Issues: (i) Whether the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 required prior sanction under Section 80 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003; (ii) Whether the charge-sheet warranted quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds of delay, the petitioner not being named in the FIR, and factual denial of the transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 required prior sanction under Section 80 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Section 80 restricts cognizance only of offences punishable under Sections 72 and 79 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The charge-sheet invoked independent offences of forgery and use of forged documents under the Indian Penal Code, 1860; consequently, the statutory sanction requirement was inapplicable.

Conclusion: Prior sanction under Section 80 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was not required for the IPC prosecution. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge-sheet warranted quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grounds of delay, the petitioner not being named in the FIR, and factual denial of the transactions.

Analysis: The charge-sheet contained specific allegations concerning creation and use of e-sugam documents and tax evasion. The reassessment material relied upon related to a different period. Whether the alleged transactions occurred and whether the petitioner created or used forged documents are disputed factual matters requiring trial. A person may be arrayed as an accused upon investigation even if not named in the FIR, and no thirty-day restriction for filing a charge-sheet applied to the IPC offences.

Conclusion: No ground existed to invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheet. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The forgery-related allegations connected with the asserted tax-evasion transactions remain triable in the criminal proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction provision confined to specified fiscal offences does not govern independent IPC charges, and inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to quash a charge-sheet where its resolution requires adjudication of disputed facts at trial.

Issues: (i) Whether intent to evade tax was a necessary condition for a penalty under Section 129 governing the November 2021 transaction; (ii) Whether the absence of an e-way bill alone could sustain a Section 129 penalty where the consignment carried a genuine e-invoice and there was no evidence of evasion; and (iii) Whether a final penalty order made fifty-seven minutes after the show-cause notice denied the mandatory opportunity of hearing.

Issue (i): Whether intent to evade tax was a necessary condition for a penalty under Section 129 governing the November 2021 transaction.

Analysis: For the period before 1 January 2022, Section 129(6) linked unpaid detention demands to Section 130, which required intent to evade tax. Section 129 was consequently not a stand-alone strict-liability provision for the transaction in question. The subsequent statutory amendment severing that linkage did not govern the November 2021 movement. The genuine, traceable e-invoice, matching tax returns, payment of output tax, absence of discrepancies on verification, and lack of any finding of concealment or evasion established that the documentation omission was not accompanied by mens rea.

Conclusion: Intent to evade tax was a mandatory condition for imposing the Section 129 penalty in the applicable statutory regime, and its absence rendered the demand unsustainable. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of an e-way bill alone could sustain a Section 129 penalty where the consignment carried a genuine e-invoice and there was no evidence of evasion.

Analysis: Each motorcycle was individually traceable through engine and chassis numbers recorded in the e-invoice, along with the invoice reference number, acknowledgement number, and QR code. The declared quantity, value, description, destination, and tax treatment matched the returns, and physical verification disclosed no discrepancy other than non-generation of the e-way bill. The regulated registration requirements for two-wheelers also made a clandestine untaxed sale implausible on these facts.

Conclusion: A Section 129 penalty could not be sustained solely for non-generation of the e-way bill where the transaction was genuine and no intent to evade tax was established. In favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a final penalty order made fifty-seven minutes after the show-cause notice denied the mandatory opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Section 75(4) required an opportunity of hearing before an adverse decision. The fifty-seven-minute interval between the notice and final order afforded no meaningful opportunity to respond to the proposed demand or for consideration of the explanation and supporting material. This denied the principles of natural justice and constituted a jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The order passed within fifty-seven minutes of the show-cause notice was vitiated for denial of the mandatory opportunity of hearing. In favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax-and-penalty demand lacked both the required evidentiary foundation of intent to evade tax and a valid adjudicatory process; the deposited amount is refundable with applicable interest, while lawful treatment of the documentation lapse remains open.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the pre-amendment Section 129 regime, an e-way-bill omission unsupported by intent to evade tax cannot sustain a penalty, particularly where the statutory hearing opportunity is illusory.

Issues: Validity of an ex parte GST assessment and consequential rectification order passed on notices uploaded only on the GST portal, without affording a personal hearing.

Analysis: Uploading a notice on the GST portal is a valid mode of service. However, where repeated portal notices receive no response, the officer must consider other prescribed modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, preferably registered post, to ensure effective service. Proceeding solely on portal uploads in such circumstances amounts to an empty formality; the absence of a personal hearing further vitiates the assessment process.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment and rectification orders were unsustainable for want of effective service and opportunity of personal hearing.

Issues: Whether service tax paid after the GST transition, pursuant to an information request but without assessment or adjudication proceedings, constituted a recoverable amount barred from refund under Section 142(8)(a), or a voluntarily paid amount refundable under Section 142(3).

Analysis: Section 142(8)(a) applies only where an amount becomes recoverable pursuant to assessment or adjudication proceedings. The information request and subsequent closure of the investigation did not constitute such proceedings. The payment of service tax, interest and penalty was therefore voluntary and could not be characterised as recovery under Section 142(8)(a). Section 142(3), read with the saving provision in Section 174(2)(c), preserves entitlement to refund of an amount paid under the earlier excise and service-tax regime where the credit could otherwise have been availed.

Conclusion: The payment was voluntary and was not barred from refund under Section 142(8)(a); the assessee was entitled to have its refund claim processed under Section 142(3).

Issues: Whether the inclusion of surcharge and education cess in minimum alternate tax credit under Section 115JAA could be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 154 permits rectification only of a mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to decide a debatable question. The availability of surcharge and education cess as part of MAT credit under Section 115JAA was subject to divergent judicial views; it was therefore not an apparent mistake capable of rectification. The original credit had also been allowed in scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).

Conclusion: The rectification reducing MAT credit by excluding surcharge and education cess was beyond the jurisdiction under Section 154; the MAT credit allowed in the original assessment stood restored, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside confiscation and penalties on the finding that export of rice to Iran was not disproved; and (ii) Whether alleged post-export foreign-exchange and Foreign Trade Policy violations, without a proven Customs Act contravention, could sustain Customs action.

Issue (i): Whether the CESTAT was justified in setting aside confiscation and penalties on the finding that export of rice to Iran was not disproved.

Analysis: Confiscation and penalties under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 required a proven contravention. The export documents, phytosanitary certificates, buyer details, and remittance records supported the declared Iranian destination. There was no evidence that the certificates had been altered or that the remittances were non-genuine. The inference that the goods had been exported to the UAE rested on assumptions and presumptions. Upon issuance of the Let Export Order, title in the export goods passed to the foreign buyer, as clarified by CBEC Circular No. 999/2015-CX dated 28.02.2015.

Conclusion: The setting aside of confiscation and penalties was justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged post-export foreign-exchange and Foreign Trade Policy violations, without a proven Customs Act contravention, could sustain Customs action.

Analysis: The alleged irregularity concerned receipt of export proceeds and was a post-export foreign-exchange matter. There was no dispute as to the description, quantity, or value of the goods, and the export of rice was neither prohibited nor restricted. Contraventions under the foreign-exchange and foreign-trade regimes fall for action by the authorities empowered under those enactments and do not, without an independently established Customs Act violation, justify Customs confiscation or penalties.

Conclusion: The alleged foreign-exchange and Foreign Trade Policy violations could not sustain Customs action in the absence of a proven Customs Act contravention, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The factual and jurisdictional findings sustaining the CESTAT's decision did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs confiscation and penalties require an established contravention of the Customs Act and cannot rest solely on unsubstantiated inferences or alleged foreign-exchange violations governed by separate statutory authorities.

Issues: Whether the central excise demand based on deemed manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) survived after the proceedings for reclassifying the cranes from Tariff Item 8426 12 00 to Tariff Item 8426 41 00 had been set aside.

Analysis: The demand proceeded on the premise that the cranes were classifiable under Tariff Item 8426 41 00, thereby attracting Serial No. 100A of the Third Schedule and the deemed-manufacture provision for activities concerning their parts and spares. The prior ruling had already invalidated the retrospective reclassification proceedings, since a show cause notice for a mere change of classification was unsustainable in the absence of a statutory basis under Section 11A. The classification of the cranes under Tariff Item 8426 12 00 consequently remained undisturbed.

Conclusion: The foundational reclassification having failed, the consequential demand of duty, interest and penalty under the deemed-manufacture premise was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings and the consequential notice could be founded on grounds not stated in the underlying show-cause notice.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was confined to high-value financial transactions. After the explanation regarding the funding of those transactions, the impugned order shifted to the source and creditworthiness of the margin money and the proposed disallowance of interest under Section 40(a)(ia). Those matters were not put to the assessee in the notice, and no opportunity was afforded to respond to them before the order was made.

Conclusion: Reassessment action cannot be sustained on new grounds falling outside the scope of the show-cause notice without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on a seized broker's inquiry-register entry alleging undisclosed consideration for purchase of land, were valid in the absence of a live nexus between that entry and the assessee's transaction.

Analysis: Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treats information in documents seized from another person that pertains to or relates to an assessee as information suggesting escapement of income; nevertheless, the reopening jurisdiction requires a live and direct nexus between the seized material and the assessee. The register entry dated 16.01.2020 merely recorded an asking rate for land available for sale and preceded the registered purchase by about one and a half years. It covered multiple survey numbers and a substantially larger area, while the assessee purchased only Survey No. 509/A. The names recorded in the entry did not correspond to the sellers, and neither the entry nor the broker's statements under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 referred to the assessee or the co-purchasers. The broker's admissions also precluded treating every register entry as conclusive proof of an actual undisclosed transaction under the presumptions in Sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No inquiry establishing a connection between the persons named in the entry and the assessee's purchase was shown.

Conclusion: The seized register entry did not establish any live nexus with the assessee's purchase; the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were unsustainable and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a reassessment notice for Assessment Year 2012-13, founded on material seized in a post-1 April 2021 third-party search, was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1) read with the pre-Finance Act, 2021 provisions of Sections 153A and 153C.

Analysis: For an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021, the first proviso to Section 149(1) preserves the limitation applicable under the erstwhile reassessment and search-assessment provisions, notwithstanding that the search occurred after that date. The six-year period under the unamended Section 149(1)(b) had expired for Assessment Year 2012-13. Under Explanation 1 to Section 153A, the extended ten-year block is reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of search; unlike the distinct six-year block of years "immediately preceding" that year, it includes the search assessment year. The search in financial year 2021-22 made Assessment Year 2022-23 the first year and Assessment Year 2013-14 the tenth year, leaving Assessment Year 2012-13 outside the permissible block. The alternative reference year based on recording of satisfaction also placed that assessment year beyond the ten-year limit.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice for Assessment Year 2012-13 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 on the basis of material seized in a search of a third party was permissible without a satisfaction note, instead of proceeding under Section 153C.

Analysis: The sole basis for reopening was material obtained during a search under Section 132 in the case of another person, and no satisfaction note had been recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person. Under the statutory scheme, where incriminating material from a search is relied upon against an other person, the prescribed recourse is assessment or reassessment under Section 153C upon recording and transmission of the requisite satisfaction. Sections 147 and 148 may be invoked only on independently obtained material, not on such seized material.

Conclusion: Invocation of Sections 147 and 148 on the seized material without the requisite satisfaction note and without proceeding under Section 153C was without jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) Whether export incentives arising from export of gherkins to an associated enterprise form part of operating income for determining the arm's length price; and (ii) Whether the Tribunal's remand to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration of comparables was justified.

Issue (i): Whether export incentives arising from export of gherkins to an associated enterprise form part of operating income for determining the arm's length price.

Analysis: For transfer-pricing purposes, an income item is operational where it bears a direct nexus to the relevant business activity. The export incentives were available solely because of the assessee's export of gherkins and arose directly from that export business. The fact that the incentives were granted under governmental policy did not render them ancillary profits.

Conclusion: Export incentives constituted operating income for determination of the arm's length price, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal's remand to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh consideration of comparables was justified.

Analysis: Selection or exclusion of comparables is a factual and data-driven exercise requiring functional comparability under Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules. The assessee's proposed comparables were engaged in growing, processing and exporting gherkins, whereas the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer were engaged in food processing and were not functionally similar. No perversity in the Tribunal's findings was established.

Conclusion: The remand for fresh consideration of comparables was justified, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation must include export incentives having a direct nexus with exports as operating income and must apply functionally comparable entities for benchmarking.

Ratio Decidendi: In transfer-pricing analysis, operating income and comparable entities must bear a direct nexus and functional comparability, respectively, to the controlled transaction.

Issues: Whether exclusion of a proposed comparable in transfer-pricing analysis for functional dissimilarity, notwithstanding its selection under Rule 10B, warranted interference.

Analysis: Selection or exclusion of comparables is a factual and data-driven comparability analysis that must conform to Rule 10B. The assessee's software-development functions differed from the proposed company's diversified service, industrial, telecommunications and sectoral operations. The Tribunal's finding of functional dissimilarity was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The proposed company was rightly excluded as a functionally dissimilar comparable, and no interference with the Tribunal's factual finding was warranted.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal rightly excluded selected companies from the TNMM comparability set on account of functional dissimilarity to a software development service provider.

Analysis: Selection or exclusion of comparables is a factual and data-driven exercise governed by Rule 10B of the Income-tax Rules. Companies owning significant intangibles, earning substantial revenue from software products, undertaking product development or product-design services, or deriving income from licences and subscriptions were functionally dissimilar to a captive software development service provider. A standard departmental set of comparables cannot be substituted without establishing functional comparability. No perversity was shown in the Tribunal's factual findings.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the functionally dissimilar companies was upheld, and the substantial questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: Whether interest earned by a co-operative credit society from funds deposited with co-operative banks or other banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 80P(2)(a)(i) allows deduction of profits and gains attributable to the business of providing credit facilities to members. Interest earned on funds generated from that business and deposited with banks retains its character as business income where the deposits are connected with the society's regulated lending operations. The principle applicable to retention and investment of members' sale proceeds did not govern interest earned on the society's own business funds.

Conclusion: The interest income earned on the bank deposits qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the corresponding addition is liable to be deleted.

Outcome: The writ petition was closed with liberty to approach the Court afresh; the earlier protection was continued for 90 days.

Issues: (i) Whether the police may investigate an FIR alleging offences under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 arise from the same transaction; (ii) Whether the FIR and ongoing investigation were liable to be quashed at the preliminary stage.

Issue (i): Whether the police may investigate an FIR alleging offences under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 arise from the same transaction.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to offences under other laws unless the special enactment contains a contrary provision regulating investigation or trial. The Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 contains no express exclusion of police powers, and Section 72 requires police officers to assist proper officers in implementing the Act. The offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are distinct from the offences under the fiscal statute; the special statute therefore does not displace police investigation of such penal offences.

Conclusion: Police investigation was legally permissible; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIR and ongoing investigation were liable to be quashed at the preliminary stage.

Analysis: An FIR merely sets the investigative process in motion and is not an exhaustive account of the case. The investigation remained pending, the petitioner was not named as an accused, and evidence had yet to be collected before filing of a charge-sheet.

Conclusion: No ground existed to declare the investigation illegal or to quash the FIR; the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The statutory GST framework does not bar regular police action where distinct offences under general criminal law accompany the alleged fiscal offences, and intervention during the ongoing investigation was unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory exclusion, general criminal procedure permits police investigation of distinct penal offences arising alongside offences under a special fiscal statute.

Issues: The constitutional challenge to statutory conditions governing input tax credit and the challenge to denial of input tax credit based on a supplier's non-payment of tax were raised; no final adjudication took place.

Outcome: The petitioner was permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with the proposed appeal treated as filed within limitation if lodged within 60 days.

Issues: Whether the writ petition warranted restoration despite the available statutory appellate remedy and the alleged overlap between proceedings.

Analysis: An appeal against the impugned order was maintainable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The question of overlapping demands could be examined by the Appellate Authority, including an application for exemption from pre-deposit to the extent permissible in law. The challenge to the notifications remained pending consideration before the Supreme Court and was not adjudicated.

Outcome: The restoration application was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal within the stipulated period.

Issues: (i) Whether restoration of registration could be made conditional upon cash reversal or payment of disputed input tax credit, coupled with an automatic-void clause, without notice and statutory adjudication; (ii) Whether cancellation of registration based on alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was sustainable when the show-cause notice alleged only non-existence of the registered premises.

Issue (i): Whether restoration of registration could be made conditional upon cash reversal or payment of disputed input tax credit, coupled with an automatic-void clause, without notice and statutory adjudication.

Analysis: The appellate power under Section 107(11) permits confirmation, modification or annulment of the order under appeal, but an order requiring payment of tax or wrongly availed input tax credit requires a notice to show cause and compliance with the prescribed adjudicatory process and limitation. The cancellation proceedings concerned non-existence of the business premises, not entitlement to input tax credit. A conditional affidavit expressing willingness to reverse credit after verification did not dispense with statutory notice, inquiry and a meaningful opportunity to respond. The cash-deposit direction therefore travelled beyond the scope of the registration appeal and violated natural justice.

Conclusion: The condition requiring cash payment or reversal of disputed input tax credit within seven days, including the automatic-void clause, was invalid and unenforceable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cancellation of registration based on alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was sustainable when the show-cause notice alleged only non-existence of the registered premises.

Analysis: The show-cause notice was confined to alleged non-existence at the declared place of business. The original cancellation order introduced wrongful availment of input tax credit from certain suppliers as a separate basis, although no demand or allegation concerning such credit had been made in the notice. Confirmation on a ground outside the notice was inconsistent with Section 75(7).

Conclusion: The cancellation order founded on a ground beyond the show-cause notice was legally unsustainable; the registration cancellation was revoked in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Registration stands restored without the impugned cash-deposit condition, while lawful fresh proceedings concerning any alleged wrongful input tax credit remain open to the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In a registration-cancellation appeal, an appellate authority cannot impose an input tax credit recovery or reversal condition on matters outside the show-cause notice unless the statutory notice, opportunity and adjudicatory requirements for such determination are fulfilled.