Issues: (i) Whether the complaint for cheating disclosed a prima facie case warranting refusal to quash the proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction; (ii) Whether non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry requirement before issuing process against accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction required quashing or remittal; (iii) Whether the complaint lacked specific allegations against the director petitioners so as to preclude their prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint for cheating disclosed a prima facie case warranting refusal to quash the proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: Inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. Material arising from the related cheque-dishonour proceedings, including the forensic opinion indicating alteration of the cheque date, furnished prima facie support for the allegation that the cheque had been forged and used to institute proceedings. The non-disclosure of these subsequent developments by the petitioners, coupled with the evidentiary dispute requiring trial, prevented a finding that continuation of the cheating complaint was an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The cheating complaint was not liable to be quashed at the threshold.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry requirement before issuing process against accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction required quashing or remittal.

Analysis: An inquiry or investigation before process is mandatory where the accused reside beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction. Although that inquiry was not conducted, the complaint could not be treated as disclosing no offence in view of the prima facie material concerning alleged forgery and cheating. The procedural defect therefore required fresh consideration at the pre-process stage rather than termination of the complaint.

Conclusion: The summoning order was set aside and the matter was remitted for compliance with the mandatory inquiry requirement.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint lacked specific allegations against the director petitioners so as to preclude their prosecution.

Analysis: Criminal liability of company officers cannot rest solely on vicarious liability unless the governing statute so provides; active involvement and criminal intent must be prima facie alleged. The complaint alleged a conspiracy by the accused persons, and the forensic material prima facie supported the accusation of alteration of the cheque and its use in proceedings. The allegations were therefore not wholly devoid of a case against the director petitioners.

Conclusion: There was no basis to exclude the director petitioners from the complaint at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The complaint remains open for fresh pre-process scrutiny under the mandatory statutory procedure; the available prima facie material does not justify its termination.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to conduct a mandatory pre-process inquiry for out-of-jurisdiction accused requires remittal rather than quashing where the complaint and attendant material disclose a prima facie criminal case requiring further inquiry.

Issues: Whether the directions for a forensic audit extended to a general examination of the affairs of 17 banks.

Analysis: The audit directions were construed as principally concerning commercial transactions and relationships involving the judgment debtors, FHL, FHHPL and the banks. The relevant clauses did not authorise an unrestricted inquiry into the banks' affairs beyond those transactions.

Conclusion: The forensic audit is confined to transactions involving the judgment debtors, FHL, FHHPL and the banks, and does not permit a fishing and roving enquiry into the banks' entire affairs.

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Court's order directing restoration of attached properties to the insolvency professional on an association's application was legally sustainable; (ii) Whether a monitoring committee should be constituted to verify genuine homebuyers and maintain information concerning attached assets, and whether the insolvency professional could participate in that process; and (iii) Whether immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached assets should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Court's order directing restoration of attached properties to the insolvency professional on an association's application was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 permits restoration only to a claimant having a legitimate interest and a quantifiable loss. Rule 2(b) and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 require a qualifying claimant, framing of charge before restoration during trial, and an opportunity of hearing to the owner. The association was not itself a homebuyer, had not suffered a quantifiable loss, and could not satisfy the statutory requirements of a claimant.

Analysis: The attached assets belonged to former promoters and other persons or entities, and not to the corporate debtor undergoing insolvency proceedings. An insolvency-regulator circular and the insolvency professional's undertaking could not displace the statutory scheme under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 or confer a role upon the insolvency professional in relation to non-corporate-debtor assets. The undertaking recorded in proceedings concerning an individual homebuyer was not an undertaking in rem for all homebuyers.

Conclusion: The Special Court's restoration order was set aside. The related interim orders founded upon that order were recalled and vacated.

Issue (ii): Whether a monitoring committee should be constituted to verify genuine homebuyers and maintain information concerning attached assets, and whether the insolvency professional could participate in that process.

Analysis: The number of affected purchasers, competing claims over attached assets, and the need for an expeditious and transparent verification process warranted an independent supervisory mechanism. The insolvency and money-laundering regimes concern distinct asset pools. The committee's work cannot interfere with the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process, and the insolvency professional has no role before it because the attached assets are not assets of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: A monitoring committee was constituted to verify genuine homebuyers irrespective of whether payment was made to either developer, and to maintain updated particulars, attachment status, pending challenges, and valuations of attached assets. The insolvency professional was excluded from the committee's process.

Issue (iii): Whether immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached assets should be directed.

Analysis: Restoration of attached property during trial remains governed by section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. Challenges to individual attachments and appellate remedies remained pending; the statutory scheme recognises a deemed embargo on restoration while such remedies are unresolved. Detailed directions on restitution were deferred until a comprehensive record regarding claimants and asset status becomes available.

Conclusion: No immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached properties was directed; further directions were reserved for a subsequent stage.

Final Conclusion: The statutory process for dealing with attached property is preserved, while an independent verification and asset-information mechanism is established to facilitate future consideration of relief for genuine homebuyers without affecting rights in the ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration of attached property under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 must conform to the statutory requirements for a qualifying claimant and the conditions prescribed for restoration during trial; an insolvency undertaking cannot substitute those requirements or extend to assets that do not belong to the corporate debtor.

Issues: (i) Whether a 100% penalty under Section 129 could be imposed solely because Part-B of the e-way bill was not populated before movement, despite genuine invoices, Part-A particulars and no proof of intent to evade tax; and (ii) Whether failure to issue a final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3) vitiated the penalty demand.

Issue (i): Whether a 100% penalty under Section 129 could be imposed solely because Part-B of the e-way bill was not populated before movement, despite genuine invoices, Part-A particulars and no proof of intent to evade tax.

Analysis: Section 129 was construed as penal in character and not as imposing mechanical liability for every documentation lapse. A technical omission in Part-B cannot by itself establish an intention to evade tax. The genuine invoices, valid Part-A particulars, identifiable destination, tax-paid transaction and absence of evidence of diversion or evasion demonstrated that the lapse was inadvertent. Legacy check-post decisions applying absolute statutory regimes were distinguished from the GST framework, in which penalties require examination of the surrounding facts and deliberate tax evasion.

Conclusion: The 100% penalty under Section 129 was unsustainable in the absence of proven intent to evade tax and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to issue a final speaking order in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3) vitiated the penalty demand.

Analysis: Section 129(3) requires a final speaking adjudication quantifying tax and penalty after considering objections and affording an opportunity of hearing. Non-issuance of Form GST MOV-09 bypassed this mandatory adjudicatory safeguard and prejudiced the assessee's statutory rights.

Conclusion: Failure to issue the mandatory final order in Form GST MOV-09 vitiated the penalty demand and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A penalty for an unfilled Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be sustained where intentional tax evasion is unproved and the mandatory statutory adjudication procedure has not been followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 129 requires proof of an intention to evade tax; a bona fide technical documentation lapse, unsupported by such proof, cannot attract penal consequences.

Issues: Whether non-updation of Part-B of an e-way bill, despite genuine transaction documents and absence of evidence of intended tax evasion, can independently justify penalty under Section 129(3).

Analysis: Section 129(3) was applied in the context of the digital GST framework as a measure directed against intentional tax evasion, not an inadvertent clerical or portal-related documentation lapse. Precedents arising from manual check-post regimes were distinguished. Where the tax invoice, Part-A e-way bill, goods particulars and underlying transaction were genuine and accounted for, an unupdated Part-B did not establish an attempt to evade tax. The burden lay on the Revenue to record and support a positive finding of such intent before imposing the penal consequence.

Conclusion: In the absence of a positive finding or evidence of intent to evade tax, non-updating of Part-B alone cannot attract penalty under Section 129(3); the penalty order and its appellate confirmation were legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified where the e-way bill had expired owing to an erroneous entry of the consignor's pin code.

Analysis: Section 129 is a machinery provision intended to prevent tax evasion; mens rea must therefore be established before imposing penalty for a breach during transit. The binding departmental instructions distinguish substantive violations from minor or procedural lapses. The consignment was accompanied by an e-way bill and delivery challan, physical verification matched the goods with the documents, and the incorrect pin code reduced the e-way bill validity by recording a shorter distance. No intention to evade tax was alleged or established.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 129 and the consequential penalty were invalid and unjustified; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial for alleged offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Pre-conviction detention is not punitive, and the presumption of innocence, personal liberty, and the right to a speedy trial require assessment of whether custody is necessary to secure attendance at trial. The alleged offences carry a maximum sentence of five years and are triable by a Magistrate. Investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and the evidence was documentary. The applicant had remained in custody since 17.04.2026, had no criminal antecedents, and no material established a risk of absconding, witness intimidation, evidence tampering, repetition of offences, or subversion of justice. No exceptional circumstance justified continued detention when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period.

Conclusion: The applicant made out a case for bail and was ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Issues: Whether an appeal arising from an adjudication order passed by a proper officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime can be decided by the State Appellate Authority under the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax regime.

Analysis: The GST appellate framework requires an appeal against an adjudication order passed by Central authorities to be heard by the competent appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime. Jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the State Appellate Authority merely because the appeal is placed before it; such exercise is inconsistent with jurisdictional propriety and the settled principle of consistency.

Conclusion: The State Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal arising from the Central adjudication order; its order was quashed and the appeal was remitted to the competent Central Appellate Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether expiry of an e-way bill, without independent evidence of an intention to evade tax, is sufficient to sustain penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: Section 129 requires compliance with documentation requirements governing movement of goods, but an expired e-way bill constitutes a procedural or documentary lapse that must be assessed against the surrounding facts and evidence. The goods were accompanied by tax documents, were intercepted near the declared destination after long-distance transport, and no discrepancy in their identity or underlying transaction was established. No material showed diversion of goods, a fictitious transaction, suppression of tax liability, or any other deliberate attempt at tax evasion. The Department relied substantially on expiry of the e-way bill and did not establish the factual basis necessary to sustain the penalty.

Conclusion: Mere expiry of an e-way bill, absent independent evidence of intention to evade tax, does not sustain penalty under Section 129. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether rejection of the application seeking condonation of a 25-day delay in filing the return under Section 119(2)(b) was valid merely because assessment had been completed and an appeal against the assessment was pending.

Analysis: The appellate authority lacked power to condone delay in filing the return; the statutory remedy under Section 119(2)(b) was therefore available notwithstanding completion of assessment and pendency of the appeal. The short delay arose during the COVID-19 period and stood on the same footing as the substantially similar delay previously accepted. The genuine-hardship standard under Section 119(2)(b) required a liberal approach to the explanation for delay.

Conclusion: The rejection of the condonation application was unsustainable; the deduction claim is required to be considered on merits in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be invoked solely because the Assessing Officer did not initiate penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the assessment order.

Analysis: Penalty proceedings are separate and independent from assessment proceedings. The omission to initiate penalty proceedings or to record satisfaction regarding penalty in an assessment order does not render the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The revisionary order founded solely on non-initiation of penalty proceedings was invalid.

Issues: Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre had jurisdiction to decide appeals against penalty orders arising from search assessments.

Analysis: Section 250(6B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 enabled the faceless appellate framework. The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021, read with the CBDT Circular dated 06.10.2022 and the CBDT Notification dated 13.10.2022, excluded appeals against penalty orders in cases where the assessment was completed pursuant to a search under sections 132 or 132A from the National Faceless Appeal Centre's jurisdiction and assigned them to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The penalty appeals arose from assessments completed following a search and fell within that exclusion.

Conclusion: The National Faceless Appeal Centre lacked jurisdiction to decide the penalty appeals; its orders were set aside for de novo adjudication by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Issues: Whether a motor car, recorded as a fixed asset but admittedly used for personal purposes, constituted a capital asset capable of generating an allowable long-term capital loss on sale.

Analysis: Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 excludes movable property held for personal use from the definition of a capital asset, apart from specified exceptions not including a motor car. The character of the asset depends on its actual use rather than its accounting classification. The absence of depreciation, the assessee's self-disallowance of all car-related expenditure as personal, and the absence of business use established that the car was held for personal use. Its reflection as a fixed asset in the balance sheet did not alter that character.

Conclusion: The motor car was a personal effect excluded from the definition of a capital asset; consequently, its sale could not give rise to an allowable long-term capital loss.

Issues: (i) Whether a pending appeal against an order under section 201 barred reassessment disallowance under the third proviso to section 147; (ii) Whether reopening after examination of foreign remittances in the original assessment constituted a Change of Opinion; (iii) Whether alleged arithmetical errors causing Double Disallowance required admission and verification; (iv) Whether the claimed Carry-Forward of Losses required verification.

Issue (i): Whether a pending appeal against an order under section 201 barred reassessment disallowance under the third proviso to section 147.

Analysis: Proceedings under section 201 concern recovery of tax not deducted and treatment of the payer as an assessee in default within the tax-collection framework. A disallowance under section 40(a)(i), however, concerns computation of the assessee's total income. The two proceedings therefore concern distinct subject matters.

Conclusion: The third proviso to section 147 did not bar the reassessment disallowance; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening after examination of foreign remittances in the original assessment constituted a Change of Opinion.

Analysis: The original assessment record showed specific requisitions for details of foreign remittances, services received, and tax deducted at source, followed by transaction-wise replies and supporting Forms 15CA and 15CB. No disallowance was made after those details were examined. The recorded reasons for reopening relied on the same information subsequently received from the International Taxation Officer, without identifying any new fact or any inaccurate or incomplete disclosure. Reassessment on that basis amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier assessment.

Conclusion: The reopening was founded solely on a Change of Opinion and was invalid; the reassessment order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether alleged arithmetical errors causing Double Disallowance required admission and verification.

Analysis: The additional grounds identified possible computational errors, including amounts on which tax had been deducted and expense reversals that were allegedly included in the disallowance. The Act does not permit the same expenditure to be disallowed twice, and the claims required verification from the assessee's records.

Conclusion: The additional grounds were admitted, and verification and correction of any established error were directed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the claimed Carry-Forward of Losses required verification.

Analysis: The discrepancy between the loss claimed as available for carry-forward and the amount reflected in the reassessment computation could be resolved only by verification of the records.

Conclusion: The claim for carry-forward of loss was allowed to the limited extent of verification and determination by the Assessing Officer, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and the consequential disallowance could not survive because the issue had already been examined in the original assessment; the identified computational claims are to be verified in accordance with the directions.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be used to review an issue already examined in the original assessment on the same disclosed material, in the absence of new tangible material establishing escapement of income.

Issues: (i) Whether the Wi-Fi, cellular communication and navigation/positioning (GNSS) modules are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) Whether the modules are eligible for nil basic customs duty under Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017.

Issue (i): Whether the Wi-Fi, cellular communication and navigation/positioning (GNSS) modules are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Heading 8517 covers apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data and their parts. The host Wi-Fi, cellular-modem and GNSS-enabled apparatus are communication apparatus of Heading 8517. In their imported condition, the modules cannot communicate or provide positioning independently; they require integration with a PCB, power source, antenna and, for cellular modules, SIM/eSIM and host controls.

Analysis: Applying the test of separate identifiable function and independent operation, the modules are essential components rather than complete apparatus. They are suitable solely or principally for apparatus of Heading 8517 and consequently fall under Heading 8517 by Note 2(b) to Section XVI. As they are neither aerials nor populated printed circuit boards, they fall under the residual parts entry, Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90. The specific parts description under Heading 8517 prevails over the general electronic integrated circuits description under Heading 8542.

Conclusion: The Wi-Fi, cellular communication and GNSS modules are classifiable as parts under Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (ii): Whether the modules are eligible for nil basic customs duty under Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017.

Analysis: Serial No. 5 grants a nil rate to goods under Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90, while excluding parts of cellular mobile phones and wrist wearable devices, and inputs or sub-parts for manufacturing such excluded parts. The modules are standardised embedded modules for industrial, commercial and infrastructure equipment and do not fall within those exclusions.

Conclusion: The modules are eligible for the nil rate of basic customs duty under Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017.

Final Conclusion: The proposed modules receive classification as parts of communication apparatus and the corresponding customs-duty exemption treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: Embedded modules lacking a distinct function and independent operability, and designed solely or principally for apparatus of Heading 8517, are classifiable as parts under that heading rather than as complete apparatus or general electronic integrated circuits.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite an available statutory appeal; (ii) Whether the original adjudicating authority was bound by the unstayed appellate order for an earlier period; (iii) Whether the recipient entity was a "governmental authority" eligible for construction-service exemption under Clause 12A(a); and (iv) Whether construction of the scientific storage godowns qualified as post-harvest storage infrastructure under Clause 14(d).

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: Article 226 confers plenary writ jurisdiction, while availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is a self-imposed restraint and does not oust that jurisdiction. The controversy involved undisputed facts and legal questions, and the prolonged pendency made relegation to the statutory remedy inappropriate.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the available appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the original adjudicating authority was bound by the unstayed appellate order for an earlier period.

Analysis: The prior appellate order granting relief for the earlier period remained operative, the departmental challenge to it was pending, and no interim stay had been obtained. Judicial discipline requires a subordinate quasi-judicial revenue authority to follow the decision of its appellate authority.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the original adjudicating authority was bound by the unstayed appellate order and could not adopt a contrary view.

Issue (iii): Whether the recipient entity was a "governmental authority" eligible for construction-service exemption under Clause 12A(a).

Analysis: Clause 2(s) requires government establishment, at least 90% governmental equity or control, and performance of a function entrusted to municipalities under Article 243W. The entity was established by the State, had more than 99% governmental equity, and undertook procurement, storage and subsidised distribution of foodgrains through the public distribution system, advancing poverty alleviation and social and economic development functions reflected in the Twelfth Schedule.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the recipient entity qualified as a governmental authority and was entitled to exemption under Clause 12A(a).

Issue (iv): Whether construction of the scientific storage godowns qualified as post-harvest storage infrastructure under Clause 14(d).

Analysis: Clause 14(d) exempts original works pertaining to post-harvest storage infrastructure for agricultural produce. The godowns were designed and immediately used for storage of paddy and rice procured from farmers; speculative future or auxiliary use for other commodities could not displace their primary post-harvest storage character.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: construction of the scientific storage godowns qualified for exemption under Clause 14(d).

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand and consequential impositions founded on denial of the claimed exemptions lacked legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate revenue authority must follow an unstayed appellate order of its superior authority and cannot reject it merely because a further departmental appeal is pending.

Issues: Whether VAT may be imposed on stock found short during a survey where the allegedly short goods were subsequently sold and tax was paid on those sales.

Analysis: Tax under Section 3 is attracted upon a sale. The department did not dispute receipt of tax on the subsequent sales of the goods treated as short during the survey. Levying tax on the stock shortage without accounting for those subsequent taxable sales would result in double taxation and affects the jurisdiction to make the default assessment.

Conclusion: The default assessment was unsustainable without fresh consideration of the effect of subsequent sales and tax payments relating to the goods found short.

Issues: (i) Whether the Board's decision declining to concur with the Director (Discipline)'s prima facie opinion and closing the disciplinary complaint warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the absence of a fiduciary or professional relationship was material to the Director (Discipline)'s prima facie opinion of other misconduct; and (iii) Whether pending criminal proceedings ousted the Board's disciplinary jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the Board's decision declining to concur with the Director (Discipline)'s prima facie opinion and closing the disciplinary complaint warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and does not permit the Court to sit in appeal or substitute its assessment for that of the statutory disciplinary authority. The Board considered the circumstances in which access to the laptop and income-tax account was provided, found no material establishing mala fide intent or deliberate facilitation, and reached its conclusion upon appreciation of the record. Its view was plausible and was not shown to suffer from illegality warranting writ interference.

Conclusion: No interference with the Board's decision was warranted; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of a fiduciary or professional relationship was material to the Director (Discipline)'s prima facie opinion of other misconduct.

Analysis: Although absence of a fiduciary relationship does not by itself exclude the application of Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule, the Director (Discipline) had formed the prima facie opinion on the premise that the concerned chartered accountant was the petitioner's tax consultant. Both parties denied that any such professional relationship existed. The absence of that foundational fact was therefore material in assessing the correctness of the prima facie opinion.

Conclusion: The absence of a fiduciary or professional relationship validly supported the Board's disagreement with the prima facie opinion; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether pending criminal proceedings ousted the Board's disciplinary jurisdiction.

Analysis: The pendency of criminal proceedings did not bar the Board from independently exercising its disciplinary jurisdiction. The Board's decision was founded on its assessment that cogent evidence of misconduct was lacking, rather than solely on the existence of criminal proceedings.

Conclusion: Pending criminal proceedings did not oust the Board's disciplinary jurisdiction; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: A reasoned and plausible disciplinary determination founded on the material available is not open to substitution by writ review merely because another view is possible.

Ratio Decidendi: In Article 226 review, a court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of a statutory authority where the authority's conclusion is plausible and based on the material on record.

Issues: (i) Whether production before the Magistrate complied with the twenty-four-hour requirement under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; (ii) Whether the seven-working-day prior-notice undertaking before arrest was complied with; and (iii) Whether the mandatory pre-arrest communication of the Section 69(1) order and reasons to believe was complied with.

Issue (i): Whether production before the Magistrate complied with the twenty-four-hour requirement under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: The Twenty-Four-Hour Production Rule is triggered by a de facto arrest, determined from actual deprivation of personal liberty and assumption of custody rather than the arrest memo alone. Custody does not invariably constitute arrest. The search, inquiry, and recording of a statement under Section 70 did not establish coercive restraint before 11:30 P.M.; there was no material showing that movement, communication, or departure was prevented. The contemporaneous bail application also identified 11:30 P.M. as the time of arrest. Production at about 11:00 A.M. on the following day was therefore within twenty-four hours.

Conclusion: There was no violation of the twenty-four-hour constitutional or statutory requirement; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the seven-working-day prior-notice undertaking before arrest was complied with.

Analysis: The judicial undertaking unconditionally assured seven working days' prior notice if arrest became necessary. A summons under Section 70, issued to secure attendance, evidence, or documents during an inquiry, is distinct from an arrest notice under Section 69. The summonses neither communicated that arrest had been decided upon nor operated as the specific pre-arrest notice promised in the undertaking. The undertaking could not be qualified by importing an unrecorded condition of cooperation.

Conclusion: The seven-working-day prior-notice undertaking was not complied with; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the mandatory pre-arrest communication of the Section 69(1) order and reasons to believe was complied with.

Analysis: Section 69(1), consistent with fairness and natural justice, requires a Commissioner's order authorising arrest to record reasons to believe founded on relevant material and to be communicated before arrest. Such pre-arrest communication enables recourse to anticipatory bail and judicial review. An arrest memo merely reciting that reasons to believe existed cannot substitute for the Commissioner's order. No order containing the requisite reasons or underlying material was produced or shown to have been communicated before the arrest.

Conclusion: The mandatory pre-arrest communication requirement under Section 69(1) was not complied with; the arrest was vitiated ab initio and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arrest, being contrary to the prior-notice undertaking and the mandatory pre-arrest communication safeguard, could not be legitimised by subsequent remand orders; release was required unless custody was independently warranted by law.

Ratio Decidendi: An arrest authorised under Section 69(1) requires prior communication of the Commissioner's order containing reasons to believe; an arrest memo cannot replace that mandatory safeguard.

Issues: Whether an adverse assessment order under Section 73 could be sustained without affording a personal hearing as required by Section 75(4), notwithstanding that the assessee had selected 'No' for personal hearing while seeking an adjournment.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is made. No date for personal hearing was fixed. The selection of 'No' in the online adjournment request did not dispense with the statutory obligation to offer a hearing before passing an adverse order.

Conclusion: The adverse order passed without affording a personal hearing was invalid; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.