Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation; (ii) Whether the revisional order under section 263 was valid in law, including on limitation and merits; (iii) Whether the consequential addition and penalty survived after the revisional order was set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeals deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was explained by the assessee on the basis of non-communication of the order by its employee and the surrounding circumstances. The delay was found to be unintentional, and the principle of advancing substantial justice was applied in preference to technical objections.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appeals were admitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order under section 263 was valid in law, including on limitation and merits.

Analysis: The assessment under section 143(3) had already examined the relevant material and accepted the claim after scrutiny. The revisional power under section 263 was invoked only on the same subject matter and beyond the limitation period reckoned from the original assessment order. The Tribunal also found that the notice and revisional order did not rest on a sustainable basis and that the issue of corpus donations had already been considered in assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The order under section 263 was held to be beyond limitation and unsustainable, and it was quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether the consequential addition and penalty survived after the revisional order was set aside.

Analysis: Once the revisional order was quashed, the foundation for the addition made in the giving-effect assessment disappeared. The penalty based on that addition also lost its substratum.

Conclusion: The consequential addition and penalty did not survive and were deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in all connected appeals, with the revisional order, consequential addition, and penalty all set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order under section 263 cannot be sustained when it is initiated beyond the statutory period counted from the original assessment order and concerns an issue already examined in the scrutiny assessment.

Issues: Whether notional interest earned on refundable security deposit taken while renting out safe deposit lockers forms part of the taxable value for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The service tax had already been discharged on the annual locker rent, and the dispute was confined to the additional inclusion of notional interest on the refundable security deposit. The governing principle is that only the consideration actually received for the taxable service can be brought to tax under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. The security deposit was taken for a different purpose and did not alter the agreed rent or constitute consideration for the renting service. The earlier decision in the appellant's own case, following the settled view that no deeming provision permits addition of notional interest to the value of the service, was applied.

Conclusion: Notional interest on the refundable security deposit is not includible in the taxable value, and the demand of service tax on that amount is unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific statutory provision deeming notional interest on a refundable security deposit to be consideration, only the actual rent charged for the service can be subjected to service tax.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to provisional release of the seized imported goods, subject to specified conditions, while preserving the customs authorities' right to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.

Analysis: The petition challenged only the seizure memo and sought interim release of the imported consignment. The Court noted that identical matters had earlier been disposed of by directing provisional release on conditions, including payment of the enhanced duty as quantified by Customs, furnishing of a bank guarantee, and maintenance of transaction details if the goods were sold after release. It also preserved the authority of the adjudicating authority to proceed independently and made clear that the release order would not influence the merits of adjudication.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to provisional release of the seized goods on the stipulated conditions, and the customs adjudication was left open to proceed separately in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the rectification order and rectification show-cause notice issued under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were liable to be quashed as having been passed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Analysis: Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits rectification of an order within six months from the date of the original order. The impugned rectification order was passed on 27.03.2025, whereas the original order was dated 12.09.2024. The rectification action was therefore taken beyond the statutory period, and the exercise of power under the provision was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The rectification proceedings were held to be time-barred and unsustainable, and the rectification order and connected show-cause notice were quashed.

Issues: Whether the ex parte adjudication orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The adjudication orders were passed without the petitioner having filed a reply and after noting that no clarification had been furnished despite opportunity. The Court treated the orders as effectively ex parte and took into account the petitioner's assertion that it could meet the allegations if afforded an opportunity. On that basis, and in view of the hardship that would follow from sustaining orders passed without a reply, the Court found it appropriate to interfere and restore the matter to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice. The challenge to the invocation of Section 74 in the show-cause notice was left open for appropriate consideration by the authorities, including by way of corrigendum if necessary.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after granting opportunity to reply.

Issues: Whether the ex parte adjudication orders passed under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

Analysis: The orders under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were passed without the benefit of a reply to the show cause notice. The appellate order against one adjudication order had been rejected only on the ground of delay under Section 107(1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Court took note that the orders were ex parte. In view of the absence of a reply, and considering the financial prejudice that would follow if the orders were allowed to stand, the matter was considered fit for reopening from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were reopened for fresh adjudication after permitting the petitioner to respond to the notice, and ancillary consequential action was directed to be withdrawn.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte tax adjudication passed without considering a reply to the show cause notice may be set aside and remanded where denial of participation would cause prejudice and the interests of justice require a fresh opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the orders cancelling GST registration and rejecting revocation were liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice when the petitioner was in judicial custody during the relevant period and could not respond to the show cause notice or avail personal hearing.

Analysis: The cancellation order was passed on the footing that no reply had been filed to the show cause notice and that the opportunity of personal hearing had not been utilised. The petitioner's assertion that he was in judicial custody during the relevant period was not controverted. In such circumstances, the failure to respond to the notice could not be treated as a voluntary default, and the cancellation order stood vitiated by breach of natural justice. The later order rejecting revocation also suffered from the same defect because it did not address the violation of natural justice or record reasons to sustain the rejection.

Conclusion: The orders cancelling the GST registration and rejecting revocation were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner was to be given an opportunity to appear before the authority and the registration was directed to be restored forthwith.

Issues: Whether interest earned on fixed deposits created as a mandatory pre-condition for furnishing bank guarantee in connection with a real estate project, and kept alive during pendency of challenge to project cancellation, was taxable as income from other sources or required to be capitalised to work-in-progress.

Analysis: The fixed deposits were not made as an independent deployment of surplus funds but were created solely to secure the bank guarantee required for the project. The bank guarantee continued during the relevant year, and the cancellation of the project had not attained finality. On these facts, the funds were not idle or surplus and retained a direct nexus with the project. The rule in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals applies where surplus funds are independently invested to earn income, whereas receipts inextricably linked with the setting up or execution of a project are to be capitalised. The present case falls within the latter category and is consistent with the principles recognised in Bokaro Steel, Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium, Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions, and Paramount Premises.

Conclusion: The interest income was inextricably linked with the project and was required to be capitalised to work-in-progress. The addition sustained by the appellate authority was not justified and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest earned on fixed deposits maintained only to secure a project-related bank guarantee, where the funds are not surplus and remain integrally connected with an ongoing project, is not taxable as income from other sources and is liable to be capitalised to the project cost or work-in-progress.

Issues: Whether commission received from Amway on sales-linked business activity was taxable as consideration for Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The commission was held to be linked to the appellant's activity of promoting and marketing Amway products through the sales group, which fell within the definition of Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal applied the settled view that such commission, when connected with sales promotion activity for the client's products, constitutes taxable consideration. Finding the facts identical to earlier decided cases, the Tribunal found no reason to depart from that view.

Conclusion: The commission was taxable as Business Auxiliary Service and the demand was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was liable to be rejected for alleged non-compliance with the summary suit procedure or for want of a statement of truth; (ii) whether the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act and, if not, whether the plaintiff could maintain a claim for compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act; (iii) whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to the principal suit claim; and (iv) whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the claimed rate.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was liable to be rejected for alleged non-compliance with the summary suit procedure or for want of a statement of truth?

Analysis: The special procedure for summary suits under Order VII of the Original Side Rules applies only to specified categories of claims. Even assuming the suit was initially treated as a summary suit, the Court proceeded to try it as an ordinary suit and required the plaintiff to prove the claim. That course caused no prejudice to the defendant. The record also showed that a statement of truth had been filed and received on re-presentation of the plaint.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections failed and the issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act and, if not, whether the plaintiff could maintain a claim for compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act?

Analysis: Section 69(2) bars a suit by an unregistered firm only when the suit seeks enforcement of a right arising from a contract. The invoices, correspondence, and oral evidence did not establish any written or oral contract fixing the material terms of supply. The Court therefore found that the plaintiff was not enforcing contractual rights. The evidence instead showed lawful delivery of goods without gratuitous intent and receipt of the benefit by the defendant. Those facts satisfied the ingredients of Section 70, which supports compensation on a quantum meruit basis where the recipient has enjoyed the benefit of a non-gratuitous act.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred under Section 69(2), and the claim was maintainable as one for compensation under Section 70 of the Contract Act.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to the principal suit claim?

Analysis: The invoices, e-way bills, GST returns, and related records established supply and delivery of goods. The defendant produced no written statement or evidence to show that the amounts claimed were unreasonable or that the goods were returned, rejected, or unused. On the balance of probabilities, the claimed invoice values were found to represent reasonable compensation for the supplies made.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to the principal suit claim.

Issue (iv): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the claimed rate?

Analysis: The demand for 24% interest compounded with monthly rests was founded on the MSMED Act, but the claim was being awarded as compensation under Section 70 and not as recovery of a contractual debt. In that setting, compound interest at the claimed rate was not available. Having regard to the commercial nature of the transaction and the absence of any agreed interest term, the Court awarded simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of plaint until realisation.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to interest at 24% per annum with monthly rests, but was entitled to simple interest at 9% per annum.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded on the merits as a claim for compensatory relief for non-gratuitous supply of goods, with the principal amount decreed together with moderate simple interest and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered firm is not barred by Section 69(2) where the suit does not enforce a contractual right, and where goods are lawfully supplied and enjoyed without a contract, compensation is recoverable on a quantum meruit basis under Section 70 of the Contract Act.

Issues: Whether the addition made on the basis of alleged bogus long-term capital gain from penny stock transactions under section 68 was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The findings against the assessee were founded substantially on Investigation Wing material, and no independent inquiry was shown to have been made. The assessee had supported the transaction through banking channels and demat evidence, and the departmental record did not furnish material sufficient to dislodge the concurrent factual finding in the assessee's favour. On the facts recorded, the share-price movement and surrounding circumstances did not warrant interference with the appellate view that the transaction stood explained.

Conclusion: The addition was not sustained, and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the appellate orders deleting the addition were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an addition under section 68 is based only on investigation material without independent verification, and the assessee substantiates the transaction through banking and demat records, the appellate finding in favour of genuineness will not be disturbed in the absence of contrary evidence.

Issues: Whether the order cancelling GST registration was liable to be quashed for travelling beyond the show cause notice and for denying the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The show cause notice proceeded on the basis of alleged fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts under Section 29(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order, however, was founded on a different alleged default, namely failure to furnish the final return in Form GSTR-10 under Section 39(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and also invoked Rule 21(a) and Rule 21(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 without any prior notice on those grounds. The order therefore did not answer the reply on the basis on which notice had been issued and resulted in denial of a fair opportunity to meet the case.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable and was quashed and set aside. The respondent was left free to issue a fresh show cause notice with specific allegations.

Issues: Whether initiation and completion of proceedings under section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment years were barred by limitation, and whether the proviso to section 201(3) saved the proceedings.

Analysis: The show-cause notice issued on 02.12.2010 was treated as the first proper notice under section 201(1), earlier letters being regarded only as requests for information. On the facts, the period for initiating proceedings for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05 had already expired before the insertion of section 201(3), and the proviso permitting completion of proceedings for financial years commencing on or before 01.04.2007 applied only to pending proceedings and did not revive time-barred matters. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's view that the proceedings were initiated beyond the permissible period.

Conclusion: The proceedings under section 201(1) for the relevant years were barred by limitation, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal left undisturbed the Tribunal's quashing of the demand raised under section 201(1) for the relevant assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated show-cause notice cannot revive proceedings under section 201(1) where limitation had already expired, and the saving proviso to section 201(3) protects only proceedings that were actually pending within its temporal window.

Issues: (i) whether the demand under the head of Construction of Complex Service was sustainable where the underlying activity was a composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods; (ii) whether the demand relating to Consulting Engineer Service received from outside India was barred by limitation because the extended period had already been invoked earlier on the same facts; and (iii) whether interest and penalties could survive once the tax demands were held unsustainable.

Issue (i): whether the demand under the head of Construction of Complex Service was sustainable where the underlying activity was a composite works contract involving transfer of property in goods.

Analysis: The activity undertaken was admitted to be a composite works contract. Such indivisible contracts cannot be split up and taxed under other service categories merely because a separate taxable entry did not exist for the relevant period. A composite works contract is taxable only under the specific entry created for Works Contract Service, and not under Construction of Complex Service.

Conclusion: The demand under Construction of Complex Service was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the demand relating to Consulting Engineer Service received from outside India was barred by limitation because the extended period had already been invoked earlier on the same facts.

Analysis: The record showed that a prior show cause notice had already been issued on the same issue invoking the extended period. Once the department was aware of the material facts, the extended period could not be invoked again on the same set of facts in a subsequent notice. The later demand was therefore hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The demand on Consulting Engineer Service was barred by limitation and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether interest and penalties could survive once the tax demands were held unsustainable.

Analysis: Interest and penalties were purely consequential to the tax demands. Since the demands themselves could not stand, no independent basis remained for levy of interest or imposition of penalties.

Conclusion: The interest and penalty demands also failed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained on either the merits of classification or on limitation, and the assessee obtained complete relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An indivisible composite works contract cannot be vivisected and taxed under another service category, and where the department has already invoked the extended period on the same facts, a subsequent notice cannot again rely on the extended period for the same matter.

Issues: (i) Whether property could be provisionally attached for equivalent value when the proceeds of crime were not available in traceable form. (ii) Whether the attachment of a jointly held property could be interfered with on the ground that one co-owner was not an accused and her share was not liable.

Issue (i): Whether property could be provisionally attached for equivalent value when the proceeds of crime were not available in traceable form.

Analysis: The factual foundation recorded in the order showed that the appellants had generated and retained proceeds of crime from the contract transaction and that the tainted funds had been dissipated. The legal position applied was that where the proceeds of crime are no longer available, attachment can extend to other property of equivalent value. The source of purchase and the date of purchase do not defeat such attachment when the attachment is not of the direct tainted asset but of value equivalent to the dissipated proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge to attachment on this ground failed and the finding was against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment of a jointly held property could be interfered with on the ground that one co-owner was not an accused and her share was not liable.

Analysis: The order clarified that the share of the co-owner spouse was not being attached and that the attachment was confined only to the extent corresponding to the appellant's share and the amount of alleged proceeds of crime. Since the attachment was limited to equivalent value and not to the entire joint property, the objection based on joint ownership did not assist the appellants.

Conclusion: The joint-ownership objection was rejected and the finding was against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal sustained the provisional attachment and declined interference, holding that equivalent-value attachment was permissible on the facts and that the joint ownership plea did not vitiate the order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceeds of crime have been dissipated or are unavailable, property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached under the money-laundering framework, and a joint owner cannot defeat such attachment when the order is confined to the liable share or value attributable to the accused.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a GST prosecution where the allegations primarily rested on documentary material and further custodial interrogation was claimed to be unnecessary.

Analysis: The allegations concerned wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit and bogus invoicing. The material on record showed that relevant documents had been seized and statements had been recorded, indicating that the investigation had substantially progressed. The applicant had been in custody since 16/01/2026, and the Court found no apparent need for further custodial interrogation. Without entering into the merits of the prosecution case, the Court treated the dispute as one that could proceed on the basis of the existing record.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accusations are primarily documentary, the investigation has substantially progressed, and further custodial interrogation is not , regular bail may be granted.

Issues: (i) Whether the mistaken identification of the attached immovable property in the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act vitiated the reference and provisional attachment; (ii) Whether the share premium received by the benamidar, and the assets or proceeds traced to it, were liable to attachment as benami property.

Issue (i): Whether the mistaken identification of the attached immovable property in the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act vitiated the reference and provisional attachment.

Analysis: The record showed that the authority had attached one property on the basis of an incorrect description, while the material indicated that another property had actually been acquired by the benamidar. The misdescription could not, by itself, defeat the proceedings where the core allegation was the existence and tracing of benami funds and the statute permitted attachment of property or its proceeds. The defect was treated as curable and not one going to the root so as to nullify the entire action.

Conclusion: The mistaken property description did not vitiate the proceedings, and the objection of the respondents was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the share premium received by the benamidar, and the assets or proceeds traced to it, were liable to attachment as benami property.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the company had no real business activity, the high share premium lacked a commercial basis, and the surrounding material supported the conclusion that the premium was bogus and represented benami funds. It further held that share premium constituted property within the meaning of the Act and could be followed into substituted assets, loans, investments, or other forms into which it had been converted. On that basis, the attachment was upheld to the extent of the traced value, while the wrongly identified immovable property was directed to be released.

Conclusion: The share premium and its traced proceeds were held attachable as benami property, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in substance to the extent that the attachment was sustained against the traced benami funds and their substituted forms, while the incorrectly described property was released and the impugned order stood modified.

Ratio Decidendi: In benami proceedings, a wrong description of one property does not nullify the action where the material otherwise establishes benami funds and their identifiable proceeds, since such funds and substituted assets remain attachable as property under the Act.

Issues: (i) Whether acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings arising from the alleged online betting and gambling activity barred or diluted the benami proceedings; (ii) whether the Initiating Officer had sufficient reasons to believe and whether the statements and surrounding material could be relied upon for provisional attachment; (iii) whether Section 24(4)(b)(i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 permitted provisional attachment of properties not earlier covered under Section 24(3); and (iv) whether the transaction structure disclosed a benami arrangement falling within Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings arising from the alleged online betting and gambling activity barred or diluted the benami proceedings.

Analysis: The criminal case and the benami proceedings operate on different parameters. Acquittal or discharge in the criminal case depends on proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas benami adjudication proceeds on material showing the nature of the funds, the route adopted, and the existence of a benami structure. The absence of criminal conviction does not, by itself, negate material gathered in benami proceedings.

Conclusion: The criminal acquittal or discharge did not preclude the benami proceedings and the objection was rejected against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Initiating Officer had sufficient reasons to believe and whether the statements and surrounding material could be relied upon for provisional attachment.

Analysis: The requirement is the existence of reasons to believe based on material in possession, not the adjudicatory scrutiny of adequacy as if in a final trial. The statements recorded during search were not the sole basis; they were supported by corroborative material, including records of cash movement, banking and entry arrangements, and other seized documents. Retracted statements, by themselves, did not erase the evidentiary value of the material relied upon.

Conclusion: The reasons to believe and reliance on the material were upheld and the challenge failed against the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 24(4)(b)(i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 permitted provisional attachment of properties not earlier covered under Section 24(3).

Analysis: Section 24(3) empowers provisional attachment where the Initiating Officer apprehends alienation of the property specified in the notice. Section 24(4)(b)(i) creates an independent enabling power where provisional attachment had not earlier been made under Section 24(3), and it permits attachment of other property with prior approval till the Adjudicating Authority acts under Section 26(3). The provision does not require the insertion of an additional notice requirement that the text does not express.

Conclusion: Section 24(4)(b)(i) was held to confer valid power to provisionally attach the additional property and the contrary view of the Adjudicating Authority was disapproved.

Issue (iv): Whether the transaction structure disclosed a benami arrangement falling within Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis: The material indicated layering of unaccounted cash generated through the alleged illegal business, routing through accommodation entries, and introduction into entities shown as agriculture, partner's capital, unsecured loans, commission and allied heads without credible source explanation. The finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the material did not establish a benami transaction was found inconsistent with the record and with its own earlier view. The route of funds, the role of the entities, and the absence of a genuine business explanation supported the benami character of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The transaction was held to fall within the benami framework and the respondent's challenge on this score failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the provisional attachment was confirmed, leaving the appellants with the substantive relief sought in the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: In benami proceedings, criminal acquittal does not control the outcome, reasons to believe are judged on existing material rather than sufficiency as in a final trial, and Section 24(4)(b)(i) independently authorises provisional attachment of additional property with prior approval.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent could rely on material collected during the income-tax search without conducting an independent enquiry under the benami law; (ii) Whether the material on record, including retracted statements and electronic records, was sufficient to sustain the finding of benami transaction and the confirmation of provisional attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent could rely on material collected during the income-tax search without conducting an independent enquiry under the benami law.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that there was no legal bar against relying on evidence collected by the income-tax authorities, including statements recorded during search and documentary or electronic material, for proceedings under the benami law. The two proceedings serve different purposes, and the respondent was entitled to use the same material for determining whether a benami transaction existed. The absence of a separate independent enquiry, by itself, did not vitiate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record, including retracted statements and electronic records, was sufficient to sustain the finding of benami transaction and the confirmation of provisional attachment.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the search material, the statements of persons involved in the cash routing arrangement, and the electronic records such as the "Hisab" and "Octonward Final" sheets, which were found to be mutually corroborative. It was found that unaccounted cash generated from the alleged online betting and gambling activity was routed through accommodation entries and ultimately channelised into the entities treated as benamidars. The Tribunal further held that retracted statements could still be relied upon when supported by corroborative material, and that the absence of genuine business activity, together with the unexplained movement of funds, supported the inference of benami arrangement.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on merits, and the confirmation of the provisional attachment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In benami proceedings, evidence collected in income-tax search can be relied upon if independently corroborated, and retracted statements do not lose probative value where electronic and documentary material supports the same benami pattern.

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged diversion of funds of Rs. 431.33 crores through Nibodh Realty LLP could be treated as proceeds of crime so as to justify provisional attachment. (ii) Whether the consultancy-fee payments aggregating Rs. 71.82 crores could be treated as layered proceeds of crime. (iii) Whether the delayed payment of Rs. 25 crores in the dairy transaction could be provisionally attached as proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged diversion of funds of Rs. 431.33 crores through Nibodh Realty LLP could be treated as proceeds of crime so as to justify provisional attachment.

Analysis: The agreement between the parties was entered in 2014-15, long before the alleged commission of the predicate offence in 2018. The transaction was supported by banking channels and contractual terms providing for interest and warrants. The Court found no foundational material in the FIR or ECIR to connect that earlier commercial arrangement with the later alleged crime, and held that the investigating authority could not question a genuine pre-existing commercial transaction as a case of anticipated layering without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The attachment based on the first transaction was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the consultancy-fee payments aggregating Rs. 71.82 crores could be treated as layered proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The consultancy and related service arrangements were entered into before the alleged offence, and substantial payments had already been made before the alleged crime occurred. The material relied upon by the authority did not establish that the agreements were designed in anticipation of the later offence or that the authority had a basis to treat pre-offence commercial payments as layering of proceeds yet to arise. The Court found that the authority stretched the investigation beyond the predicate allegations and without adequate foundational facts.

Conclusion: The attachment based on the consultancy-fee transaction was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the delayed payment of Rs. 25 crores in the dairy transaction could be provisionally attached as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The dairy sale arrangement was supported by an earlier MOU and an initial payment in 2016, but the subsequent payment was made only after a delay of about three years without completing the intended transfer. The Court found that this later payment could not be justified as an ordinary adjustment against other dealings and accepted the authority's inference that the delayed payment was connected with the tainted funds.

Conclusion: The attachment to the extent of Rs. 25 crores was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment order was interfered with to a substantial extent, but the provisional attachment was retained only to the extent of Rs. 25 crores against the specified properties.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-existing independent commercial transactions, unsupported by allegations in the predicate offence or ECIR, cannot be treated as layering of proceeds of crime merely because later payments coincide with alleged crime proceeds; provisional attachment must rest on a lawful jurisdictional nexus to the alleged offence.