Issues: (i) Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions; (ii) Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Issue (i): Whether Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is unconstitutional or must be read down to confine ITC reversal to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Analysis: Input tax credit is a statutory concession, and actual payment of tax to the Government is integral to the credit mechanism. Section 16(2)(c) operates subject to Section 41 and forms part of an integrated statutory framework governing eligibility, reversal, recovery from the supplier, and subsequent re-availment. The earlier matching and reconciliation framework under Sections 42 and 43 was not operationalised, but the resulting difficulty concerns the manner of enforcement rather than the constitutional validity of the condition itself.

Analysis: The possibility of arbitrary or mechanical action in individual cases does not invalidate Section 16(2)(c). The condition cannot be restricted only to fraud, collusion, or fictitious transactions by reading down its text; instead, it must be applied harmoniously with the statutory safeguards and recovery mechanisms available against the defaulting supplier.

Conclusion: Section 16(2)(c), read with Section 155, is constitutionally valid and is not read down to limit its operation exclusively to fraudulent, collusive, or non-genuine transactions.

Issue (ii): Whether and subject to what safeguards a purchaser's ITC may be denied or reversed when the supplier defaults in depositing tax or its registration is subsequently cancelled.

Analysis: The non-operationalisation of the original matching mechanism, the phased substitution of Section 41, and the subsequent introduction of Rule 37A require the statutory regime applicable to the relevant tax period to be applied. For periods before Rule 37A, the absence of a re-availment mechanism is material. The statutory power to recover tax collected but not deposited by the supplier, including under Section 76, remains a relevant part of the scheme and cannot be rendered ineffective.

Analysis: Subsequent or retrospective cancellation of the supplier's registration, a nil or short tax declaration, or an alert concerning the supplier may justify an inquiry but cannot alone justify denial or reversal of ITC. The notice must disclose the relevant supplier, invoices, tax periods, nature of the default, material relied upon, and the status of recovery proceedings against the supplier. The purchaser may discharge the burden of proof through invoices and evidence of actual receipt and movement of goods or services. A notice invoking fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression must itself state the foundational facts connecting the purchaser to such conduct. Personal hearing, reasoned consideration of the purchaser's material, and examination of the grounds for retrospective cancellation are required.

Conclusion: ITC cannot be denied or reversed mechanically merely because the supplier defaulted or its registration was subsequently cancelled. Reversal may follow where the purchaser fails to establish eligibility or where fraud, collusion, non-receipt of goods or services, or other grounds rendering the credit inadmissible are established in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Pending notices and completed adjudications must be dealt with afresh in conformity with the prescribed safeguards, after adequate opportunity to furnish material and be heard. Amounts already reversed, deposited, or recovered shall be adjusted or refunded as warranted by the fresh determination, and no fresh coercive recovery may be undertaken until that determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Actual payment of tax is a valid statutory condition for input tax credit, but Section 16(2)(c) must be enforced as part of the integrated GST scheme and cannot be used to impose mechanical reversal upon a bona fide purchaser without a fact-based inquiry, procedural fairness, and consideration of recovery from the defaulting supplier.

Issues: Whether the reassessment order under Section 148A(3) and the consequent notice under Section 148 for assessment year 2020-21 warranted writ interference where the materially identical reassessment challenge for the preceding assessment year had already been decided against the assessee.

Analysis: The information and allegations underlying the impugned reassessment action were identical to those involved in the preceding assessment year. The earlier decision had found that determining whether the amount disclosed by the assessee arose from a spurious transaction resulting in escaped income required factual examination by the Assessing Officer. Judicial discipline required adherence to the coordinate bench decision rendered in the assessee's own case.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and consequential notice did not warrant writ interference; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable; (ii) Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid under a mistake of law on exempt goods transport agency services is refundable.

Analysis: The assessee was eligible for exemption under Clause (21)(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST, as amended, but paid service tax under reverse charge despite no liability. Such payment, made under a mistake of law, is a revenue deposit rather than tax or duty. Consequently, Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not govern the refund claim, and retention of the amount would be without authority of law under Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The refund of the amount paid under mistake of law is admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest is payable on that amount and, if so, at what rate.

Analysis: Since the payment retains the character of a revenue deposit and is outside the statutory refund mechanism for duty, the interest regime under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is inapplicable. The applicable principle supports compensatory interest at 12% per annum for wrongful retention of the deposit.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the respective dates of deposit until payment of the refund, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption is given full effect by treating the erroneous payment as a refundable revenue deposit, with compensation for its retention.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment made under a mistake of law where no tax liability exists is a revenue deposit outside Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and its unlawful retention warrants refund with compensatory interest.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could withhold the refund under Section 54(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when an anti-evasion investigation concerning alleged fraudulent input tax credit was pending.

Analysis: Section 54(11) permits withholding where the refund-generating order is subject to an appeal, further proceedings, or any other pending proceeding under the Act, and the Commissioner, after hearing the taxable person, forms an opinion that release would adversely affect revenue because of fraud or malfeasance. The expression concerning other pending proceedings extends beyond a formally instituted appeal and includes a pending statutory investigation. The anti-evasion investigation had commenced before the refund-withholding order and was supported by contemporaneous material indicating non-existent or cancelled suppliers, absence of established movement of goods, and absence of the claimant from the manufacturer's supply chain. Those circumstances bore directly on actual receipt of goods for input tax credit purposes and supported the requisite opinion of fraud or malfeasance. A subsequently issued show-cause notice merely crystallised the ongoing investigation; the absence of a pending appellate proceeding or separate judicial stay did not invalidate the statutory withholding.

Conclusion: The refund was validly withheld under Section 54(11); the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether extraordinary writ jurisdiction could be exercised to quash an input-tax-credit adjudication order despite an available statutory appeal, on the asserted bar under Section 6(2)(b), variance from the show-cause notice, and denial of an effective hearing.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction does not ordinarily substitute the statutory appellate process where the challenge requires examination of the adjudication record and disputed facts. The bar under Section 6(2)(b) depends upon identity of the precise subject matter, including the relevant tax period, transactions, invoices, ITC liability and allegations; a common supplier or general connection with ITC is insufficient. Whether the State and Central proceedings concerned identical liabilities required examination of their respective notices, orders and transaction-wise material. The impugned order disclosed an independent finding of ITC availment on goods-less invoices with reference to Section 16(2)(b), and therefore did not facially rest on a wholly new basis. The recorded grant of hearing opportunities, notwithstanding an apparent date discrepancy, and objections regarding evidence, limitation, clubbing of periods, replies and invocation of Section 74 required scrutiny of the underlying record in appeal.

Conclusion: An efficacious appellate remedy was required to be pursued because no ex facie lack of jurisdiction or undisputed breach of natural justice was established; all objections, including the applicability of Section 6(2)(b), remained open for appellate determination.

Issues: (i) Whether unfiled GST dues, interest and penalty for the pre-resolution-plan period were extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, thereby barring later proceedings; and (ii) Whether the statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction where the demands were initiated without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether unfiled GST dues, interest and penalty for the pre-resolution-plan period were extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, thereby barring later proceedings.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 makes an approved resolution plan binding upon the Central Government and authorities owed statutory dues, while Section 238 gives the Code overriding effect. The GST liabilities concerned the period preceding approval of the resolution plan, and no claim was lodged during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The approved plan extinguished all pre-effective-date governmental claims, whether assessed or unassessed, unless specifically preserved. This accords with the clean-slate principle, under which a successful resolution applicant cannot be burdened with undisclosed or undecided pre-plan claims.

Analysis: The distinction between adjudication and recovery was inapplicable after extinguishment of the underlying claim. A show-cause notice and consequential demand proceedings under Section 73(9), including interest and penalty, amount to proceedings concerning that extinguished claim. Section 88 concerns liquidation and cannot revive a liability extinguished through an approved resolution plan; the general adjudicatory powers under the GST law remain subject to Sections 31(1) and 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the pre-resolution-plan GST dues, interest and penalty stood extinguished, and no subsequent proceedings for their determination or recovery could be initiated or continued.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory appeal barred writ jurisdiction where the demands were initiated without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenged action is without jurisdiction and contrary to binding insolvency law. The relevant facts were undisputed and the challenge raised a pure legal question concerning the authority to initiate proceedings for an extinguished claim.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, writ jurisdiction was available notwithstanding the alternate statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: An approved resolution plan conclusively extinguishes unfiled statutory claims relating to the pre-approval period and precludes subsequent tax-adjudication proceedings concerning those claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory dues not lodged in the corporate insolvency resolution process and not preserved by an approved resolution plan are extinguished under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and cannot thereafter be assessed, adjudicated or recovered notwithstanding general powers under fiscal legislation.

Issues: Whether the adjudication and demand orders should be set aside to permit the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notices and reconcile input tax credit claims.

Analysis: The petitioner pleaded bona fide non-participation following cessation of its full-time director's association and asserted that reconciliation and supporting transaction documents could establish the genuineness of input tax credit reported in Form GSTR-3B vis-a -vis Form GSTR-2A. Although the delay in making alternative tax-compliance arrangements was open to debate, a fair opportunity to furnish the reconciliation and documents would enable prompt adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The adjudication and demand orders were quashed, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to file responses to the show-cause notices with supporting reconciliation and documents, upon compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Issues: Whether the Revenue established a mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification of the earlier order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 254(2) confines rectification to a patent and manifest error apparent from the record and does not confer power to review or reconsider a debatable matter. The limitation issue had already been adjudicated after considering the relevant dates. Reliance on a jurisdictional precedent for a different conclusion required re-appreciation of the legal position and the precedent's applicability, which falls outside rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established; rectification under section 254(2) was unavailable.

Issues: Whether retrospective insertion of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 created a mistake apparent from the record in an earlier order so as to permit its recall or rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The original decision had been rendered under the law prevailing on its date and by applying binding jurisdictional precedent concerning the validity of reassessment notices. The subsequent amendment, notwithstanding its retrospective operation, raised a debatable question, particularly as its constitutional validity remained under challenge. The limited rectification jurisdiction under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 extends only to an apparent mistake and cannot be used to review a concluded decision merely because of a later legislative development.

Conclusion: The subsequent retrospective amendment did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record; recall or modification under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was unavailable.

Issues: (i) Whether the final assessment order was barred by limitation after timely issuance of the draft assessment order; (ii) Whether the tax computation was required to give effect to set-off of brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation; (iii) Whether the Resale Price Method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking purchases of traded goods and whether Power2SME Pvt. Ltd. was to be considered as a comparable; (iv) Whether the arm's length price for transfer of the Flexographic Packaging Division was to be determined by NAV alone, DCF alone, or weighted NAV-DCF valuation; (v) Whether additional income-tax paid on a secondary adjustment was refundable where the transferee was asserted not to be an associated enterprise.

Issue (i): Whether the final assessment order was barred by limitation after timely issuance of the draft assessment order.

Analysis: The retrospective insertion of Section 153(10) and Section 144C(13A) by the Finance Act, 2026 clarifies that, where a draft assessment order is forwarded within the limitation under Section 153, the subsequent final order pursuant to DRP directions is governed by the timelines under Section 144C(12) and Section 144C(13). The draft order was issued within the asserted limitation period. The constitutional validity of the retrospective amendments was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The final assessment order was not time-barred; the limitation challenge fails against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the tax computation was required to give effect to set-off of brought-forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.

Analysis: The assessment order determined total income at nil after allowing set-off, whereas the attached computation proceeded on pre-set-off income and raised a demand. A computation sheet forming part of the assessment proceedings cannot contradict the assessed income in the assessment order. Year-wise availability and utilisation of losses and unabsorbed depreciation require arithmetical verification to prevent double allowance.

Conclusion: Set-off must be given effect to and the tax liability and demand recomputed after verification, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Resale Price Method was the most appropriate method for benchmarking purchases of traded goods and whether Power2SME Pvt. Ltd. was to be considered as a comparable.

Analysis: Rule 10B(1)(b) recognises RPM for goods acquired from an associated enterprise and resold to independent customers. Normal distribution functions and ordinary market, inventory and credit risks do not by themselves make RPM unreliable; material processing or substantial value addition is required to displace gross-margin comparison. No material processing or specific defect in the comparable gross-margin data was established. Earlier use of TNMM and settlement of prior disputes did not preclude RPM for the relevant transaction. A comparable cannot be excluded solely by applying an operating-profit or loss criterion relevant to TNMM where reliable gross-profit data exists, though functional comparability and data reliability remain mandatory.

Conclusion: RPM is the most appropriate method. The ALP shall be recomputed under RPM, with Power2SME Pvt. Ltd. included if its gross-profit data is verifiable and no independent functional infirmity is shown; the TNMM adjustment does not survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the arm's length price for transfer of the Flexographic Packaging Division was to be determined by NAV alone, DCF alone, or weighted NAV-DCF valuation.

Analysis: Section 92C(1)(f) read with Rule 10AB permits an other method that considers all relevant facts, and does not prohibit a commercially justified combination of recognised valuation approaches. NAV alone could not disregard the future earning capacity of an operating business, particularly when the assessee's own valuation used a DCF component. Conversely, no material defect justified assigning zero weight to NAV and adopting DCF alone. The independent weighted NAV-DCF valuation was supported by the record and no sufficient defect in it was established.

Conclusion: The weighted NAV-DCF value is accepted; the further transfer-pricing adjustment is deleted, while the voluntary primary adjustment based on that weighted value remains undisturbed, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether additional income-tax paid on a secondary adjustment was refundable where the transferee was asserted not to be an associated enterprise.

Analysis: Section 92B(2) may deem a transaction with a non-associated enterprise to be an international transaction for specified purposes, but Section 92CE applies where excess money remains with an associated enterprise, as defined by Section 92A through Section 92CE(3)(i). The deeming fiction cannot be enlarged beyond its statutory purpose. The record contained no categorical finding identifying the clause under which the transferee qualified as an associated enterprise.

Conclusion: A transaction deemed international solely under Section 92B(2) does not itself establish associated-enterprise status for Section 92CE; the associated-enterprise status and consequential refund claim must be determined after verification, in favour of the assessee on the legal issue.

Final Conclusion: The assessment computation must reflect the allowable loss set-off; the traded-goods ALP must be freshly determined under RPM; the additional FPD adjustment is removed while the voluntary adjustment is retained; and the secondary-adjustment refund claim requires factual verification of the associated-enterprise relationship.

Issues: (i) Whether the counter-guarantee adjustment could be sustained by applying third-party guarantee rates obtained under section 133(6) without functional comparability or an effective opportunity to rebut the data; (ii) Whether the 50% attribution of ECB net interest and fee income to the Indian branch for loan support services was at arm's length; (iii) Whether the adjustment for regional support services and head office expenses, including the alternate disallowance, was sustainable; (iv) Whether mark-to-market loss on AFS and HFT investments held as stock-in-trade was deductible.

Issue (i): Whether the counter-guarantee adjustment could be sustained by applying third-party guarantee rates obtained under section 133(6) without functional comparability or an effective opportunity to rebut the data.

Analysis: The assessee acted only as an intermediary in relation to guarantees issued by overseas branches and did not undertake the functions or risks of a guarantor bank. The third-party guarantee rates were applied without demonstrating comparability of functions, assets and risks. Information obtained under section 133(6) could not be used without properly confronting the assessee and affording an effective opportunity to rebut it.

Conclusion: The counter-guarantee adjustment is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the 50% attribution of ECB net interest and fee income to the Indian branch for loan support services was at arm's length.

Analysis: The overseas associated enterprise provided the funds, performed the substantive lending functions, and assumed the credit, liquidity and interest-rate risks. The Indian branch performed loan origination and support functions and had already attributed 25% of the relevant net interest and fee income to itself. No reliable comparable uncontrolled transaction or prescribed transfer-pricing method supported the equal allocation of income between the entities.

Conclusion: The 50% attribution is unsustainable and the adjustment is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the adjustment for regional support services and head office expenses, including the alternate disallowance, was sustainable.

Analysis: Contemporaneous material established receipt of IT, finance, HR, audit, compliance, credit and corporate-platform services, together with their business nexus, benefits, cost base and allocation mechanism. The transactional net margin method was rejected and the arm's length price was effectively determined on an ad hoc basis without a reliable comparable or application of a prescribed method. The evidence also supported the expenditure after accounting for the suo motu disallowance already made.

Conclusion: The residual adjustment for regional support services and head office expenses, along with the alternate disallowance, is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether mark-to-market loss on AFS and HFT investments held as stock-in-trade was deductible.

Analysis: The investments were held as stock-in-trade by a banking entity and were consistently valued at cost or market value, whichever was lower, in accordance with applicable banking guidelines. The claimed diminution represented loss in the value of trading investments rather than a provision for an unascertained liability.

Conclusion: The mark-to-market loss is allowable and the disallowance is deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed income requires recomputation after deletion of the transfer-pricing adjustments and the disallowance of mark-to-market loss.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer-pricing adjustment cannot be based on ad hoc attribution or allegedly comparable data without demonstrable functional comparability and application of a reliable prescribed method.

Issues: (i) Whether the inconsistent descriptions of the petitioner's employment and business status amounted to material suppression warranting dismissal in limine; (ii) Whether the lost-cheque defence, General Diary entry, stop-payment instructions and defence evidence rebutted the statutory presumptions; (iii) Whether absence of a written loan agreement and non-disclosure of the cash advance in income-tax returns negated a legally enforceable debt; (iv) Whether non-arraignment of the proprietary concern rendered prosecution of its proprietor untenable; (v) Whether the concurrent conviction disclosed perversity or illegality warranting revisional interference; (vi) Whether the sentence required further modification.

Issue (i): Whether the inconsistent descriptions of the petitioner's employment and business status amounted to material suppression warranting dismissal in limine

Analysis: The clean hands doctrine applies where a litigant deliberately suppresses material facts to obtain an unfair advantage. The description of economic vulnerability as an unemployed person, despite operating a modest proprietary business, was treated as a semantic inconsistency that did not affect the merits of the cheque-dishonour proceedings or compromise the integrity of the process.

Conclusion: The alleged suppression was not material and did not warrant rejection in limine. This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the lost-cheque defence, General Diary entry, stop-payment instructions and defence evidence rebutted the statutory presumptions

Analysis: Admission of the signature on the cheque activated the statutory presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Rebuttal required a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The General Diary entry and stop-payment instructions, without independent corroboration of loss, theft, misuse or any prompt action against the complainant, were insufficient to displace the reverse onus.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions were not rebutted by the lost-cheque defence. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of a written loan agreement and non-disclosure of the cash advance in income-tax returns negated a legally enforceable debt

Analysis: Absence of documentary loan records or income-tax disclosure may be relevant to financial capacity in substantial and unexplained cash transactions, but is not an inflexible requirement for every modest hand loan. In the absence of a probable challenge establishing incapacity of the lender or undermining the transaction, such omissions did not overcome the statutory presumptions.

Conclusion: The absence of a written agreement or income-tax disclosure did not negate the legally enforceable debt. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether non-arraignment of the proprietary concern rendered prosecution of its proprietor untenable

Analysis: A proprietary concern has no separate juristic identity from its sole proprietor. Liabilities of the concern are the personal liabilities of the proprietor, and a cheque issued for such liability attracts direct liability of the individual drawer.

Conclusion: Omission to arraign the proprietary trade name was not a fatal defect and prosecution of the proprietor was maintainable. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (v): Whether the concurrent conviction disclosed perversity or illegality warranting revisional interference

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is confined to correcting patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or a gross miscarriage of justice; it does not permit a fresh reappraisal of evidence merely because another view is possible. The concurrent findings were based on the admitted cheque signature and the failure of the defence to rebut the statutory presumptions.

Conclusion: No perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice justified interference with the conviction. This issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (vi): Whether the sentence required further modification

Analysis: The monetary component was retained in view of the compensatory and commercial purpose of the cheque-dishonour provision. The previously reduced substantive custodial sentence was further reconsidered to avoid undue hardship, with credit directed for amounts already deposited.

Conclusion: The seven-day substantive imprisonment was exempted, while compensation of Rs. 35,000 and the default sentence were retained. This issue was decided partly in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for cheque dishonour and the monetary compensation remained operative; only the substantive seven-day custodial component was removed, with any prior deposits to be adjusted.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of a cheque signature activates the statutory presumptions of consideration and debt, which remain operative unless the drawer establishes a probable rebuttal; an uncorroborated lost-cheque account does not suffice, and concurrent factual findings are not revisited in revision absent perversity.

Issues: (i) Whether revisional interference was warranted with the concurrent findings supporting the conviction; (ii) Whether the cheque's credit to an account associated with the payee's business and dishonour marked "refer to drawer" defeated the statutory requirements for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (iii) Whether the statutory presumptions arising from admitted execution were rebutted by the defence of a lost or stolen cheque, alleged lack of financial capacity, or the cash nature of the loan.

Issue (i): Whether revisional interference was warranted with the concurrent findings supporting the conviction.

Analysis: Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not permit reappreciation of evidence merely to reach a different factual conclusion where the Magistrate and appellate court have concurrently assessed the material. No perversity was shown in that appreciation.

Conclusion: Revisional interference with the concurrent conviction was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheque's credit to an account associated with the payee's business and dishonour marked "refer to drawer" defeated the statutory requirements for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The bank evidence established that the cheque was credited to the payee's account, while the transaction's association with the payee's business provided a sufficient nexus between the payee and the business concern. The return memo was duly proved. A dishonour described as "refer to drawer" falls within the category of dishonours actionable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The statutory requirements concerning presentment, payee status, and dishonour were fulfilled.

Issue (iii): Whether the statutory presumptions arising from admitted execution were rebutted by the defence of a lost or stolen cheque, alleged lack of financial capacity, or the cash nature of the loan.

Analysis: Admission of the signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, rebuttable only through a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The inconsistent versions that the cheque was lost and that it was stolen did not establish such a defence. Material supporting the source of funds was available, and no specific objection to financial capacity appeared in the notice reply. A cash transaction contrary to Section 269SS or Section 271AAD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not by itself render the debt unenforceable for Section 138 purposes.

Conclusion: The presumptions were not rebutted, and the underlying liability remained legally enforceable.

Final Conclusion: The essential conditions for criminal liability under Section 138 and the concurrent factual determinations remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable liability prevails unless the accused establishes a consistent and probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities; a cash-loan violation does not itself make the debt unenforceable under Section 138.

Issues: Whether late fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be levied while processing a TDS statement under Section 200A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for financial year 2012-13, being a period before 1 June 2015.

Analysis: The enabling amendment to Section 200A permitting computation of late fee under Section 234E operated prospectively from 1 June 2015. In the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling and amid conflicting High Court views, the interpretation favourable to the assessee was applied. The view that a fee under Section 234E could not be computed through Section 200A for TDS statements relating to periods before 1 June 2015 was preferred.

Conclusion: The late fee levied under Section 234E for financial year 2012-13 was invalid and was directed to be deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether deduction under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowable for the stated political donation.

Analysis: Payment through banking channels and issuance of donation receipts did not, by themselves, establish the genuineness of the transaction. Search material, admissions of the office-bearers, bank-account patterns showing routing of funds through intermediary entities, and non-compliance with statutory contribution-reporting requirements showed that the political entity was used to provide accommodation entries. Applying the test of human probabilities and preponderance of probabilities, the surrounding circumstances and circumstantial evidence outweighed the assessee's documentary claim. The assessee did not furnish credible material to rebut the evidence that the payment formed part of the bogus-donation arrangement.

Conclusion: The claimed donation was not genuine and the deduction under Section 80GGC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was rightly denied, against the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Customs authorities have statutory jurisdiction to process the IGST refund claim relating to goods exported under a manual shipping bill.

Analysis: Rule 96(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 assigns processing of refund claims for IGST paid on exported goods to the Customs system or the proper officer of Customs after receipt of information regarding filing of a valid GSTR-3B return. The export had been regularised through a manual shipping bill because of ICEGATE technical failure, and the GST Department confirmed that it lacked statutory jurisdiction to sanction the export refund. The Customs authority could not decline the claim by treating it as falling within the GST Department's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Customs authority has jurisdiction to process the IGST refund claim under Rule 96 and must sanction the admissible refund with applicable interest in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an appellate authority may dismiss an income-tax appeal ex parte for non-compliance without determining the grounds on merits in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 250(6) requires the appellate authority to identify the points for determination and state its decision with reasons. A cryptic ex parte order merely affirming the reassessment because the assessee did not respond to notices neither determines the issues raised nor supplies the reasons necessary for effective appellate scrutiny. The appellate authority has powers co-terminous with those of the Assessing Officer and may undertake enquiry where required. Although the assessee failed to comply with the notices, a fresh opportunity was considered appropriate in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: An ex parte appellate order affirming reassessment without a merits-based and reasoned determination is invalid; the appeal requires fresh adjudication after affording opportunity to both sides.

Issues: (i) Whether diary notings could support additions for unexplained expenditure under Section 69C without proof that the assessee had actually incurred off-book expenditure; (ii) Whether a cash entry arising from reversal of unsubstantiated labour expenditure and recognition of additional income could be characterised as unexplained money under Section 69A; (iii) Whether interest on fixed deposits maintained as margin or security for bank guarantees relating to infrastructure projects qualified for deduction under Section 80IA(4).

Issue (i): Whether diary notings could support additions for unexplained expenditure under Section 69C without proof that the assessee had actually incurred off-book expenditure.

Analysis: Section 69C requires proof of the foundational fact that expenditure was actually incurred before the source of that expenditure can be questioned. The diary entries did not establish that the recorded cash payments represented additional expenditure outside the books. The same diary included cheque payments accepted as accounted, and no independent corroborative material identified any specific unrecorded expenditure. The possibility that the entries represented disbursements from disclosed cash withdrawals or payments connected with sub-contractors was not disproved.

Conclusion: The additions under Section 69C based on the diary entries were unsustainable and are deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a cash entry arising from reversal of unsubstantiated labour expenditure and recognition of additional income could be characterised as unexplained money under Section 69A.

Analysis: Section 69A applies to money not recorded in the books where its nature and source remain unexplained. The cash balance resulted from reversing an earlier booked cash outflow for labour expenditure and crediting corresponding additional income. This accounting reversal did not represent a fresh receipt of cash from an undisclosed source, and the accounting genesis of the amount was identifiable from the books.

Conclusion: The reversal entry could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A or subjected to tax under Section 115BBE; the related additions are deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest on fixed deposits maintained as margin or security for bank guarantees relating to infrastructure projects qualified for deduction under Section 80IA(4).

Analysis: The character of interest depends on the purpose for which the fixed deposits were maintained. Where deposits are a business necessity for obtaining bank guarantees required to secure or execute eligible infrastructure contracts, they have a direct and proximate nexus with the eligible business and are not independent investments of surplus funds.

Conclusion: Interest on fixed deposits maintained as margin or security for bank guarantees shall be included in eligible profits for deduction under Section 80IA(4), subject to verification that the deposits were not investments of surplus funds, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned additions for unexplained expenditure and unexplained money are vacated, and the exclusion of qualifying bank-guarantee deposit interest from eligible infrastructure profits is reversed subject to the directed verification.

Issues: Whether a common assessment order covering more than one tax period or assessment year is valid.

Analysis: Sections 74(3) and 74(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were applied consistently with the binding coordinate-bench ruling that a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot cover multiple tax periods or more than one assessment year after the due date for annual return. The assessment combined the periods 2023-24 and 2024-25 up to November 2024; consequently, the original assessment was invalid and the appellate order affirming it could not survive.

Conclusion: The composite assessment order and the consequential appellate order were set aside. Separate notices and assessments for the relevant tax periods may be undertaken in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the assessee.