is procedural and cannot be allowed to override a substantive exemption when all statutory conditions are met and supporting documentation exists. The Court acknowledged earlier contrary authority relied upon by lower authorities but preferred an approach that prevents forfeiture of exemption due to honest administrative mistakes. The decision reasons that where error is bona fide and all substantive requirements are satisfied, denial would be disproportionate and contrary to the object of the exemption provision.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - bona fide/technical errors in selection of return form do not automatically extinguish substantive entitlement to exemption when statutory conditions are met and evidenced. Obiter - guidance on administrative staff changes and document misplacement as typical causes of such errors.
Conclusion: A bona fide inadvertent error in selecting the return form should be treated as a technical mistake and cannot justify denial of an otherwise established exemption; remedial steps (allowance or verification) are appropriate.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Appropriate remedy - remand for verification vs. immediate allowance
Legal framework: Assessing Officer's duty to verify claims; appellate power to set aside assessments or direct reassessment/remand where factual verification is required. Principles permit remand where primary facts require fresh inquiry, but permit direct relief where facts are on record and uncontroverted.
Precedent Treatment: Some Tribunal precedents remanded matters to the Assessing Officer to verify documentary evidence of eligibility despite wrong-form filing; others directed immediate allowance where eligibility was sufficiently established in the record.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the record - audited financials, grant orders, and evidence that more than 50% funding came from government - and found these documents on the file sufficient to establish eligibility. Given the documentary evidence and the nature of the error (form choice), the Court applied the substantive-over-procedural approach and allowed the exemption rather than merely remanding. The reasoning emphasizes that where the tribunal can conclusively determine entitlement from the material on record, further remand is unnecessary and would be futile.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where documentary proof on record conclusively establishes conditions for exemption, the tribunal may allow exemption directly rather than remanding. Obiter - invitation to AO to verify in other cases where records are inconclusive.
Conclusion: In present facts, documentary evidence sufficed; the exemption was allowed and the demand deleted rather than remanding for verification.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that an inadvertent filing of an incorrect statutory return form (ITR-5 instead of ITR-7) cannot, by itself, defeat an assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) read with Rule 2BBB where the assessee has demonstrably satisfied the statutory conditions and placed authoritative documentary evidence on record; the denial of exemption and resultant demand were therefore deleted. The legal holdings prioritise substantive entitlement over procedural formality and permit allowance of exemption where entitlement is conclusively established from material on record.
Rejection of claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) - cause for this disallowance was the assessee's failure to file its return in the correct statutory form - Assessee erroneously filed its return in Form ITR-5 instead of Form ITR-7, which is the prescribed form for entities claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)
HELD THAT:- It is evident that the assessee was substantially financed by the Government of Gujarat during the relevant assessment year and had duly satisfied the conditions for claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) read with Rule 2BBB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
The only basis for denial of such exemption was the inadvertent filing of the return in Form ITR-5 instead of the prescribed Form ITR-7 - Assessee had placed on record sufficient documentary evidence including audited financials and Government grant orders substantiating its eligibility for the exemption claimed. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that the mistake in form selection was a bona fide and technical error, and the same cannot be a valid ground to deny a substantive exemption otherwise legally available under the Act. Support on this issue is also drawn from various decisions including Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal [2025 (5) TMI 805 - ITAT PUNE], Kathikode Charitable Trust [2024 (5) TMI 643 - ITAT COCHIN], and Desh Bharti Public School Samit [2022 (4) TMI 448 - ITAT LUCKNOW] wherein the Hon'ble Tribunals have consistently held that technical errors in filing of returns should not override the legitimate entitlement of exemption under the Act, particularly when all conditions for such exemption stand duly satisfied.
Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) ought to have been allowed to the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(Appeals) is, therefore, not sustainable in law. The demand raised on the assessee on account of denial of exemption is hereby directed to be deleted.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an application in Form No.10AB filed within the extended time granted by the Board's circular is maintainable where an earlier application was filed with an incorrect section code and a fresh/corrected application is filed within the extended period.
2. Whether the benefit conferred by paragraph 4.1 of the Board's circular (permitting filing of a fresh application within the extended time where an earlier application was rejected solely for delayed filing or wrong section code) applies where the fresh/corrected application was filed before the authority passed an order rejecting the earlier application.
3. Whether an application is excluded from the benefit of paragraph 4.1 where the earlier application was rejected on grounds other than delayed filing or incorrect section code (specifically, for failure to participate in proceedings and thereby preventing verification of genuineness of activities).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of CBDT circular (para 4.1) to fresh applications correcting wrong section code
Legal framework: The Board, exercising powers under section 119 of the Act, extended due dates for filing Forms 10A/10AB and in paragraph 4.1 expressly permitted trusts/institutions whose earlier Form No.10AB was rejected solely because (i) it was furnished after the due date or (ii) it had been furnished under the wrong section code, to furnish a fresh application within the extended period.
Precedent treatment: No prior judicial precedents were invoked or applied in the judgment; the Court proceeded on textual construction of the circular and statute.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construed paragraph 4.1 purposively - the Board intended to mitigate genuine hardship caused by electronic-filing difficulties and to allow rectification of specified procedural errors by permitting fresh filing within the extended period. Where an original application contained an incorrect section code and a corrected application is filed within the extended time, the corrected filing falls squarely within the remedial scope of paragraph 4.1.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Court's interpretation that paragraph 4.1 authorizes filing a fresh Form 10AB within the extended period to correct an earlier wrong section code is essential to the decision.
Conclusions: The Court holds that paragraph 4.1 applies to a fresh application filed within the extended period that corrects an earlier application's incorrect section code; such fresh filing is maintainable and to be treated as a valid application for consideration under section 80G(5).
Issue 2 - Effect of timing: fresh application filed before rejection of earlier application
Legal framework: The circular (para 3 and para 4) treats pending applications as valid where the Commissioner had not passed an order before issuance of the circular and expressly permits fresh applications in specified rejected-once circumstances within the extended time.
Precedent treatment: None relied upon; Court applied plain-text and purposive construction.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that if the corrective/fresh application is filed within the extended time and before the earlier application was adjudicated, the corrected application stands on at least as good a footing as one filed after rejection and squarely comes within the remedial intent of the circular. The timing - filing the corrected form before detection or rejection of the earlier error - places the applicant in a better position, not a worse one, and cannot be treated as outside the circular's relief.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the holding that a fresh/corrected Form 10AB filed within the extended time prior to any rejection of the earlier application is to be considered an original/valid application under the circular is central to the decision.
Conclusions: The Court concludes that filing a corrected Form 10AB within the extended time prior to the rejection of the earlier application is covered by the circular and renders the corrected filing maintainable for consideration under the Act.
Issue 3 - Rejections for reasons other than delayed filing or wrong section code: limitation of paragraph 4.1
Legal framework: Paragraph 4.1 is framed narrowly to permit fresh filing only where the earlier rejection was "solely on account of the fact that the application was furnished after the due date or that the application has been furnished under the wrong section code."
Precedent treatment: No authorities considered; analysis based on language of the circular and facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that where an earlier application was rejected for reasons other than those specified in paragraph 4.1 (for example, for non-participation in proceedings, inability to verify genuineness of activities, or failure to satisfy substantive conditions), paragraph 4.1 would not entitle the applicant to file a fresh application under the remedial grant. The circular's relief is confined to procedural defects expressly enumerated; substantive rejections are not thereby cured.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the limitation that paragraph 4.1 does not cover rejections grounded on substantive or investigative deficiencies (as opposed to late filing or incorrect section code) is an operative conclusion of the Court.
Conclusions: The Court confirmed that paragraph 4.1 does not extend to cases where the earlier rejection was for reasons other than delayed filing or incorrect section code; such cases are not entitled to the fresh-filing benefit of the circular.
Cross-reference and application to facts
The Court applied the foregoing principles to the facts: the original Form No.10AB bore an incorrect section code; a corrected Form was filed within the extended period and before the earlier application was rejected; the earlier rejection (when later passed) was for non-participation and verification failure, but the corrected filing preceded that rejection. Applying the circular's terms and purposive intent, the Court held the corrected application is a valid application within the extended time and entitled to consideration.
Remedial conclusion and direction
As a consequence of the legal conclusions above, the Court set aside the order denying maintainability and directed the authority to consider the corrected Form No.10AB on merits, following due process and applicable legal requirements.
Extension of time for filing Form No. 10AB - benefit of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 para 4.1 - incorrect section code and fresh application within extended time - treatment of fresh application as original application - maintainability of application under section 80G(5)
Benefit of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024 para 4.1 - incorrect section code and fresh application within extended time - maintainability of application under section 80G(5) - treatment of fresh application as original application - Whether the assessee's Form 10AB filed on 04-06-2024 correcting an earlier wrong section code is covered by paragraph 4.1 of CBDT Circular No.7 dated 25-04-2024 and therefore maintainable despite the later rejection of the earlier application by the CIT(E). - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined CBDT Circular No.7 dated 25-04-2024 which extended the due date for filing Form No.10AB to 30-06-2024 and permitted filing of fresh applications within the extended time where earlier applications were rejected either for being filed after the due date or for having been furnished under the wrong section code. In the present facts the assessee's first Form 10AB (dated 23-03-2024) contained an incorrect section code; the assessee filed a corrected Form 10AB on 04-06-2024, i.e. within the extended period prescribed by the Circular and before the CIT(E) passed the rejection order on 03-09-2024. The Tribunal reasoned that where a corrected application is filed within the extended time and prior to the decision on the original application, that corrected filing is to be treated as the original application for the purposes of the Circular. Applying paragraph 4.1, the Tribunal held that the assessee stood on a better footing because the error was rectified within the extended period and therefore the application is covered by the Circular's remedial provision. The CIT(E)'s conclusion that the case did not qualify under paragraph 4.1 was incorrect because it failed to give effect to the Circular's allowance for fresh applications correcting wrong section codes, even where the correction was made before the original application was considered. Accordingly the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed reconsideration of the assessee's application following due process of law. [Paras 4]
Assessee's corrected Form 10AB filed on 04-06-2024 is covered by paragraph 4.1 of CBDT Circular No.7 dated 25-04-2024; the CIT(E)'s rejection is set aside and the application is to be considered afresh.
Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application as not covered by the CBDT Circular is set aside and the CIT(E) is directed to consider the assessee's Form 10AB seeking approval under section 80G(5) following due process.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether delay of 313 days in filing the appeal should be condoned having regard to the affidavit explaining the delay.
2. Whether the Commissioner's revisionary proceedings under section 263 were validly initiated - specifically, whether the assessing officer's order was "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interests of revenue" as required by section 263.
3. Whether the Commissioner, in invoking section 263, lawfully expanded the scope of scrutiny beyond the "limited scrutiny" selection (CASS) that governed the assessment, i.e., whether the Commissioner was entitled to direct a re-verification of indexation of acquisition cost notwithstanding limited-scrutiny constraints.
4. Whether the indexation of cost of acquisition for the property at issue should be determined from the date of allotment/creation of rights (as claimed by the assessee) or from the date of execution/registration of the purchase agreement, and if the assessing officer's approach on this point was erroneous.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Condonation of Delay
Legal framework: Procedural discretion to condone delay in filing appeals where sufficient cause is shown; settled principles require "sufficient cause" and equitable consideration (reference to established Supreme Court approach).
Precedent treatment: Reliance placed on Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (principles of sufficient cause/condonation).
Interpretation and reasoning: The affidavit explained continuous NRI residence, delegation of tax-portal administration to representatives, non-receipt/awareness of revision proceedings, belated communication from authorized representative and counsel, and physical presence in India only after initial events. The Tribunal found these explanations constituted sufficient cause and exercised discretion to condone the delay.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay was condoned because the affidavit disclosed sufficient cause; this is binding for the facts of the present appeal. Obiter - none additional.
Conclusions: Delay of 313 days in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.
Issue 2 - Validity of Section 263 Invocation: "Erroneous" and "Prejudicial" Requirements
Legal framework: Section 263 permits Commissioner to revise an assessment only if the AO's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the Commissioner must record satisfaction after satisfying the twin conditions. Explanation 2 (amendment) and judicial gloss limit arbitrary exercise of power - Commissioner cannot arrogate power whenever dissatisfied absent demonstrable error prejudicial to revenue.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered and relied on apex court authority (Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.) setting out twin conditions and on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal authorities holding that absence of specific finding that AO failed to apply mind or make enquiries precludes exercise of s.263. Authorities cited include decisions treating date of allotment for indexation (CBDT circular & High Court decisions) and Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (Rajasthan HC) on inferring AO's application of mind from material on record.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the assessment file and found: (a) the case was selected for limited scrutiny; (b) notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and responses/evidence were furnished electronically; (c) the AO examined the documents and reached conclusions in the assessment order recording that explanations/replies were satisfactory; and (d) the Commissioner's show-cause alleged lack of proper enquiries only in relation to indexation date without demonstrating that AO failed to apply mind or commit an error of law/fact prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal held that mere disagreement or desire to expand scope of enquiry does not satisfy the twin conditions; the Commissioner also failed to demonstrate which clause of Explanation 2 (to s.263) was breached by the AO.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the AO conducted enquiry, examined evidence and recorded satisfaction in the assessment order, the Commissioner cannot invoke s.263 merely to re-open or expand scrutiny; invocation is unsustainable absent demonstration of an error that is prejudicial to revenue. Obiter - comments on limits of Explanation 2 emphasize that the amendment does not confer unfettered powers to revise every order.
Conclusions: The invocation of section 263 was not sustainable on facts and was set aside; the Commissioner's order under section 263 was cancelled.
Issue 3 - Limited Scrutiny (CASS) and Expansion of Scope by Commissioner
Legal framework: Selection under CASS/limited scrutiny constrains the scope of enquiries in assessment; AO may not exceed limited-scrutiny scope without prescribed approvals/authority; Commissioner cannot convert limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny under guise of s.263 unless conditions for revision prevail.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal relied on coordinate and other Bench decisions holding AO cannot expand inquiries beyond limited scrutiny and on decisions where s.263 was set aside for attempting to widen scope; quoted ITAT decisions and High Court authority (Ganpat Ram Bishnoi) indicating that findings of enquiry by AO are factual and cannot be presumed absent specific error.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted AO issued and pursued statutory notices within the ambit of limited scrutiny, received bank statements, purchase agreement and other documents, and accepted explanations. The Commissioner's direction seeking re-verification of payment flows and indexation effectively sought to enlarge the scope of scrutiny. The Tribunal held this approach impermissible absent satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions; expansion of scrutiny is not a substitute for demonstration of error prejudicial to revenue.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Commissioner cannot, under s.263, expand the scope of scrutiny in a matter chosen for limited scrutiny unless the requisite error prejudicial to revenue is shown. Obiter - reference to administrative guidance that conversion from limited to complete scrutiny requires appropriate approvals.
Conclusions: The Commissioner's attempt to expand scrutiny under s.263 was improper; the s.263 order was set aside on this ground as well.
Issue 4 - Date for Indexation: Allotment vs. Agreement/Registration
Legal framework: Section 48 and Explanation (iii) provide for computation of indexed cost of acquisition; principle is acquisition date controls indexation. CBDT circulars and judicial precedents have addressed whether date of allotment/creation of rights or date of agreement/registration governs acquisition date for flats under allotment schemes.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal considered decisions of Bombay High Court and other authorities (including CBDT Circulars and coordinate Tribunal decisions) holding that date of allotment/letter creating rights can be the relevant date for acquisition and indexation where allotment confers sufficient proprietary rights akin to acquisition; these precedents were relied upon by the assessee and noted by the Tribunal.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee produced allotment documentation and the AO had accepted the claim in assessment after examining evidence. The Commissioner's objection - that indexation was computed from an earlier date than the purchase agreement execution date - conflicted with rulings recognizing allotment date as acquisition date where legal rights vest earlier than registration. Given AO's examination and acceptance, and the existence of controlling precedents and CBDT circulars supporting reckoning from allotment, no demonstrable error prejudicial to revenue was made out.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where allotment/letter of allotment confers the relevant proprietary rights and is supported by record, indexation from allotment date is permissible and AO's acceptance of such claim after enquiry cannot be characterized as erroneous for purposes of s.263. Obiter - reiteration of authoritative position that Explanation (iii) and CBDT clarifications guide treatment in allotment cases.
Conclusions: The assessing officer's acceptance of indexation from the date relied upon by the assessee was not shown to be erroneous; the Commissioner's contrary stance did not justify revision under section 263.
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT AO did not make proper enquiries in respect of indexation cost on acquisition of impugned flat claimed under the provisions of section 48 - HELD THAT:- While passing the impugned order ld. CIT has not appreciated the fact that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the claim of refund claim, wherein based on the scope AO had already examined and verified the cost of acquisition including the details of the source thereof.
In the show cause notice it has been observed that “the AO did not make proper enquiries in respect of indexation of purchase cost and allowed excess indexed cost on the basis of indexed cost calculated from the period from 25/11/2009 whereas flat purchase agreement was executed on 28/12/2012 which resulted in less payment of taxes, thus, Assessment Order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per provisions of Section 263 of the Act.” Now what was proposed by way of direction under section 263 of the Act whereby ld. CIT aims to expand the scope of scrutiny and same is not permitted. Not only that while passing the order, the ld. CIT has not exposed any of the clause of explanation 2 of section 263 as applicable based on the facts of the case. The assessee in the written submission relied on the Circular issued CBDT and the decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts has settled the law on such issue that cost of inflation indexation is to be determined from the date of allotment and not the date of registration of conveyance deed/agreement - No infirmity emerges from the order of the CIT(A), who we find had rightly concluded that the date of acquisition of the property under consideration was to be reckoned from the date of the allotment letter i.e 03.12.1999, therefore, we uphold his order. See Vembo Vaidyanathan [2019 (1) TMI 1361 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
As in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [2005 (8) TMI 106 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] no presumption can be down by the PCIT that the matter has not been enquired into by the AO. Accordingly, we hold that the invocation of jurisdiction by the CIT is not sustainable. The order passed by the CIT u/s 263 is hereby set aside.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC is amenable to dismissal under Section 249(4)(b) where no return of income has been filed but the appellant has stated in the statement of facts that his income for the year was below the maximum amount not liable to income tax (i.e., advance tax payable was nil).
2. Whether the requirement in Section 249(4)(b) to pay an amount equal to the advance tax "which was payable by him" is to be judged on the basis of (a) the assessee's own estimate/undisputed admitted income (self-assessed liability) or (b) the assessed tax determined by the Assessing Officer.
3. Whether, on the facts that the appellant did not file return and was held to have unexplained bank deposits in assessment under Section 144 and additions under Section 69A/Section 115BBE were made, the first appellate authority was correct to decline admission without adjudicating on merits where advance tax payable was claimed to be nil.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of Section 249(4)(b) where assessee states income below taxable limit
Legal framework: Section 249(4)(b) bars admission of an appeal where no return has been filed unless the appellant has paid an amount equal to the advance tax "which was payable by him". Sections 208-209 set out liability and computation of advance tax and contemplate computation based on the assessee's estimate of current income (Section 209(1)(a)). The proviso to Section 249(4) permits the Commissioner (Appeals) to exempt an appellant from clause (b) for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate Bench decisions (cited and followed) hold that clause (b) is triggered only if an obligation to pay advance tax is cast on the assessee; if the assessee's admitted/estimated income yields no advance tax liability, clause (b) cannot justify dismissal. Those decisions treated the qualifying advance-tax obligation as to the tax "payable by him" (i.e., as assessed by the assessee), not as the tax as later found in assessment.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasoned that the statutory condition in Section 249(4)(b) applies only if there exists an obligation on the assessee to compute and pay advance tax under Sections 208-209. Where the appellant has consistently stated in the statement of facts that his income was below the maximum non-taxable limit, no obligation to compute/pay advance tax arises; therefore, there is no amount "payable by him" under Section 249(4)(b). Reliance placed on Sections 208 and 209 shows the computation of advance tax is initiated by the assessee's own estimate under Section 209(1)(a), confirming that the statutory condition contemplates the assessee's own liability rather than a later-assessed liability.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Clause (b) of Section 249(4) is inapplicable where the assessee's undisputed/declared income results in nil advance-tax liability because no statutory obligation to pay advance tax arises. Obiter - references to comparative wording in Sections 234B and 249(4) are explanatory but not necessary to the core holding.
Conclusion: Where the appellant avers in the statement of facts that taxable income is below the threshold and therefore advance tax payable is nil, the condition in Section 249(4)(b) cannot be invoked to refuse admission of the appeal.
Issue 2 - Whether "advance tax which was payable by him" refers to self-assessed liability or assessed tax
Legal framework: Section 249(4)(b) contains the phrase "advance tax which was payable by him"; Sections 208-209 govern who is liable and how advance tax is computed, with Section 209(1)(a) directing computation by the assessee based on his estimate of current income.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate Tribunals (cited) have construed the phrase as referring to advance tax payable by the assessee on the basis of his own estimate/admitted income, not on the basis of tax determined later in assessment proceedings. Those authorities distinguished provisions like Section 234B(1), which deal with interest based on assessed tax, and noted the deliberate difference in wording.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal followed the view that the statutory language of Section 249(4)(b) contemplates the advance tax "payable by him" in his capacity as the self-assessing taxpayer. If the taxpayer's estimation leads to no advance-tax liability, then there is nothing to pay at the time of filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that construing the clause to require payment on the basis of assessed tax would render the wording of Section 249(4)(b) inconsistent with the deliberate scheme of Sections 208-209 and the proviso to Section 249(4).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - "Advance tax which was payable by him" is to be understood with reference to the taxpayer's own obligation under Sections 208-209 (i.e., his self-assessed payable advance tax), not the amount later determined by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings. Obiter - comparative grammar analysis between Sections 234B and 249(4) serves as supporting reasoning.
Conclusion: The advance-tax payment condition in Section 249(4)(b) must be judged on the basis of the advance tax payable by the assessee as per his estimate/undisputed income; it does not require payment on the basis of the assessed tax.
Issue 3 - Correctness of dismissal of appeal without merit adjudication where advance tax payable claimed nil
Legal framework: Section 249(4)(b) empowers non-admission of appeal where the pre-condition is unmet but also provides for discretion to grant exemption for good and sufficient reasons; appellate admission practice requires that where the statutory pre-conditions are not triggered, appeals should be admitted and decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing.
Precedent treatment: Coordinate Bench decisions remitted matters back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit and decide appeals on merits where appellants had declared nil/insufficient taxable income and therefore no advance-tax obligation; those decisions emphasize affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to be heard and to place material on record.
Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the principles above, the Tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal in limine solely on the ground of non-payment of advance tax when the appellant had declared that no advance tax was payable. Given the absence of a statutory obligation to pay advance tax, dismissal on that ground was improper. The Tribunal therefore set aside the non-admission order and remitted the matter for adjudication on merits with directions to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a taxpayer demonstrates that no advance tax was payable (by stating undisputed income below taxable threshold), the appellate authority must admit the appeal and decide on merits rather than dismiss for non-payment; remand is appropriate to allow adjudication on merits. Obiter - Observations about the Assessing Officer's additions under Section 69A/Section 115BBE are left undecided as merit issues to be determined on remand.
Conclusion: The appellate authority's dismissal for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) was unsustainable on the facts; the appeal is to be admitted and remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC for decision on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Auxiliary observation - Treatment of assessment additions (Section 69A / Section 115BBE)
Legal framework and reasoning: The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the substantive correctness of the assessing officer's treatment of bank deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A and invoking Section 115BBE. Those issues were raised by the appellant's grounds but, in view of the admissibility ruling, remain for consideration on merits by the appellate authority on remand.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - Any reference to the assessment-level findings is provisional; no substantive conclusion on Sections 69A/115BBE is recorded by the Tribunal in this order.
Conclusion: Substantive issues regarding unexplained deposits and tax computation under Sections 69A/115BBE are remitted for fresh consideration by the appellate authority after admission of the appeal and full opportunity to the appellant to present evidence and submissions.
Payment of advance tax on the basis of assessed tax - obligation cast upon the assessee to compute / pay “advance tax” u/s 208 and 209 - statutory conditions contemplated in section 249(4)(b) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, on the ground that the assessee had failed to fulfil the mandatory and essential conditions by not paying the advance tax, which was payable by him, if no return of income was filed by the assessee for admission of appeal before the CIT(A) as per section 249(4)(b) of the Act.
Hence, without going into merits of the case we set aside the order passed by LD CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of LD CIT(A)NFAC with direction to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits of the case after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Summary order. Delay in filing and refiling condoned; Special Leave Petition dismissed as the issue is identical to that dismissed by order dated 25.07.2025 in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 21917/2025; pending applications disposed of.
Condonation of delay - Interference with order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dismissal of statutory appeal - Reservation of question of law
Condonation of delay - Interference with order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dismissal of statutory appeal - Whether the Court should interfere with the impugned order dated 02-01-2025 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and whether the appeal should be admitted. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that delay in filing the petition is condoned. On merits, the Court found no good reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 02-01-2025 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Court's decision to dismiss reflects a refusal to disturb the Tribunal's order; no further substantive legal determination or articulation of reasons beyond the refusal to interfere is provided in the operative directions. [Paras 1, 2, 3]
Delay condoned; no interference with the Tribunal's order dated 02-01-2025; appeal dismissed.
Reservation of question of law - Whether any question of law arising from the matter is finally decided by the Court. - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly kept open the question of law arising from the matter, thereby declining to decide or pronounce upon any contested legal question in the petition. This leaves any such legal issue undetermined for future adjudication or raised proceedings. [Paras 4]
Question of law kept open.
Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court condoned the delay, declined to interfere with the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 02-01-2025 and dismissed the appeal, while expressly leaving the question of law open; pending applications stand disposed of.
Classification of goods - articles of silver jewellery/ articles of silver - to be classified under CETH 7113 or 7114? - applicability of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 amended - demand of excise duty on goods exported - hedging amounts to trading of goods or not - availing ineligible credit in respect of renting of motor vehicles and repair and maintenance of motor vehicle - Time limitation - it was held by CESTAT that the goods are classifiable under CETH 7113, as there is no evidence to support classification under CETH 7114 - HELD THAT:- There are no palpable error in the finding of CESTAT as regards bar of limitation is concerned. We, therefore, decline to entertain this appeal by leaving the question of law open insofar as classification aspect is concerned.
The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
Issues: Whether the Customs appeal was maintainable when the aggregate of redemption fine and penalty was below the monetary threshold limit fixed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Analysis: The value involved was found to be much below the threshold limit. The confiscation and penalty imposed by the original authority had already been set aside by the Tribunal, and the High Court had declined interference. In that setting, the aggregate of redemption fine and penalty being below Rs. 1,00,00,000, the appeal was treated as not maintainable.
Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court order was rejected and the appeal was held to be not maintainable because the monetary threshold was not met.
Maintainability of petition - monetary limit involved in the appeal - setting aside of confiscation and the penalty imposed on the respondent by the original authority - HELD THAT:- The view taken by the High Court is agreed upon that when the amount of redemption, fine and penalty taken together is below the threshold limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, as fixed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the appeal certainly was not maintainable.
SLP dismissed.
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Refund claim - fulfilment of the condition of filing Appeals against the self-assessed Bills of Entry as a pre-requisite to entertain the refund claim or not - classification of goods Pisum Sativum [Peas] - to be classified under Sl No.20 or under Sl No.20A during the period under dispute? - it was held by CESTAT that 'The arguments of the Revenue cannot be agreed upon that the case law of Dilip Kumar would be of any help to them so as to overcome the dual rates of BCD specified during the period in question. The Notification No.50/2017 Cus dated 30.6.2017, being an Effective Rates Notification in respect of the goods in question, Pisum Sativum, rather helps the importer’s case.'
HELD THAT:- There is a gross delay of 471 days in filing the Statutory Appeal which has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant.
The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay.
Issues: Whether the rejection of duty drawback in respect of the two specified shipping bills required interference and remand for reconsideration on the basis of the corrected Bank Realisation Certificate.
Analysis: The petitioner showed that the earlier Bank Realisation Certificate carried an erroneous date, while the subsequently printed statement reflected realisation dates corresponding to the two shipping bills in question. In view of this material, the grievance was treated as bona fide, and the Court found no reason to compel the petitioner to pursue a statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned rejection was therefore set aside only to the extent it related to those two shipping bills, and the matter was sent back for fresh examination on merits, with a direction to produce the corrected certificate and explain the apparent error in the earlier date entry.
Conclusion: The rejection of duty drawback for the two specified shipping bills was quashed and the matter was remitted to the original authority for fresh decision.
Duty drawback - quashing of administrative order - remand for fresh consideration on production of Bank Realisation Certificate - statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962
Duty drawback - remand for fresh consideration on production of Bank Realisation Certificate - quashing of administrative order - Impugned rejection of duty drawback claims in respect of two specified shipping bills was quashed and the matter remitted to the original authority for fresh examination on production of corrected Bank Realisation Certificate. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner produced that earlier Bank Realisation Certificates filed contained an erroneous realisation date and tendered a subsequently printed statement (dated 18.07.2024) showing correct bank realisation dates for the two shipping bills in question. The Court found the petitioner's case to be genuine and, instead of directing a statutory appeal, quashed the portion of the impugned order rejecting duty drawback for those two shipping bills and directed the first respondent to re-examine the claims on merits after the petitioner files a copy of the corrected Bank Realisation Certificate and explains how the erroneous date arose. The first respondent is directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously within three months from receipt of this order, and the petitioner must cooperate in the process. [Paras 3, 6]
Rejection of duty drawback insofar as the two specified shipping bills is quashed and the matter remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration upon production of the corrected Bank Realisation Certificate.
Statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the petitioner should be directed to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the procedural alternative of directing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal but found no reason to require such step in the facts of the case. In view of the petitioner's offer to produce the corrected Bank Realisation Certificate and the Court's decision to remit the two claims for fresh consideration, mandating a statutory appeal was unnecessary. [Paras 5]
Court declined to direct the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 128 and proceeded to quash and remit the relevant part of the impugned order.
Final Conclusion: Writ petition disposed of by quashing the rejection of duty drawback in respect of the two specified shipping bills and remitting those claims to the first respondent for fresh adjudication on production of the corrected Bank Realisation Certificate; respondent directed to decide within three months and petitioner to cooperate; no costs.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the authorities erred in ordering absolute confiscation of seized gold when importation of gold was restricted but not prohibited, and whether appellants were entitled to the option of redemption under the Customs Act.
2. Whether the penalties imposed on the persons from whose premises the gold was seized were excessive or unsustainable on the material before the Adjudicating Officer and appellate authorities.
3. Whether the appellate authorities' failure to consider the specific plea for redemption (redemption fine, customs duty and interest) rendered the adjudication infirm.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Availability of redemption under the Customs Act when importation is restricted but not prohibited
Legal framework: Section 125 of the Customs Act authorises the proper officer to permit redemption of seized imported goods on payment of redemption fine together with customs duty and interest; Section 108 permits recording of statements during investigation. Relevant executive notification regime (General Exemption No. 183 as amended) prescribed concessional duty conditions and import limitations for gold.
Precedent Treatment: No precedent was cited or applied by the Court in the judgment; the Court applied statutory scheme and established administrative discretion under Section 125.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that where importation is not prohibited but only restricted by policy or notification, absolute confiscation is not the inevitable or mandatory consequence. The discretion under Section 125 to allow redemption remains available unless the statutory scheme or the show-cause notice explicitly seeks absolute confiscation and conditions for redemption are lawfully excluded. The existence of a concessional duty regime subject to conditions (e.g., duty paid in convertible foreign currency, carried by eligible passenger, declaration at arrival, quantitative limit) does not convert permitted import into an absolute bar that would foreclose redemption where seized goods are of foreign origin.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where importation of goods is restricted but not prohibited, the proper officer retains discretion under Section 125 to permit redemption on payment of redemption fine, duty and interest; failure to consider such discretion amounts to an omission requiring remedial direction. Obiter - Observations about the specific terms of the notification and its conditions are contextual and do not constitute a binding interpretation beyond the case facts.
Conclusions: The Court held that the appellants should have been afforded an opportunity to redeem the seized gold. The absolute confiscation without considering the redemption plea was procedurally and substantively unsatisfactory in the facts of this case, and the orders are to be modified to permit redemption subject to conditions to be prescribed by the original authority.
Issue 2 - Validity of penalties imposed on appellant(s)
Legal framework: Adjudicatory powers under the Customs Act allow imposition of penalties where violations of customs law are established; evidence includes statements under Section 108 admitting foreign origin of seized gold.
Precedent Treatment: No precedent was relied upon; the Court assessed the merits based on admitted facts and the material before the lower authorities.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the appellants, by recorded statements, admitted that the seized gold was of foreign origin. Given that admission and the record, the Court found no ground to interfere with the penalty orders. The Court distinguished the question of penalty (sanction for breach) from the separate question of redemption (remedial option under Section 125) - affirming that permitting redemption would not automatically vitiate the imposition of penalty where material supports it.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalties imposed were sustainable on the record and therefore will not be interfered with by the Court. Obiter - None material beyond the affirmation that admission of foreign origin is strong evidence supporting penalty.
Conclusions: The Court declined to modify the penalty orders and upheld the penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Officer and confirmed by appellate fora.
Issue 3 - Duty of appellate authorities to consider specific prayers for redemption and consequences of omission
Legal framework: Administrative adjudication requires that appellate authorities consider and dispose of the grounds and reliefs raised by parties in their appeal memoranda; Section 125 provides the statutory relief (redemption) which may be invoked in appeals.
Precedent Treatment: No case law cited; the Court applied principles of fair adjudication and statutory discretion.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the appeal memoranda and found that the appellants specifically sought redemption before the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, but those authorities failed to consider the prayer. That omission was material because redemption is a statutory remedial route available to the appellants. The Court held that appellate bodies must address such pleas; failure to do so justifies appropriate corrective directions. The Court emphasized that the absence of a proposal for absolute confiscation in the show-cause notice made the omission more significant.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a statutory remedy (redemption) is invoked in pleadings and is available under the Act, appellate authorities must consider and rule upon the plea; failure to do so warrants remand or modification to permit consideration. Obiter - Procedural expectations for appeal memorandum formulation and specifics of how redemption applications should be processed are ancillary observations.
Conclusions: The Court modified the impugned appellate orders to the limited extent of directing that the appellants be permitted to apply for redemption before the original authority, and set a date and appearance direction to enable the Additional Commissioner to decide redemption consistent with the Act and applicable conditions.
Interrelationship of Issues (cross-reference)
The Court treated the penalty and redemption questions as distinct: penalties affirmed (Issue 2) despite granting the limited relief of permitting redemption (Issue 1), because the statutory discretion to redeem does not automatically negate liability for penalty when the record supports it. The failure of appellate authorities to consider redemption (Issue 3) provided the principal ground for modification even while leaving penalties intact.
Final Disposition (operative conclusion)
The Court partly allowed the appeals by modifying the appellate orders to permit the appellants to seek redemption of the seized gold before the original adjudicating authority on specified conditions and directed personal appearance for consideration; penalties as imposed were affirmed and not disturbed.
Redemption of imported goods under discretion of the proper officer under Section 125 of the Customs Act - confiscation versus redemption discretion - payment of redemption fine, customs duty and interest as condition for redemption - confirmation of penalty imposed under the Customs Act
Confirmation of penalty imposed under the Customs Act - Confirmation of the penalties imposed on the appellants upheld. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the submissions and the record and found no ground to interfere with the penalty orders confirmed by the authorities below. The appellants failed to make out a case for modification of the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer and sustained by the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. [Paras 7]
The penalties imposed on the appellants are confirmed and not interfered with.
Redemption of imported goods under discretion of the proper officer under Section 125 of the Customs Act - confiscation versus redemption discretion - payment of redemption fine, customs duty and interest as condition for redemption - Appellants entitled to be given an opportunity to seek redemption of the seized gold; matter remitted to the Additional Commissioner for consideration of redemption subject to compliance with prescribed conditions. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that, in the absence of a prohibition on importation during the relevant period and given that the authorities below did not consider the appellants' plea for redemption, the proper officer had the discretion under Section 125 to permit redemption on payment of redemption fine together with customs duty and interest. The Adjudicating Authority, First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal failed to address the appellants' prayer for redemption despite its being raised. Accordingly, the impugned orders were modified to allow the appellants an opportunity to seek redemption by appearing before the Additional Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Cochin and complying with the conditions that authority may prescribe. [Paras 5, 8]
Appeals allowed to the limited extent of permitting the appellants to seek redemption of the seized gold before the Additional Commissioner, who shall consider and pass orders on redemption subject to applicable conditions; appellants to appear before the Additional Commissioner at 11 A.M. on 10-3-2025.
Final Conclusion: Appeals partly allowed: penalties confirmed; appellants granted opportunity to seek redemption of the seized gold before the Additional Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Cochin in accordance with the conditions to be prescribed, with appearance directed on 10-3-2025 at 11 A.M.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether safeguard duty under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is leviable on imports made by a certified 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) when the relevant notification imposing safeguard duty (notification No.1/2018-(SG)) does not specifically make such duty applicable to EOUs.
2. Whether the origin of imported goods (Taiwan) and their exclusion from the list of developing countries in notification No.19/2016-Cus (NT) affects entitlement to exemption from safeguard duty for a certified 100% EOU.
3. Whether the filing of Bills of Entry under the Non-EOU category (for home consumption) or inadvertent misclassification in shipping/entry documents defeats the substantive statutory exemption available to a certified 100% EOU.
4. Whether imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (and demand of differential IGST/interest) survives if safeguard duty itself is not leviable on the importer by virtue of EOU status.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Leviability of safeguard duty on imports by a certified 100% EOU when notification imposing safeguard duty is silent about EOUs
Legal framework: Section 8B CTA provides power to impose safeguard duty by notification. Sub-section (2A) (as in force at the relevant time) begins with a non obstante clause and states that notifications or safeguard duties under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to articles imported by a 100% EOU unless (i) specifically made applicable in such notification or (ii) the article is cleared into the domestic tariff area or used in manufacture of goods cleared into the domestic tariff area.
Precedent Treatment: No contrary precedent was applied by the Tribunal; reliance was placed on established statutory construction principles rather than overturning or distinguishing case law. The Tribunal cited and followed the principle that substantive statutory exemptions cannot be defeated by subsequent administrative or assessment action absent specific statutory or notified applicability.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted sub-section (2A) as a substantive, non-obstante protective provision granting EOUs a categorical exemption from safeguard duties except in the two expressly carved-out situations. Legislative intent was read as creating a special status for 100% EOUs to be "beyond the imposition of safeguard duty" unless the notification expressly covers EOUs or the imported article is cleared/used in the domestic tariff area. The notification imposing safeguard duty (notification No.1/2018) did not specifically make the levy applicable to EOUs nor was there a factual finding that the imported goods were cleared into the domestic tariff area or used in manufacture of goods cleared domestically.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Sub-section (2A) operates to bar the imposition of safeguard duty on imports by certified 100% EOUs unless expressly made applicable by notification or the goods are cleared/used in the domestic tariff area; absence of such specification in the impugned notification precludes levy. This conclusion is central to the decision and constitutes the binding ratio of the Tribunal.
Conclusion: The safeguard duty notification relied upon did not apply to the certified 100% EOU; therefore safeguard duty could not be imposed on the imports in question.
Issue 2: Relevance of country of origin (Taiwan) and notification No.19/2016-Cus (NT) excluding Taiwan from developing countries list
Legal framework: The first proviso to Section 8B(1) exempts articles originating from developing countries subject to specified import-share conditions; notification No.19/2016 lists developing countries for exemption purposes under the proviso.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied statutory hierarchy and purposive reading rather than invoking conflicting precedent. It relied on the primacy of sub-section (2A) where applicable.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on the exclusion of Taiwan from notification No.19/2016 to be immaterial because sub-section (2A) provides a separate, overriding exemption for 100% EOUs. Once it is established that the importer is a certified 100% EOU and the notification imposing safeguard duty does not specifically apply to EOUs, the question whether the goods originate from a country excluded from the developing-country list becomes irrelevant to leviability. The statutory text was interpreted so that the EOU exemption operates notwithstanding other provisos to sub-section (1).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where sub-section (2A) applies, the first proviso to sub-section (1) (developing-country carve-out) is not decisive for EOUs; origin-based exclusions cannot be used to impose safeguard duty on certified EOUs absent the conditions in sub-section (2A).
Conclusion: The origin of goods being Taiwan and Taiwan's exclusion from notification No.19/2016 had no bearing on exemption entitlement of the certified 100% EOU; safeguard duty could not be levied on that basis.
Issue 3: Effect of filing Bills of Entry under Non-EOU category or inadvertent misclassification on entitlement to EOU exemption
Legal framework: Section 8B(2A) privileges certified 100% EOUs irrespective of other notifications; procedural rules such as IGCR (Rule 5) govern conditions for concessional duty claims but do not override substantive statutory exemptions conferred by Section 8B(2A).
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on authority holding that payment of duty or procedural missteps do not abrogate statutory exemption and on the principle in Hero Cycles Ltd. (as affirmed by the Supreme Court) that an assessment must be made according to law and a mistake or oversight in claiming benefit cannot justify denying an otherwise available exemption.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that mere mention of Non-EOU in Bills of Entry or airway bills does not alter the substantive legal status of a unit certified as 100% EOU. The operative document is the certificate approving the unit as 100% EOU; the physical facts showed goods entered the EOU premises and were used for manufacturing within the EOU. Procedural noncompliance or inadvertent classification on entry documents cannot defeat the statutory exemption under Section 8B(2A).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Substantive EOU status controls over procedural classification on customs documents; inadvertent or erroneous filing under Non-EOU cannot be used to impose safeguard duty where statutory exemption applies.
Conclusion: Filing Bills of Entry under Non-EOU category or inadvertent misclassification does not deprive a certified 100% EOU of exemption from safeguard duty under Section 8B(2A).
Issue 4: Consequences for penalty and differential IGST/interest when safeguard duty is not leviable
Legal framework: Penalty under Section 112(a) and demands for differential IGST/interest flow from an adjudicated shortfall in duty. If the foundational duty is not leviable, consequential demands and penalties lack sustenance unless separate statutory misdeeds are proved.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied implicitly on the legal principle that ancillary penalties cannot stand where the principal demand is invalid; the Hero Cycles principle on manifest injustice via payment under mistake was applied by analogy.
Interpretation and reasoning: Having held that safeguard duty was not leviable on the certified 100% EOU, the Tribunal concluded that concomitant demands for safeguard duty, differential IGST and penalty founded on non-payment of safeguard duty cannot be sustained. The absence of any finding that the other exceptions in sub-section (2A) obtained (express applicability or diversion to domestic tariff area) negated the basis for the penalty and duty demand.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the primary levy is held inapplicable by reason of statutory exemption, consequential penalty and related duty/interest demands founded solely on non-payment of that levy must be set aside.
Conclusion: Penalty and demands arising from alleged non-payment of safeguard duty were unsustainable once safeguard duty was held not leviable on the certified 100% EOU; the impugned demands were set aside with consequential benefits if any.
Cross-References and Interplay
1. Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: sub-section (2A) (Issue 1) is dispositive and renders origin-based proviso (Issue 2) irrelevant for certified EOUs unless the two exceptions in sub-section (2A) are satisfied.
2. Issue 3 (procedural misclassification) cannot displace the substantive statutory entitlement addressed in Issue 1; the Tribunal cross-referenced Hero Cycles authority to reinforce that erroneous payment or procedural oversight does not justify assessing duty not payable under law.
3. Issue 4 follows logically from Issues 1-3: invalidity of the primary levy collapses ancillary financial and penal consequences.
100% EOU - Levy of safeguard duty alongwith IGST interest and penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - country of origin in the case of goods imported is Taiwan, which do not fall in the list of developing countries provided in the Notification No.19/2016-Cus dated February 5,2016 - eligibility for exemption in terms of first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 8B - B/E and the Airways bill filed by the appellant was under the category of Non-EOU and the benefit can only be granted in respect of 100% EOU.
Country of origin in the case of goods imported is Taiwan, which do not fall in the list of developing countries provided in the Notification No.19/2016-Cus dated February 5,2016 - eligibility for exemption in terms of first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 8B - HELD THAT:- The fallacy in the argument of the Revenue is that they have completely ignored that the appellant is a certified 100% EOU on which no safeguard duty can be imposed notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) and subsection (2) or any notification issued therein. The Section itself provides that once a unit importing the goods is 100% EOU, no safeguard duty can be imposed unless specifically made applicable in such notification or the article imported is either cleared into the domestic tariff area or used in the manufacture of any goods that are cleared into the domestic tariff area - it is not found that the notifications relied on by the Revenue, in any manner, covers 100% EOUs or the goods imported are diverted to the domestic tariff area. The goods released from customs area had entered the EOU unit premises of the appellant and were not released in the domestic tariff area. For the reasons, no safeguard duty can be levied on the appellant.
B/E and the Airways bill filed by the appellant was under the category of Non-EOU and the benefit can only be granted in respect of 100% EOU - HELD THAT:- Mere mentioning in the B/E or Airways bill does not change the status of the appellant to be Non-EOU. The relevant document in this regard is the certificate approving the appellant unit as 100% EOU by Noida SEZ under Green Card No.291 for manufacturing of solar panel and solar Junction boxes at the factory located in Surajpur Industrial Area, Greater Noida. It is not disputed that goods were examined, cleared and entered the 100% EOU premises for manufacturing.
The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hero Cycles Ltd versus Union of India [2009 (6) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] answering the question that if the petitioner on account of an inadvertent error chose not to apply for the benefit, would that result in denial of the benefit, observed 'The fact that the petitioner has paid the duty under mistake of law and or in the instant case by oversight, cannot result in being assessed to duty, which was otherwise not payable.'
The appellant being 100% EOU unit is exempted from payment of safeguard duty as per section 8B(2A)of Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and the same cannot be made applicable by virtue of Notification, No. 1/2018 - Once the safeguard duty is not applicable, the issue that the goods have originated from Taiwan, a country which is not under the list of developing countries given exemption has no relevance, and the appellant cannot be non-suited on that account.
There are no merits in the impugned order and the same is hereby set aside - appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs revoking the registration of an Authorised Courier under the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 (CIER 2010).
2. Whether Regulation 13 of CIER 2010 and Section 129A of the Customs Act provide a statutory right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from orders passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs (or whether remedy lies only by representation to the Chief Commissioner/Principal Chief Commissioner).
3. Whether failure to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 13A/Regulation 13 of CIER 2010 (as contended by the appellant) affects the maintainability of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal where jurisdiction is otherwise absent.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against orders of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs revoking courier registration
Legal framework: Section 129A (Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal) of the Customs Act enumerates categories of orders appealable to the Appellate Tribunal, specifically referring to orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as adjudicating authorities, orders by Commissioner (Appeals), and certain historical provisions; it does not expressly include orders passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on an earlier decision of its Mumbai Bench (Express Handlings Worldwide v. Commissioner of Customs (CIER Airport), 2014) which held that CIER 2010 does not provide for an appeal to the Tribunal against certain orders and emphasized the statutory bounds of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the text of Section 129A and observed that the list of appealable authorities does not include the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal is a statutory creature and can exercise only such jurisdiction as conferred by statute; absence of express provision for appeals against orders passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner precludes the Tribunal from hearing such appeals. Regulation 13 of CIER 2010 was analyzed and read as creating an internal mechanism (representation to Chief Commissioner/Principal Chief Commissioner) rather than an external appellate route to the Tribunal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Appellate Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeals against orders of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs under the Customs Act and CIER 2010 where no statutory right of appeal is provided. This is the operative legal principle applied by the Court.
Conclusions: The appeal challenging the order of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs is non-maintainable and must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The appellant remains at liberty to pursue any other appropriate remedy available under law (e.g., writ jurisdiction or other statutory remedy), but not an appeal to this Tribunal.
Issue 2 - Interpretation of Regulation 13 (CIER 2010) concerning suspension/revocation procedure and available remedies
Legal framework: Regulation 13 (CIER 2010) authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to suspend or revoke registration of an Authorised Courier on specified grounds; it requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, permits suspension pending inquiry, and provides for representation to the Chief Commissioner of Customs against an order of the Commissioner.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal treated the Mumbai Bench decision as persuasive support for the interpretation that CIER 2010 contemplates internal administrative review (representation to Chief Commissioner) but does not create an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from orders disposed of at the Chief Commissioner/Principal Chief Commissioner level.
Interpretation and reasoning: Regulation 13(2) expressly permits the Authorised Courier or an authorised customs officer to represent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs against orders of the Commissioner of Customs. That provision contemplates disposal by the Chief Commissioner after hearing but does not provide for further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the Chief Commissioner's decision. The regulatory scheme thus distinguishes between the adjudicatory role of the Commissioner and the supervisory/review role of the Chief Commissioner, ending the internal remedy chain at the Chief Commissioner rather than enabling a statutory appeal to the Tribunal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Regulation 13 read with Section 129A demonstrates that the statutory/regulatory scheme does not furnish a route to the Appellate Tribunal from orders decided by the Chief/Principal Chief Commissioner under CIER 2010; this is decisive of maintainability.
Conclusions: The statutory/regulatory scheme affords representation to the Chief Commissioner but does not provide an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal from the Chief Commissioner's decision. Consequently, challenges to orders of the Principal Chief Commissioner cannot be sustained before the Tribunal as appeals.
Issue 3 - Procedural objection under Rule/Regulation 13A and its effect once jurisdiction is found wanting
Legal framework: The appellant contended that the show cause notice/suspension did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 13A/Regulation 13 of CIER 2010 (Notification No. 36/2010), which governs suspension/revocation and related procedural safeguards.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal noted the procedural objection but addressed the jurisdictional question first, following the principle that competence must be determined before consideration of merits or procedural irregularities.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that even if procedural non-compliance were alleged, such a contention cannot overcome the fundamental absence of jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner. Procedural infirmities in the administrative action are distinct from the Tribunal's competence to adjudicate an appeal; where no statutory appellate jurisdiction exists, procedural complaints must be pursued by such alternative remedies as are available (e.g., representation, writ petition), not by an appeal to the Tribunal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A procedural objection under CIER 2010 does not render an appeal maintainable where the statute and regulations do not confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Tribunal over decisions of the Principal Chief Commissioner.
Conclusions: The procedural objection was noted but rendered moot by the jurisdictional conclusion; the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable. The Court affirmed that the appellant may pursue any other appropriate remedy available in law to contest procedural irregularities or substantive issues, but not an appeal to this Tribunal from the Principal Chief Commissioner's order.
Cross-reference: The Court's conclusion as to non-maintainability (Issue 1) is dispositive and governs the treatment of the procedural challenge (Issue 3); see Regulation 13(2) and Section 129A analysis (Issue 2) for the statutory basis.
Maintainability of appeal - Suspension of customs courier license of the appellant - revocation of the license - SCN has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 13A of CIER 2010 as was incorporated vide Notification No. 36/2010 dated 05.05.2010 - HELD THAT:- The perusal of Section 129 of the Customs Act makes it abundantly clear that the provision does not talk about an order passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs. The orders appealable before the Tribunal have to be the orders either passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs; or passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Further, it is observed that the appellant is governed under CIER 2010. Those regulations have been issued under Notification No. 36/2010-Cus dated 05.05.2010.
The perusal makes it abundantly clear that there is no remedy provided even under CIER 2010 against the order passed by Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs in terms of Regulation 13.
These observations and the fact that the present Tribunal is the creature of the statute which has to function within the bounds of the statute, it is held that the appeal assailing the order of Principal Chief Commissioner is not maintainable before this Tribunal - support drawn from the decision of this Tribunal Mumbai Bench in the case of Express Handlings Worldwide vs. Commissioner of Customs (CIER Airport) Mumbai [2014 (2) TMI 116 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein, it was held that there is no provision for filing an appeal under CIER 2010 Regulation 14(1) merely talks about imposition of penalty on the authorized courier who contravenes any of the provisions of these regulations or who fails to comply with the same. However, there is no provision for filing the appeal. In view of the entire above discussion, the preliminary objection raised by the department is hereby accepted.
The present appeal is dismissed as being non-maintainable.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether testing of samples for a subset of the characteristics specified in the relevant Bureau of Indian Standards specification (7/8 out of 10 parameters under IS:1459:2018) is sufficient to classify the imported product as Kerosene rather than Base Oil for the purposes of Customs classification.
2. Whether, on the basis of such partial laboratory test results, the goods could be lawfully confiscated and penalties imposed under sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act.
3. Whether the decision relied upon by the adjudicating authorities that accepts partial-parameter testing as conclusive is supportable in view of higher court authority requiring compliance with all specified parameters.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Sufficiency of partial-parameter laboratory testing to classify the product under IS:1459:2018
Legal framework: The classification of the imported material depends on conformity to the Bureau of Indian Standards specification for Kerosene (IS:1459:2018), which prescribes 10 characteristic parameters to be satisfied. Scientific/laboratory determination of identity requires reference to these specified parameters.
Precedent Treatment: The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a High Court decision (as applied by a Tribunal in Rajkamal Industries) holding that testing of fewer parameters might suffice where independent laboratory reports point to the same conclusion. That approach was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court in Gastrade International, which held that all prescribed parameters must be tested and satisfied to conclusively identify the product.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the two government laboratory reports relied upon tested only 7 or 8 of the 10 required characteristics. Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Gastrade International, the Court held that partial testing against an established scientific specification introduces ambiguity and subjective appraisal that cannot substitute for compliance with the full set of parameters. The Court emphasized that the issue is the proper classification of an existing material based on clearly laid down scientific criteria and therefore requires testing of all prescribed characteristics to reach a definitive conclusion.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The pronouncement that partial testing (7/8 of 10 parameters) is insufficient to classify the product as Kerosene is treated as ratio in the present facts because the Court applied binding higher-court authority (Gastrade International) to determine the sufficiency of evidence required for scientific classification.
Conclusions: Testing only 7/8 out of 10 prescribed parameters is insufficient to hold that the imported product is Kerosene under IS:1459:2018; therefore the laboratory evidence on which the department relied did not conclusively establish the product's identity.
Issue 2 - Validity of confiscation and imposition of penalties under sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act based on partial testing
Legal framework: Confiscation and penalty proceedings under sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA require proof that the imported goods were mis-declared or not as declared; classification and identity of the goods are central to establishing liability for confiscation and penalties.
Precedent Treatment: The Court followed the Supreme Court's approach that where scientific specifications exist, the department must establish conformity to those specifications by testing all prescribed parameters; otherwise the exercise risks introducing subjective evaluation and shifting the onus unreasonably to the importer.
Interpretation and reasoning: Because the department's laboratory reports did not test all 10 characteristics required by IS:1459:2018, the Court held there was ambiguity and lack of clarity in the expert opinion. The Court reasoned that such incomplete testing cannot meet the standard necessary to prove mis-declaration for confiscation and penalty purposes, and it is unreasonable to expect the importer to rebut an inconclusive expert/departmental case.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that confiscation and penalties cannot be sustained where the foundational scientific evidence is incomplete is applied as the operative rule (ratio) in these appeals.
Conclusions: Confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties under sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA cannot be sustained on the basis of laboratory reports testing only 7/8 of the 10 specified parameters; consequentially, the measures based on such reports must be set aside.
Issue 3 - Applicability of higher-court authority and onus of proof where scientific specifications prescribe complete testing
Legal framework: Where IS specifications prescribe a set number of parameters to identify a product, those specifications form the determinative scientific criteria; adjudicatory authorities must assess compliance with the full specification rather than applying probabilistic or partial-parameter approaches.
Precedent Treatment (followed/distinguished): The Court rejected reliance on the earlier High Court/Tribunal approach that accepted partial-parameter testing as sufficient (Rajkamal approach) because that approach was expressly reversed by the Supreme Court in Gastrade International. The Court applied Gastrade's holding that partial testing is not a definitive basis for classification and that the department cannot shift an unreasonable burden to importers when the department had access to testing facilities.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that Gastrade International is directly on point and controls the present dispute. The Court found no factual distinction sufficient to take the present case outside the scope of Gastrade: both concern identification under IS specifications where only a subset of parameters were tested. The Court reiterated that scientific classification requires full compliance with prescribed parameters and that ambiguity in expert reports defeats the exercise of civil penalties and confiscation predicated on conclusive identity.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The application of Gastrade International to require testing of all prescribed parameters is treated as binding ratio for cases involving scientific standards specifying a set of characteristics for product identification; any contrary approach is not followed.
Conclusions: The binding precedent requiring complete parameter testing applies; partial-parameter reports relied upon by authorities do not shift the onus to the importer nor furnish a lawful basis for confiscation or penalties.
Final Disposition (consequential conclusion based on above issues)
Because the departmental case rested on laboratory reports that tested only 7/8 of the 10 characteristics required by IS:1459:2018, the product's identity as Kerosene was not conclusively established; accordingly, confiscation and penalties under sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA could not be sustained. The impugned portion of the order imposing penalties is set aside and the appeals are allowed to that extent.
Penalties u/s 112(a)(i) and section 114AA of the Customs Act - import of Base Oil from a foreign supplier - mis-declaration of goods - whether testing the sample for 7 or 8 characteristics out of 10 that have been specified by the Bureau of India Standards would be sufficient to hold that the product imported by the appellant is not Base oil but Kerosene? - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has placed reliance on the decision on the Gujarat High Court in Rajkamal Industries [2022 (2) TMI 264 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] to hold that testing of 7/8 parameters out of 10 is sufficient - the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Rajkamal Industries has been set-aside by the Supreme Court in Castrade International and it has held that all the characteristics have to be satisfied.
The contention of the learned authorized representative appearing for the department that the judgement of the Supreme Court Gastrade International [2025 (4) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] would not apply to the facts of the present case, cannot be accepted - the Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in Rajkamal Industries and it is this judgement that was reversed by the Supreme Court in Gastrade International.
In as much as only 7/8 out of 10 parameters were tested in the reports, on which reliance placed by the department, it cannot be said that the product imported by the appellant was Kerosene and not Base Oil - In this view of the matter, the goods could not have been confiscated, nor the penalties could have been imposed under sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether placing reliance on a previously issued Tribunal order that was subsequently recalled constitutes a "mistake apparent from the record" warranting rectification of the final order.
2. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider and decide the submission that Ship Ullage Measurement is irrelevant for assessing quantity unloaded in India, and whether reliance on a decision permitting assessment on ship ullage (and related administrative circular) was correctly applied.
3. Whether omission to give specific findings on points raised by the appellant (non-consideration of submissions) is a mistake apparent from the record requiring rectification.
4. Whether re-adjudication of 13 specified Bills of Entry is barred by res judicata, given prior final assessments and related supervisory actions affecting inclusion of demurrage charges.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Reliance on a Recalled Tribunal Order
Legal framework: Rectification of "mistake apparent from the record" permits recall or modification of a final order where the order contains obvious legal or factual error open on its face; reliance on binding precedent or earlier orders is permissible only if those orders remain effective and unrecalled.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal recognized that reliance upon a recalled order is not tenable; the recalled status removes the precedential value and renders reliance a legal error.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the chronological status of the earlier Tribunal order and its subsequent recall; because the earlier order had been recalled on grounds that it "suffered from mistakes apparent from the face of the record," continued reliance on it in a later order was an obvious error. The Tribunal treated reliance on a recalled order as a ground for rectification, observing that an order deprived of legal effect cannot properly underpin subsequent findings.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reliance on an order already recalled constitutes a mistake apparent from the record and justifies recall/rectification of the later order to the extent it depends on the recalled decision.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concurred that reliance on the recalled order was erroneous and allowed rectification to that extent.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Ship Ullage Measurement - Relevance and Application
Legal framework: Assessable quantity for imported goods must reflect the actual quantity unloaded and assessable value principles; administrative guidance (circulars) and judicial precedents interpreting methods of assessment are relevant. Principles against retrospective application of administrative circulars where not mandated by law were also noted.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered competing authorities - earlier decisions endorsing assessment on ship ullage quantity and decisions holding ullage measurement irrelevant - and administrative clarification (a later circular reiterating use of ullage). The Tribunal noted that some decisions relied upon in prior orders had been considered in subsequent case law, and that the circular formalized practice but did not necessarily operate retrospectively.
Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant argued that ship ullage measurement does not represent actual quantity unloaded in India and that the jurisprudence relied upon by the Bench did not mandate adoption of ullage measurement prior to administrative circularification. The Respondent contended the Mangalore-style authority permitting ullage assessment applied and that the circular merely reiterated existing practice. The Tribunal found that the appellant's submissions on ullage were considered but that express, issue-by-issue findings may not have been articulated in the order; consequently the Tribunal allowed partial recall to address such aspects. The Tribunal did not finally resolve the substantive question in the rectification order but acknowledged that reliance on a recalled order and possible non-articulation of findings warranted reopening for further consideration.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - the present order does not lay down a definitive rule on the substantive legal correctness of using ship ullage measurement; rather it records that the point was raised and that further consideration is warranted because of procedural shortcomings and reliance on a recalled order.
Conclusion: The Tribunal did not conclusively rule on the substantive validity of ship ullage measurement in assessment but recognized the need to revisit the point; rectification was allowed to the extent necessary to permit reconsideration.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Non-Consideration of Submissions as Mistake Apparent
Legal framework: Legal principle that failure to consider and decide a pleaded issue or material submission may amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record and justify rectification, provided the omission is clear and not a matter of arguable judgment; authorities establish that non-consideration can vitiate the order.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal acknowledged authorities holding that omission to deal with points raised, if demonstrable, can constitute mistake apparent requiring rectification; however, the applicability depends on whether issues were in fact considered judicially even if specific findings were not expressly recorded.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the record and found that the submissions were considered in substance though not every contention had a discrete, express finding. The Tribunal held that omission to include specific findings on each contention, where the issues were considered, can nonetheless be a ground for rectification to the limited extent of restoring the matter for fuller adjudication. The Tribunal exercised remedial power to recall the order to address lacunae rather than to declare the earlier order wholly invalid.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where material submissions were raised and may not have received explicit findings, the omission can justify rectification or recall to permit proper adjudication; the remedy is appropriate where the omission affects just decision-making.
Conclusion: The Tribunal found force in the contention that specific findings were missing, allowed the ROM application partly, and recalled the order to the extent necessary for reconsideration of those submissions.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Res Judicata and the 13 Bills of Entry
Legal framework: Res judicata bars re-litigation of matters that have been finally adjudicated between the same parties if the matter was directly and substantially in issue and determined by a competent forum; however, subsequent distinct proceedings or separate show cause notices addressing different chargeheads can affect the res judicata analysis.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal considered submissions and authorities on res judicata but assessed the factual matrix - whether the 13 Bills of Entry had been finally and conclusively dealt with on the specific point (inclusion of demurrage) or whether separate show cause notices and later administrative decisions left room for fresh adjudication.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Respondent pointed out that separate show cause notices had been issued alleging inclusion of demurrage and that proposals on demurrage were subsequently dropped by the departmental authority, after which assessments were finalized; on this factual basis, the Tribunal observed that res judicata did not automatically apply if the prior adjudication did not encompass the same contested issue or was affected by subsequent departmental action. The Tribunal further noted that the appellant had raised res judicata but full discussion had not occurred; consequently the Tribunal recalled its order to enable proper consideration of the res judicata plea in light of the factual and procedural history of the separate show cause notices and administrative decisions.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter/limited ratio - on the facts, the Tribunal did not hold res judicata inapplicable as a universal rule but indicated that, given separate SCNs and the departmental dropping of proposals, the bar of res judicata may not operate; the point requires fuller adjudication on recall.
Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the res judicata contention concerning the 13 Bills of Entry warranted reconsideration and recalled the order to permit determination of whether re-adjudication is barred in the specific circumstances.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The Tribunal allowed the rectification application partly, recalling the final order to the extent necessary to remove reliance on a recalled order, to permit explicit findings where submissions may not have been expressly recorded, and to reconsider the res judicata contention and issues concerning ship ullage measurement; no final substantive determinations on the merits of ship ullage assessment or res judicata were made in the rectification order and these matters were directed to be re-heard.
Rectification of mistake - error aapparent on the face of record or not - applicability of principles of res-judicata - HELD THAT:- The mistake is rightly been pointed out. Regarding 13 bills of entry, it is found that the learned Advocate had raised point on res judicata but further discussion was not made on that issue. Regarding non-consideration of various submissions made by the appellant, it is felt that the issue and submissions were considered but specific finding in respect of each issue may not have been included in the order.
There are force in the contention of the applicant and accordingly, allow the ROM application and recall the final order No. 10395-10446/2025 dated 3rd June, 2025 to the above extent.
Miscellaneous application partly allowed. Matter to come up on 26th August, 2025.
Issues: (i) whether the assessment of bulk liquid cargo imports had to be governed by the law and circulars in force on the date of import, and whether shore tank quantity was the relevant basis for assessment with tolerance limits requiring examination; (ii) whether the 13 bills of entry, said to have been separately dealt with earlier, were finally assessed so as to attract the bar of res judicata or otherwise preclude further finalization.
Issue (i): whether the assessment of bulk liquid cargo imports had to be governed by the law and circulars in force on the date of import, and whether shore tank quantity was the relevant basis for assessment with tolerance limits requiring examination.
Analysis: The governing principle applied was that import valuation must be decided by the law as it stood at the time of importation. The earlier and later circulars on bulk liquid cargo were examined alongside the Supreme Court's pronouncement that the quantity actually received in shore tanks is the decisive quantity for customs duty, while the earlier circular had relevance only for the then-existing valuation framework. The Tribunal further noted that the question of tolerance in bulk cargo imports is fact-sensitive and must be verified from records and applicable public notices or case law before a final conclusion can be reached.
Conclusion: The issue was remanded for fresh examination of the applicable law, circulars, quantity basis, and tolerance limits.
Issue (ii): whether the 13 bills of entry, said to have been separately dealt with earlier, were finally assessed so as to attract the bar of res judicata or otherwise preclude further finalization.
Analysis: The record did not clearly establish whether the 13 bills of entry had in fact been finally assessed pursuant to the earlier directions, or whether they remained part of provisional assessment requiring finalization. The Tribunal therefore found it necessary to verify the factual and procedural status of those entries before deciding whether any plea akin to res judicata or finality could be sustained under the Customs Act framework governing provisional assessment and its finalization.
Conclusion: The issue was remanded for verification of whether the 13 bills of entry had been separately and finally assessed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of obtaining a remand on the disputed questions, and the merits were left open for fresh adjudication in accordance with the applicable customs law and records.
Ratio Decidendi: In customs assessment of imported bulk cargo, the law applicable at the time of importation governs, and the factual basis for assessment, including quantity and tolerance issues, must be determined from the contemporaneous record before final adjudication.
Rectification of mistake - error apparent from the record or not - law of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs CCE [2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT] has been duly applied and considered along with CBEC Circular in the order directed to be rectified or not - finalization of bills of entry - applicability of res-judicata - HELD THAT:- It is found that the department’s reliance on the decision of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. vs CCE is with objective to indicate that it is the actual quantity imported into India and not the bill of lading quantity which shall be the decisive factor for assessment. For ease, the quantity actually received in tanks has been termed as shore tank quantity. It is also found that the Circular No. 6/2006 dated 12.01.2006 which was relied upon by the party was held contrary to law.
Circular No. 06/2006-Cus dated 12.01.2006 refers to shore tank quantity only for the purpose of assessment at the specific rate, while maintaining that for assessment on ad-valorem basis transaction value to be considered and custom duty will be leviable on invoice. The Circular thus clearly relied upon shore tank measurement method only when specific rate of duty was in operation. The decision in the case of CC vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited [2000 (7) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] decided that it is the quantity which has come into shore tanks that makes the import as a taxable event. This decision was holding the field till decision of Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (cited supra) ][came and held that irrespective of whether duty is ad-valorem or on specific rate it makes no difference for the instance of importation. It thus clearly rejects bill of lading quantity as the imported quantity and notes that when the goods are destroyed, pilfered or lost enroute, no duty is leviable.
It is found that in case of bulk liquid cargo, some tolerance as has been pointed out by various case law cited by the appellant is required to be considered as to prescription of such a limit for this type of commodity before coming to final conclusion for charging import duty. The claim of the party that it is within the tolerance limits needs to be examined by the learned Adjudicating Authority on the basis of records as made available by the appellant. Since the matter is already remanded to lower authority on the point of delay, we remand this issue as well.
On the second issue regarding 13 bills of entry which were separately assessed out of 52 bills of entries, initially provisionally assessed as certain documents were required from the party and sample testing was required to be done and final pricing was to be done, it is found that the separate show cause notices for including demurrage charges in the assessable value were also issued to the party which were eventually dropped in view of decision in the case of Mangalore Refinery and ordering that the assessment may be finalized. The department is not in appeal against this order. It is also not ascertainable from the available records as to whether consequent upon the above order(s) these provisional assessments were finally assessed or not as the direction as per the order was to finalize assessment, accordingly.
Plea of delayed finalization as raised by the party to be considered in the backdrop of the fact whether the same is or not considerably attributed to the party - Relevant laws and Circulars including those applicable to assessments on ad-valorem as on date of import to be applied, considering that in the instant case shore tank quantity is not available and decision of Mangalore Refinery is silent about ship ullage quantity - Alternate plea of benefit of 13 bills of entries to be allowed if on verification, it is found that these 13 bills of entries were separately assessed finally in compliance of orders of Deputy Commissioner issued in 2018.
Appeals allowed by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) granted under a specific notification issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 constitutes a "refund" within the meaning of Section 27 of the Customs Act so as to attract payment of interest under Section 27A for delayed refunds.
2. Whether a Board circular excluding payment of interest on refunds arising under the said notification (by stating that Section 27/27A do not apply) is valid and binding, or whether judicial decisions requiring application of Sections 27 and 27A control.
3. What is the appropriate remedy when there exists binding but stayed or pending higher court authority on the same question - specifically, whether the Tribunal should remand for fresh decision pending outcome of higher court proceedings and direct compliance with natural justice.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Applicability of Sections 27 and 27A to refunds under the Notification granting SAD exemption
Legal framework: Sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act deal respectively with refund of duties and payment of interest on delayed refunds. The notification in question (issued under section 25(1) of the Customs Act) prescribes a special procedure for refund of SAD and contains time limits for filing claims but contains no express provision excluding interest or specifically making Sections 27/27A inapplicable.
Precedent treatment: High Court decisions have considered whether interest under Section 27A is payable on refunds under the notification. A division of the High Court quashed the part of the Board circular which purported to deny interest (in a judgment favoring applicability of Sections 27/27A). A subsequent High Court order in a later matter observed that delayed payment of refund attracts interest under Section 27A, subject to the stay that existed in the earlier decision.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepts that the notification provides a special procedure to obtain exemption/refund but does not expressly exclude the statutory refund machinery (Sections 27/27A). The Tribunal places weight on High Court rulings that held paragraph(s) of the Board Circular (which sought to preclude interest) invalid insofar as they restricted interest claims. Absent clear legislative exclusion of Sections 27/27A from notification-born refunds, the statutory right to interest on delayed refunds remains engaged. The Tribunal notes that where the statute (Sections 27/27A) affords interest for delayed refunds, administrative instructions cannot curtail that statutory right.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The Tribunal's holding that Sections 27 and 27A are applicable to refunds under the notification - as supported by High Court decisions - is ratio when taken as the legal conclusion necessary to determine entitlement to interest. Observations about the character of the notification as a "special procedure" and the lack of an express exclusion are ancillary but relevant to that ratio.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concludes that, on the authorities considered, refunds under the notification can attract interest under Section 27A unless a higher court definitively rules otherwise. Accordingly entitlement to interest cannot be foreclosed solely by the absence of an express provision in the notification or by departmental circulars purporting to deny interest.
Issue 2: Validity and effect of Board Circular No. 6/2008 - whether it may lawfully deny interest on such refunds
Legal framework: Executive circulars and instructions are subject to the statute and judicial review; they cannot override or curtail statutory rights conferred by the Customs Act.
Precedent treatment: The High Court quashed the paragraph of the Board Circular that denied interest on refunds under the notification, holding that the circular could not restrict the statutory right to interest under Sections 27/27A. That judgment was subject to stay in an earlier case, but later High Court orders have continued to treat the issue as one where the circular cannot obliterate interest claims.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal notes that the circular's statement that "in the absence of specific provision for payment of interest... the payment of interest does not arise" was struck down by the High Court insofar as it sought to limit interest claims. The Tribunal reasons that departmental guidance cannot be read to exclude a clear statutory entitlement; hence the circular cannot be used as a valid basis for denying interest where Sections 27/27A apply.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The finding that the particular paragraph of the circular is not authoritative to deny statutory interest follows directly from the High Court ruling and forms part of the Tribunal's operative reasoning (ratio) in ordering reconsideration; broader observations on the role of administrative instructions are obiter but consistent with the ratio.
Conclusions: The Tribunal treats the circular's restrictive paragraph as invalid to the extent it bars interest; accordingly, reliance on that paragraph to refuse interest is not sustainable in light of the High Court decisions.
Issue 3: Effect of pending or stayed higher court decisions and appropriate remedial order - remand, observance of judicial discipline, and natural justice on reconsideration
Legal framework: Principles of judicial discipline require lower courts and tribunals to follow binding precedents of superior courts. Where a binding higher-court decision on the same subject is under stay or sub judice at a higher level, prudence may require remand or awaiting the higher court outcome. Administrative and adjudicatory proceedings must observe principles of natural justice when fresh decisions are to be taken.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on recent High Court decisions which had (a) quashed the circular paragraph and (b) in another matter directed remand awaiting a division-bench decision in the prior case. The Tribunal identifies that the decision in KSJ Metals Impex was stayed by a Division Bench and the stay has not been shown to be vacated nor has the Supreme Court decided the point.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reasons that, given competing High Court rulings and a stay in related proceedings, judicial discipline requires following the most recent High Court direction (to consider Sections 27/27A) while acknowledging the prospective authority of a Division Bench/Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the impugned appellate order and remands the matter to the original authority with directions: await the Division Bench/Supreme Court outcome or decide afresh in light of those authorities; afford the claimant a reasonable, time-bound opportunity to be heard; and pass a speaking order expeditiously.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The directive to remand for reconsideration in light of pending higher-court proceedings and to enforce natural justice is ratio in the context of disposing the present appeal. General comments on judicial discipline and procedural fairness are explanatory but supportive of the operative remand order.
Conclusions: The Tribunal orders remand to the original authority to pass fresh orders after considering the Division Bench/Supreme Court decisions on the applicability of Sections 27/27A to refunds under the notification. The remand must comply with principles of natural justice - hearing the party both orally and in writing - and be completed expeditiously. The Tribunal declines to grant a definitive ruling on interest pending resolution by higher appellate courts.
Refund of additional duty of customs under sec. 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - rejection of claim for interest on the delayed payment of refund - applicability of provisions of Section 27 or 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is found that the department’s view is that the refund is granted by virtue of N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 is a special procedure to grant SAD. While it contains a time limit for filing a claim for Additional Duty of Customs the notification has no provision to grant interest or to apply the provisions of Section 27 or 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is found that Boards Circular No. 6/2008- Customs dated 28.04.2008 was issued prescribing the procedure that may be adopted by the field formations to settle the refund claims arising out of the said exemption notification.
While considering a similar issue of refund as per N/N. 102 of 2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007, in M.M. ENTERPRISES Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-IV [2020 (1) TMI 384 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble Court held that 'If there is delay in payment of any refund claim, the 2nd respondent is duty bound to pay the interest in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act.'
Nothing has been brought to our notice to indicate that the stay granted by the Division Bench in KSJ Metals Impex [2013 (6) TMI 148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has been vacated and final order passed or that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the point of law involved. Hence judicial discipline requires that we follow the judgment passed in the case of M.M. ENTERPRISES and set aside the impugned order while remanding the matter to the Original Authority to pass fresh orders after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in KSJ Metals Impex or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the issue of the said order by the court, the Ld. Original Authority shall follow the principles of natural justice and afford a reasonable and time-bound opportunity to the appellant to state their case both orally and in writing if they wish, before issuing a speaking order on the matter.
Appeal disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Official Liquidator may disburse the available liquidation funds pro rata to creditors whose charges were not registered with the Registrar of Companies, under section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Whether the Court may order dissolution of a company in liquidation under section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 where the liquidator cannot proceed further for want of funds after partial distribution, and on what terms.
3. Whether the Court may permit payment of small professional fees from the company's liquidation account.
4. Whether recipients of provisional distributions must give undertakings to refund excess or future-adjusted payments and the scope of liberty to reopen or revive dissolution under section 559 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Authority to disburse available funds to creditors under section 530 where charges are unregistered
Legal framework: Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 governs claims in winding up where creditors' charges are not registered with the Registrar of Companies and treats such claims as ordinary unsecured debts in the liquidation.
Precedent treatment: No judicial precedents were cited in the report; the Court proceeded on statutory text and the Official Liquidator's adjudication by empaneled Chartered Accountants.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Official Liquidator received claims from creditors asserting sums due as on the winding up date. The adjudicator (CA) found the creditors' charges were not registered with the ROC and thus classified their claims under section 530. Available liquidation funds were limited (Rs. 31,92,269/- as on stated date with bank/FDR balances noted). The Official Liquidator proposed a pro rata distribution of the available corpus (Rs. 31,50,000/-) between the two claimants in the ratio determined by the adjudicated amounts up to the date of winding up, yielding the stated percentages and amounts. The Court accepted the Official Liquidator's statutory power to disburse as "full and final amount under section 530" subject to protective undertakings.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court's approval that where charges are unregistered and funds are insufficient, the Official Liquidator may disburse available funds pro rata under section 530, subject to undertakings to refund any excess if later adjustments occur. No broader obiter principles were propounded.
Conclusions: The Court authorized payment of specified pro rata amounts as full and final payments under section 530, conditional on undertakings to refund any subsequently discovered excess, thereby validating the Official Liquidator's proposed distribution mechanism in the circumstances.
Issue 2 - Dissolution under section 481 when winding up is complete or cannot proceed for want of funds
Legal framework: Section 481(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the Court to order dissolution when affairs have been completely wound up and the liquidator cannot proceed for want of funds or other reasons, if it is just and reasonable to do so.
Precedent treatment: The report does not cite case law; the Court applied the statutory test factually to the record of asset realization, claims adjudication, and residual funds.
Interpretation and reasoning: The record showed assets realized long prior, claims invited (with initial advertisement producing no timely claims), subsequent claims lodged and adjudicated, and only limited funds remaining for distribution. ROC provided NOC to dissolution; Income Tax Department had not responded to intimation. The Official Liquidator represented that no further material information was available. The Court found that after the proposed disbursements and compliance with protective undertakings, the liquidation process could not meaningfully continue and the statutory threshold for dissolution under section 481 was satisfied. The Court further preserved procedural safeguards by requiring undertakings and expressly retaining the mechanism under section 559 to void dissolution within two years on application if required in the interests of justice.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the affairs have been wound up and insufficient assets remain to continue liquidation, the Court may dissolve the company under section 481 after ensuring distributions and protective conditions are met; the dissolution may be subject to revival under section 559. Obiter - Observations on prior advertisement and administrative communications (ROC/Income Tax) are factual and not elevated to general legal propositions.
Conclusions: The Court ordered dissolution under section 481 to take effect upon completion of directed disbursements and filings, discharged the Official Liquidator, and preserved the right to apply under section 559 to void the dissolution within statutory time if exigencies arise.
Issue 3 - Payment of professional fees from liquidation funds
Legal framework: Liquidators may pay reasonable liquidation expenses, including professional fees, from the company's funds as part of winding up administration.
Precedent treatment: No cases were cited; the Court addressed the matter on reasonableness and administrative need.
Interpretation and reasoning: A modest professional fee (Rs. 1,500/-) for preparation of the auditor's certificate was claimed and supported by an invoice. Given the necessity of the certificate for verifying balances and enabling distribution, the Court permitted payment from the company's liquidation account.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court affirmed that reasonable professional fees necessary for completion of liquidation formalities may be paid from available liquidation funds. Obiter - The Court did not lay down limits or criteria beyond the reasonableness of the specific fee allowed.
Conclusions: Payment of the specified professional fee from liquidation funds was authorized.
Issue 4 - Undertakings, protective conditions, and liberty to revive or review
Legal framework: The winding up provisions permit the Court to impose terms when authorizing distributions and dissolution; section 559 permits voiding a dissolution within two years on appropriate application.
Precedent treatment: No specific precedents relied upon; the Court imposed undertakings as prudent protective conditions.
Interpretation and reasoning: To safeguard against later-discovered superior claims or misadjudication, the Court required recipients of distribution to file undertakings to refund whole or part of amounts if ordered subsequently. The Court also reserved liberty to parties to revive applications or seek review in case of difficulty and pointed to section 559 as the statutory remedy to declare dissolution void within two years if needed. The Court clarified that any residual ancillary amounts discovered later should be transferred to the Official Liquidator's common pool.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Conditional distributions subject to undertakings and the availability of section 559 relief are valid mechanisms to balance finality of dissolution with protection against future adjustments. Obiter - The Court's administrative directions about transfer to common pool are pragmatic statements tailored to the record.
Conclusions: Granting conditional distributions with mandatory undertakings and preserving statutory revival/review mechanisms was upheld as appropriate; the Court set procedures for compliance and future remediation.
Request for disbursement of available liquidation funds - dissolution of a company in liquidation under section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The Official Liquidator is permitted to pay an amount of Rs. 13,99,230/- in favour of Gujarat State Finance Corporation and also Rs. 17,50,770/- in favour of Integrated Finance Company Ltd. through RTGS mode as full and final amount under section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Upon the respondents filing an undertaking and the Official Liquidator transferring the amounts as above to the respondents, the M/s. Purvi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. is directed to be dissolved under Section 481 of Companies Act, 1956 and the Official Liquidator attached to this Court stands discharged and is relieved as liquidation of M/s. Purvi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation).
The report is allowed and disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the purchasers who acquired land by registered sale deeds executed after commencement of winding up acquired valid title against the Company, or whether such dispositions are void under the Companies Act.
2. Whether registered general powers of attorney executed by original land owners in favour of the Company's agents/employees, together with parent documents and receipts evidencing payment of consideration, establish ownership of the lands in the Company.
3. Whether the exception recognized for bona fide transactions effected by way of power of attorney (as articulated in Suraj Lamp & Industries line of authority and affirmed in Ghanshyam) applies to validate the post-winding conveyances relied upon by the applicants.
4. Whether the auction sale conducted by the Official/Provisional Liquidator is liable to be set aside insofar as it covers parcels for which rival claimants assert title.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of dispositions executed after commencement of winding up (Companies Act provision)
Legal framework: Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956: any disposition of the assets of a company after commencement of winding up is void unless validated by the Court. The power of validation is to protect the interest of the Company and to validate post-commencement transactions undertaken in the Company's interest.
Precedent treatment: The Court applied the statutory rule directly; no precedent conflicting with the statutory bar was treated as overruling this rule in the facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: The disposals relied upon by the applicants (sale deeds dated 2006-2021, principally 2019) were executed well after commencement of winding up (circa 24.02.1998). In the absence of antecedent parent documents or evidence showing bona fide pre-commencement rights in the chain of title, such dispositions are adverse to the Company's interest and do not deserve validation. The Court therefore concluded these post-commencement conveyances are void as against the Company.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where land forming part of company's assets is disposed of after commencement of winding up, such disposition is void unless validated; lacking antecedent bona fide title, later conveyances cannot be validated.
Conclusion: Dispositions in favour of the applicants executed after commencement of winding up are void against the Company and revenue mutations based on such dispositions are also void.
Issue 2 - Sufficiency of registered general powers of attorney, parent documents and receipts to establish Company ownership
Legal framework: Evidentiary weight of registered powers of attorney, parent title documents and receipts; principle that proof of parent documents and payments coupled with custody of originals supports ownership claim.
Precedent treatment: The analysis does not overrule authorities but applies established principles regarding documentary proof and possession of originals to infer ownership.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Administrator produced original registered general powers of attorney executed in 1996-1998 in favour of specific agents/ex-employees, parent documents evidencing title in original owners, receipts showing payment of consideration to original owners, and employment records establishing agency/employment relationship of the agents. The custody of original powers and parent documents with the Company, together with receipts, leads to the only reasonable inference that the lands were Company property and that the original owners had executed powers of attorney (coupled with interest) relinquishing direct power to convey. Where antecedent documents supporting Company's title exist and are in its custody, later sale deeds by third parties lack good title.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a combination of registered powers of attorney in the Company's custody, parent title documents, receipts for consideration and evidence of agency suffice to establish that the property is that of the Company for the purposes of contesting later transfers.
Conclusion: The Company has established ownership over the subject lands by documentary evidence; applicants' title claims that do not contradict or displace these antecedent documents fail.
Issue 3 - Applicability of exception for bona fide GPA/SA transactions (Suraj Lamps and Ghanshyam)
Legal framework: The exception recognized in Suraj Lamps I & II permits recognition of genuine transactions effected by power of attorney or agreement where bona fides and regulatory/administrative acceptance exist; Ghanshyam affirms Suraj Lamps' ratio.
Precedent treatment: The Court followed and applied the Suraj Lamps principle and the subsequent affirmation in Ghanshyam, while emphasizing its limited scope to bona fide/genuine transactions and subject to surrounding facts.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that powers of attorney and SA/GPA transactions can be valid in genuine cases. However, here the purported transfers in 2019 (and later) were executed after winding up and lacked antecedent documentary basis in favour of predecessors-in-title prior to the winding up. Where the Company holds original GPAs, parent documents and receipts establishing prior disposals to agents, the later GPA-based protections invoked by purchasers do not assist them. The Suraj Lamps exception cannot be used to validate post-commencement dispositions adverse to the Company absent evidence of bona fide pre-commencement title and appropriate validation.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Suraj Lamps exception does not operate to validate post-winding disposals that are shown to be adverse to the Company and lacking antecedent bona fide title; the exception is confined to genuine transactions and acts accepted/acted upon by authorities.
Conclusion: The GPA/SA exception does not validate the applicants' post-winding transfers; Suraj Lamps/Ghanshyam do not assist applicants on these facts.
Issue 4 - Entitlement to set aside auction sale and direction as to revenue mutation
Legal framework: Court's power to declare void dispositions and to direct rectification of revenue records in accordance with findings on title and Companies Act consequences.
Precedent treatment: The Court invoked statutory scheme and equitable powers to protect company assets and to direct corrective measures; no conflicting precedent was applied to permit maintaining of post-commencement dispositions here.
Interpretation and reasoning: Because the lands in question are established to be Company property and the conveyances in favour of the applicants were effected post-commencement and are void, the sale deeds relied upon by the applicants are void and the mutation of revenue records based on those deeds is likewise void. Accordingly, the auction sale insofar as it deals with those parcels is not to be set aside in favour of the purchasers, and the Official Liquidator is directed to take measures to mutate title and revenue records consistent with the declaration.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where decree and evidence establish that lands are Company assets and subsequent transfers are void, the Court will declare such transfers and consequent revenue mutations void and direct restoration of records; no costs awarded.
Conclusion: The rival claimants' applications fail; the Court dismissed the applications, declared the sale deeds in their favour void, declared consequent revenue mutations void, and directed the Official Liquidator to effect necessary mutation of title and revenue records. No order as to costs.
Acquistion of land by registered sale deeds executed after commencement of winding up acquired valid title against the Company - failure to produce any evidence of revocation of the registered powers of attorney in favour of the ex-employees of the Company - HELD THAT:- The execution of registered powers of attorney in favour of ex-employees of the Company; the availability of receipts evidencing payment of consideration for the purchase of significant proportion of the lands claimed by K. Singili; and the custody of both original powers of attorney and parent documents being with the Company, the only reasonable conclusion that follows is that the Company has established ownership over these lands.
In Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2011 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT], while holding that title to immovable property should be conveyed by a registered sale deed, the Supreme Court carved out an exception for genuine transactions by way of a power of attorney, including in favour of a developer.
Once it is concluded that the relevant immovable property is that of the Company, Section 536 of the Companies Act, 1956 is triggered. As per sub-section (2) thereof, any disposition of the assets of the Company, after the commencement of winding up is void unless validated by the Court. The power of validation is intended to validate transactions which were undertaken after commencement of winding up in the interest of the Company - the applicant has set up a claim which is adverse and inimical to the interest of the Company. Hence, no case is made out to validate the dispositions in favour of the applicant. Consequently, the documents of conveyance and the revenue records on which the applicant relies are void against the Company.
There is reasonable evidence to conclude that these lands appear to be lands of the Company. In addition, as stated above, the applicant/K. Karuppaiah has failed to produce any documents prior to the year 2019. Since all the documents on which the applicant relies were executed more than two decades after the commencement of winding up, these dispositions are void unless validated.
All these applications are dismissed by declaring that the sale deeds in favour of the respective applicants are void. As a corollary, the mutation of revenue records on such basis is also void.
Application dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether Regulation 41(3) of the SECC Regulations, 2012 and Regulation 38(2) of the SECC Regulations, 2018 apply to activities undertaken by subsidiaries or joint ventures of a recognised stock exchange so as to attribute those activities as violations by the recognised stock exchange itself.
2. Whether investments or activities undertaken by subsidiaries/joint ventures without a board resolution or express authorization by the recognised stock exchange fall within the prohibition on engaging in activities "unrelated or not incidental" to the stock exchange's business, thereby attracting penalties under the SECC Regulations.
3. Whether penal provisions in the SECC Regulations should be strictly construed against the regulator when the statutory text does not expressly attribute subsidiary conduct to the parent recognised stock exchange.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of Regulation 41(3) (2012) and Regulation 38(2) (2018) to subsidiaries/joint ventures
Legal framework: Regulation 41(3) (2012) prohibits a recognised stock exchange from engaging in activities that are unrelated or not incidental to its activity as a stock exchange except through a separate legal entity and as permitted by the Board. Regulation 38(2) (2018) prohibits a recognised stock exchange from carrying on any activity whether involving deployment of funds or otherwise without prior approval of the Board, with provisos permitting treasury investments per board-approved policy and permitting unrelated activities only through a separate legal entity subject to Board approval.
Precedent treatment: Reliance was placed on a prior decision of this Tribunal dealing with similar issues. The Tribunal considered that precedent in support of the contention that the provisions are not intended to regulate the independent business of subsidiaries absent attribution to the parent.
Interpretation and reasoning: On a plain reading, both provisions prohibit a "recognised Stock Exchange" from engaging in unrelated activities except through a separate legal entity with Board/SEBI approval. The Tribunal found no textual basis in either provision to treat activities of a subsidiary or joint venture as the direct activities of the recognised stock exchange when the investment/ activity was undertaken by the subsidiary itself. The record lacked any material (for example, a board resolution) showing that the recognised stock exchange authorised or directly undertook the impugned investments. The object to "ring-fence" the exchange does not, on the facts, convert independent subsidiary investments into actions of the parent without supporting material showing control/authorization sufficient for attribution.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The statutory text does not, by plain language, extend the prohibition to activities independently undertaken by subsidiaries/joint ventures unless the recognised stock exchange itself engaged in or authorised those activities; thus the parent cannot be held liable under these provisions on the facts where subsidiaries independently made investments and no board authorisation by the exchange is shown. Obiter - Observations on policy (ring-fencing rationale) were noted but held insufficient to displace the statutory interpretation.
Conclusions: Regulation 41(3) (2012) and Regulation 38(2) (2018) do not, on their face, apply to activities carried out by subsidiaries or joint ventures absent material showing attribution (such as a board resolution or direct engagement by the recognised stock exchange). Consequently, the provisions were held inapplicable on the facts.
Issue 2 - Attribution, authorization and evidentiary requirement to impose penalties
Legal framework: SECC Regulations impose prohibition and contemplate penal consequences for violations. General principle of statutory interpretation requires penal provisions to be construed strictly. Attribution of acts of separate legal entities to a parent ordinarily requires evidence of control, authorization, or other indicia justifying such attribution.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on settled principles regarding strict reading of penal provisions and on prior Tribunal authority addressing similar questions of attribution and applicability.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned order penalised the recognised stock exchange for investments in three entities made by its subsidiaries. There was no material on record demonstrating that the exchange's board had authorised those investments or that the recognised exchange itself carried out the activities. Given the absence of documentary evidence of authorization, and given the need to construe penal provisions strictly, the Tribunal held that the AO could not validly attribute the subsidiaries' activities to the recognised stock exchange for the purpose of imposing penalties under the cited Regulations.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalties under the SECC Regulations cannot be imposed on a recognised stock exchange for activities undertaken by its subsidiaries unless there is material establishing that the exchange itself engaged in, authorised, or should be attributed with those activities. Obiter - The Tribunal acknowledged the regulatory objective of ring-fencing but treated it as insufficient, in isolation, to override the textual and evidentiary requirements for imposing penalties.
Conclusions: In the absence of any board resolution or other material showing that the recognised stock exchange authorised or directly undertook the investments/activities, the adjudicating authority's imposition of penalty on the recognised stock exchange was unsustainable.
Issue 3 - Temporal argument regarding investments made prior to the 2012 Regulations
Legal framework: The appellant contended that certain investments were made prior to the promulgation of the 2012 Regulations and therefore not subject to those Regulations.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal noted the contention and the reliance placed on prior authority but resolution of the appeal did not require a detailed determination of the temporal argument because the primary legal defect in the AO's order was attribution to the parent absent evidence.
Interpretation and reasoning: Although raised, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal on the ground that the statutory provisions do not, on their face, attribute subsidiary acts to the recognised stock exchange and that no evidence of authorisation existed. The absence of such evidentiary foundation made it unnecessary to adjudicate the temporal applicability point conclusively.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - The temporal argument was noted but was not essential to the Tribunal's decision; the Tribunal resolved the matter on attribution and evidentiary grounds.
Conclusions: The Tribunal did not decide, as a necessary basis for the judgment, whether investments made prior to the 2012 Regulations were immune; instead the order was set aside because the AO failed to show that the recognised stock exchange (and not only its subsidiaries) engaged in the impugned activities.
Cross-references and final disposition
Cross-reference: Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked - statutory interpretation (Issue 1) controls the attribution/evidentiary requirement for imposing penalties (Issue 2); the Tribunal's ruling on attribution renders the AO's penalty unsustainable regardless of the regulatory purpose invoked by the regulator.
Final conclusion: The AO's order imposing a monetary penalty for alleged violations of Regulation 41(3) (2012) and Regulation 38(2) (2018) was set aside because the prohibitions do not, by plain language or on the record, extend to independent investments by subsidiaries in the absence of material demonstrating that the recognised stock exchange itself authorised or engaged in the impugned activities; penal provisions were read strictly and no costs were imposed.
Applicability of Section 38(2) of the SECC Regulations (Securities Contracts (Regulation) (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations, 2012), 2018 read with Regulation 41(3) of SECC Regulation, 2012 - BTPIL and BIL came into existence prior to 2012 Regulations coming into force -Imposition of penalty - BSE Ltd. engaged in unrelated activities without the prior approval of SEBI - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that the subsidiaries of BSE have made investments and not the BSE. We may record that SEBI has not placed on record any material such as a resolution passed by the BSE's Board to invest/acquire stake in the said three entities or authorizing the subsidiaries to acquire their stakes.
It is settled that penal provisions must be read strictly. Both 2012 and 2018 Regulation do not even remotely suggest that activities of any subsidiary can be attributed as violation committed by its principal, the BSE in this case.
There is no material on record such as BSE‟s board resolution authorizing the investment. Therefore, Regulation 43(1) of 2012 Regulations and Regulation 38(2) of the 2018 Regulations have no application.
Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the transactions effectuating the implementation of a resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - specifically issuance of fresh equity and extinguishment of prior shareholding pursuant to a court-approved resolution plan and settlement - constitute "Change in Shareholding" or "Change in Constitution" under the Unified Policy, 2025, thereby attracting the Unified Policy charges (CIS/CIC).
2. Whether the Unified Policy, 2025 (Clauses 16 and 17) permitting levy of "Change in Shareholding"/"Change in Constitution" charges is ultra vires the Constitution or suffers from excessive delegation to the extent it allows the Authority to levy such charges in the context of court-mandated/IBC-driven transfers.
3. Whether interim relief in the form of restraint on coercive action by the Authority is appropriate pending adjudication of the writ petition, having regard to the petitioner's undertaking to deposit fifty percent of the demand and the need to preserve the viability/sanctity of the approved resolution plan.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Applicability of CIS/CIC charges to implementation of an IBC Section 31 approved resolution plan
Legal framework: The question arises at the intersection of (a) statutory compulsion and effect of a resolution plan approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (which contemplates implementation steps such as issuance of equity and change of management/shareholding), and (b) municipal policy provisions in the Unified Policy, 2025 defining "Change in Shareholding" and "Change in Constitution" and prescribing associated charges (CIS/CIC).
Precedent treatment: The judgment record contains no specific judicial precedents cited for categorical treatment of IBC-mandated reorganizations vis-à-vis municipal policy charges; the Court considered the statutory character of the resolution plan and practical consequences without invoking or distinguishing authoritative precedent.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the factual matrix that the issuance of fresh equity and extinguishment of prior shareholding arose from an approved resolution plan under Section 31 IBC and related settlement recorded before the appellate forum. The Court observed that the transactions were involuntary/mandatory pursuant to the Plan Approval Order and subsequent consent order and implemented to give effect to a statutory/process-driven restructuring. The Court treated this characterisation as central to the petitioner's contention that these transactions do not fall within the normative ambit of the Unified Policy definitions (which contemplate voluntary commercial transfers/change of constitution) or, at least, that their treatment under the Policy required careful adjudication before allowing coercive enforcement.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's interim order does not finally decide the legal question of whether the implementation transactions categorically do or do not constitute CIS/CIC under the Unified Policy; rather, it recognized a prima facie case that IBC-mandated/consensual restructuring may be distinguishable from ordinary commercial share transfers for the purpose of the Policy. This observation is indicative of the Court's approach (prima facie reasoning) and is therefore obiter to the extent it falls short of an authoritative determination; any definitive holding on applicability is reserved for final adjudication.
Conclusion: The Court did not conclusively rule on applicability but treated the petitioner's submissions as raising a serious and arguable question that warrants full adjudication. On the interim record the Court found a prima facie case to protect the implementation of the resolution plan from immediate coercive action predicated on CIS/CIC demand, subject to safeguards (deposit undertaking), so that implementation and statutory timelines under the resolution plan are not jeopardized.
Issue 2 - Vires and excessive delegation challenge to Clauses 16 and 17 of the Unified Policy, 2025
Legal framework: The constitutional challenge targets the vires of policy clauses allowing the Authority to levy CIS/CIC charges, alleging constitutional invalidity and/or impermissible delegation of taxing/charging power without adequate standards.
Precedent treatment: The Court did not cite or apply settled Supreme Court or High Court precedents on vires/excessive delegation in taxation/charging contexts within the interim order; the challenge was preserved for detailed consideration upon filing of counter affidavits and final hearing.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the petitioner's plea that Clauses 16 and 17 are ultra vires or suffer from excessive delegation insofar as they permit levy of charges on transactions compelled by statute/court order. However, the order does not undertake a detailed constitutional analysis; instead, it directed the Authority to file responses and treated the challenge as part of the substantive controversy to be determined on merits. The Court's interim view was limited to safeguarding the implementation of the resolution plan during adjudication, not to pronouncing on vires.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Any observations about potential ultra vires or excessive delegation are provisional and obiter in the interim context. There is no final ratio on constitutional validity in the order.
Conclusion: The constitutional challenge remains open for final adjudication. The Court's order preserves the petitioner's challenge by restraining coercive measures pending fuller hearing; it does not invalidate Clauses 16 and 17 at this stage.
Issue 3 - Appropriateness of interim relief (standards applied and relief granted)
Legal framework: Interim relief in public law writs is guided by the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm; courts may impose conditions (security/undertakings) to protect respondents' legitimate interests while preserving the status quo to prevent frustration of rights or statutory schemes.
Precedent treatment: The Court applied conventional interim relief principles and did not rely on any novel or distinguishing precedent; it required the respondents to file counter-affidavits and permitted rejoinder, preserving full adjudicatory process.
Interpretation and reasoning: On the material presented, the Court found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner because (a) the transactions in question flowed from a court-approved resolution plan under IBC and a recorded settlement, (b) coercive enforcement of the CIS/CIC demand risked materially impairing implementation of the resolution plan within the limited construction period, and (c) the petitioner offered a concrete and immediate undertaking to deposit fifty percent of the demanded charge and to continue payments under the resolution plan schedule. Balancing the competing interests, the Court considered that an interim restraint on coercive action, conditioned on the deposit and continued compliance with the repayment schedule, would preserve the parties' positions and the viability of the plan without irreparably prejudicing the Authority.
Ratio vs. Obiter: The procedural and equitable approach constitutes the operative decision (ratio) on interim relief in this matter: the Court granted interim protection subject to specified conditions. Ancillary remarks about the merits and policy interpretation remain provisional (obiter) pending final hearing.
Conclusion: Interim relief was granted: respondents were restrained from taking coercive action pursuant to the impugned letter/resolution provided (a) fifty percent of the demanded amount is deposited by the petitioner within one week in accordance with its undertaking, and (b) the petitioner continues payments as per the existing repayment schedule. The Court also ordered time-bound pleadings (three weeks for counter, one week for rejoinder) and directed that necessary permissions for project commencement be accorded once the deposit is made, thereby protecting implementation while preserving adjudication of the substantive legal issues.
Cross-references and procedural directions
1. The Court's interim order ties directly to Issue 1 and Issue 3: the provisional finding of a prima facie case on the applicability issue underpinned the grant of interim relief subject to the deposit undertaking.
2. The vires challenge to Clauses 16 and 17 (Issue 2) was retained for final adjudication; respondents were directed to file detailed replies within the stipulated time and the matter to be listed thereafter for further hearing.
Interim protection - deposit as condition for interim relief - stay of coercive action - implementation of resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - change in shareholding/change in constitution charges
Interim protection - deposit as condition for interim relief - stay of coercive action - Grant of interim relief restraining coercive action by the Authority subject to conditions - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the petitioner's challenge to the Authority's letter and board resolution levying "Change in Shareholder"/"Change in Constitution" charges in relation to the implementation of an approved resolution plan under the IBC. On the material placed and the affidavit of undertaking, the Court found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and exercised its discretion to grant interim protection. The protection is conditional: the petitioner must deposit 50% of the demanded amount within one week as per its undertaking; in that event, no coercive action pursuant to the impugned letter/resolution shall be taken against the petitioner. The Court also directed that, following compliance with the deposit condition, necessary permissions required from the Authority to commence the project may be accorded, while emphasising that the petitioner must continue making payments as per the repayment schedule under the resolution plan. Procedural directions were given for filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits within stipulated timelines to enable further adjudication on merits. [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14]
Interim protection granted: on deposit of 50% of the demanded amount within one week (as per the petitioner's undertaking) no coercive action shall be taken; thereafter the Authority shall accord necessary permissions to enable the petitioner to commence the project; petitioner to continue payments as per the repayment schedule; respondents to file counter within three weeks and petitioner to file rejoinder within one week thereafter.
Final Conclusion: The Court granted conditional interim relief restraining coercive action by the Authority provided the petitioner deposits 50% of the demanded amount within one week; procedural timelines were directed for filing of counter and rejoinder affidavits and the petitioner was permitted to obtain necessary permissions to commence the project while continuing payments under the resolution plan.
Issues: Whether the delay of 176 days in refiling the appeal against proceedings under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 should be condoned and the appeal restored.
Analysis: The appeal arose from dismissal of the company appeal by the appellate tribunal on the ground of delayed refiling. Although the impugned order was found difficult to fault, the Court granted relief in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and preserved the costs already imposed by the forums below as well as the additional costs imposed by the Court.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to its original number for proceedings in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained procedural relief enabling the challenge to the Section 9 proceedings to be heard on merits, subject to payment of costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Delay in refiling may be condoned and an appeal restored in the peculiar facts of a case notwithstanding adverse findings on conduct, where the Court considers it just to afford one opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits.
Initiation of proceedings u/s 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - dismissal on the ground that there was a delay of 176 days in refiling the appeal - HELD THAT:- It is required to give one opportunity to the appellant to prefer appeal against the Section 9 proceedings.
Without saying anything further and maintaining the two orders of costs, one imposed by the NCLT, another by NCLAT and further imposition of costs at end of Rs.5 lakh, the impugned order passed by the NCLAT is set aside and the delay of 176 days in refiling the appeal is condoned and is restored to its original number on the file and proceed further in accordance with law.
Appeal disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether a default under Section 7 of the I&B Code is established where a real estate corporate debtor has not handed over possession within the contractual timeframe, despite contractual clauses making possession subject to receipt of an Occupation/Completion Certificate, force majeure, intervention of statutory authorities and timely payment by allottees.
2. Whether alleged payment defaults by some of the allottees who joined the Section 7 application defeat the admission of a Section 7 petition when other applicants have paid substantially or in full.
3. Whether a short period of halted construction (89 days) falling within orders of statutory/quasi-judicial authorities attracts the prohibition under Section 10A and bars adjudication on the Section 7 application.
4. Whether the appellate forum should direct or permit a reverse insolvency mechanism (permit promoters/ex-management to complete the project under supervision) instead of admitting CIRP where there are competing settlement/resolution proposals by promoters and a subset of homebuyers in favour of promoter-led completion.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Existence of default despite clause conditioning possession on Occupation Certificate and other contingencies
Legal framework: Admission under Section 7 requires existence of a financial debt/default. Flat Buyer's Agreements set contractual timelines; I&B Code governs insolvency commencement; completion/possession and issue of Occupation/Completion Certificate are regulatory processes under municipal/DTCP/urban planning laws.
Precedent treatment: The Court relied on principles articulated in governing case-law that default in non-handover of possession by a real estate corporate debtor constitutes continuing default warranting Section 7 action. The decision differentiated reliance placed by the corporate debtor on an authority decision earlier cited (Ireo Grace) as pertaining to consumer law and deficiency of service, not directly displacing I&B Code analysis.
Interpretation and reasoning: Clauses 3.1 and 3.5 were read harmoniously. Both clauses condition the 48-month possession timeline on limited contingencies; when read together the temporal obligation (48 months) is subject primarily to force majeure and timely payments by allottees. The Court rejected the contention that absence of an Occupation Certificate by itself indefinitely suspends the developer's obligation to tender possession, reasoning that an obligation to obtain the Occupation Certificate presupposes completion of construction - the promoter cannot parry its contractual timeline by relying on a precondition it has failed to fulfil through inaction. The Court noted the corporate debtor's own affidavit admitting only two towers complete and projecting completion dates extending beyond the contractual period, demonstrating continuing default.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a developer fails to complete construction such that obtaining an Occupation/Completion Certificate is contingent on the developer's own completion, the contractual condition (receipt of OC) cannot be used to indefinitely postpone possession and negate default for purposes of Section 7. Obiter - Observations on how clause wording would operate in other factual configurations involving substantial demonstrated force majeure or statutory interventions of longer duration.
Conclusion: The Court held that default existed; the corporate debtor could not shelter behind non-receipt of Occupation Certificate when completion itself remained incomplete and possession was not offered within the contractual period.
Issue 2 - Effect of some applicants' payment defaults on maintainability of Section 7 filed by a group of allottees
Legal framework: Section 7 and its Explanation as amended for real estate projects permits applications by a requisite number of allottees; admission thresholds and the in rem nature of insolvency proceedings; established principle that default need not be shown qua each applicant.
Precedent treatment: The Court followed and applied the authoritative ratio that a Section 7 application by allottees need not establish default in favour of each applicant - a default affecting the corporate debtor in an aggregate sum suffices and any allottee who is a financial creditor can initiate Section 7 even if some co-applicants have unpaid dues (as explained in Manish Kumar jurisprudence cited).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejected the appellant's attempt to defeat the petition by pointing to alleged instalment defaults of some applicants. It observed that a subset of applicants having paid full or substantial consideration and asserting non-handover of possession can sustain a Section 7 petition. The contractual requirement of timely payments is relevant to the individual allottee's entitlement but does not negate the Section 7 filing where defaults by the corporate debtor are established as to other applicants or collectively.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Payment defaults by some co-applicants do not per se invalidate a Section 7 application brought by the required number of allottees when other applicants demonstrate default or when default in aggregate exists. Obiter - Practical caution regarding potential misuse where applicants who have not paid deliberate to trigger insolvency.
Conclusion: The Court held that alleged defaults by certain allottees did not preclude admission of the Section 7 petition; the petitioners met the statutory threshold and demonstrated continuing default by the corporate debtor.
Issue 3 - Applicability of Section 10A prohibition due to an intervening 89-day halt in construction
Legal framework: Section 10A (prohibition period) prevents initiation of certain insolvency actions during the prescribed moratorium/prohibition period, subject to exceptions and factual determinations whether the period is attracted.
Precedent treatment: The Court examined the claim that the 89-day halt, being under orders of statutory bodies and courts, should render the conduct within the prohibited period; however, the Court considered the overall continuing default beyond that limited intervention.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that an 89-day halt due to orders exists but treated such period as falling within the class of "intervention of statutory authorities" or limited force majeure; however, even if that period were excluded, the corporate debtor's admitted status (large portions incomplete, significant outstanding construction beyond dates indicated) demonstrated continuing default extending well beyond the halted period and, in any event, the Section 7 petition filed thereafter remained maintainable. The Court also noted that even allowing the 89-day period does not obviate the continuing nature of default.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Short statutory/intervening halts do not automatically render Section 7 barred if default is continuing and persists beyond the intervening period. Obiter - Specific interplay of Section 10A with varying durations of statutory intervention depending on factual matrix.
Conclusion: The Section 10A prohibition did not preclude adjudication of the Section 7 application on the facts; the short halt did not cure or explain away ongoing non-completion/default.
Issue 4 - Appropriateness of directing reverse insolvency (promoter-led completion) instead of CIRP
Legal framework: I&B Code/CIRP mechanism contemplates insolvency resolution through a resolution professional and CoC; reverse insolvency/permit-to-promoter completion is an exceptional remedy in cases where stakeholders substantially agree and a workable completion plan exists.
Precedent treatment: The Court acknowledged authorities where reverse insolvency has been directed but emphasised that such relief is contingent on broad stakeholder consensus and feasibility; where significant opposition exists among petitioning allottees and CoC considerations dissuade piecemeal promoter action, reverse insolvency is inappropriate.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the promoters' reverse-resolution proposal and admitted resolution plan timeline (2-3 years for completion) but found (i) the project registration/HRERA renewal issues and regulatory disputes remained unresolved; (ii) the CoC and many applicants opposed the promoters' plan; and (iii) the promoters' own timelines evidenced prolonged completion. Given these factors and the absence of unanimous or substantial stakeholder support, the Court declined to order reverse insolvency and held that CIRP under the Code is the appropriate mechanism to secure an early, supervised resolution.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Reverse insolvency is not to be directed where the promoters' plan lacks stakeholder consensus, regulatory clearances are disputed, or completion timelines are protracted; CIRP is the proper recourse in such circumstances. Obiter - Reference to cases where reverse insolvency succeeded where stakeholders were substantially aligned.
Conclusion: The Court refused to grant reverse insolvency relief and directed continuation of CIRP; the Resolution Professional was to proceed with issuing Form G and obtain a compliant resolution plan for early conclusion of CIRP.
Overall Conclusion and Disposition
The Court concluded that the corporate debtor had committed continuing default in not handing over possession within contractual timelines; contractual conditioning on receipt of Occupation Certificate could not be invoked to indefinitely delay possession where completion itself was not achieved by the corporate debtor. Payment defaults by some co-applicants did not defeat maintainability of the Section 7 petition. A limited statutory halt (89 days) did not bar initiation of CIRP in the factual matrix. Reverse insolvency was declined for lack of stakeholder consensus and practical impediments. The appeal was dismissed and the CIRP process directed to proceed expeditiously under the I&B Code and CIRP Regulations, 2016.
Admission of section 7 application - default on the part of the Corporate Debtor so as to initiate insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor or not - arguments raised on behalf of the Corporate Debtor that unless Occupation Certificate is received there is no obligation to offer possession was considered and rejected - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manish Kumar vs. Union of India [2021 (1) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had occasion to elaborately consider the provision of Section 7 of the I&B Code in reference to the allottees who initiate proceeding under Section 7 against a real estate company. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is not necessary that all Applicants who have initiated proceeding under Section 7 need to prove that default has been committed with respect to each of them by the Corporate Debtor. It is submitted that any allottee, who is Financial Creditor of the Corporate Debtor for default of any other Financial Creditor by virtue of explanation to Section 7(1) can initiate proceeding. Thus, in a case where Corporate Debtor commits default, failing to handover possession of unit to allottee who is a Financial Creditor and has paid his 100% consideration, no capital can be made by making submission by the Corporate Debtor that there are some other allottees who are party to the application who had not paid their 100% consideration.
The Occupation Certificate is issued by the Regulatory Authority to a Corporate Debtor after completion of the construction. In a case where Corporate Debtor does not complete construction, it cannot shield itself on the ground that no Occupation Certificate has been issued, therefore, its obligation to handover possession shall not commence. Clause 3.5 contemplate handing over possession within 48 months from the commencement date subject to force majeure and timely payment of all instalments - No case of force majeure except halting of construction for 89 days has been contended, which falls in the expression ‘intervention of statutory authorities’. Clause 3.5 does not stand any fetter in handing over possessing or receipt of Occupation Certificate.
In facts of the present case, specially the fact that project is not yet complete as per own case of the Appellant and Appellant in its resolution plan itself has shown that it will take 2-3 years in handing over possession to the homebuyers - The Corporate Debtor cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own inaction and act of not completing the project. Submission of the Appellant that since Occupation Certificate was not issued, it could not give possession to the homebuyers cannot be accepted. Completion of the construction is precondition for obtaining Occupation Certificate, thus, precondition having not been completed by the Corporate Debtor, it cannot hide its default on the pretext that due to non-receipt of the Occupation Certificate possession cannot be handed over, hence, there is not default on the part of the Corporate Debtor.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances, no case has been made out to interfere with the initiation of insolvency resolution process of the Corporate Debtor. The project which is not complete even after about a decade from the date when allotment was made in favour of the allottees, the Corporate Debtor needs resolution as per the I&B Code and the CIRP Regulations, 2016.
Discharge the interim order dated 02.07.2024. The period from 02.07.2024 till date shall be excluded from the CIRP process. The Resolution Professional to proceed with the CIRP process and after issuing Form G take steps for early resolution of the Corporate Debtor as early conclusion of the CIRP is required in the facts of the present case - Appeal dismissed.
Issues: Whether the ECIR and charge-sheet under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could survive after the petitioners had been finally discharged from the predicate offence.
Analysis: The petitioners had been discharged from the scheduled offence by a final order that had attained finality. The decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary was applied to hold that the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is dependent on the existence of a scheduled offence, and that once the accused is finally discharged or acquitted in the scheduled offence, there can be no money-laundering prosecution against him in relation to that property. The contrary view referred to by the respondents was not treated as controlling, and the later Supreme Court decision in Pavana Dibbur was read consistently with the binding principle in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.
Conclusion: The ECIR and the consequential charge-sheet against the petitioners were liable to be quashed and set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot continue against a person who has been finally discharged or acquitted in the predicate offence on which the alleged money-laundering case is founded.
Maintainability of PMLA prosecution post-final discharge/quashing of the predicate offence -activity relating to proceeds of crime - discharge of the Petitioners by the trial Court from the predicate offence - HELD THAT:- It be noted here that, the decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], is rendered by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the Petitioners and has its own binding effect.
Conclusions, reads as under : “382.8 The offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. It is concerning the process or activity connected with such property, which constitutes the offence of money laundering. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot prosecute any person on notional basis or on the assumption that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless it is so registered with the jurisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.”
It is an admitted fact on record that, the Petitioners have been discharged by the trial Court from the predicate offence registered by the ACB, Mumbai Division, by its Order dated 31st July 2021 and the said Order has attained finality.
Therefore the ECIR and the charge-sheet filed thereof, registered by Respondent No. 2 qua the Petitioners, deserves to be quashed and set aside - Petition is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether transportation charges reimbursed by the consignor to the clearing & forwarding agent for carriage from the godown to wholesalers form part of the gross consideration for "Clearing and Forwarding Agent" service and are therefore taxable as part of that service.
2. Whether transportation performed by the appellant constituted an independent "Transport of Goods by Road"/GTA service attracting liability on the consignor/consignee under the statutory rules and whether service tax paid under GTA (with applicable abatement/exemptions) discharges the tax liability in respect of such transportation.
3. Whether reimbursement of expenditure (freight/handling) constituted "consideration" liable to service tax for the relevant period (2009-10 to 2012-13) in view of the later amendment explicitly including reimbursement within "consideration".
4. Whether invocation of extended period of limitation, interest and penalties was permissible on the facts - i.e., whether there was suppression of facts or a deliberate attempt to evade tax so as to attract extended limitation and penal consequences.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Inclusion of reimbursed transportation charges in gross consideration for Clearing & Forwarding (C&F) service
Legal framework: Definition of "Clearing and Forwarding Agent" and "Taxable Service" under the Finance Act; valuation rule in force during the disputed period (service tax payable on gross amount charged for the service); Board circular clarifying valuation and who is responsible for payment in C&F arrangements.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on earlier decisions treating separately charged transport as distinct from contractual supply of C&F services and on administrative circulars clarifying that gross consideration for C&F ordinarily means remuneration/commission charged by the C&F agent.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the contractual terms showing a fixed service charge for C&F (Rs.5,000/month) and an express entitlement to reimbursement of freight and handling expenses. No lump-sum C&F price included transport; transportation was separately accounted for and reimbursed. The Tribunal accepted that C&F operations cover documentary and arrangement functions and do not necessarily include independent transport undertaken under a separate obligation and reimbursed distinctively. Administrative guidance was held persuasive as to valuation methodology.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where transport services are separately performed and separately reimbursed under the contract, such reimbursed transport charges do not form part of the gross consideration for C&F taxable service for the disputed period. Obiter - observations on general breadth of "C&F operations" beyond the present facts.
Conclusion: Transportation charges reimbursed by the consignor, when accounted for separately and not included in a lump-sum C&F charge, are not includible in the gross consideration for the C&F service for the relevant period; the taxability must be assessed as a separate GTA service.
Issue 2 - Characterisation of transportation as independent GTA service and person liable to pay service tax
Legal framework: Definition of "Goods Transport Agency" and statutory rules (Rule 2(1)(d)(v) / Rule 2(1)(d)(i)(B)) fixing the person liable for service tax in relation to transportation of goods by road; Rule 4B consignment note definition and obligations; relevant notifications granting abatement/exemptions and conditions for consignor/consignee liability.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal followed authorities recognizing that where a consignor/consignee meets the statutory description, the liability to pay service tax for transport rests on that person, and where a provider issues consignment notes and discharges GTA formalities, the activity is to be treated as GTA service. The Tribunal referenced decisions distinguishing forwarding functions from pure transport.
Interpretation and reasoning: Facts showed freight for outward movement was borne by the consignor, transportation charges were reimbursed to the agent, consignment notes were issued, and the appellant was separately registered and paid tax under GTA (with 75% abatement or small consignment exemption where applicable). On plain reading of the rules, where consignor/consignee is a corporate body, they are the person liable to pay service tax; the appellant's issuance of consignment notes and GTA registration evidenced independent GTA activity. Administrative circular and rule definitions supported treating transport as separate taxable activity liable under GTA head.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - when transport is performed and invoiced/reimbursed separately and the service-provider complies with GTA formalities (consignment notes, registration), the transportation is an independent GTA service and liability of tax rests as prescribed by the rules (usually on consignor/consignee); payment of tax by the agent under GTA (with abatement/exemption) is appropriate. Obiter - discussion on interplay between C&F and GTA where services are blended in other fact patterns.
Conclusion: The transportation in the present factual matrix was an independent GTA service. Service tax discharged under the GTA head (with abatement/exemption where applicable) was correct and did not require duplication as part of C&F gross consideration.
Issue 3 - Whether reimbursements were taxable as consideration during the disputed period despite later statutory amendment
Legal framework: General principle that value for service tax during the disputed period included gross amount charged; the definition of "consideration" was subsequently amended (w.e.f. 14.5.2015) to expressly include reimbursement of expenditure or cost.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on authorities holding that, prior to the explicit amendment, reimbursements payable to third parties or separately disbursed amounts that were not part of the agent's remuneration were not automatically includible as consideration for the principal taxable service, subject to contract and manner of invoicing.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the temporal operation of the amendment and held that for 2009-10 to 2012-13 the later enlarged definition of "consideration" was not applicable. The reimbursement mechanism in the agreement showed freight was remitted as actual outflow on behalf of consignor and separately reimbursed, not as remuneration for C&F service. Thus, retrospective application of the later amendment was not warranted.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - explicit statutory inclusion of reimbursements within "consideration" applies only from the effective date of amendment; for earlier periods the nature of the contractual arrangement and invoicing controls whether reimbursements form part of taxable consideration. Obiter - policy rationale and caution against retroactive extension of tax base.
Conclusion: Reimbursements of freight/handling for the disputed period did not constitute taxable consideration for C&F service by reason of the subsequent amendment; the demand to include such reimbursements in C&F valuation for the period in question was unsustainable.
Issue 4 - Invocation of extended period, interest and penalties for alleged suppression
Legal framework: Extended period of limitation and enhanced penalties require proof of suppression or deliberate evasion; routine filing of returns, payment under a claim of law and absence of deliberate concealment are relevant to the limitation enquiry.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal considered jurisprudence holding that bona fide disputes of interpretation and payment of tax under an arguable view do not amount to suppression warranting extended limitation or penal consequences.
Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant had filed returns and paid service tax under respective heads (C&F and GTA) and acted on a bona fide belief that transportation charges had been separately taxed under GTA. There was no evidence of conscious withholding or misrepresentation; audit detection led to show cause. The Tribunal found the issue to be interpretational rather than one of deliberate evasion; absence of proof of suppression prevented invocation of extended period and penalties based on suppression.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - extended period and penal consequences cannot be invoked where the case involves a bona fide interpretational dispute and returns/payments have been regularly filed and no deliberate suppression is established. Obiter - remarks on burden of establishing deliberate suppression.
Conclusion: Invocation of extended limitation, interest and penalties on the ground of suppression was not justified on these facts; consequential demands based on extended period do not survive.
Overall Conclusion
The Tribunal held that (a) transportation performed and invoiced/reimbursed separately pursuant to the contract is an independent GTA service and its charges are not includible in the gross consideration for C&F service for the relevant period; (b) payment of service tax under the GTA head (with statutory abatement/exemption where applicable) was correct; (c) the post facto statutory inclusion of reimbursement within "consideration" is not operative for the disputed years; and (d) extended period and penalty could not be sustained in the absence of suppression or deliberate evasion. The impugned order sustaining demand was therefore set aside.
Classification of services - whether the transportation charges recovered by the appellant should include as gross consideration received for ‘Clearing & Forwarding service’? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 during the disputed period i.e. 1.4.2010 to 30.9.2014, service tax was payable on the gross amount charged for the service provided. In this context, in so far as, Clearing and Forwarding Service and was concerned, it is found that the appellant had discharged service tax liability on the gross amount charged for the services so provided.
It is also observed that the transportation service was a activity separate from the Clearing and Forwarding Service. It is imperative to note that no lump sum amount had been charged for Clearing and Forwarding Service which included transportation charges - Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow vs. Technical Associates [2012 (6) TMI 242 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] held that 'transportation of faulty transformer was made under a different contract while repair and maintenance of transformer was done under a different contract and both being different contracts are governed by their own terms, no merit in stay application and appeal of Revenue.'
It is also noted that the aforesaid decision in Technical Associates[2012 (3) TMI 201 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] was upheld by the Allahabad High Court-Lucknow bench. From the factual matrix, it is apparent that service tax had been paid on the gross amount charged for the services of 'Clearing and Forwarding Service' provided.
In the present case, M/s. PBPL and M/s. PPPL are the consignor and the wholesalers are consignees. At this point, it is also imperative to note that the Appellant, for the transportation of goods by road, were under obligation to issue consignment note, as per Rule 4B of Service Tax Rules, 1994. In terms of this rule, the "consignment note" means "a document, issued by a goods transport agency against the receipt of goods for the purpose of transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, which is serially numbered, and contains the name of the consignor and consignee, registration number of the goods carriage in which the goods are transported, details of the goods transported, details of the place of origin and destination, person liable for paying Service tax whether consignor, consignee or the goods transport agency. In the instant case, the Appellants have issued consignment notes for the aforesaid activity. In view of the above, the payment of service tax under the head 'Transport of Goods by Road' is correct.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues: Whether embroidery work undertaken on job work basis amounts to manufacture and therefore falls outside the service tax net, with the result that the demand and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot survive.
Analysis: The activity of embroidery on fabric was found to be a manufacturing activity. The record showed that the appellant and the proprietary concern were one and the same, and the minor variation in address did not justify treating them as different entities. The work was treated as falling under Chapter 5810 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The decision also relied on the settled position that when an activity amounts to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it does not constitute a taxable service, and the negative list entry in section 66D(f) of the Finance Act, 1994 applies.
Conclusion: The embroidery activity was held to be manufacture and not a taxable service. The service tax demand and the penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained complete relief against the confirmed service tax demand and consequential penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: An activity that amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise law cannot be taxed as a service under the Finance Act, 1994, and once the activity is found to be manufacturing in nature, the service tax demand and related penalty fail.
Levy of Service Tax on the basis of income shown in the ITR for the year 2015-16 - impugned order passed without properly appreciating the facts and the relevant provisions of law and their findings are based on assumption and conjecture - HELD THAT:- It is further found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed that no documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish that appropriate excise duty has been paid on the goods on which the Appellant claims to have performed job work and hence benefit of clause (f) of Section 66D of the Negative list of Finance Act would not be available.
Once the activity is clearly discernible as manufacturing activity of goods as specified under CETA, the said activity would go out of the purview of service tax. It is also found that the Appellant has issued bills for his embroidery work to miscellaneous customers mentioning work of embroidery therein.
The demand of Service Tax cannot be sustained and is set aside - penalty imposed u/s 78 is also set aside - appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Cenvat credit of Rs. 14,61,989/- was rightly disallowed on the ground that invoice entries were not shown in ledgers and consolidated ledger entries did not match invoices.
2. Whether copies of invoices, reconciliation statement and Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate constitute sufficient and admissible evidence for availment of Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Whether a demand for service tax already discharged by availment of Cenvat credit can be sustained where the department relies on third-party data (income tax records) without independent rebuttal of the assessee's documentary evidence.
4. Whether the limited demand of Rs. 425/- as late fee for delayed filing of ST-3 returns is properly confirmed.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Validity of denial of Cenvat credit due to non-matching/consolidated ledger entries
Legal framework: Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(2) (and proviso) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prescribe the documents and particulars required in invoices and relevant papers for availment of Cenvat credit; books of account and Cenvat registers are relevant to verify receipt and utilization.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on authorities holding that regular books of account should not be rejected without rebuttal and that CA certificates and balance sheets are admissible evidence indicating correctness of entries.
Interpretation and reasoning: The adjudicating authority rejected credit because invoice entries allegedly were not found in ledgers and consolidated ledger entries did not match invoices; it inferred non-receipt of services. The Tribunal observed that the requisite invoices were produced and that Rule 9 requires invoice particulars; the proviso to Rule 9(2) permits acceptance of a document as proper even if some particulars are missing provided essential details (service tax payable and distribution etc.) are present. The Tribunal found no cogent basis to reject the Cenvat register, invoices or reconciliation submitted; consolidated ledger entries alone cannot be a ground to deny credit where invoices and CA certificate are on record and not specifically discredited by the department.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Ledger consolidation does not automatically disqualify Cenvat credit if proper invoices and admissible supporting documents are produced and not rebutted by the department. Obiter - comments on accounting practices and reconciliation weight where detailed contrary evidence exists.
Conclusion: The Cenvat credit denial on the ledger-matching ground was incorrect; the appellant was held to have rightly availed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 14,61,989/-. The order denying this credit was set aside.
Issue 2 - Admissibility and evidentiary value of Chartered Accountant certificate, reconciliation statement, invoices and books
Legal framework: Evidence and procedural rules recognise books of account, balance sheets, CA certificates and statutory invoices as relevant documents for proving taxable transactions and availment of credit.
Precedent treatment: Tribunal and Supreme Court authorities cited hold that books maintained in the regular course of business and CA certificates are admissible and cannot be rejected absent rebuttal; public documents like balance sheets and P&L reflect income and corroborate returns.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant produced invoices bearing necessary particulars and a CA reconciliation certificate; the department produced no evidence to falsify these documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the CA reconciliation as unsupported because the CA certificate and invoices were on record. The Tribunal treated the CA certificate and reconciliations as admissible and conclusive proof in the absence of contrary material from the department.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where invoices required by Rule 9 and a CA certificate/reconciliation are produced and not rebutted, they constitute sufficient admissible evidence to support availment of Cenvat credit. Obiter - observations on the weight to be accorded to CA certificates versus primary source documents where tangible contradiction exists.
Conclusion: CA certificate, reconciliation statement and invoices were admissible and sufficient; rejection of these documents by lower authorities lacked cogent basis and led to erroneous denial of credit.
Issue 3 - Reliance on third-party data (income tax information) to sustain demand for service tax already paid by Cenvat credit
Legal framework: Departmental reliance on third-party data may initiate investigation, but confirmation of demand requires independent proof that the assessee was not entitled to credit; invocation of extended or differential demand requires concrete evidence of suppression or misstatement.
Precedent treatment: Authorities relied upon (including Supreme Court decisions) stress that books of account maintained in the regular course cannot be discarded without rebuttal and that third-party information alone cannot sustain a demand where primary documents stand unrebutted.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the investigation arose from income tax data but the department failed to produce evidence contradicting the invoices, Cenvat register and CA certificate. Absence of specific rebuttal or material showing ineligibility meant the demand, premised on third-party data, was unsustainable. The Tribunal drew support from precedent that departmental reliance on third-party evidence cannot substitute for proof of ineligibility.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A service tax demand based solely on third-party data is not sustainable where assessee produces proper invoices, books and CA certification and the department produces no contrary evidence. Obiter - remarks on the propriety of investigations relying on third-party records without follow-up verification.
Conclusion: The demand for service tax to the extent of Cenvat credit utilization could not be sustained; the Tribunal set aside the order confirming that demand.
Issue 4 - Confirmation of late fee/differential limited demand (Rs. 425/-)
Legal framework: Filing requirements for ST-3 returns and provisions for levy/confirmation of late fee where returns are filed after prescribed period.
Precedent treatment: Not necessary to distinguish; established principle that delayed filing attracts late fee and may be confirmed when delay is admitted.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed there was no denial that ST-3 returns for specified periods were filed late (delay of 187 days for a period noted). No deliberation was required; confirmation of late fee of Rs. 425/- was proper.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Late filing of statutory returns justifies confirmation of applicable late fee where delay is admitted. Obiter - none.
Conclusion: The limited demand of Rs. 425/- as late fee is upheld and the order is confirmed to that extent.
Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - entries of invoices were not available in the ledgers and the consolidated entries of the appellant did not match with the invoices - demand proposed merely on the basis of third party data as was received from income tax authorities - HELD THAT:- As per Rule (9) of CCR, 2004 invoice issued by the service provider is relevant document for the availment of Cenvat credit. The said invoices have been generated with such particulars as are required under the said Rule (9). It is also observed that as per sub-rule 2 of Rule 9, the proviso thereof, it is clear that even if all particulars are not contained in the requisite document/invoice the particulars only about details of service tax payable, distribution of provider of output service if available the document/invoice still has to be considered as the proper document for availment of Cenvat credit. These observations are sufficient to hold that the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority were not correct. Though, there is no mention of the invoices to have been produced before him but it is apparent from the show cause notice itself that the documents as demanded vide letter dated 26.10.2018 and 21.5.2019 were duly provided. Para 7 of show cause notice recites that even Chartered Accountant of the appellant appeared before the original departmental authority.
The production of certificate of Chartered Accountant is also an admitted fact in the impugned order in appeal, still Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded such findings. It becomes clear that the Chartered Accountant certificate and the reconciliation statement along with the copies of respective invoices are wrongly held to be the insufficient documents. It has been settled position of law that the Chartered Accountant’s certificate is admissible evidence. Department has not produced any evidence which may falsify or contradict the said admissible document. The certificate is held to be conclusive proof of correct availment of Cenvat credit by the appellants.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of M/s Gian Chand & Brothers Vs. Ratan Lal [2013 (1) TMI 267 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the books of account maintained in regular cause of business should not be rejected without any kind of rebuttal. In the present case, the adjudicating authorities have rejected the Cenvat register and other documents produced by the appellants without any cogent basis. It is also observed that investigation initiated based on the income tax data. Nothing is produced by the department to show that the appellant was not eligible for the availment of Cenvat credit. In these circumstances, the demand merely based on third party evidence is not sustainable.
The appellant is held to have rightly availed the Cenvat credit. Service tax to the extent of utilized Cenvat credit cannot be demanded again - appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal for default where the appellant and its authorised representative repeatedly fail to appear and notices to the address on record are returned undelivered.
2. Whether the Tribunal should decide an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant's presence or representation, particularly where the appellant's whereabouts are unknown after exhaustive service efforts.
3. The extent to which statutory limits on adjournments and procedural rules permit dismissal for default, and the scope for restoration if sufficient cause is later shown.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Power to dismiss an appeal for default where appellant repeatedly fails to appear and service attempts fail
Legal framework: Section 35C(1A) (provision permitting adjournments but limiting them to no more than three times to a party during hearing) and Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 (empowering the Tribunal, in its discretion, to dismiss an appeal for appellant's default where the appellant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing, with a proviso allowing restoration if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown).
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on the authoritative position of the Apex Court condemning routine and mechanical adjournments and emphasising the need to curb delay in the justice delivery system; that line of jurisprudence was followed as guidance on limiting indulgence in repeated adjournments.
Interpretation and reasoning: Where notices sent by RPAD to the appellant's address on record were returned with endorsement indicating the appellant was not traceable and there was no intimated change of address to the Tribunal, and where multiple earlier hearing dates passed without representation, the Tribunal found that sufficient procedural steps to secure attendance had been taken (including departmental service and on-site verification). Coupled with the statutory prohibition on more than three adjournments and Rule 20 discretion to dismiss for default, the lack of good cause or proof for repeated non-appearance justified dismissal.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Tribunal's decision to dismiss for default is founded on the combined operation of Section 35C(1A) and Rule 20 applied to facts showing repeated non-appearance and failed service; the Apex Court's admonition against routine adjournments is treated as binding guidance informing the exercise of discretion. Obiter - observations on broader policy concerns about delay and the justice delivery system beyond their application to the instant facts.
Conclusion: The Tribunal properly exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal for default where the appellant repeatedly failed to appear and notices were returned undelivered after exhaustive service efforts.
Issue 2: Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the appeal on merits in the appellant's absence when appellant is untraceable
Legal framework: Rule 20 permits either dismissal for default or determination on merits in the appellant's absence; the proviso allows restoration if sufficient cause for non-appearance is later shown.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal applied the Apex Court's reasoning discouraging routine adjournments and emphasising the need for active judicial control to prevent delay; this informed the choice between ex parte adjudication and dismissal for default.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal declined to decide on merits ex parte because doing so without the appellant's presence (and thus without the benefit of the appellant's case) could render any adverse judgment unreviewable by the Tribunal itself (functus officio), thereby potentially depriving the appellant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and pushing the appellant to higher fora if it later established justification for non-appearance. Given the appellant was untraceable and no request or grounds were on record to decide ex parte, dismissal for default (with liberty to seek restoration) was held to be the more appropriate and legally prudent course.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where the appellant is untraceable and no meritorious request for ex parte decision exists, the Tribunal may dismiss for default rather than decide on merits to preserve the appellant's ability to obtain restoration and to avoid rendering unreviewable adverse orders. Obiter - general observations on the desirability of ex parte decisions in other factual matrices.
Conclusion: The Tribunal correctly refrained from adjudicating on merits in the appellant's absence and instead dismissed for default while reserving the statutory remedy of restoration upon demonstration of sufficient cause.
Issue 3: Scope and application of restoration remedy after dismissal for default
Legal framework: Rule 20's proviso expressly permits setting aside a dismissal for default and restoring the appeal where the appellant later appears and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal's approach aligns with procedural fairness principles recognised in appellate practice - dismissal for default is permissible but subject to restoration where sufficient justification is shown.
Interpretation and reasoning: While dismissing for default under Rule 20, the Tribunal granted liberty to the appellant to apply for restoration, making clear that dismissal is not a bar to later vindication where adequate reasons for earlier non-appearance are demonstrated. This balances institutional interests in preventing undue delay against the individual right to be heard where genuine cause exists.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Dismissal for default under Rule 20 must be accompanied by a clear statement of the availability of the restoration remedy; restoration remains available where sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown. Obiter - specifics of what constitutes "sufficient cause" were not exhaustively defined and remain fact-sensitive.
Conclusion: The Tribunal lawfully dismissed the appeal for default but properly preserved the appellant's statutory right to seek restoration on demonstrating sufficient cause for prior non-appearance.
Cross-References and Practical Observations
Where repeated non-appearance coincides with failed service to the address on record and no change of address is intimated, the Tribunal may treat the appeal as abandoned and dismiss for default under Rule 20 read with Section 35C(1A); however, dismissal does not foreclose restoration upon a satisfactory showing of sufficient cause.
Dismissal of appeal for default where the appellant and its authorised representative repeatedly fail to appear and notices to the address on record are returned undelivered - Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - HELD THAT:- Rule 20 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules provides that if the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing can set aside the dismissal and restore the appeal.
There is no request on record for the appeal to be decided on merits ex-parte based on the grounds preferred in the appeal in the absence of the appellant’s presence or representation through its counsel. If it is required to decide the matter on merits, without having the benefit of hearing the appellant and upon such hearing if it were to hold against the appellant, then, having no locus to review of own judgement since it be rendered functus officio, it would thus be not only depriving the appellant of a chance to be heard, but also would be relegating the appellant to seek appropriate remedy in a higher judicial forum, if at all the appellant has justifiable reasons for repeated non representation and also lack of representation today.
Considering the statutory position and the views expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgement supra that adjournments can’t be given for the mere asking without any serious reason, backed with proof, for the non-appearance of the Appellant or his authorised representative on the dates of public hearing coupled with the fact that the appellant is not to be found at the address given and also considering that even after exhausting the prescribed methods of service, the appellant’s whereabouts are not known, we find that no purpose would be served in continuing to keep this appeal pending.
The appeal is dismissed for default as per Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
Benefit of a specific notification regarding duty payment on goods transferred for job work - whether the concept of revenue neutrality based on CENVAT Credit could exempt the appellant from paying duty? - revenue neutrality -it was held by High Court that specific notifications and credit schemes should not be used to circumvent duty payment obligations - HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the case against the respondents could not be sustained because proceedings against a related entity had been set aside by the Tribunal, without going into merits of the adjudicating authority's order.
2. Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in concluding that no tangible evidence had been gathered by the department to prove clandestine removal, having regard to the material and case law discussed in the adjudicating authority's order.
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in deciding the appeal in favour of the respondents and passing a non-speaking order without considering and discussing the evidence produced by the department.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Reliance on setting aside of proceedings against a related entity to sustain dismissal of proceedings against the respondents
Legal framework: Appellate review by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) requires independent consideration of appeals and formulation of reasons; remittal to Tribunal permitted where Tribunal's order is non-speaking or fails to decide points for determination. Principles of adjudication and appellate scrutiny govern whether findings against one entity can operate to dispose of proceedings against another.
Precedent Treatment: The Court refers to its own earlier conclusion setting aside the Tribunal's order in the related entity's case on grounds of failure to record points for determination and absence of reasoned findings; that order remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The present impugned order was founded on the now-set-aside Tribunal order.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes it is "not in dispute" that the Tribunal's order in the related entity's case was set aside by the High Court for being non-speaking and for failing to record and decide points for determination. Because the impugned order under challenge in the present appeal was based upon and followed the reasoning of that now-set-aside order, the Court concluded that the impugned order could not stand. The Court reasons that where a foundational appellate order has been set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, any subsequent order that depends on the former must likewise be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A Tribunal's decision that is founded upon and follows a prior appellate order subsequently set aside cannot be sustained; remittal is required where the Tribunal has not independently addressed issues with reasoned findings. Obiter - No wider pronouncement on when findings against one party necessarily bind another beyond the factual reliance on the set-aside order.
Conclusions: The impugned Tribunal order, being founded on the now-set-aside order in the related entity's case, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits with directions to hear the parties and consider material on record.
Issue 2 - Sufficiency of tangible evidence gathered by the department to prove clandestine removal
Legal framework: The assessment of clandestine removal requires tangible evidence and an adjudicative process considering seized documents, statements, and corroborative material; burden lies on the department to establish duty liability and clandestine clearance under the Central Excise Act and rules thereunder; Tribunal and Adjudicating Authority must examine evidence and record reasoned findings.
Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal had held that the department's case was premised largely on a confessional statement recorded against a named individual (Senior Manager Sales) and that no detailed investigation or tangible evidence had been gathered. The High Court's prior order in the related entity's Tax Case emphasized the Tribunal's duty to frame points for determination and record reasoned findings; that order did not express views on merits or on sufficiency of evidence.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding lack of tangible evidence was derived from an order that did not satisfy requirements of a speaking decision. Given the foundational infirmity in the Tribunal's earlier order, the Court declined to adjudicate afresh on the sufficiency of evidence. Instead, the Court remitted the matter for the Tribunal to independently examine the material, appreciate evidence including seized documents and statements, and decide the issue on merits with reasons.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court did not decide the substantive question of whether tangible evidence existed; rather, it held that that question must be re-examined by the Tribunal on merits because the impugned order's basis is invalidated. Obiter - Observations that reliance solely on a confessional statement may be insufficient are recorded as part of the Tribunal's reasoning but are not accepted or rejected by the Court on merits.
Conclusions: No appellate determination is made on the substantive sufficiency of evidence; the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to evaluate tangibility of evidence and decide in accordance with law with reasoned findings.
Issue 3 - Validity of a non-speaking order and requirement to consider and discuss evidence
Legal framework: Appellate orders must be speaking orders, record points for determination, consider relevant evidence and legal submissions, and provide reasons for conclusions; absence of such requirements vitiates appellate decisions and warrants remittal for fresh consideration.
Precedent Treatment: The Court's prior order in the related entity's Tax Case specifically set aside the Tribunal's order on the ground that it failed to record points for determination and did not provide detailed discussion and reasoned findings - establishing the controlling principle that non-speaking appellate orders cannot sustain adjudicatory outcomes.
Interpretation and reasoning: Applying that principle to the impugned order, which mirrored the earlier non-speaking order, the Court concluded that the impugned order lacked independent reasoned consideration of evidence and thus could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal must record points for determination and address each point with a detailed discussion and reasons, and that the present Tribunal should re-hear the appeal and consider the material on record within a prescribed timeframe.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Tribunal orders that do not frame points for determination and fail to address evidence and reasons are non-speaking and liable to be set aside; remittal for fresh adjudication is the appropriate remedy. Obiter - The Court expressly refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the evidence or the departmental case.
Conclusions: The impugned non-speaking order is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to consider the appeal afresh, frame points for determination, consider and discuss evidence and legal submissions, record reasoned findings on each point, and decide the appeal within three months from receipt of the High Court's order.
Cross-references
1. Issue 1 and Issue 3 are interlinked: the setting aside of the foundational Tribunal order (Issue 1) is premised on the Tribunal's failure to produce a speaking order and frame points for determination (Issue 3), and both led to remittal.
2. Issue 2 is consequential: substantive questions concerning sufficiency of evidence are remitted to the Tribunal because the impugned order's infirmity precludes appellate resolution on merits.
Proceedings against related party stands already set aside by the tribunal, without going into the merits - no tangible evidence has been gathered by the department, without appreciating the facts - passing a non-speaking order without considering and discussing the evidence put forth by the department - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. has already been set aside by this Court in DEVI IRON AND POWER PVT. LTD. [2025 (9) TMI 931 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] by holding that 'we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal, being the first Appellate Authority, ought to have recorded points for determination and after consideration and a detailed discussion on each of the points so framed, ought to have recorded its findings supported by reasons thereof, which has not been done. As such, the impugned order dated 20/04/2018 (Annexure A/1) is hereby set aside and the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent Firm.'
Since the order passed by the Tribunal in favour of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. has already been set aside by this Court and since the impugned order is based on order passed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd., the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for considering the appeal afresh on merits and to decide it in accordance with law after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Appeal allowed.
Issues: Whether reassessment, after the original assessments were held time-barred under Section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, could be sustained by invoking Section 21 of the Act on the basis of subsequent sanction from the Commissioner.
Analysis: Section 19 prescribes the time limits for assessment and reassessment, while Section 21 is a special enabling provision that applies where no assessment has been made within the time limits specified in Section 19 and permits assessment within four years from expiry of the limitation period with prior sanction of the Commissioner. The original assessments for the relevant years had already been invalidated as time-barred under Section 19. In that situation, the later sanction could not revive the matter or transform it into a case covered by Section 21. The two provisions operate in distinct fields, and the revenue was required to bring the case strictly within the four corners of the statute.
Conclusion: Section 21 was inapplicable, and the reassessment could not be sustained after the original assessments were held time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal statutes, tax liability must arise strictly within the statutory framework, and a special limitation-relaxing provision cannot be used to revive proceedings already found barred unless the case squarely falls within that provision.
Dismissal of petition filed by the appellant by which the Order of reassessment passed under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 - earlier assessments for the three years held to be time-barred - limitation governed by Section 21 of the Act, 1993 - assessment years 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 - HELD THAT:- Here is a case wherein the assessments undertaken for the three years were already held to be invalid because of being time barred, in view of Section 19 of the Act. Later, by virtue of obtaining sanction from the Commissioner, the revenue could not have taken recourse to Section 21 of the Act to say that the reassessment within four years is permissible with prior sanction from the Commissioner. Section 21 would apply only in cases where no assessment has been made under any of the provisions of the Act within the time limits specified in Section 19. The interpretation of the two provisions of the Act at the end of the High Court is completely incorrect.
In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter.
The present appeal, along with the two connected appeals stands allowed and the common judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside.
Issues: (i) Whether the part-payment order passed in the first appeal could be questioned in the second appeal against the summary dismissal for non-payment and whether it had attained finality. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could distinguish or decline to follow the Delhi High Court decision relied upon by the Revenue. (iii) Whether the Tribunal had power to modify the amount of part payment while hearing the second appeal.
Issue (i): Whether the part-payment order passed in the first appeal could be questioned in the second appeal against the summary dismissal for non-payment and whether it had attained finality.
Analysis: The part-payment direction was held to be a procedural or interlocutory step in aid of the final disposal of the first appeal and not an order whose finality, in the sense contended by the Revenue, prevented challenge in an appeal against the later order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. The words used in the appellate provision were held not to compel separate appeals against every procedural direction. The Court applied the principle that interlocutory orders which do not finally determine rights may be questioned in an appeal from the final order.
Conclusion: The part-payment order could be challenged in the second appeal against the summary dismissal order, and it did not attain an unassailable finality merely because no separate appeal was filed against it.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could distinguish or decline to follow the Delhi High Court decision relied upon by the Revenue.
Analysis: The decision relied upon by the Revenue was not accepted as laying down a contrary rule. It was distinguished because the wider principles governing interlocutory orders and appellate challenge to such orders in an appeal from the final order were not considered there. The Court held that the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion remained supportable on the governing principles recognized by this Court and the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's ultimate conclusion was sustained, and no interference was called for on the basis of the Delhi High Court decision.
Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal had power to modify the amount of part payment while hearing the second appeal.
Analysis: The appellate provision conferred powers on the Tribunal, acting in appeal, to pass appropriate orders in the appeal and to modify the assessment-related directions as warranted. The Court held that those powers included the authority to modify the part-payment requirement, and the correctness of the quantum fixed in the exercise of discretion was not itself in issue in the reference.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had power to modify the part-payment order.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in substance in favour of the assessee, with the Tribunal's approach to the maintainability of the challenge to the part-payment order and its power to modify that order being upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory or procedural order made in the course of an appeal may be challenged in an appeal against the final order, and the appellate authority's power to dispose of the appeal includes power to modify such procedural directions where the statute confers broad appellate authority.
Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal - Rejection of First Appeal for non-payment of Part Payment fixed by the First Appellate Authority to interfere with the amounts fixed by the First Appellate Authority towards Part Payment - said Authority has not exercised the discretion properly, even though the Respondent has not challenged the validity or correctness of the Order fixing the amount of Part Payment under Section 55(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in Second Appeal when that Order was passed - Order of Summary Rejection can not be separated or bifurcated from the Order of Part Payment - HELD THAT:- Section 55(1) is concerned with appeals from every original order, not being an order mentioned in Section 56 of the said Act or the Rules made thereunder. Section 56 of the said Act lists certain orders against which no appeal or application for revision shall lie. Though the order determining part payment or, for that matter, the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the direction for the deposit of the part payment have not been referred to in Section 56, still that circumstance would not be very relevant because Section 55(1) is concerned with an appeal from an original order. In this case, we are mainly concerned with the issue of maintainability of an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 29 August 1995 made by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals), i.e, the First Appellate Authority.
The provisions of Section 55(2) would apply to such a situation. Section 55(2) provides that in case of an order passed in appeal by an Assistant Commissioner or by a Deputy Commissioner, a second appeal shall lie at the option of the appellant, either to the Commissioner or to the Tribunal. The appeal filed before the Tribunal, in which the Tribunal has made the impugned Judgment and Order dated 22 November 1996, therefore, relates to Section 55(2) of the said Act.
The expression “every order” fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Bhambani Shipping Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2017 (12) TMI 629 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The Division Bench was considering the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 in which it was provided that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from “every order” passed by the Tribunal, including a Judgment by way of advance ruling, if the High Court is satisfied that a case involves a substantial question of law.
In Gokal Chand [1966 (9) TMI 142 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Shankarlal Aggarwal & Ors Vs Shankarlal Poddar & Ors. [1963 (1) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT]. The Constitution Bench was interpreting the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, which conferred a right of appeal “from any order or decision made or given in the matter of winding up of a company by the Court”. The Constitution Bench held that these words, though wide, would exclude merely procedural orders or those which did not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties.
The Tribunal in this case has correctly concluded that the appeal against the order dated 28 August 1995 was maintainable and in such an appeal, the Respondent-Assessee was not precluded from challenging the order dated 11 July 1995 made by the First Appellate Authority as a step towards the final disposal of the appeal.
Reference disposed off.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to contend that the occupancy certificate stood deemed granted so as to displace the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. (ii) Whether the appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal could be entertained without compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to contend that the occupancy certificate stood deemed granted so as to displace the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
Analysis: The record showed that the application for occupancy/completion was not supported by timely and complete compliance, including the fee receipt and fire safety certificate. The application was later processed under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, shortcomings were not cured, and the application was ultimately rejected. In these circumstances, the asserted deemed grant of occupancy certificate could not be accepted, and the absence of a valid occupancy certificate meant that the statutory regime under RERA continued to apply.
Conclusion: The contention of deemed grant of occupancy certificate was rejected and the appellants were not relieved from the applicability of RERA.
Issue (ii): Whether the appeals before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal could be entertained without compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 43(5) makes pre-deposit a condition precedent for a promoter's appeal, and the Court treated the requirement as mandatory and not onerous. Relying on the governing Supreme Court exposition, it held that the appellate tribunal could not entertain the promoter's appeal unless the prescribed deposit was made. There was also no statutory basis to substitute immovable-property security for the mandated deposit.
Conclusion: Non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement justified dismissal of the appeals by the tribunal.
Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the dismissal by the tribunal was upheld, leaving the appellants to revive the appeals only upon compliance with the statutory deposit requirement, if otherwise permissible in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a promoter's appeal is governed by a mandatory statutory pre-deposit clause, the appellate forum cannot entertain the appeal without compliance, and an asserted deemed occupancy certificate will not defeat the statutory regime where the underlying occupancy process stands rejected or remains unestablished.
Dismissal of Appeal of the Appellants on account of failure to make the pre-deposit in terms of Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 - whether or not the Appellants are deemed to have completed the building before enforcement of the RERA Act? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, REAT has made the continuance of the Appeals contingent upon the Appellants fulfilling the condition of the pre-deposit in the Impugned Order. The Appeal has been dismissed by the REAT due to non-fulfilment of the condition pre-deposit. Hence, the condition for pre-deposit has to be complied with by the Appellants for the Appeals to be heard and decided by the REAT.
Further, in relation to the rejection of security of immovable property by the REAT, it be noted that there is no provision in the RERA Act which may enable the Appellants to furnish the security of immovable property in lieu of pre-deposit. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the contention as it is beyond the purview of the statute.
There are no error in the judgment impugned in the instant Appeals. Consequently, both Appeals are dismissed.
TaxTMI 