Issues: Whether excess IGST paid on export supplies, owing to erroneous reporting of zero-rated exports in the GSTR-3B return and a subsequent duplicate payment to obtain automated export refund, is refundable.

Analysis: The export details and IGST liability were correctly reflected in the GSTR-1 returns, but the zero-rated export figures and corresponding tax were entered in the incorrect table of the GSTR-3B returns. Since the automated Customs system did not process refund because of the mismatch, the same IGST was paid again in a later return and that later payment alone was refunded through the automated mechanism. The earlier payment consequently remained an excess payment. The reporting error was a reconciled clerical error and did not negate the fact of duplicate payment. Retention of tax collected in excess of the amount lawfully due is impermissible under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Refund of the excess IGST paid on the export supplies is available and cannot be denied merely on account of the clerical reporting error or procedural discrepancy in the GSTR-3B returns.

Issues: (i) Whether invalidity of the show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order, founded on incorrect facts and grounds outside the notice, warrants their annulment; (ii) Whether, on return of a principal's goods after job work, the value of the original goods forms part of the consignment value for an e-way bill and supports penalty under Section 129.

Issue (i): Whether invalidity of the show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order, founded on incorrect facts and grounds outside the notice, warrants their annulment.

Analysis: The departmental interception records showed that the consignment was accompanied by a job-work invoice, the principal's delivery challan and an e-way bill. The allegations in the show-cause notice that these documents were absent were therefore contradicted by the department's own records. The detention order substituted the allegation of absence of an e-way bill with its alleged invalidity without notice or reasons, while the appellate order relied on an unrelated alleged absence of an e-way bill for an earlier movement. Such new and irrelevant grounds lay outside the show-cause notice and deprived the assessee of an effective opportunity to meet the case.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, detention order and appellate order were unsustainable because they rested on incorrect facts, extraneous grounds and violation of principles of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether, on return of a principal's goods after job work, the value of the original goods forms part of the consignment value for an e-way bill and supports penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: Read with the transaction-value provision, the consignment-value explanation confines the relevant value to the taxable supply covered by the invoice. Upon return of processed goods by a job worker, the taxable supply is the job-work service; the principal's original goods do not constitute the job worker's taxable supply. The invoice value comprising job-work charges and applicable tax was below the prescribed e-way-bill threshold. The absence of any allegation that the parties were related or that the invoice price was not the sole consideration supported acceptance of that invoice value.

Conclusion: The value of the original goods returned after job work is not includable in the consignment value for the e-way bill; no e-way bill was mandatorily required on these facts, and no penalty under Section 129 was leviable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned enforcement action lacked a factual and legal foundation, and the return of job-worked goods was required to be valued by reference to the job-work service alone.

Ratio Decidendi: For return of goods by a job worker to the principal, e-way-bill consignment value is the transaction value of the taxable job-work service and excludes the value of the principal's goods.

Issues: (i) Whether removal and replacement of creditors' hypothecated machinery with substantially lower-value equipment constituted fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, justifying contribution to the corporate debtor's assets; (ii) Whether the contribution amount required reduction for depreciation of the financed machinery and the realisable value of the machinery found at the premises.

Issue (i): Whether removal and replacement of creditors' hypothecated machinery with substantially lower-value equipment constituted fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, justifying contribution to the corporate debtor's assets.

Analysis: Section 66 permits contribution where the corporate debtor's business is carried on with intent to defraud creditors or for a fraudulent purpose. The financed machinery, its invoices, and hypothecation were supported by contemporaneous documents. No contemporaneous evidence established creditor consent to substitute the secured machinery or accounted for acquisition of the alleged replacement machinery. Independent valuation reports identified the machinery at site as lower-value rotogravure machinery; physical indications showed that machinery had earlier been removed; and missing or mismatched identification details prevented verification against the financed assets. The delayed handing over of possession, absence of supporting purchase records, and lack of approval for substitution cumulatively supported an inference of fraudulent purpose on a preponderance of probabilities. Earlier possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act did not create estoppel, and the dispute over precise technical identity did not oust jurisdiction under Section 66. Fraudulent trading need not be established by a series of transactions or direct proof of intent where compelling documentary and circumstantial evidence establishes removal of valuable secured assets from creditors' reach.

Conclusion: The removal and replacement of the hypothecated machinery constituted fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and contribution to the corporate debtor's assets was justified against the Appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the contribution amount required reduction for depreciation of the financed machinery and the realisable value of the machinery found at the premises.

Analysis: The contribution remedy under Section 66 is directed at restoring the corporate debtor's depleted asset position. No material established that the quantified value of the removed financed machinery was arbitrary or unsupported. The assertions concerning depreciation and the value of the substituted machinery did not displace the finding that the financed and hypothecated machinery had been removed to the detriment of the corporate debtor and its creditors.

Conclusion: The contribution amount of Rs. 17,23,05,603.50 did not warrant reduction and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The contribution remedy remains enforceable to restore the corporate debtor's depleted asset base, and the liquidation process may continue for preservation and realisation of its assets.

Ratio Decidendi: Fraudulent trading under Section 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 may be established through cumulative documentary and circumstantial evidence showing removal of secured high-value assets and their unexplained replacement with substantially lower-value assets, without direct proof of fraudulent intent or a series of transactions.

Issues: (i) Whether brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance services qualified as input services for CENVAT credit; (ii) Whether canteen and bus-facility staff-welfare services qualified as input services; and (iii) Whether the penalty for irregular CENVAT credit was correctly limited to 10% and had to be confined to the disallowed credits.

Issue (i): Whether brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance services qualified as input services for CENVAT credit.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 contains a main limb covering services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to manufacture and an inclusive limb covering, among other things, advertisement and sales promotion, subject to specified exclusions. Brokerage and commission and association or federation membership fees were used for sales-promotion activities. The explanation inserted by Notification No. 02/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 03.02.2016 specifically includes commission-based sale of dutiable goods within sales promotion. Detention charges arose from storage and clearance of imported raw materials used in manufacture and formed part of their cost. Insurance premiums related to factory plant and machinery, stocks and goods in transit, rather than employee benefits, and therefore did not attract the employee-related exclusion.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: brokerage and commission, membership fees, detention charges, and insurance services qualified as input services eligible for CENVAT credit.

Issue (ii): Whether canteen and bus-facility staff-welfare services qualified as input services.

Analysis: The statutory obligation to provide employee welfare facilities under the Factories Act, 1948 did not make canteen and worker transportation services eligible input services. The settled legal position treated the CENVAT credit availed on these staff-welfare services as inconsistent with Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: CENVAT credit on canteen and bus-facility staff-welfare services was inadmissible and was recoverable with interest.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty for irregular CENVAT credit was correctly limited to 10% and had to be confined to the disallowed credits.

Analysis: Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limits penalty to 10% where wrongful credit is not attended by fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or similar ingredients. As credit was irregular only in respect of rent-a-cab and staff-welfare services, the penalty base could extend only to the credit availed on those services.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: penalty was restricted to 10% of the irregular CENVAT credit attributable only to rent-a-cab and staff-welfare services.

Final Conclusion: CENVAT credit is available for the services having a sales-promotion or manufacturing nexus, while credit on staff-welfare services remains inadmissible and the penalty exposure is correspondingly confined.

Issues: (i) Deductibility of expenditure incurred under the Employee Stock Option Scheme; (ii) Validity of an addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the share valuation report for Assessment Year 2018-19 was furnished by a Chartered Accountant rather than a Merchant Banker.

Issue (i): Deductibility of expenditure incurred under the Employee Stock Option Scheme.

Analysis: The issue stood governed by the binding position that the cost of an Employee Stock Option Scheme may be debited to the profit and loss account as revenue expenditure. That position was undisputed.

Conclusion: The Employee Stock Option Scheme expenditure is allowable as a deduction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Validity of an addition under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the share valuation report for Assessment Year 2018-19 was furnished by a Chartered Accountant rather than a Merchant Banker.

Analysis: The restriction under Notification No. 23/2018 dated 24.05.2018, dispensing with certification by a Chartered Accountant in favour of valuation by a Merchant Banker, applied from the subsequent financial year. Since the relevant year was Financial Year 2017-18, the valuation report furnished by a Chartered Accountant could not be discarded on that basis.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 56(2)(viib) is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's deduction for Employee Stock Option Scheme expenditure and its Chartered Accountant-based valuation for the relevant assessment year remain accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequently introduced requirement that share valuation be certified by a Merchant Banker cannot invalidate a Chartered Accountant's valuation for a prior financial year to which that requirement did not apply.

Issues: Whether the corporate debtor's forfeited right to file a reply in the insolvency application should be restored.

Analysis: A party should ordinarily receive an opportunity to contest proceedings on merits unless doing so causes grave prejudice to the opposite party. The lapse was confined to not filing the reply along with the response to the interim-moratorium application. A time-bound opportunity to file the reply, coupled with advance service, a corresponding opportunity for rejoinder, and costs, adequately preserved procedural fairness without impeding expeditious disposal of the insolvency application.

Conclusion: The corporate debtor was entitled to a final opportunity to file its reply in the insolvency application, subject to costs.

Issues: (i) Whether service of the demand notice by private courier at the corporate debtor's registered office satisfied Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016; (ii) Whether the operational debt met the Rs. 1 crore threshold and the damages correspondence disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute; and (iii) Whether the Section 9 application was maintainable notwithstanding the corporate debtor's claimed solvency.

Issue (i): Whether service of the demand notice by private courier at the corporate debtor's registered office satisfied Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Rule 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The notice was dispatched to the registered office and the record established delivery through tracking details. The purpose of Section 8 and Rule 5 is to give the corporate debtor notice of the claim and an opportunity to pay or raise a genuine dispute. Actual delivery and knowledge constituted substantial compliance; procedural law, being the handmaid of justice, could not permit a technical objection to the courier mode to defeat the proceeding.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant: the demand notice was duly served and the objection to its mode of service was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the operational debt met the Rs. 1 crore threshold and the damages correspondence disclosed a genuine pre-existing dispute.

Analysis: For foreign currency conversion, the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the demand notice was relevant in the circumstances. On that basis, the admitted unpaid advances exceeded Rs. 1 crore even after excluding the USD 16,766 damages component. The corporate debtor had acknowledged receipt of the advances, undertaken to repay them, neither supplied the goods nor returned the money. Correspondence concerning damages to a separate consignment did not create a genuine pre-existing dispute over the admitted advances and amounted to a moonshine dispute.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant: the statutory threshold was met and no genuine pre-existing dispute existed regarding the admitted advance amounts.

Issue (iii): Whether the Section 9 application was maintainable notwithstanding the corporate debtor's claimed solvency.

Analysis: Although insolvency proceedings cannot be used for recovery of genuinely disputed claims, the material established an operational debt, default, compliance with the demand-notice requirement, and absence of a genuine dispute. The corporate debtor's claimed solvency did not displace the statutory requirements for initiation of proceedings under Section 9.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant: the Section 9 application was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory prerequisites for commencing the corporate insolvency resolution process were established, with payment of the entire admitted liability before the admission order remaining capable of preventing commencement of the process.

Ratio Decidendi: A Section 9 application is maintainable where effective service of the demand notice, an operational debt above the statutory threshold, and absence of a genuine pre-existing dispute concerning admitted unpaid advances are established.

Issues: (i) Whether the resolution applicant's non-disclosure of pending proceedings and attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act rendered it ineligible or vitiated the resolution plan under Section 29A and Regulation 39(1)(c); (ii) Whether interference with the Committee of Creditors' approval of the resolution plan was warranted on alleged deficiencies in feasibility, valuation, source of funds, and treatment of the appellant's claimed secured-creditor status.

Issue (i): Whether the resolution applicant's non-disclosure of pending proceedings and attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act rendered it ineligible or vitiated the resolution plan under Section 29A and Regulation 39(1)(c).

Analysis: Section 29A(d) prescribes ineligibility on the basis of the specified conviction, not merely the pendency of an inquiry, investigation, criminal proceeding, or attachment action. Although attachment of proceeds of crime is civil in form, it is connected with alleged criminal activity; nevertheless, attachment or pending proceedings alone do not establish the statutory disqualification. Regulation 39(1)(c) must be harmoniously read with Section 29A. The Committee of Creditors was apprised of the proceedings, deferred voting, obtained an independent eligibility assessment, deliberated on the disclosures and feasibility of the plan, and approved it after being fully informed. Any omission consequently did not establish a material irregularity affecting the integrity of the resolution process.

Conclusion: The pending proceedings and alleged non-disclosure did not render the resolution applicant ineligible or invalidate the resolution plan. The issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether interference with the Committee of Creditors' approval of the resolution plan was warranted on alleged deficiencies in feasibility, valuation, source of funds, and treatment of the appellant's claimed secured-creditor status.

Analysis: Judicial review of a plan approved by the requisite majority is confined to statutory non-compliance under Section 30(2) and the limited appellate grounds under Section 61(3); it does not permit substitution of the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom on feasibility, viability, valuation, or funding arrangements. The plan disclosed its funding sources and payment structure. Appointment of a third valuer is discretionary under Regulation 35(1)(b), and a plan need not match liquidation value. The appellant's secured-creditor status remained sub judice, while the plan provided for automatic modification of distribution among secured financial creditors if that status is ultimately recognised, adequately safeguarding the claimed entitlement.

Conclusion: No reviewable statutory non-compliance or material irregularity justified interference with the Committee of Creditors' approval of the plan. The issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan remains operative, and any eventual recognition of the appellant as a secured financial creditor is to be accommodated through the plan's stipulated distribution-adjustment mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending criminal proceedings or attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act do not, absent a statutory conviction-based disqualification or a material irregularity affecting the integrity of the insolvency process, invalidate a resolution plan approved by an informed Committee of Creditors; feasibility and viability remain within its commercial wisdom subject to the limited statutory review.

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award dated 23.03.2017 extinguished the continuing guarantee or converted the personal guarantor into a co-borrower; (ii) Whether the financial creditor retained locus standi under Section 95 notwithstanding the alleged assignment of debt and sale of secured property by an asset reconstruction company; (iii) Whether the MOU and third-party assumption of the corporate debtor's liabilities released the personal guarantor; (iv) Whether an alleged restructuring or variation discharged the guarantor under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (v) Whether the Section 95 petition was barred by limitation; and (vi) Whether the alleged contractual cap and dispute as to quantum prevented admission of the Section 95 petition.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award dated 23.03.2017 extinguished the continuing guarantee or converted the personal guarantor into a co-borrower.

Analysis: The arbitral award provided a revised repayment arrangement for existing liabilities, but neither cancelled the guarantee nor created a fresh borrowing arrangement. Its terms preserved liability upon default, and no substituted contract, fresh loan documentation, or express release of the guarantor was established. The irrevocable and continuing character of the guarantee remained operative until full repayment.

Conclusion: The arbitral award did not novate or extinguish the guarantee, and the guarantor did not become a co-borrower.

Issue (ii): Whether the financial creditor retained locus standi under Section 95 notwithstanding the alleged assignment of debt and sale of secured property by an asset reconstruction company.

Analysis: Assignment by other consortium lenders did not prove assignment of the financial creditor's independent share of debt. No assignment instrument executed by the financial creditor was produced. Enforcement and sale of security by the asset reconstruction company could arise from rights assigned by other lenders and did not establish transfer or satisfaction of the financial creditor's claim. A surety's liability remains co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless the debt is fully satisfied or the surety is released.

Conclusion: The financial creditor retained locus standi to invoke the guarantee and commence proceedings under Section 95.

Issue (iii): Whether the MOU and third-party assumption of the corporate debtor's liabilities released the personal guarantor.

Analysis: A third party's undertaking to discharge the corporate debtor's liabilities and payments made under that arrangement did not amount to an express release of the guarantor or establish full satisfaction of the financial creditor's debt. No binding substitution of the guarantor's obligations was shown.

Conclusion: The MOU and third-party payments did not discharge the personal guarantor.

Issue (iv): Whether an alleged restructuring or variation discharged the guarantor under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Analysis: Section 133 requires a variation between the creditor and principal debtor without the surety's consent. The alleged restructuring concerned debts assigned by other lenders, with no evidence that the financial creditor participated in a variation of its own contract. The guarantee also provided that variations, modifications, or releases of security would not affect the guarantor's liability.

Conclusion: No variation by the financial creditor was proved that could discharge the guarantor under Section 133.

Issue (v): Whether the Section 95 petition was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The subsequent default following the demand notice of July 2020 occurred in September 2020, and the Section 95 petition was filed in May 2023, within three years of that default. The timely filing conclusion did not depend solely on treating payments under the arbitral award as an acknowledgement.

Conclusion: The Section 95 petition was within limitation.

Issue (vi): Whether the alleged contractual cap and dispute as to quantum prevented admission of the Section 95 petition.

Analysis: The guarantee terms extended to interest, charges, costs, and consequential liabilities in addition to the principal amount. At the admission stage, a dispute over computation did not negate the established debt and default. Recoveries from the corporate debtor, co-sureties, or securities must be credited in final determination, preventing double recovery.

Conclusion: The dispute concerning the contractual cap and quantum did not invalidate admission of the Section 95 petition.

Final Conclusion: The statutory basis for commencing the personal insolvency resolution process against the guarantor remained established, and the admission order was not shown to suffer from legal or material error.

Issues: Entitlement of the applicants to regular bail for offences under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The applicants had remained in custody for approximately 18 to 20 months. The prosecution case involved a voluminous charge-sheet and numerous proposed witnesses, making an early commencement and conclusion of trial unlikely. The maximum sentence was seven years. Parity with a co-accused already enlarged on bail, prolonged pre-trial detention, and the constitutional right to speedy trial justified bail notwithstanding the statutory twin conditions. The apprehensions of absconding, reoffending, and interference with investigation could be addressed through stringent bail conditions, including deposit of passports, periodic reporting, and restrictions on travel and witness contact.

Conclusion: The applicants are entitled to regular bail subject to stringent conditions.

Issues: Whether the appellant's pending application under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, alleging collusive initiation of insolvency proceedings and asserting likely prejudice to its proprietary interests, was required to be decided before a final decision on the financial creditor's Section 7 application.

Analysis: Although the appellant was not a party to the Section 7 proceedings, it had filed an interlocutory application seeking intervention and challenging the proceedings as collusive. The application raised concerns that the corporate debtor's non-participation could affect the appellant's rights in the sugar factory and its assets. In the peculiar circumstances, procedural fairness required adjudication of that application before the company petition could be finally determined.

Conclusion: The appellant's interlocutory application under Section 60(5) must be decided within three months, if not already decided, before any final order is passed on the Section 7 company petition.

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded during investigation were admissible without compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether data retrieved from CPUs, computers and pen drives was admissible without compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and (iii) Whether the charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance and the consequent duty demand were sustainable on the evidence available.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded during investigation were admissible without compliance with Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 9D prescribes mandatory conditions for treating investigation statements as evidence. Unless the exceptional circumstances under Section 9D(1)(a) exist, the maker must be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, the statement must be admitted by a reasoned determination, and the assessee must have an opportunity for cross-examination. The relied-upon witnesses were neither examined in chief nor offered for cross-examination.

Conclusion: The investigation statements were inadmissible and could not be relied upon to sustain the demand, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether data retrieved from CPUs, computers and pen drives was admissible without compliance with Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Computer printouts and data retrieved from electronic devices require fulfilment of the conditions in Section 36B(2) and a certificate under Section 36B(4) identifying the record and device, the manner of production, and the relevant operational conditions. The data was not supported by the prescribed certificate or compliance with the statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The retrieved electronic data and printouts were inadmissible for proving clandestine clearances, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance and the consequent duty demand were sustainable on the evidence available.

Analysis: Clandestine manufacture and removal require tangible, cogent and independently corroborated evidence, including proof of unaccounted raw materials, actual removal and transport, identified buyers, receipt of sale proceeds, manufacturing capacity, excess electricity consumption, and deployment of labour where relevant. After exclusion of the inadmissible statements and electronic material, no such independent evidence established the alleged clearances.

Conclusion: The charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance, the duty demand, and the consequential interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: An excise liability for alleged clandestine removal cannot rest on investigation statements and electronic records that fail statutory admissibility requirements, without independent corroborative proof of manufacture and clearance.

Ratio Decidendi: In central excise adjudication, investigation statements and computer-generated records can support a demand only upon compliance with the mandatory evidentiary safeguards in Sections 9D and 36B; absent such compliance and independent corroboration, clandestine-removal allegations fail.

Issues: (i) Whether the noticees' futures and options trading prima facie amounted to cross-segment price manipulation and fraudulent or unfair trade practices; (ii) whether the directors were prima facie vicariously liable and jointly and severally accountable for impounding of the companies' alleged wrongful gains; and (iii) whether urgent interim protective directions were warranted pending investigation.

Analysis: The trading pattern showed repeated placement of aggressive futures buy orders above the last traded price and sell orders below it, alongside substantially larger, sentimentally opposite options positions. Inexecutable futures orders were allegedly used to create artificial order-book depth and cancelled after favourable execution of options orders. The resulting futures losses and significantly greater options gains, together with concentrated trading, recurring intraday sequencing, and the shift of activity to a connected entity, prima facie indicated manipulation of derivatives prices rather than hedging, arbitrage, speculation, or genuine profit-oriented trading. This conduct was prima facie found to attract the prohibitions on fraudulent, deceptive, and manipulative dealings in securities.

Analysis: The directors in charge of the respective companies during the relevant period were prima facie treated as vicariously liable. Given their central role in the companies' operations and the alleged common scheme, the respective directors were held jointly and severally accountable with each company for impounding the wrongful gains attributed to that company.

Analysis: The repetitive and continuing nature of the alleged conduct, the magnitude of the prima facie wrongful gains, and the need to preserve market integrity and prevent dissipation of gains established a prima facie case and balance of convenience for immediate preventive action under the securities law framework.

Outcome: Ex parte interim market-access restraints, impounding and asset-preservation directions, disclosure obligations, and cooperation requirements were imposed pending detailed investigation, with an opportunity to file objections and seek a personal hearing.

Outcome: The rejection of the GST registration application was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh order after the applicant responds to the notice within the stipulated period.

Issues: (i) Whether payments described as CSR donations constituted taxable "sponsorship" under Section 65(99a) of the Finance Act, 1994; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether payments described as CSR donations constituted taxable "sponsorship" under Section 65(99a) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Section 65(99a) covers sponsorship involving reciprocal promotional benefits, including naming an event after the sponsor, display of its logo or trade name, priority booking rights, or prizes in its name. Donations or gifts are excluded where the recipient is under no obligation to provide anything in return. The burden lay on the Revenue to establish the real character of the payments; a donor could not be required to prove the negative merely because it denied any agreement for reciprocal benefit. A unilateral acknowledgement of the contribution, or a description of the payment as sponsorship in records, was insufficient. Only two payments were supported by board resolutions requiring display of the bank's logo and therefore involved a stipulated reciprocal benefit; no such obligation was shown for the remaining payments.

Conclusion: The payments other than the two logo-conditioned payments were non-taxable donations, while the two logo-conditioned payments constituted sponsorship. The issue was partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be invoked.

Analysis: Invocation of the extended period required credible material establishing fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. No such material established misconduct by the assessee.

Conclusion: The extended limitation period was unavailable, and the proceedings, including those concerning the two sponsorship transactions, were time-barred. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No service-tax demand survived, since the remaining payments were not sponsorship and the residual taxable transactions were barred by limitation.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order denying input tax credit on account of belatedly filed returns required reconsideration under the inserted Section 65 of the CGST/KGST Act.

Analysis: Section 65 of the CGST/KGST Act, effective from 01.07.2017, protects input tax credit claimed through belated returns filed by 30.11.2021 for the specified financial years. The relevant returns were admittedly filed on 04.09.2020, before the prescribed cut-off. The adjudication required re-examination under the inserted provision.

Conclusion: The adjudication order and consequential garnishee notice were quashed, and the proceedings were restored to the stage of response to the show-cause notice for reconsideration under Section 65.

Issues: Whether assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19 could be initiated for foreign assets acquired before commencement of the Act where no declaration was made and the first notice under Section 10 was issued during Financial Year 2018-19.

Analysis: Section 72(c) applies where an asset was acquired before commencement of the Act and no declaration under Section 59 was made. It creates a conclusive statutory fiction that the asset is deemed to have been acquired in the year in which the notice under Section 10 is issued. Under the statutory distinction between previous year and assessment year, the year of deemed acquisition is the previous year and assessment can only occur in the immediately succeeding assessment year. Since the first Section 10 notice was issued on 04.12.2018, the assets were deemed acquired in Financial Year 2018-19, corresponding to Assessment Year 2019-20.

Conclusion: Assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 was without jurisdiction; the deemed acquisition could be assessed only in Assessment Year 2019-20.

Outcome: The writ petitions were dismissed on account of the available statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: (i) Whether interest earned on funds belonged to the assessee or the Government of Gujarat for taxation. (ii) Whether the signature bonus received on transfer of developed power projects was a capital receipt or taxable revenue receipt.

Issue (i): Whether interest earned on funds belonged to the assessee or the Government of Gujarat for taxation.

Analysis: The earlier determination on substantially similar facts established that interest earned on funds provided by the Government legally belonged to the Government and could not be assessed as the assessee's income. The manner in which the income had earlier been treated did not determine its taxable ownership.

Conclusion: The interest was not taxable in the hands of the assessee; the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the signature bonus received on transfer of developed power projects was a capital receipt or taxable revenue receipt.

Analysis: The signature bonus arose from the assessee's ordinary business activity of developing power projects, including surveys, testing, approvals and implementation work, and transferring such projects to investors. The related development expenditure had been claimed as revenue expenditure. The receipt was therefore not compensation for extinction or sterilisation of an income-producing source, but consideration generated in the normal course of business. The concurrent factual findings supporting this characterisation warranted no interference.

Conclusion: The signature bonus was a taxable revenue receipt; the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Taxable income must exclude the interest legally belonging to the Government, while including the signature bonus as business revenue.