Issues: Whether insolvency proceedings initiated on an operational creditor's application could continue after full settlement of the claim, discharge of the only other creditor's claim, and acknowledgment of a pre-existing dispute.

Analysis: The operational creditor's claim was fully and finally settled and it consented without objection to reversal of the admission order. The record also established that the claim concerning transportation charges had been disputed before issuance of the demand notice, particularly regarding the distance measurements forming the basis of billing. The only claim received during the process, relating to provident-fund dues, had also been paid in full. In these circumstances, there was no subsisting creditor claim requiring continuation of the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The operational creditor's insolvency application could not be sustained, as the debt stood settled and a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the statutory demand notice.

Issues: (i) Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation; (ii) Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund; (iii) Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers; (iv) Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount; (v) Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed; (vi) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Issue (i): Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation.

Analysis: The ITC benefit is project-specific where construction commenced before GST and continued after its implementation. A post-GST purchaser is entitled to the ITC benefit attributable to post-GST inputs used in construction. Fresh price negotiation or maintenance of average prices, without documented evidence of a commensurate ITC reduction, does not establish that the benefit was passed on.

Conclusion: Post-GST booked units were not excludable; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: Deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund is a residuary measure applicable only where recipients genuinely cannot be identified. Buyer-wise project records identified the 128 eligible homebuyers, and absence of a complaint, current contact details, or transfer of project operations did not render them unidentifiable. The supplier's statutory liability to pass on the benefit survives project transfer.

Conclusion: The net profiteered amount must be returned to the identified homebuyers and cannot be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers.

Analysis: The obligation to pass on ITC benefit is owed separately to each recipient. Excess payment to one group of customers cannot discharge the obligation owed to different customers. The statutory framework does not empower recovery of alleged excess benefit from consumers or adjustment of that excess against liabilities due to other recipients.

Conclusion: Set-off of excess benefit passed to 1039 customers against the liability to the remaining 128 customers was refused; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount.

Analysis: The excess amount paid by a homebuyer includes GST charged on the inflated base price. Even if that tax was remitted to the Government, it was an additional cost borne by the buyer and must be restored to place the buyer in the position that would have prevailed had the ITC benefit been passed on.

Conclusion: Inclusion of GST at 12% in the profiteered amount was upheld; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) validly provides for interest at 18% per annum on the amount not passed on to recipients. Since the project-wide computation did not permit identification of the exact date of collection of excess amount for each square foot, the date of payment of the last instalment by each buyer was adopted as the appropriate starting point.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable from the respective date of the last instalment paid by each eligible homebuyer until refund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Analysis: The entire contravention period ended on 30.10.2019, before Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020. A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to a completed period of contravention.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is payable; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The developer remained liable to return the net unpassed ITC benefit of Rs. 40,99,917 to the 128 identified homebuyers, with interest, while no penal consequence could be imposed for the pre-enforcement contravention period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transitional real-estate project, ITC benefit must be passed on project-wise to every eligible recipient, and liability owed to one recipient cannot be neutralised by excess benefit given to another.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was admissible before the amendment to Rule 12 effective from 20.01.2014; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the credit.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was admissible before the amendment to Rule 12 effective from 20.01.2014.

Analysis: The CENVAT credit scheme requires harmonious reading of its provisions. Credit is available where the input has suffered duty, is used in manufacture of final products or provision of output services, and is received under prescribed documents. As these conditions were undisputedly fulfilled, and the Rules contained no express pre-amendment prohibition against such credit, the later express provision could not be read as restricting credit for the earlier period.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit was admissible before 20.01.2014; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the credit.

Analysis: The records had been subjected to audits, returns were regularly filed, and refund claims had been processed. Revenue produced no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The dispute also involved interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, in which circumstances the extended period was not invocable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed input credit remains available and the demand is time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for CENVAT credit are fulfilled and no express prohibition exists, a subsequent amendment expressly allowing such credit does not itself justify denial for the preceding period; extended limitation requires proof of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: (i) Whether freight incurred for FOR destination sales up to the buyers' premises formed part of the assessable value for central excise duty; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand despite prior departmental knowledge of the freight exclusion and conflicting decisions on the place of removal.

Issue (i): Whether freight incurred for FOR destination sales up to the buyers' premises formed part of the assessable value for central excise duty.

Analysis: Under FOR destination sales, delivery occurs at the buyers' premises. Freight and transportation charges incurred up to that place are consequently includible in the assessable value. The merits issue stood covered against the assessee.

Conclusion: Freight up to the buyers' premises was includible in the assessable value; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand despite prior departmental knowledge of the freight exclusion and conflicting decisions on the place of removal.

Analysis: The earlier notice concerning the same exclusion of freight and cartage had already placed the material facts within the Department's knowledge. Further, conflicting decisions on the place of removal made the assessee's belief regarding non-inclusion of freight reasonably possible. The same known facts could not subsequently constitute suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The entire demand was beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although freight was liable to be included in assessable value for FOR destination sales, the time-barred demand, interest and penalty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department already possesses the relevant facts, their repetition in a subsequent notice cannot establish suppression for invoking the extended limitation period; a bona fide view supported by conflicting decisions also negates intent to evade duty.

Issues: (i) Whether an independent Chartered Accountant certifying statutory e-Forms is an officer or officer in default amenable to direct prosecution by the Registrar of Companies; (ii) Whether prosecution under Section 628 read with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 can proceed without specific material showing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance by the certifying professional; (iii) Whether the complaint filed in 2020 regarding e-Forms and allotments made between 2011 and 2014 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether an independent Chartered Accountant certifying statutory e-Forms is an officer or officer in default amenable to direct prosecution by the Registrar of Companies.

Analysis: The statutory definitions of officer and officer in default concern persons involved in corporate governance, management, and internal administration. Section 2(60)(v) of the Companies Act, 2013 excludes a person giving advice to the Board in a professional capacity. An external Chartered Accountant certifying statutory forms is not thereby transformed into an internal corporate officer. However, exclusion from officer status does not create an absolute immunity from prosecution under a provision directed at any person where active criminal complicity is prima facie shown.

Conclusion: An independent professional certifier is not an officer or officer in default merely by certifying statutory e-Forms, though prosecution for a separate offence may lie upon material establishing active criminal complicity.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution under Section 628 read with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 can proceed without specific material showing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance by the certifying professional.

Analysis: Section 628 requires a knowingly false material statement or intentional concealment. The complaint attributed falsification, mala fides, and physical filing of the forms to the company director, while alleging only that the professional certified the forms. It contained no foundational allegation or material indicating personal knowledge of falsity, deliberate concealment, or connivance. The primary responsibility for accurate filing rested on the company and its directors under Rule 10 of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.

Conclusion: Prosecution of the certifying professional could not proceed because the complaint disclosed no specific material establishing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint filed in 2020 regarding e-Forms and allotments made between 2011 and 2014 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged offence under Section 628 read with Section 75 carried a maximum punishment of two years and was therefore subject to the three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaint was instituted long after the relevant filings, without an application or sufficient basis for condonation under Section 473 of that Code. The date of filing of the complaint governs computation, and stale prosecution cannot be initiated after expiry of the prescribed period without valid condonation.

Conclusion: The complaint was incurably barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The discharge of the surviving independent professional stands sustained for absence of the essential factual basis for criminal liability and for expiry of the statutory limitation period; this determination does not preclude proceedings in accordance with law against the company or its internal management.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional certifier may incur criminal liability for false statutory filings only upon specific material demonstrating knowing falsity or intentional participation, and a prosecution initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period without condonation is legally untenable.

Issues: Whether a director may be prosecuted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for fraudulent availment of input tax credit by a company without arraigning the company as an accused.

Analysis: Section 137 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The statutory phrase making persons in charge liable "as well as the company" makes commission of the offence by, and prosecution of, the company a condition precedent for fastening vicarious criminal liability on its director. The alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was by the company, which alone was the registered person entitled to take input tax credit under Section 16, while the director's alleged role arose solely from his position in the company. The company had not been arraigned in the complaint.

Conclusion: Prosecution of the director in his personal capacity without arraigning the company is not maintainable; the criminal complaint and consequential proceedings cannot continue against him.

Issues: Whether penalty for alleged cash acceptance in breach of the statutory restriction could be sustained against a co-owner after the cash-receipt dates in the sale deed were rectified and no penalty was levied on the other co-owner.

Analysis: The jointly owned property had been sold with a cash component in the consideration. The registered rectification deed corrected the dates of cash receipt from 2016 to 2014. On the basis of that rectification, penalty proceedings against the other equal co-owner for the same transaction resulted in no penalty. Equal treatment was warranted for the assessee, whose position arose from the identical property transaction and cash receipts.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the order granting regular bail in a money-laundering case warranted interference on the ground that the statutory twin conditions for bail had not been satisfied.

Analysis: An appellate challenge to an order granting bail is distinct from cancellation of bail for post-release misconduct or supervening circumstances. Interference with a bail order is warranted where it is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, based on irrelevant material, or reflects non-consideration of relevant factors; a detailed adjudication of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The bail order recorded the absence of material indicating receipt of proceeds of crime by the accused, the completion of investigation, and the lack of an imminent trial, while imposing conditions to protect the proceedings. It therefore disclosed application of mind to the requirements of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and the factors governing bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The bail order was neither illegal nor perverse and did not warrant being set aside merely because the enforcement authority disputed satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions.

Issues: Whether the ex parte appellate orders sustaining the addition and penalty should be set aside where the assessee did not comply with hearing notices.

Analysis: Appellate adjudication under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must conform to the principles of natural justice. Although notices had been issued and remained unanswered, the possibility of circumstances causing the non-compliance could not be ruled out. A further opportunity was therefore warranted for production of evidence and information on the disputed addition and consequential penalty.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether rejection of the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5) on grounds of non-commencement of charitable activities, filing delay, non-submission of activity report or Darpan registration, and inadequate opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Analysis: The applications initially declared that no charitable activity had commenced, but the record disclosed that the first expenditure towards startup-incubation support was made while the applications were pending. That subsequent activity required verification and consideration for determining the genuineness of charitable activities. The delay-condonation explanation filed with Form 10AB had not been addressed, despite the availability of condonation measures under section 119(2)(b). An activity note had been filed, and no statutory requirement for Darpan registration for purposes of sections 12AB or 80G(5) was identified. The disputed absence of a written show-cause notice and effective hearing also required observance of principles of natural justice through a speaking fresh determination.

Conclusion: The stated grounds did not justify rejection without verification of the subsequent activity and consideration of the delay-condonation request; both applications require fresh determination in accordance with law after due verification and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the Court could entertain anticipatory-bail petitions notwithstanding a transit-bail direction to approach the jurisdictional court; (ii) Whether custodial interrogation was required for alleged GST-evasion offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the Court could entertain anticipatory-bail petitions notwithstanding a transit-bail direction to approach the jurisdictional court.

Analysis: A jurisdictional court for anticipatory bail includes both the High Court and the Court of Session, which exercise concurrent jurisdiction. A transit-bail direction to approach the jurisdictional court did not confine the applicants to the Court of Session alone.

Conclusion: The anticipatory-bail petitions were maintainable before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether custodial interrogation was required for alleged GST-evasion offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The alleged economic offence carried a maximum punishment of five years and was compoundable. The material documentary, financial and electronic records had substantially been secured by the authorities; the petitioners had established business roots and undertook to cooperate with the investigation. These circumstances did not make custodial interrogation indispensable.

Conclusion: Custodial interrogation was not required, and anticipatory bail was granted.

Final Conclusion: The anticipatory-bail protection continued subject to safeguards, with the daily reporting requirement modified to reporting only when required by the authorities.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the availability of a statutory appeal against the order for provisional release of imported goods.

Analysis: The impugned order was independently appealable under the statutory mechanism. No exceptional circumstance was established to bypass that remedy; the pendency and stay of an appeal concerning a prior adjudication involving similar goods did not alter the availability of the appellate remedy against the impugned order.

Outcome: Writ jurisdiction was declined in view of the available statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether a subsequent service-tax adjudication order and consequential recovery action for the same tax period could be sustained after the earlier appellate adjudication had held that the services were exempt and no service tax was payable.

Analysis: The earlier appellate adjudication for the relevant periods had determined that works executed exclusively for Government Departments were exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 and that the relevant works were also within the threshold for small-scale service-provider exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. It had consequently found no taxable service, no liability to file statutory returns, and no sustainable demand or late fee. The later order nevertheless confirmed demand for the same period on the basis of income-tax returns and Form 26AS. The two proceedings concerned the same tax periods, while the earlier appellate determination had already resulted in setting aside the demand and refund of the amount deposited.

Conclusion: The subsequent order-in-original and the garnishee recovery notice for the same tax period could not be sustained and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether a BOT road-concessionaire may deduct a scientifically estimated provision for future major repairs where the contractual obligation to undertake such repairs has accrued.

Analysis: The concession agreement imposed enforceable maintenance obligations, including periodic major repairs, consequences of breach, and an obligation to cure defects on termination. The provision was founded on a detailed scientific estimate, and its reliability was supported by subsequent actual expenditure. A business liability that has arisen in the relevant accounting year remains deductible though its quantification and discharge occur later, provided the obligation is present and the estimate is reasonably certain; it is not thereby a contingent liability.

Conclusion: The provision for major repairs was an allowable deduction and could not be disallowed merely because the expenditure was to be incurred in future. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for management support services could be conclusively sustained without examination by the Transfer Pricing Officer of the complete evidence concerning rendition of services, commercial need and benefit, cost allocation, and arm's-length benchmarking.

Analysis: Determination of the arm's length price under Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, requires verification of the evidence relevant to the need, benefit and rendition tests, including the service agreement, costs incurred, allocation keys and benchmarking material. An earlier-year decision in the assessee's case is to be followed where the factual matrix, evidentiary record and contractual arrangements are identical; however, each assessment year remains independently assessable. The complete material now relied upon had not been examined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, and appellate adjudication on the arm's-length price without that factual verification was not appropriate.

Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment was set aside and the arm's-length-price determination was restored to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication after examination of the evidence and opportunity of hearing. The merits of the adjustment were left open, with consistency to be maintained if the facts are found identical to the earlier year.

Issues: (i) Whether a moratorium imposed against a corporate debtor precludes prosecution of its director and authorised signatory for cheque dishonour; (ii) Whether the Petitioner made a deliberate suppression or misrepresentation in obtaining exemption from personal appearance.

Issue (i): Whether a moratorium imposed against a corporate debtor precludes prosecution of its director and authorised signatory for cheque dishonour.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 restricts proceedings against the corporate debtor, but does not extend that protection to natural persons made statutorily liable under Sections 141(1) and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The personal penal liability of a director or signatory for acts undertaken before the moratorium is not retrospectively extinguished by suspension of the board's powers under Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Where the complaints contain specific averments concerning the signatory's role and issuance of the cheques, defences concerning knowledge, due diligence, or inability to operate the corporate debtor's accounts require determination on trial and cannot be conclusively resolved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Conclusion: The moratorium does not, by itself, bar prosecution of the Petitioner as director and authorised signatory; the challenge to the summoning orders fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the Petitioner made a deliberate suppression or misrepresentation in obtaining exemption from personal appearance.

Analysis: The pleadings identified the Petitioner as a director and authorised signatory and relied on the settlement document bearing his signature. The record did not establish that the recital regarding a director's prior resignation, apparently associated with a co-accused, resulted from a deliberate false statement or suppression by the Petitioner.

Conclusion: No adverse finding of deliberate suppression or misrepresentation is warranted against the Petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaints against the Petitioner may proceed to trial, where liability and available statutory defences must be adjudicated on evidence independently of the observations in these petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate insolvency moratorium protects the corporate debtor, not natural persons whose personal statutory liability for cheque dishonour arises under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issues: (i) Whether fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the period allowed for replying to the show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether uploading the show-cause notice and adjudication order in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab constituted due communication.

Issue (i): Whether fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the period allowed for replying to the show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Sections 73 and 75 require an opportunity of hearing where an adverse determination is contemplated. Although time was allowed for filing a reply, the personal hearing was scheduled before the last date for submission of that reply, depriving the petitioners of an effective opportunity to respond before hearing.

Conclusion: Fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the reply period violated principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading the show-cause notice and adjudication order in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab constituted due communication.

Analysis: The notices and adjudication order were uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. Such uploading is not recognised as due communication for proceedings under Section 73.

Conclusion: Uploading in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not amount to due communication, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not stand because the statutory hearing process and communication requirements were not validly complied with; the matter must be determined afresh after reply and a properly scheduled hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication entailing adverse consequences is invalid where the hearing is fixed before expiry of the reply period or where communication is made only through the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab rather than through legally valid service.

Issues: (i) Whether profits from offshore sales of CKD kits, raw materials, spare parts and CBU cars to the Indian affiliate or customers were taxable in India through a business connection; (ii) Whether the Indian affiliate constituted a fixed place or agency permanent establishment of the German enterprise under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement; (iii) Whether any profits from the relevant sales were attributable to activities in India.

Issue (i): Whether profits from offshore sales of CKD kits, raw materials, spare parts and CBU cars to the Indian affiliate or customers were taxable in India through a business connection.

Analysis: Under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only income attributable to operations carried out in India may be brought to tax. The sales were concluded outside India on a principal-to-principal basis, with title and risk passing outside India. The Indian affiliate conducted its own business, including assembly and subsequent sale, while the non-resident undertook no manufacturing, sale or distribution operations in India in respect of those supplies. No distinguishing facts or legal change from the earlier years was shown.

Conclusion: The Indian affiliate did not constitute a business connection, and the profits from the relevant sales were not taxable in India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian affiliate constituted a fixed place or agency permanent establishment of the German enterprise under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Article 5 requires that the foreign enterprise carry on its business through a fixed place at its disposal, or through a qualifying dependent agent. The Indian affiliate's premises were not at the disposal of the assessee; it had no authority to negotiate or conclude contracts for the assessee, did not habitually secure orders or maintain the assessee's stock for delivery, and merely facilitated communications in direct CBU sales. Its activities were independent and preparatory or auxiliary to such direct sales.

Conclusion: The Indian affiliate was neither a fixed place permanent establishment nor an agency permanent establishment of the assessee in India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether any profits from the relevant sales were attributable to activities in India.

Analysis: Article 7 permits taxation only of profits attributable to a permanent establishment. Since no business connection or permanent establishment existed and no operations of the assessee relating to the sales were undertaken in India, the basis for attributing business profits to India failed.

Conclusion: No profits from the sales of CKD kits, raw materials, spare parts or CBU cars were attributable to India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for profits allegedly attributable to Indian activities was sustained for both assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: Offshore sales by a non-resident are not taxable in India where the Indian affiliate neither performs operations giving rise to the sales income nor satisfies the conditions for a fixed place or agency permanent establishment.

Issues: Whether limited interim access to frozen funds should be permitted for payment of employees' outstanding salaries and statutory dues of the holding company pending adjudication of the appeals.

Analysis: The appellant's holding company did not dispute the genuineness of the salary and statutory liabilities. The applicant, though having no employees or independent business operations, had received substantial funds from its holding company and prima facie owed amounts to it. The balance of convenience supported permitting essential verified payments. Requiring default in remittance of TDS and GST dues was not justified where the Central Government would be the beneficiary of those payments, while safeguards could preserve the purpose of the freezing action.

Outcome: Limited interim relief was granted, subject to verification of employee salary details and statutory dues by the respondent and consequent bank authorization for legitimately due payments. The merits of the pending appeals were left open.