Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 29.01.2026, the investigation was treated as completed, and a co-accused had already been granted bail. In these circumstances, continued incarceration was not considered necessary, and bail was granted with conditions relating to bond, sureties, appearance before the investigating authorities, and compliance with the statutory conditions applicable to bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation is complete and the accused has remained in judicial custody for a substantial period, bail may be granted, subject to conditions, especially where parity with a co-accused also exists.

Issues: (i) whether the assessment and recovery proceedings were vitiated for want of valid service of notice when the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled; and (ii) whether the ex parte assessment order could stand in the absence of opportunity of personal hearing under the GST law.

Issue (i): whether the assessment and recovery proceedings were vitiated for want of valid service of notice when the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled.

Analysis: Service by merely uploading notices on the GST portal was held insufficient in the facts of the case, since the petitioner was no longer required to monitor the portal after cancellation of registration. Valid service under the GST framework requires effective communication of notice through a permissible mode that actually informs the assessee. The record showed that the proceedings were taken ex parte without proper service.

Conclusion: The service of notice was held invalid and the ex parte proceedings were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the ex parte assessment order could stand in the absence of opportunity of personal hearing under the GST law.

Analysis: The statutory mandate of personal hearing applies where an adverse order is contemplated, and it embodies the rule of audi alteram partem. Since the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the adverse assessment, the order suffered from breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order could not be sustained for want of opportunity of personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order and recovery proceedings were quashed, and the department was left free to proceed afresh after notice and hearing in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In GST adjudication, an ex parte order based only on portal-based notice to a person whose registration has been cancelled, without effective service and personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to regular bail in proceedings arising from alleged fake input tax credit offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The accused had been in judicial custody since 29.01.2026. The Court noted that a co-accused had already been granted bail and that investigation was stated to be complete. In these circumstances, further custodial detention was not considered necessary. Bail was therefore granted subject to conditions, including execution of bond, sureties, attendance before the investigating authorities, and compliance with the statutory conditions governing bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the accused.

Issues: Whether the applicant, accused of offences under the GST laws, was entitled to regular bail.

Analysis: The applicant had been arrested, the complaint had been filed, no antecedents were shown, and the alleged loss was capable of being addressed through the statutory recovery and penalty framework. The Court noted that the maximum punishment was five years and that the apprehension of the prosecution could be balanced by suitable bail conditions. Without entering into a detailed examination of the evidence, the Court found the case fit for exercise of bail discretion.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicant subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a GST prosecution, regular bail may be granted where custodial detention is not shown to be necessary, the accused has no antecedents, and the prosecution concerns can be met by imposing appropriate conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to homebuyers by commensurate reduction in the price of flats; (ii) whether the respondent was liable to pay the profiteered amount together with GST on the additional realisation; (iii) whether interest was payable on the determined amount.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to homebuyers by commensurate reduction in the price of flats

Analysis: The substantive framework under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires passing on any tax reduction or input tax credit benefit to recipients by way of commensurate price reduction. The Tribunal relied on the DGAP's reinvestigation, the project-wise and area-based computation, and the respondent's own admissions made in prior proceedings that ITC benefit had not been passed on in the pre-GST and post-GST comparison. The Tribunal accepted that the post-GST savings in ITC, measured against total purchase value and apportioned over total sold area, established profiteering on a per square foot basis.

Conclusion: The respondent was held to have profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,07,08,131/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was liable to pay the profiteered amount together with GST on the additional realisation

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle that GST collected on the higher price formed part of the additional realisation retained by the supplier and could not be appropriated contrary to the consumer-protection object of Section 171. On that basis, GST at the applicable rate was added to the profiteered amount to arrive at the total sum payable to the homebuyers.

Conclusion: The respondent was held liable to pay Rs. 2,31,93,107/- in aggregate, including GST on the additional realisation.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on the determined amount

Analysis: Once profiteering and the total amount payable were determined, the Tribunal directed payment of interest at 18% from the date of each homebuyer's last instalment on the amount attributable to that buyer, in accordance with the statutory framework governing restitution of profiteered sums.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% was held payable on the determined amount from the relevant dates of payment.

Final Conclusion: The complaint of non-passing of ITC benefit was upheld, the profiteered amount was quantified on a project-wide, area-linked basis, and the respondent was directed to refund the quantified sum with applicable interest to the affected homebuyers.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-profiteering matters under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of ITC must be passed on on a fair, project-specific and area-based basis, and judicial admissions by the supplier can conclusively establish profiteering when supported by the computation of post-GST savings.

Issues: Whether assessment and demand proceedings initiated in the name of a person who had already died are valid, and whether the legal representatives can be proceeded against under the statutory scheme only in continuation of proceedings lawfully initiated during the lifetime of the deceased.

Analysis: The proceedings under Section 148A(d) and the consequential assessment and demand notices were issued after the assessee's death. The statutory scheme under Section 159 permits action against legal representatives where proceedings are continued after having been validly initiated while the assessee was alive, but it does not authorise fresh proceedings in the name of a deceased person. A notice issued to a dead person is a foundational jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured as a mere procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The proceedings initiated against the deceased assessee were invalid and unsustainable. The challenge succeeded, and the orders and notices were set aside.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits in the bank account was sustainable, or whether the matter required restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The addition arose from cash deposits of Rs. 25,13,000/- which the assessee claimed were sourced from earlier withdrawals and receipts from family members. The first appellate authority sustained the addition because supporting documentary evidence was not fully furnished. The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought one final opportunity to place the requisite details and documents before the first appellate authority to substantiate the source of deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to give one final opportunity and decide the issue on facts and law.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not finally upheld or deleted and the issue was remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 16,88,000 as unexplained cash deposits could be sustained when the assessee's regular books showed sufficient cash in hand to cover the deposits made during the demonetization period.

Analysis: The assessee's cash book and audited accounts showed an opening cash balance, continued withdrawals and receipts, and a cash-in-hand position on 08.11.2016 far exceeding the total deposits made thereafter. The Revenue did not dispute the availability of cash in hand, but proceeded mainly on the premise that the cash ought to have been deposited earlier in November 2016. That approach did not address the decisive question of availability of funds in the books. Once the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash balance and the earlier November deposits were also accepted, there was no basis to treat the later deposits as unexplained merely because of the timing of deposit.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 16,88,000 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where regular books of account show sufficient cash in hand to explain cash deposits, an addition as unexplained cannot be sustained merely on suspicion about the timing of the deposit.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made towards alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of agricultural land was sustainable when the assessee produced evidence of the source of funds. (ii) Whether the trading addition based on estimated profit could be sustained in the absence of any specific defect in the books of account.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made towards alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of agricultural land was sustainable when the assessee produced evidence of the source of funds.

Analysis: The assessee produced confirmation letters of lenders, statements recorded during assessment, jamabandi records showing landholding and capacity of lenders, agricultural receipts, bank statements, girdhavari records, and income-tax returns showing regular declaration of agricultural income. On this material, the source of investment was treated as explained and the ingredients of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions stood established.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained investment was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the trading addition based on estimated profit could be sustained in the absence of any specific defect in the books of account.

Analysis: The trading addition was made only on estimate, without pointing out any specific defect in the regularly maintained books of account. In the absence of such defect, an estimated addition could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The trading addition was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the additions sustained by the first appellate authority were set aside, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained investment cannot survive where the assessee proves the source of funds through credible evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, and a trading addition cannot be sustained merely on estimate without specific defects in the books of account.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The issue was found to be covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which had followed the Rajasthan High Court decision, and no change in facts for the relevant assessment years was shown. On that basis, the exemption claim was accepted. Once the principal exemption issue was decided in favour of the assessee, the remaining additions arising from the assessment were rendered infructuous. The cross objections challenging reopening were treated as academic after the revenue's appeals failed on merits.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) was allowed in favour of the assessee, and the revenue's appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee on the principal exemption issue, with the ancillary additions and cross objections not surviving for adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies was maintainable under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the allegations under Sections 129 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner-auditor; and (iv) Whether the prosecution could continue against the petitioner in the absence of specific allegations and sufficient particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies was maintainable under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The provision permits cognizance on a complaint by the Registrar, a shareholder, a member, or a person authorised by the Central Government. The complaint was lodged by the Deputy Registrar, and the term "Registrar" in the Act includes a Deputy Registrar. On that basis, the filing was treated as competent.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged defaults were connected with the period during which the relevant balance-sheet entries arose, and the complaint was filed in November 2019. As the prosecution was linked with offences carrying punishment beyond the limitation threshold under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the bar of limitation was not attracted.

Conclusion: The complaint was held not to be barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the allegations under Sections 129 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner-auditor.

Analysis: Section 448 requires a false statement or omission of a material fact made knowingly. The complaint did not contain a specific averment that the petitioner knowingly made any false statement or intentionally concealed a material fact. The allegations were found to be general, vague, and lacking the factual particulars necessary to attract criminal liability.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was held to be made out against the petitioner under Section 448.

Issue (iv): Whether the prosecution could continue against the petitioner in the absence of specific allegations and sufficient particulars.

Analysis: The company itself had not been arraigned as an accused, and the pleadings did not attribute any distinct overt act or fraudulent intent to the petitioner. Continuation of the proceedings was held to amount to harassment and abuse of the criminal process, particularly since the allegations against the petitioner were non-specific and unsupported by material particulars.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner was held unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional applications succeeded, and the criminal proceedings were set aside insofar as the petitioner was concerned, as continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be sustained on vague allegations unless the complaint specifically discloses that the accused knowingly made a false statement or omitted a material fact with the requisite mens rea.

Outcome: The civil appeal was dismissed, while time was granted to the appellant to file a response to the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether the appellant, having remained in custody for a substantial period after filing of the prosecution complaint, was entitled to bail notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The prosecution complaint had already been filed, the appellant had remained in custody for over eight months, and he had earlier appeared before the Enforcement Directorate on several occasions. In these circumstances, further detention pending trial was not considered necessary. The restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be used to justify indefinite detention, and the twin conditions therein must yield to the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot override Article 21 where continued custody is unnecessary and the case otherwise warrants release on bail.

Issues: (i) Whether secured creditors have priority over property attached under the prevention of money laundering regime by reason of the recovery statutes; (ii) whether property provisionally attached and confirmed as proceeds of crime can be released in favour of a secured creditor claiming statutory priority; (iii) whether the appellate tribunal was right in setting aside the attachment on the footing that the recovery statutes prevailed.

Issue (i): Whether secured creditors have priority over property attached under the prevention of money laundering regime by reason of the recovery statutes.

Analysis: The competing enactments operate in different fields. The money laundering statute is a confiscatory law directed against proceeds of crime and contains an overriding clause. The recovery statutes are designed to enable banks and secured creditors to realise debts and security interests. Their priority clauses cannot be read as displacing the confiscatory scheme of the money laundering law. The two statutory schemes must be reconciled, not collapsed into one another.

Conclusion: The secured creditor does not get automatic priority over property attached under the money laundering statute merely because of the recovery statutes.

Issue (ii): Whether property provisionally attached and confirmed as proceeds of crime can be released in favour of a secured creditor claiming statutory priority.

Analysis: An order of attachment under the money laundering statute is not rendered invalid simply because a secured creditor has a prior mortgage or charge. At the same time, a prior attachment does not ipso facto extinguish a bona fide third party's claim. The statute itself provides a mechanism for restoration before the Special Court. Once attachment is confirmed and the criminal proceedings are underway, the appropriate forum to seek release or restoration is the Special Court under the restoration provision.

Conclusion: The attached property cannot be released merely on the basis of secured creditor status, though the creditor may seek appropriate relief before the Special Court.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellate tribunal was right in setting aside the attachment on the footing that the recovery statutes prevailed.

Analysis: The appellate tribunal proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the recovery statutes override the money laundering statute. That approach ignored the distinct objects of the enactments and the controlling effect of the money laundering law in relation to proceeds of crime. The tribunal also did not furnish a sustainable basis for nullifying the attachment order on the facts before it.

Conclusion: The tribunal's order setting aside the attachment was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the tribunal's orders were quashed, and the attachment stood restored without prejudice to the secured creditor's right to pursue restoration before the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory priority given to secured creditors under recovery laws does not override attachment and confiscation under the money laundering statute; the latter prevails for proceeds of crime, while bona fide third-party claims must be pursued before the Special Court under the restoration mechanism.

Issues: Whether the amount deposited during investigation was a voluntary duty payment or a deposit made under a mistaken notion at the department's insistence, and whether interest at 12% per annum was payable on the refunded amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

Analysis: The amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was deposited during investigation pursuant to departmental insistence after search proceedings, and the records showed that it was not a voluntary discharge of excise duty. Such payment was treated as an amount paid under a mistaken notion regarding duty liability, not as a pre-deposit made voluntarily under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On that footing, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held inapplicable to deny interest, and the reasoning adopted in the earlier tribunal decision allowing interest on investigation-stage deposits was followed. The claim for interest was also supported by the view that refund of such amount must carry interest automatically when the assessee succeeds.

Conclusion: The deposit was not a voluntary duty payment and the assessee was entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

Issues: (i) Whether the additions made on the basis of alleged clandestine sales and related unexplained investment could be sustained after the underlying allegation was found unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the additions made on the basis of alleged clandestine sales and related unexplained investment could be sustained after the underlying allegation was found unsustainable.

Analysis: The additions were founded on the premise that the assessee had made suppressed sales and had introduced unaccounted capital/investment. The Tribunal noted that the principal allegation of clandestine removal, on which the estimation of gross profit and unexplained investment was based, had not been sustained in the related excise proceedings. In that background, the factual foundation for the impugned additions was held to be absent, and the assessment additions could not stand independently.

Conclusion: The additions were not sustainable and were deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge succeeded in full, and the assessment additions confirmed in appeal were set aside.

Issues: Whether a consolidated satisfaction note recorded under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for multiple assessment years vitiates the proceedings and the consequential assessment.

Analysis: The assessee challenged the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the Assessing Officer of the assessee had recorded combined satisfaction notes for several assessment years instead of year-wise satisfaction. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction notes covered multiple years in one composite exercise and relied on the view that satisfaction under section 153C must be recorded separately for each assessment year because jurisdiction under that provision is assessment-year specific. On that basis, the Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note is not in accordance with law and affects the very assumption of jurisdiction for proceedings under section 153C.

Conclusion: The consolidated satisfaction note invalidated the section 153C proceedings, and the assessee succeeded on the legal challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: For proceedings under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, satisfaction must be recorded separately for each assessment year, and a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years is fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction and the resulting assessment.