Issues: Whether medical reimbursement up to Rs. 15,000 per employee per annum is chargeable to Fringe Benefit Tax under Section 115WB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Court held that taxation under a charging provision must rest on clear legislative authority and cannot be imposed by implication. It noted that the proviso to Section 17(2) excludes medical reimbursement up to Rs. 15,000 from the definition of perquisite in the employee's hands, and that the issue had already been answered by the Karnataka High Court in favour of excluding such reimbursement from Fringe Benefit Tax. Accepting that view, the Court concluded that medical reimbursement up to the exempt limit could not be brought to tax as a fringe benefit in the employer's hands.

Conclusion: Medical reimbursement up to Rs. 15,000 per employee per annum is not chargeable to Fringe Benefit Tax, and the assessee succeeds on the issue.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was exigible where the assessee had disclosed the share sale transaction and paid advance tax, but claimed exemption on the basis of a purported bona fide belief and the computation contained an alleged typographical error.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) depends on whether the omission or claim is inadvertent or represents a conscious attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The assessee had paid advance tax on the capital gains, yet while filing the return sought exemption and refund. The Court found that the exemption claim was not a mere erroneous or typographical mistake, but a deliberate attempt to avoid tax, since the non-disclosure of capital gains came to light only on scrutiny. The advance ruling relied upon was treated as factually inapplicable because the transaction there involved different surrounding circumstances, including an employment relationship and a non-compete element, which were absent here.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified and the assessee's claim of bona fide mistake was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is attracted where the assessee consciously suppresses taxable income or makes a false exemption claim, and a claim of typographical error or bona fide belief will not protect a deliberate attempt to evade tax.

Issues: Whether the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, operating against the corporate guarantor and personal guarantors respectively, extend to the principal borrower against whom no insolvency proceedings have been initiated.

Analysis: Section 14 operates only against the corporate debtor against whom CIRP is initiated and stays proceedings against that debtor alone. Section 96, though expressed in relation to "all the debts" and "any debt", is triggered in proceedings under Part III and protects the debtor who is the subject of the insolvency application. Read with the scheme of Sections 94, 95, 101 and the definitions in Section 3, the interim moratorium is confined to the debts of the debtor against whom the application is filed. The principles of coextensive liability and subrogation do not enlarge the moratorium so as to discharge or protect a separate principal borrower who is not before the insolvency forum. The authorities relied upon support the distinction between moratoriums operating on the debtor concerned and any broader reading that would sever the contractual and statutory allocation of liability.

Conclusion: The moratoriums applicable to the corporate guarantor and the personal guarantors do not extend to the principal borrower, and the suit may proceed against the principal borrower.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding is stayed only to the extent of the defendants against whom insolvency moratoriums operate, while the claim against the principal borrower continues.

Ratio Decidendi: An insolvency moratorium under Section 96 is confined to the debtor and the debts that form the subject of the insolvency application, and it cannot be extended to a separate principal borrower against whom no insolvency proceedings are pending.

Issues: Whether the National Company Law Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the Lucknow Development Authority's sanction of the map, and whether the application was maintainable in view of the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: The relief sought was directed against an order passed by the Lucknow Development Authority in exercise of its statutory powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The resolution plan had only permitted the successful resolution applicant to obtain the necessary approvals, and the sanction order was passed independently by the statutory authority long after approval of the plan. A decision taken by a statutory authority in exercise of its own jurisdiction cannot be converted into a dispute before the NCLT merely because it has some connection with the corporate insolvency process. The proper remedy lay under the statutory framework governing the development authority's order, including the revisional remedy available to the State Government.

Conclusion: The application before the Adjudicating Authority was not maintainable, and the NCLT had no jurisdiction to set aside the development authority's sanction order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned order involved a statutory planning decision outside the NCLT's insolvency jurisdiction, leaving the appellant to pursue the remedy provided under the relevant planning law.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's cancelled GST registration should be restored subject to filing pending returns and depositing tax, penalty and interest within the stipulated time.

Analysis: The petition was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in light of earlier orders in similar matters where restoration had been directed on compliance with the prescribed fiscal obligations. The relief was made conditional upon the petitioner approaching the competent authority within the stipulated period and completing the requisite formalities. The petitioner was also required to file all pending returns and deposit the taxes, penalty and interest after restoration, failing which the order would cease to operate.

Conclusion: The cancelled GST registration was directed to be restored, subject to completion of the requisite formalities and subsequent compliance with filing and payment obligations.

Issues: Whether an order of confiscation under Section 130 of the Central / State Goods and Services Tax Act could be sustained when the affected person was not given an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires that no confiscation of goods or conveyance be ordered without affording the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. Mere consideration of a written reply does not satisfy this requirement. Where the order discloses no hearing, the mandate of natural justice is not complied with.

Conclusion: The confiscation order could not be sustained for want of hearing. It was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns could be sustained in the absence of an effective opportunity of hearing and a reasoned consideration of the reply, and what consequential directions were required.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled for non-submission of returns under the GST framework. The petitioner had not sought revocation within the prescribed time, but the dispute was treated as covered by the settled approach adopted in earlier similar matters. In that approach, cancellation orders passed without adequate procedural fairness were interfered with, while the dealer was required to regularise compliance by filing pending returns and clearing statutory dues. The Court accordingly moulded relief by setting aside the cancellation and issuing consequential directions for compliance, including filing of returns within a stipulated period and payment of tax, penalty, interest, and late fees.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was set aside, and relief was granted to restore the registration subject to compliance with the directed statutory obligations, resulting in partial relief in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be set aside and the registration restored subject to compliance with tax filing and payment obligations.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled for non-filing of returns. No allegation of a dubious method to evade tax was made. The order proceeded on the basis that cancellation of registration prevents the business from operating, disables issuance of invoices, and may ultimately hinder tax recovery. In these circumstances, the cancellation was considered capable of being interfered with, but only on the condition that the defaulting returns are filed and the dues towards tax, interest, fine and penalty are paid within the stipulated time. Directions were also issued for activation of the portal to enable compliance.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was set aside conditionally, and registration was to be restored upon compliance with the specified requirements within the prescribed time.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns should be set aside subject to compliance with return filing and payment of tax dues, and whether consequential restoration of registration could be directed.

Analysis: The registration had been cancelled for non-filing of returns. The order records that there was no allegation of a dubious device to evade tax and that keeping the registration suspended would prevent the assessee from carrying on business, raising invoices, and ultimately recovering tax. On that basis, a pragmatic approach was adopted to protect revenue while allowing business continuity. The cancellation was directed to be set aside on condition that the petitioner files returns for the default period and pays the requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty, if unpaid. A further direction was issued to activate the portal to enable compliance, and the earlier appellate order was also set aside consequentially.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was quashed subject to compliance, with a corresponding direction for restoration of registration upon fulfilment of the stated conditions.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was liable to be set aside and the registration restored subject to compliance with tax dues and return filing.

Analysis: The cancellation was based on non-filing of returns, and there was no allegation that the petitioner was adopting a dubious method to evade tax. The order proceeded on the footing that keeping registration cancelled would prevent the petitioner from carrying on business and would also be counterproductive to revenue recovery, since invoices could not be raised. In view of these circumstances, the cancellation order and the consequential appellate order were liable to be interfered with, but only on condition that the petitioner files the returns for the entire default period and pays the requisite tax, interest, fine and penalty. The Court also directed activation of the portal to enable compliance.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the appellate order were set aside subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions, and the registration was directed to be restored upon such compliance.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained conditional relief against cancellation of registration, with restoration made dependent on filing of returns and payment of outstanding dues.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Issues: Whether, after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the tax authorities can continue or initiate assessment, reassessment and penalty proceedings in respect of liabilities relating to the period prior to such approval.

Analysis: Upon approval of a resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plan becomes binding on all stakeholders, including statutory authorities. Claims not forming part of the approved plan stand extinguished, and pre-resolution liabilities cannot be pursued thereafter. The determinative factor is the period to which the liability relates, not the date on which the assessment or reassessment order is passed. Penalty proceedings, being consequential to the underlying assessment liability, cannot survive once the principal claim itself stands extinguished. The continuation of proceedings for assessment years relating to the pre-approval period was therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The tax proceedings for periods prior to approval of the resolution plan were held unsustainable and were quashed, with the pre-resolution tax claims declared extinguished.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay, as the delay in filing was not found to be supported by a bona fide and plausible explanation.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The special leave petitions were dismissed, and the pending applications stood disposed of.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to avail Input Tax Credit for the relevant financial year in view of the amended provisions extending the time limit, and whether the demand confirmed under the Order-in-Original could be sustained.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 16 of the CGST Act introduced sub-sections (5) and (6), which extended the period for availing Input Tax Credit for specified financial years up to 30 November 2021. In view of the amendment, the challenge to the demand based on Section 16(4) no longer survived to that extent, and the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of Input Tax Credit for the relevant period. The respondents' request for payment of the excess utilised amount and interest was accepted by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Input Tax Credit for the relevant period, the Order-in-Original was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to pay the excess utilised amount and interest within 30 days.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by granting partial relief to the petitioner while preserving the limited monetary liability accepted by the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory amendment expressly extends the time limit for availing Input Tax Credit for specified periods, a demand founded solely on the earlier time bar cannot be sustained to that extent.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Outcome: Delay condoned. Special leave petition dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.