Issues: (i) Whether the past consignments were shown to consist of goods subject to anti-dumping duty; (ii) whether the present consignment attracted duty, interest, confiscation and redemption fine; (iii) whether duty was demandable from the identified beneficial owner; and (iv) whether the importer could be penalised under both Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the past consignments were shown to consist of goods subject to anti-dumping duty.

Analysis: The past consignments had not been examined or supported by expert evidence establishing their nature. Import and sale documents described door plates or parts, while third-party records and statements were contradictory. The importer's statement was retracted, and the other persons whose statements were relied upon had not been examined or cross-examined by the adjudicating authority. The examination of the present consignment did not establish the nature of the earlier goods.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the duty demand for the past consignments was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the present consignment attracted duty, interest, confiscation and redemption fine.

Analysis: Physical examination and an expert certificate identified the declared door plates as digital offset printing plates. The importer accepted their actual description. The claimed erroneous dispatch by the supplier did not remove the consequences of the misdeclaration.

Conclusion: Against the assessee: anti-dumping duty and interest were sustained, as were confiscation and the Rs. 2,00,000 redemption fine.

Issue (iii): Whether duty was demandable from the identified beneficial owner.

Analysis: The statutory framework permits identification of the person chargeable with duty by reference to beneficial ownership and effective control, rather than solely by reference to the person filing the bills of entry. The departmental findings identified another person as beneficial owner.

Conclusion: Duty was demandable from the identified beneficial owner; the demand for the present consignment nevertheless remained sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether the importer could be penalised under both Sections 112 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 114A governs the imposition of a separate Section 112 penalty where a Section 114A penalty is imposed.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the importer's Section 112 penalty was removed, and its Section 114A penalty was reduced to Rs. 27,48,995.

Final Conclusion: The past-consignment liability falls away with consequential relief, while the present consignment remains subject to duty, interest and confiscation consequences; the penalties were reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Misdeclaration in earlier consignments cannot be established solely by findings about a later consignment, contradictory third-party records and a retracted statement unsupported by reliable corroboration.

Issues: Whether the order approving the amalgamation of a wholly owned subsidiary with its parent is exempt from stamp duty.

Analysis: Notification No. 13 dated 25.12.1937 provides an exemption for specified transfers between parent and subsidiary companies where the prescribed shareholding threshold is met. The subsidiary was wholly owned by the parent. A coordinate-bench decision had rejected the contention that the notification had been repealed; that decision remained binding because it had neither been stayed nor set aside.

Conclusion: The amalgamation order is exempt from stamp duty under the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: An order approving the amalgamation of a wholly owned subsidiary with its parent qualifies for exemption under the applicable parent-subsidiary transfer notification.

Issues: Whether service tax proceedings may continue against a deceased sole proprietor or a legal heir, and recovery be pursued on the resulting assessment.

Analysis: Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 defines an assessee as a person liable to pay service tax and includes an agent. Agency requires authority to act for another; no agency of the legal heirs was established. Chapter V contains no express machinery for continuing the proceedings against legal heirs after the service provider's death. Taxing statutes must be strictly construed without supplying an assumed legislative omission. The assessment was made after the proprietor's death, and recovery was sought on that assessment.

Conclusion: The proceedings abated on the service provider's death. The assessment against the deceased and the resulting recovery direction were invalid, in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of statutory authority to continue service tax proceedings against a deceased service provider's legal heirs, the proceedings abate on death.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the service tax demand.

Analysis: The notice was issued beyond the applicable normal limitation periods. The proviso to Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 permits an extended period where specified grounds, including suppression of facts or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax, are established. The assessee was registered, filed service tax returns and recorded the receipts in its books and audited statements. The demand arose from a comparison of Form 26AS with service tax returns. The receipts included amounts relating to goods subjected to VAT, and the assessee had a bona fide belief that substantial insurance commission receipts were covered by reverse charge. No evidence of deliberate concealment or intent to evade was identified.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the entire demand was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: A discrepancy between statutory records does not by itself establish suppression with intent to evade tax so as to justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Issues: Whether the shortfall arising from disallowance of entry-tax set-off had to be paid as arrears of admitted tax to obtain settlement.

Analysis: The Settlement Act distinguishes tax admitted as payable in a return from amounts arising under an assessment order. The settlement amount for disputed tax is calculated separately, with credit for payments already made, while admitted tax must be paid in full. Rule 4 provides for verification of the disputed and settlement amounts. Although the additional assessment demand arose from disallowance of a claimed set-off, the reduction of that set-off also left a shortfall in payment of the admitted output tax. The requirement to pay admitted tax was applied by strict interpretation.

Conclusion: The assessee must pay the shortfall in admitted tax, including Rs. 8,58,814 for 2007-08, to obtain a fresh settlement order. The same liberty applies to the other tax periods: payment within two weeks permits settlement notwithstanding expiry of the scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the settlement scheme, admitted tax is identified by reference to the return and must be discharged separately; disallowance of a claimed set-off may leave a shortfall in its payment.

Issues: (i) Whether motor vehicles held by a manufacturer within its factory pending despatch are liable to motor vehicle tax without proof of actual road use in Rajasthan; (ii) whether registration requirements extend to vehicle movement within private factory premises and whether the challenge to the trade certificate exemption succeeds; (iii) whether the motor vehicle levy is constitutionally valid.

Issue (i): Whether motor vehicles held by a manufacturer within its factory pending despatch are liable to motor vehicle tax without proof of actual road use in Rajasthan.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 combines the description of vehicles used or kept for use in the State with a specific charge on business possession by manufacturers and dealers under a trade certificate granted or deemed granted. Unlike neighbouring clauses, the relevant clause does not expressly require road use. Its advance assessment framework uses declared likely possession or preceding-year sales as a measure. Vehicles adapted for road use and physically held in the State are available for use there, regardless of their eventual destination.

Conclusion: Business possession is the taxable event. Qualifying factory-held vehicles fall within the charge without proof of actual road use or intended sale within Rajasthan.

Issue (ii): Whether registration requirements extend to vehicle movement within private factory premises and whether the challenge to the trade certificate exemption succeeds.

Analysis: Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits driving an unregistered vehicle in a public place or any other place. Rule 33 provides a conditional registration exemption through a trade certificate, while Rule 41 restricts permitted public-place use under that certificate. A stationary vehicle needs no exemption from a driving prohibition; movement requires registration or the applicable exemption. Rule 33 confers a benefit, and the State charge derives its validity independently from the constitutional taxing entry.

Conclusion: Section 39 extends to driving within factory yards and internal roads. The challenge to Rule 33 fails; whether it exceeds the proviso to Section 39 is not finally decided.

Issue (iii): Whether the motor vehicle levy is constitutionally valid.

Analysis: Entry 57 of List II addresses vehicles suitable for road use. The levy concerns business possession rather than manufacture, and its measure does not alter its subject. The compensatory tax doctrine supplies no independent constitutional limit on the levy. The charges on a trader and on a registered owner arise on distinct events; double taxation alone does not establish invalidity. The classification of persons holding stock within the State rests on an intelligible differentia and territorial nexus, and no prohibited discrimination under Article 304 was established.

Conclusion: The levy and notification are within the State's legislative competence and do not violate Articles 14, 301 or 304 of the Constitution.

Final Conclusion: Qualifying factory-held stock remains chargeable under the valid levy; objections to individual assessment calculations and hearing remain undetermined.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a motor vehicle tax charges business possession of road-suitable vehicles under a trade certificate granted or deemed granted, availability for use within the State suffices without proof of actual road use or a local destination.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could allow review solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without determining whether Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied.

Analysis: The Tribunal's review jurisdiction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act was invoked after the Supreme Court recalled its earlier judgment. The applicable Supreme Court precedents required consideration of whether Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was attracted; the Tribunal had not made that determination.

Conclusion: No. The Tribunal's common order allowing review and condoning delay was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot allow review solely on the basis of liberty granted by the Supreme Court without determining whether Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies.

Issues: Whether the writ challenge to the show-cause notice should be entertained before adjudication.

Analysis: The challenge arose at the show-cause stage and involved disputed questions of fact. The petitioner could raise factual and legal objections before the adjudicating authority, which was directed to consider the response by a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law and natural justice.

Conclusion: The challenge was not entertained as premature. The proposed tax liability was not decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to a show-cause notice involving disputed facts need not be entertained before the adjudicating authority has considered the objections.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory tax appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The petitioner's involvement in securing medical treatment for his daughter constituted sufficient cause for the delay. The material disclosed neither negligence nor wilful default, and a hearing on merits would cause no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the limitation-based rejection was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Sufficient cause for condoning delay may arise from circumstances beyond a litigant's control where there is no negligence or wilful default.

Issues: (i) Whether deletion of the proportionate input tax credit reversal demand was justified. (ii) Whether input tax credit for transactions reflected against an incorrect recipient GSTIN was allowable.

Issue (i): Whether deletion of the proportionate input tax credit reversal demand was justified.

Analysis: Section 17 restricts credit where inputs are used for both taxable and exempt supplies, while Rule 42 provides for proportionate reversal of common credit. The appellate order did not record the relevant taxable and exempt turnover figures or common credit calculations, and did not verify the claimed separation of records and shared overheads.

Conclusion: Deletion of the reversal demand was set aside for fresh adjudication, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether input tax credit for transactions reflected against an incorrect recipient GSTIN was allowable.

Analysis: The applicable circular provides a verification mechanism for input tax credit discrepancies. Tax invoices, banking records and the supplier's certificate established payment of consideration and tax, and identified the incorrect GSTIN mapping.

Conclusion: Credit of Rs. 74,325 was allowable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The verified mismatch credit remains available, while the reversal demand requires fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: A proportionate input tax credit reversal demand cannot be deleted solely on assertions of separate accounting without verification of common credit and the relevant turnover figures.

Issues: Whether GST registration could be restored on verification of returns and tax payment alone, without considering interest, late fee and penalty.

Analysis: Rule 23 requires outstanding returns to be furnished and tax paid together with applicable interest, penalty and late fee before an application for revocation is filed. The appellate authority directed verification of returns and tax payment but did not expressly address the ancillary liabilities. The statutory scheme provides for recovery of dues under Section 79 and for interest and late fee under Sections 50 and 47.

Conclusion: The restoration was modified to provide for recovery of applicable interest and late fee and a penalty of Rs. 10,000, partly in favour of Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration of registration cancelled for failure to furnish returns cannot be based solely on filing returns and payment of tax without accounting for applicable interest, late fee and penalty.

Issues: Whether the request to quash the pending customs complaint and release the surety should be pursued before the writ court or the criminal court.

Analysis: The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The customs complaint remained pending before the criminal court, and the relief sought was in substance discharge.

Conclusion: The petitioner must approach the criminal court for discharge and may seek release of the surety there. All contentions remain open.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were undervalued; (ii) whether the declared transaction value was lawfully rejected and reassessed.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were undervalued.

Analysis: Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are admissible when voluntary, and the circumstances and timing of any retraction are relevant. Admissions were assessed alongside parallel invoices, overseas customs information and records obtained from independent sources. The documentary evidence corroborated the statements despite procedural objections.

Conclusion: The imported goods were undervalued. The issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value was lawfully rejected and reassessed.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 ordinarily require acceptance of the price actually paid or payable. Rejection requires reasons supported by material, and reassessment follows the valuation rules sequentially. Genuine invoices and contemporaneous comparable imports supplied the basis for reassessment.

Conclusion: The declared value was lawfully rejected and the goods were correctly reassessed at Rs. 4,90,47,116. The issue was decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment, differential duty, confiscation and penalties remain effective.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared customs transaction value may be rejected and reassessed under the sequential valuation rules when reliable evidence establishes undervaluation and supports the substituted value.

Issues: (i) Whether a qualifying resolution plan protects the corporate debtor's property from a pre-approval money-laundering attachment; (ii) Whether a Special Court finding is required to establish eligibility for that protection when the enforcement authority alleges no statutory exception.

Issue (i): Whether a qualifying resolution plan protects the corporate debtor's property from a pre-approval money-laundering attachment.

Analysis: Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code protects property covered by an approved resolution plan against action relating to an offence committed before commencement of insolvency, where control passes to a person satisfying the statutory conditions. Approval is the trigger for protection; applying it from that point gives the new management a clean slate without retrospectively invalidating the original attachment.

Conclusion: A qualifying resolution plan protects the covered property from a pre-approval attachment, which ceases to subsist from approval.

Issue (ii): Whether a Special Court finding is required to establish eligibility for that protection when the enforcement authority alleges no statutory exception.

Analysis: The enforcement authority did not allege that the property fell outside the plan or that the new controller fell within any statutory exception. There was consequently no disputed exception requiring a factual determination by the Special Court.

Conclusion: No prior Special Court finding is required where the enforcement authority alleges no applicable exception.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor receives statutory clean-slate protection, and the substituted fixed deposit must be released.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval of a resolution plan satisfying Section 32A prospectively bars continuation of a pre-existing attachment against covered property for a pre-insolvency offence.

Issues: (i) Whether the corporate debtors were corporate guarantors whose insolvency proceedings could be brought before the principal borrower's insolvency forum despite their registered offices being elsewhere; (ii) whether the corporate debtor's direct financial debt and default independently supported initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the corporate debtors were corporate guarantors whose insolvency proceedings could be brought before the principal borrower's insolvency forum despite their registered offices being elsewhere.

Analysis: Section 60 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides for proceedings involving a corporate guarantor to be brought before the forum handling the corporate debtor's insolvency. The loan agreement and hypothecation deed, read together, imposed joint and several liability and an obligation to make good a shortfall from any source. Under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a guarantee may be established through the combined effect of agreements; the document's title and the absence of all parties' signatures on a single instrument are not decisive.

Conclusion: The corporate debtors were corporate guarantors, and the principal borrower's insolvency forum had jurisdiction. The issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the corporate debtor's direct financial debt and default independently supported initiation of insolvency proceedings.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code governs initiation of insolvency proceedings upon financial debt and default. The direct loans had been disbursed and remained unpaid; the arbitral awards recording the defaults had been challenged but were not stayed.

Conclusion: The direct financial debt and default independently supported initiation of insolvency proceedings. The issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The guarantor-jurisdiction framework applied, and the corporate debtor's direct financial liabilities provided an independent basis for insolvency initiation.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate hypothecator may be a guarantor where loan and security documents read together establish an undertaking to discharge the borrower's liability on default; proceedings against that guarantor may be brought before the forum handling the borrower's insolvency notwithstanding the guarantor's registered office elsewhere.

Issues: Whether shareholders acting solely in that capacity have standing to appeal against approval of a resolution plan that provides for a residual distribution to shareholders.

Analysis: Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permits an aggrieved person to appeal. The statutory scheme gives shareholders a limited role in the resolution process and treats residual equity interests as consequential to distribution under the plan. The Tribunal applied precedent concerning shareholder standing and the commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors. No element of fraud or malicious proceedings was found in the present case.

Conclusion: Shareholders acting solely in that capacity lack standing to challenge approval of the resolution plan; provision for a residual distribution does not change that position.

Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder acting solely in that capacity does not acquire standing to appeal approval of a resolution plan merely because the plan provides for a residual distribution to shareholders.

Issues: Whether delay in implementing an approved resolution plan warranted adverse findings and regulatory referral where the plan permitted payment to be deferred pending an appeal.

Analysis: The approved plan contained a 46-day implementation schedule and an unconditionality clause, but also provided for payment after finality where litigation concerning the plan was pending. The plan had been approved without modification. The interim direction permitting implementation did not mandate it. The parties acted on the payment clause in a bona fide belief and implemented the plan after the adjudicating authority raised its concern. Adverse observations were also made against the successful resolution applicant without it being a party or being heard.

Conclusion: The delay did not warrant adverse findings against the successful resolution applicant or monitoring committee members, or referral of their conduct to the insolvency regulator. The specified adverse observation and referral were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Stakeholders cannot be faulted for deferring implementation during a pending appeal in reliance on an unmodified approved plan that makes payment contingent on finality, even where no stay has been granted.

Issues: Whether cancellation of a provisional attachment could rest solely on the quashing of one predicate-offence FIR without considering another FIR and the independent effect of quashing.

Analysis: The attachment was based on two FIRs, but the appellate decision addressed only the quashing of one. The effect of quashing on an attachment requires independent assessment; quashing a predicate-offence FIR on compromise does not itself obliterate proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The cancellation of the attachment could not be sustained on the basis adopted. Its validity and the parties' contentions remain open for fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Quashing a predicate-offence FIR on compromise does not itself eliminate proceeds of crime; its effect on a provisional attachment requires independent assessment, including consideration of any other FIR underlying the attachment.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail pending trial for alleged GST offences.

Analysis: Article 21 protects personal liberty through just, fair and reasonable procedure. Pre-trial detention is not punitive, and its necessity must be assessed alongside the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial. The investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, the applicant had no criminal history, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. No material indicated a risk of absconding, interference with evidence or witnesses, or other exceptional circumstances warranting continued custody. The Court also noted the circular concerning GST arrest powers.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to release on bail. The criminal trial remains pending, and the merits of the allegations were not determined.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-trial detention must not be punitive; bail ordinarily follows unless continued custody is justified by circumstances affecting the trial or administration of justice.