Issues: Whether the intimation computing taxable income, and the consequential rejection of the rectification and revision applications, were sustainable despite the disclosed expenditure having not been addressed.

Analysis: The statutory processing, rectification and revision mechanisms under Sections 143(1), 154 and 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 require consideration of material particulars in the return and a Reasoned Order. The computation was confined to receipts and the exemption claim while disregarding the expenditure disclosed in the return. The revision order did not address this material aspect, demonstrating Non-application of Mind. The communication rejecting rectification was also devoid of reasons.

Conclusion: The intimation and the orders rejecting rectification and revision were unsustainable and were set aside; a fresh rectification application was directed to be decided afresh in light of the return and the stated observations.

Issues: Whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could be exercised where the reassessment had been completed after inquiries on the same information relied upon for revision.

Analysis: Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The reassessment record showed that notices were issued, the assessee furnished explanations and supporting material, and the assessment was completed after considering that material. The revision was founded on the same portal information that formed the basis of reassessment, but no error or discrepancy in the assessee's explanation was identified and no further inquiry was undertaken to displace the material already on record. A perceived need for further inquiry, without establishing a lack of inquiry or a demonstrable error causing prejudice, could not justify revision.

Conclusion: The prerequisites for invoking section 263 were not satisfied, and the revisionary order was invalid; the conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the purchase and holding of agricultural land in the appellant's name constituted a benami transaction.

Analysis: The analysis applied the indicia of source of consideration, possession, custody of title documents, relationship between the persons involved, motive and subsequent conduct. The appellant's statement under Section 19(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 disclosed limited financial means and stated that he signed the sale deed at another person's direction for payment. His later affidavit claiming personal funds was rejected as unsupported, inconsistent with the registered sale consideration, delayed, and containing an implausible future-date reference. Documentary evidence concerning the compensation amount, its cash withdrawal by a person associated with the alleged beneficial owner, and the links between the persons involved corroborated the original statement and disproved the asserted independent purchase.

Conclusion: The transaction was benami; the appellant was the benamidar and the other person was the beneficial owner.

Issues: (i) Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA; (ii) Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions; (iii) Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Issue (i): Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA.

Analysis: Customs proceedings concerned valuation of imported goods and duty assessment under the Customs valuation framework, whereas the foreign-exchange proceedings concerned unlawful dealing in or transfer of foreign exchange. The rejection of transaction-value redetermination based on extrapolation in the Customs proceedings did not bar an independent determination founded on the requirements and evidence applicable under FEMA.

Conclusion: Prior Customs adjudication did not preclude determination of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions.

Analysis: Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 required a presumption of truth, unless rebutted, for documents seized under that Act or another law. The electronic records were linked with manufacturer and supplier invoices, packing lists, banking entries and the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The forensic examination recorded intact seals and identified the seized hard disks, pen drive and flash drive. No material established tampering or rebutted the statutory presumption. The standard applicable to the adjudication was preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof.

Conclusion: The seized electronic records and the Section 108 statement were accepted as reliable evidence of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Analysis: The documentary data supported foreign-exchange contraventions in relation to 363 import bills involving USD 14,01,850, approximately equivalent to Rs. 7,42,27,152. Allegations founded solely on projections or extrapolation beyond the documented entries lacked corroborative evidence and could not be sustained. The individual appellant was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business and was consequently liable for the proved contraventions under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Conclusion: Liability was confined to the documented contraventions and did not extend to projected amounts. The penalties were reduced to Rs. 75,00,000 for the company and Rs. 25,00,000 for the individual appellant. This issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The foreign-exchange determination was sustained only to the extent supported by the seized and corroborated records, while unsupported extrapolated allegations were excluded and the penalties were recalibrated accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An unrebutted statutory presumption under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, supported by corroborative electronic and documentary material, can establish foreign-exchange contraventions on a preponderance of probabilities, but liability cannot be extended to amounts based only on uncorroborated extrapolation.

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be imposed where the show-cause notice neither proposed confiscation of the goods nor established that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires consideration of whether the offending goods are liable to confiscation. Penalty under Rule 26 is attracted only where the person concerned knows or has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The show-cause notice did not propose confiscation, and the orders below did not record any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The statutory preconditions for penalty under Rule 26 were not met; the penalty imposed on the assessee was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit was required to be computed from the actual date of utilisation until reversal of the credit.

Analysis: Section 50(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 88B(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, requires interest to be calculated on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit for the period from its actual utilisation to its reversal. The assessing authority verified that the credit of Rs. 48,643 was utilised on 14.08.2023 and reversed on 24.10.2024, covering 437 days, and accepted that the original assessment had incorrectly adopted an earlier commencement date for interest.

Conclusion: The interest liability stands revised to Rs. 13,977, and the assessment is to be modified accordingly.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation and the underlying show-cause and adjudication proceedings could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the GST portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation.

Analysis: Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate framework. The show-cause notice was uploaded only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, resulting in the petitioner being unable to respond. This denied an effective opportunity to contest the proposed demand and violated principles of natural justice. The statutory appeal had been dismissed solely on limitation without an examination on merits.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, adjudication order and appellate order were set aside, with directions for issuance of a fresh show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing a response.

Analysis: An adverse GST adjudication requires effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Uploading the notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, left the assessee unable to submit a reply and constituted a denial of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order and consequential notices were set aside, with fresh adjudication to be undertaken after receipt of the assessee's reply and after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the GST adjudication order was vitiated for being non-speaking and for non-application of mind to the taxpayer's reply.

Analysis: Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State enactment required a reasoned adjudication of the show-cause notice. The adjudication order did not properly address the detailed reply filed by the taxpayer and contained no cogent reasons for its determination. Its cryptic nature disclosed non-application of mind and perversity. The merits of the tax demand were not examined.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for want of reasons and non-application of mind. A fresh determination is required after considering the taxpayer's reply and granting an adequate personal hearing, without any expression on the merits.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when it was made mechanically without considering the registered person's reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: A cancellation decision must reflect due application of mind to the response furnished to the show-cause notice. The acknowledged reply was available on record, whereas the cancellation order proceeded on the erroneous basis that no reply had been filed. The show-cause notice and cancellation order consequently suffered from non-consideration of the reply and lacked proper application of mind. The merits concerning restoration of registration were left for fresh determination by the competent authority after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was unsustainable for failure to consider the reply and required fresh consideration by the competent authority through a speaking and reasoned decision.

Issues: (i) Whether mechanical rejection of delay condonation seeking leave to respond to a show-cause notice was valid; (ii) Whether adjudication without a personal hearing could stand.

Issue (i): Whether mechanical rejection of delay condonation seeking leave to respond to a show-cause notice was valid.

Analysis: The explanation for failure to respond to the electronic notice was not addressed. The rejection contained no reasons for declining condonation and was therefore mechanical rather than a reasoned determination.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation of delay was invalid and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether adjudication without a personal hearing could stand.

Analysis: The show-cause notice excluded a personal hearing despite the statutory requirement of such hearing for adjudication. Fair adjudication requires an effective opportunity to submit a reply and to be heard.

Conclusion: Adjudication without affording a personal hearing could not stand; the assessee must be given an opportunity to reply and be heard, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Further statutory adjudication must be undertaken only after receipt of the reply, grant of personal hearing, and issuance of a reasoned order.

Ratio Decidendi: A mechanical and unreasoned refusal to condone delay, coupled with denial of the statutorily required personal hearing, is inconsistent with fair adjudicatory procedure.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the demand on grounds of limitation, jurisdiction, and clubbing of different financial years should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The questions concerning limitation, jurisdiction, and permissibility of clubbing different financial years involve disputed questions of fact and law that can be effectively adjudicated by the appellate authority under the statutory appeal mechanism. No merits determination was made, and all legal issues were left open.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy, with protection against coercive action until the appeal attains finality.

Issues: Whether the appellate order could stand where the petitioner was unable to file an appeal within the prescribed period because the adjudication order uploaded on the GST portal had not come to its notice.

Analysis: Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes the appellate remedy and limitation. The adjudication order had been uploaded under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab, and the petitioner became aware of it only upon receiving a recovery notice. In these circumstances, denial of an opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal warranted intervention and a merits-based hearing.

Conclusion: The appellate order was quashed, and the appellate authority was required to entertain and decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether an anticipatory-bail application is premature solely because the applicant has been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and no formal arrest authorization under Section 69 has been issued; (ii) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted on the facts of the investigation.

Issue (i): Whether an anticipatory-bail application is premature solely because the applicant has been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and no formal arrest authorization under Section 69 has been issued.

Analysis: Section 69 concerns the power of arrest, whereas Section 70 permits summoning a person to give evidence or produce material in an inquiry. A summons does not by itself establish arrest or confer an automatic right to pre-arrest protection. Equally, the absence of an existing arrest authorization is not an absolute bar where tangible circumstances disclose a real, genuine and reasonable apprehension of arrest. The searches, seizure of material, substantial alleged revenue implications and arrest of a connected accused provided an objectively founded apprehension in this matter.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable and was not premature; this issue was decided in the applicant's favour.

Issue (ii): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted on the facts of the investigation.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail protects personal liberty but remains an exceptional remedy requiring a balance with effective investigation. The gravity and organized nature of the alleged evasion, the material collected, the investigation into machinery, raw materials, manufacturing, clearances and financial and electronic trails, the arrest of a connected accused, repeated summons and alleged non-cooperation supported the stated need for further interrogation. Custodial interrogation was not treated as an end in itself, but could not be ruled out at the existing stage of investigation. An undertaking to cooperate could not by itself displace the investigating authority's lawful powers.

Conclusion: The circumstances did not warrant extension of pre-arrest protection; this issue was decided against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: A genuine apprehension of arrest permits invocation of anticipatory-bail jurisdiction before a formal arrest order, but relief depends on a fact-specific balance between personal liberty and the legitimate requirements of effective investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere issuance of a summons under Section 70 does not make an anticipatory-bail application premature where a reasonable apprehension of arrest is objectively established; however, such apprehension alone does not justify pre-arrest protection when investigation-specific factors support the need for further interrogation.

Issues: (i) Whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue the arbitral reference; (ii) Whether rejection of the joint venture constituent's application for intervention and termination of arbitration warranted supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue the arbitral reference.

Analysis: Sections 5 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 require minimal judicial intervention and recognise the Tribunal's competence to rule on jurisdictional questions. The arbitration agreement and its invocation on behalf of the joint venture were undisputed, and the arbitral proceedings had commenced under Section 21. A dispute concerning the authority of the liquidator to represent the joint venture concerns representation and continuation of the reference, not the existence of the arbitration agreement or the Tribunal's subject-matter jurisdiction. Such questions require determination within the arbitral process.

Conclusion: The Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the liquidator's authority to represent the joint venture and continue the reference; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the joint venture constituent's application for intervention and termination of arbitration warranted supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 227 intervention in an ongoing arbitration is confined to exceptional cases involving a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction apparent without detailed argument. No such defect arose from the Arbitrator's determination. The constituent had notice of the liquidator's assertion of authority and the proposed arbitral proceedings, but did not promptly object or seek appropriate relief when called upon to clarify its position. Its later request was directed to extinguishing the joint venture's claim after the evidentiary stage had concluded. This conduct supported findings of acquiescence, bad faith, and an attempt to derail the arbitral process, rather than exceptional circumstances warranting supervisory relief.

Conclusion: Supervisory interference under Article 227 was not warranted; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral reference remains subject to the statutory arbitral framework, with disputes concerning representation and authority to be addressed through that framework rather than interlocutory supervisory review.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, Article 227 cannot be invoked to review an interlocutory arbitral determination under Section 16; a dispute concerning authority to represent a joint venture is for determination by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Issues: (i) Whether contractual service-tax reimbursement covered service tax directly paid under the reverse charge mechanism on input services availed for the project; (ii) Whether an award in an international commercial arbitration could be set aside for patent illegality or as contrary to public policy for allowing such reimbursement.

Issue (i): Whether contractual service-tax reimbursement covered service tax directly paid under the reverse charge mechanism on input services availed for the project.

Analysis: The contractual clauses excluded service tax from the contractor's ordinary tax liabilities and provided for its reimbursement upon actual and genuine payment to the concerned department. Services such as manpower, transport, security and other input services availed for execution of the project formed an integral part of the project contract. The expression "in respect of this contract" confined reimbursement to project-related services, but did not exclude services obtained through subcontractors. The arbitral finding allowed only the amount directly deposited by the contractor under the reverse charge mechanism on proof of payment, while rejecting the component paid through vendors where proof of actual deposit was unavailable.

Conclusion: The directly paid service tax on project-related input services was reimbursable under the contract; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether an award in an international commercial arbitration could be set aside for patent illegality or as contrary to public policy for allowing such reimbursement.

Analysis: Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confines the ground of patent illegality to arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations. Further, the arbitral interpretation permitting reimbursement of proven service tax paid for project-related input services was reasonable and did not conflict with the express contractual terms. It therefore did not offend the public policy of India.

Conclusion: Patent illegality was unavailable as a ground of challenge, and the reimbursement finding did not conflict with public policy; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral award granting reimbursement of the proven service-tax amount for project-related input services remains enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi: In an international commercial arbitration, patent illegality is not an available ground to set aside an award, and a reasonable contractual interpretation allowing reimbursement of proven project-related service tax does not conflict with public policy.