Issues: (i) Whether a parent company is liable for its subsidiary's operational debt arising from a contract to which the parent was not a party. (ii) Whether the business transfer agreement and subsequent letter, part-payment and cheques transferred or acknowledged the subsidiary's debt as the parent company's operational debt.

Issue (i): Whether a parent company is liable for its subsidiary's operational debt arising from a contract to which the parent was not a party.

Analysis: A parent company and its subsidiary have separate corporate personalities. The underlying contract was signed by the subsidiary, and the record did not establish that the parent received the supplies giving rise to the claim.

Conclusion: No. The parent was not liable for the subsidiary's debt merely because of their corporate relationship. This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the business transfer agreement and subsequent letter, part-payment and cheques transferred or acknowledged the subsidiary's debt as the parent company's operational debt.

Analysis: The business transfer agreement excluded liabilities arising before the closing date and addressed contracts not novated by that date. The debit note concerned supplies from the preceding period, and the subsequent letter described the amount as owed by the subsidiary. The parent had also made a part-payment and issued post-dated cheques. Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot be substituted for recovery or adjudication of a disputed commercial claim.

Conclusion: No. The alleged operational debt was not established as due from the parent, and admission of the insolvency application could not be sustained. This issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor is released from the corporate insolvency resolution process and may function through its board of directors.

Ratio Decidendi: A parent company does not incur its subsidiary's operational debt merely through their corporate relationship, and a unilateral letter does not itself effect novation of the underlying contract.

Issues: Whether a direct appeal against a provisional attachment order is maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, provisional attachment is subject to adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority, while the statutory appellate provision identifies the orders against which an appeal lies. The direction to treat the writ petition as an appeal required consideration in accordance with law, and the Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction outside the statutory framework.

Conclusion: A direct appeal against the provisional attachment order is not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain a direct appeal against a provisional attachment order where the statute does not confer such appellate jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the accused applicant should be granted bail pending trial.

Analysis: Prima facie, no implicating material was apparent apart from the applicant's disclosure statement. The merits of the prosecution were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Bail is granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with a requirement to cooperate in the judicial process. The criminal trial remains pending.

Issues: Whether omission of the date, time and venue of personal hearing from the show-cause notice vitiated the adjudication proceedings.

Analysis: The notice under the GST legislation required a reply but did not specify the date, time or venue of personal hearing. Procedural fairness required an opportunity of hearing before adjudication.

Conclusion: The adjudication proceedings were procedurally vitiated.

Ratio Decidendi: Tax adjudication is procedurally vitiated where the show-cause notice specifies no date, time or venue for personal hearing and no opportunity of hearing is afforded.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice for cancellation of GST registration contained sufficient particulars and statutory grounds; (ii) whether the appellate authority could sustain the cancellation by relying on additional evidence and statutory grounds not disclosed in the notice.

Issue (i): Whether the notice for cancellation of GST registration contained sufficient particulars and statutory grounds.

Analysis: Section 29 and Rule 22 provide the framework for cancellation of registration. The notice alleged wrongful input tax credit but omitted supplier details, registration numbers and the relevant periods, and did not invoke the cancellation provisions. Cancellation proceedings are distinct from tax determination proceedings. The subsequent omission of wrongful input tax credit as a cancellation ground was also treated as a relevant consideration.

Conclusion: The cancellation notice was legally deficient, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could sustain the cancellation by relying on additional evidence and statutory grounds not disclosed in the notice.

Analysis: Rule 112 restricts the admission of additional evidence on appeal. Natural justice requires an effective opportunity to rebut material relied upon. The appellate authority relied on an inquiry report and invoked a statutory provision absent from the cancellation notice, without recording an effective opportunity for rebuttal.

Conclusion: The appellate order could not sustain the cancellation, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The registration stands restored without any determination in the separate tax proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: GST registration cancellation requires a notice specifying the statutory grounds and material particulars; an appellate authority cannot cure a defective notice by introducing new grounds or evidence, particularly without an effective opportunity to rebut that evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of GST registration was sustainable on the show cause notice issued. (ii) Whether the appellate authority could sustain cancellation using an inquiry report without an effective opportunity to rebut it.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of GST registration was sustainable on the show cause notice issued.

Analysis: Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Rule 22 of the corresponding Rules govern cancellation and its procedure. The notice alleged wrongful input tax credit but omitted supplier identities, registration numbers, relevant periods and the statutory cancellation grounds. A reference to an oral intimation did not supply those particulars, and later invocation of statutory provisions could not cure the notice. Proceedings concerning cancellation and those under Section 74A are distinct. The subsequent omission of wrongful credit availment from the relevant cancellation provision was also noted as a relevant consideration.

Conclusion: The cancellation was unsustainable, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority could sustain cancellation using an inquiry report without an effective opportunity to rebut it.

Analysis: The appellate authority relied on an inquiry report not disclosed in the cancellation notice, with no recorded effective opportunity for rebuttal. Rule 112 regulates admission of additional evidence, and natural justice requires a reasonable opportunity to address adverse material. Appellate proceedings are not ordinarily a fresh investigation to remedy deficiencies in the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The appellate order sustaining cancellation was unsustainable, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The registration stands restored. No finding was made on the separate proceedings concerning alleged wrongful input tax credit.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST registration cancellation notice must disclose the statutory grounds and essential particulars of the alleged contravention; its defects cannot be cured on appeal, and adverse additional evidence requires a fair opportunity of rebuttal.

Issues: Whether an appeal involving tax or input tax credit of Rs. 14,182 warranted admission despite being below the statutory monetary threshold.

Analysis: Section 112 confers discretion to refuse admission where the relevant amount does not exceed Rs. 50,000. The amount involved was Rs. 14,182.

Conclusion: Admission was refused. The substantive dispute was not examined on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal may exercise its discretion to refuse admission of an appeal where the relevant amount does not exceed the statutory monetary threshold.

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed funds represented benami property rather than genuine sale proceeds; (ii) whether denial of cross-examination of the witness vitiated the proceedings; and (iii) whether the income-tax appellate finding displaced the benami determination.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed funds represented benami property rather than genuine sale proceeds.

Analysis: The benami law requires examination of the transaction and the relationship between the property and its alleged beneficial owner. The evidence included same-day cash deposits and bank transfers, the intermediary controller's admission concerning accommodation entries, and shortcomings in the invoices and supporting records. The appellant did not satisfactorily rebut the evidence of the fund flow or establish genuine delivery of goods.

Conclusion: The funds were benami property and the attachment was confirmed, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of cross-examination of the witness vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: Natural justice requires a fair opportunity to know, answer and rebut the material relied upon, but does not confer an automatic or absolute right to cross-examine every witness. The appellant received the relied-upon material and opportunities to respond; the witness did not appear despite repeated summons.

Conclusion: The denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the income-tax appellate finding displaced the benami determination.

Analysis: Income-tax assessment and identification of benami transactions serve different statutory purposes. The benami legislation has overriding effect, and the income-tax appellate decision had not undertaken a detailed inquiry into the alleged benami arrangement.

Conclusion: The income-tax appellate finding did not displace the benami determination, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed attachment remains effective notwithstanding the income-tax appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: An income-tax finding that a transaction is genuine does not by itself preclude a determination that it is benami under the separate statutory regime.

Issues: Whether denial of access to the original import file and cross-examination of departmental witnesses violated natural justice.

Analysis: The importer had requested the original import file and cross-examination of departmental witnesses. The adjudicating authority declined cross-examination on the assumption that it would serve no purpose in light of the importer's statements, and rejected the request concerning the original documents. The valuation merits were not decided; the relevant CBIC circulars were directed to be kept in mind during fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: Natural justice was violated. The importer must be provided a copy of the original import file and an opportunity to cross-examine the department's chartered engineer before fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A requested cross-examination of a material departmental witness cannot be denied merely on the assumption that it would serve no purpose; the affected party must also have a meaningful opportunity to access relevant import records.

Issues: Whether a corporate plaintiff may produce a subsequent board resolution concerning authorization and ratification of acts connected with its suit.

Analysis: Section 291 of the Companies Act, 1956 concerns the powers of a company's board. Order XXIX Rule 1 and Order VI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 address the signing and verification of pleadings. Authority to institute a suit is distinct from authority to sign and verify pleadings. A corporation may expressly or impliedly ratify an officer's signing of pleadings, and curable procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights. An executive director's authority letter was on record, while the subsequent resolution purported to acknowledge authorization and ratify acts connected with the suit. The existence and effect of authorization require assessment on the evidence and circumstances of the trial.

Conclusion: Production of the resolution was permitted. Its admissibility and effect on authorization and maintainability remain for determination by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent board resolution may be produced without prejudging whether the company validly authorized or ratified the institution of the suit; those questions remain for determination at trial.

Issues: Whether interest on the refund of a customs investigation deposit should be enhanced from 6% to 12% per annum.

Analysis: The investigation deposit was treated as a pre-deposit carrying interest from the date of deposit. The applicable statutory notifications prescribed interest at 6%. A statutory tribunal cannot go beyond those notifications or exercise the writ jurisdiction available to High Courts. Decisions awarding higher interest were distinguished on their legal and factual basis.

Conclusion: Enhancement to 12% was denied; interest remains at 6%. The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal cannot award interest on a refunded customs pre-deposit at a rate exceeding that prescribed by an operative statutory notification.

Issues: Whether personal penalties were leviable on customs officers for alleged abetment of fraudulent exports.

Analysis: Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires mens rea and a positive, deliberate act of abetment rendering goods liable to confiscation. Negligence or administrative oversight alone does not establish penal abetment. No material established collusion or personal benefit. The principal clearance preceded the cautionary alert, and the officers cooperated with the investigation, including prompt disclosure of that clearance.

Conclusion: Personal penalties under Section 114 were not leviable on either officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Personal penalty on a customs officer for abetment under Section 114 requires mens rea and deliberate abetment; negligence or administrative oversight alone is insufficient.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for the show cause notice.

Analysis: The extended period under the Customs Act, 1962 requires circumstances such as collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The importer had explained the nature and description of the goods before the notice, and departmental officials had visited its premises and collected information. The authorities were aware of the relevant facts but did not act within the normal period. A wholly time-barred notice raises a threshold jurisdictional question, and an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be cured on appeal.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unjustified, and the notice was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior departmental knowledge and subsequent inaction do not justify invocation of the extended limitation period absent collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Issues: The tariff classification of two-ton split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit.

Analysis: The adopted Larger Bench ruling applies the principle that a specific tariff entry takes precedence over a generic entry. The tariff also distinguishes split air conditioners incorporating a refrigerating unit from those without one.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under tariff item 8415 82 10.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific tariff entry takes precedence over a generic entry when classifying goods described by both.

Issues: (i) Whether construction of individual residential houses on purchasers' plots is liable to service tax as construction of a residential complex; (ii) Whether abatement is available on construction and sale of residential flats.

Issue (i): Whether construction of individual residential houses on purchasers' plots is liable to service tax as construction of a residential complex.

Analysis: Before 1 July 2012, the statutory definition of a residential complex required buildings with more than twelve residential units, common areas and specified facilities within an approved layout. The purchasers had acquired separately demarcated plots and separately engaged construction of individual houses. From 1 July 2012, the exemption covered a self-contained single residential unit outside a residential complex. The agreements, title documents and approved plans were material; common gates and amenities alone did not establish that the individual construction formed part of an integrated complex. The Board's clarification supported the distinction.

Conclusion: The demand on construction of individual houses is unsustainable for both periods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether abatement is available on construction and sale of residential flats.

Analysis: The applicable notifications prescribed different abatements and conditions across the relevant periods. The flat agreements provided for consolidated consideration encompassing the flat and an undivided interest in the land. The absence of a separate monetary allocation for land did not establish separate recovery or exclusion of its value. An unreconciled allocation of corner and development charges did not, by itself, disqualify the construction consideration from abatement.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to 67% abatement for April to June 2010, 75% for July 2010 to June 2012, and the prescribed abatement thereafter, subject to the applicable conditions and verification of unit specifications.

Final Conclusion: Liability on the flats remains subject to quantification after applicable abatements and credit for tax paid. Penalties are set aside, while payment of the accepted tax liability on preferential location or development services remains subject to verification.

Ratio Decidendi: The location of an independently contracted single residential unit within a gated layout, without more, does not establish construction of a taxable residential complex.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on inputs could be denied on the ground that the suppliers' processes did not amount to manufacture.

Analysis: The definition of manufacture includes processes incidental or ancillary to completing a manufactured product. The suppliers' operations involved bonding layers, including a printed layer, followed by curing, slitting and cutting into customer-specific packaging material. Unlike mere lamination, those operations produced material with a distinct name, character and use.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the credit; its denial, recovery with interest and the equivalent penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Conversion of laminated or metallised sheets into packaging material with a distinct name, character and use constitutes manufacture; Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely on the contrary premise.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail in proceedings concerning an alleged GST offence.

Analysis: The bail application was made under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in relation to an alleged offence under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The accused had remained in judicial custody since arrest, his voluntary statement had been recorded, and the respondents accepted his release on conditions.

Conclusion: The accused is entitled to conditional bail on a personal bond with two sureties, attendance when called on notice, and abstention from similar offences.

Issues: Whether GST registration could be cancelled for non-deposit of input tax credit where returns were regularly filed.

Analysis: The alleged non-deposit concerned recovery of input tax credit, for which Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provide a procedure. The petitioner had regularly filed returns.

Conclusion: The cancellation was unjustified, and its revocation was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-deposit of input tax credit does not by itself justify cancellation of GST registration where returns are regularly filed; the applicable recovery procedure should be followed.

Issues: Whether failure to submit a reply to a GST show-cause notice deprives the assessee of an opportunity of personal hearing.

Analysis: The show-cause notice required a reply but recorded the date, time and venue of personal hearing as not applicable. An oral opportunity could enable the assessee to present its position independently of a written reply.

Conclusion: Failure to submit a reply did not dispense with the opportunity of personal hearing. The substantive tax liability remains undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-submission of a written reply to a GST show-cause notice does not, by itself, dispense with the opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit for departmental appeals; (ii) whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for alleged excess stock detected by visual estimation.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental appeal fell within an exception to the monetary limit for departmental appeals.

Analysis: The litigation policy prescribed a monetary threshold but excluded matters involving interpretation of statutory provisions. The dispute concerned the application of the confiscation provisions as opposed to the regular demand and assessment provisions.

Conclusion: The monetary limit did not bar the departmental appeal, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation and penalty could be sustained for alleged excess stock detected by visual estimation.

Analysis: Confiscation under the GST enactments requires proof of the applicable statutory prerequisites, including intent to evade tax. The stock quantities were visually estimated rather than physically weighed, and the verification sheets contained material inconsistencies. Accounts were available for comparison, returns were regularly filed, and there was no independent corroborative evidence of manipulation or evasion. Tax liability arising from stock discrepancies is to be determined under the appropriate demand and assessment provisions.

Conclusion: The alleged stock discrepancy did not sustain confiscation or penalty, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge was maintainable, but the confiscation and penalty remained set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A stock discrepancy alone cannot justify confiscation or penalty without proof of the applicable statutory prerequisites, including intent to evade tax.