Issues: Whether the Revenue established sufficient cause for condonation of 156 days' delay in filing an appeal.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation where sufficient cause is shown. The explanation disclosed the departmental process of scrutiny, obtaining opinions and approvals, collection of documents, settlement of the appeal memorandum and final approval for filing. A justice-oriented and pragmatic approach applies to bona fide administrative delays, and the decisive consideration is the sufficiency of the cause rather than the length of delay. The explanation was not shown to be mala fide or factually incorrect. Handwritten insertion of dates in the application did not, by itself, establish that it was mechanical or stereotyped.

Conclusion: The delay was sufficiently and bona fide explained and was condoned in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether consideration received on sale of transferable development rights obtained in exchange for surrendered land is chargeable to capital gains tax and the cost of acquisition deductible therefrom; (ii) Whether the scrutiny assessment was confined to verification of the refund claim and excluded examination of the transferable development rights receipt; (iii) Whether acceptance of exemption for similar transferable development rights receipts in the assessment of the assessee's brother required identical treatment.

Issue (i): Whether consideration received on sale of transferable development rights obtained in exchange for surrendered land is chargeable to capital gains tax and the cost of acquisition deductible therefrom.

Analysis: Transferable development rights are property and therefore capital assets. The surrender of land for transferable development rights constituted an exchange, followed by a separate transfer of the rights for cash. Unlike self-generated transferable development rights arising solely from regulatory entitlement, the rights in question were acquired by giving up an identifiable capital asset. Their cost of acquisition was consequently ascertainable as the cost attributable to the land surrendered. The computation mechanism did not fail, and the principle applicable where an asset has no conceivable cost of acquisition was inapplicable. The subsequent amendment concerning intangible assets for which no consideration is paid did not displace the actual cost incurred through surrender of land.

Conclusion: The sale consideration of the transferable development rights is chargeable to capital gains tax, against the assessee; however, the capital gains must be recomputed after deduction of the cost of acquisition attributable to the land exchanged.

Issue (ii): Whether the scrutiny assessment was confined to verification of the refund claim and excluded examination of the transferable development rights receipt.

Analysis: The notice merely identified the refund claim as an initial matter for verification and did not state that the case had been selected for limited scrutiny. It did not restrict examination of the chargeability of the receipt claimed as exempt.

Conclusion: The assessment was not confined to limited scrutiny, and examination of the transferable development rights receipt was valid, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether acceptance of exemption for similar transferable development rights receipts in the assessment of the assessee's brother required identical treatment.

Analysis: An assessment order in another taxpayer's case, without a conscious and binding acceptance of the same legal position on identical facts, does not establish a legal right to identical treatment. An erroneous or unexamined assessment does not bind the Revenue in a separate assessment, and estoppel does not operate against the correct application of statute.

Conclusion: The assessment of the assessee's brother did not require exemption of the receipt in the present case, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The receipt remains taxable as capital gains, with the allowable cost of land surrendered required to be deducted in computing the taxable gain.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transferable development rights are acquired in exchange for surrender of land, the land surrendered supplies an ascertainable cost of acquisition, so the capital gains computation mechanism remains operative on their subsequent sale.

Issues: Whether the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to approximately 80% of the value of imported goods for their provisional release was excessive, and the appropriate conditions for release pending adjudication.

Analysis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 permits release of seized goods on conditions that safeguard Revenue during pending adjudication while enabling the importer to deal with the goods. A bank guarantee fixed at approximately 80% of the goods' value was onerous. Since the anti-dumping duty liability remained under investigation and no merits determination was made, a balanced security condition was required.

Conclusion: The provisional-release condition was modified to require a bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty together with a bond for the full value of the seized goods; the goods were directed to be released in a time-bound manner.

Issues: Whether interim relief should be granted against the securities-market debarment to enable completion of the approved preferential issue of fully convertible warrants and limited mutual-fund transactions.

Analysis: The preferential issue had been approved by 76.64% of the public shareholders, who comprised about 96% of the shareholding, and was expected to raise substantial capital. No charge concerning dealing in securities had been made against the company. The regulatory position that the investment could proceed after expiry of the debarment, without identifying any other legal bar, supported limited interim protection. The merits of the underlying proceedings were expressly kept open.

Outcome: Limited interim stay granted to permit completion of the preferential warrant issue upon deposit of the penalties, with the debarment otherwise continuing; the time for issuance was extended by one week and ordinary-course mutual-fund transactions were permitted.

Issues: Whether admission of a corporate insolvency resolution process application was vitiated because the financial creditor relied on photocopies of documents.

Analysis: Section 7 permits ascertainment of default from an information utility record or other evidence furnished by the financial creditor. The record of default from the information utility was furnished and was undisputed. The material also established that the corporate debtor had availed the loans, while the pleaded date of default had not been challenged and was recorded as having been conceded before the adjudicating authority. A challenge to the accuracy of that factual recording could not be entertained without first seeking correction of the adjudicating authority's order.

Conclusion: The admission order was not vitiated by reliance on photocopies and is sustained, against the corporate debtor.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on input services could be denied because the service-provider invoices were issued in the name of the head office, which was not registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis: Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits verification of receipt and accounting of input services notwithstanding defects in invoice particulars. During the relevant period, there was no requirement that credit relating to head-office invoices be distributed proportionately through an Input Service Distributor. The absence of Input Service Distributor registration was a procedural irregularity where no unintended credit benefit or revenue loss resulted.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible to the assessee; denial solely for want of Input Service Distributor registration of the head office was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice and consequential cancellation of GST registration, which do not disclose the particulars of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression and contain no reasons, are valid; and whether availability of an alternate remedy bars writ jurisdiction in the presence of apparent illegality.

Analysis: The show-cause notice merely reproduced the statutory grounds without stating the factual particulars required to enable an effective response. It fixed the date of appearance on the very date of issuance, affording no sufficient opportunity to reply. The cancellation order did not disclose the ground for cancellation and revealed non-application of mind. Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked despite an alternate remedy where the impugned action disclosed glaring illegality affecting the rights of a registered trader.

Conclusion: The deficient show-cause notice and the unreasoned cancellation order were invalid and liable to be set aside.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation and the underlying adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing the petitioner from responding.

Analysis: Uploading the show-cause notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, prevented the petitioner from filing a response. This amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. Since the appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on limitation without examining the merits, interference was warranted on the peculiar facts.

Conclusion: The impugned appellate and adjudication orders cannot be sustained for breach of natural justice; the petitioner is entitled to respond to the show-cause notice and to a fresh reasoned determination after an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the assessment order should be set aside for fresh adjudication upon the petitioner's undertaking to make a deposit of the disputed tax.

Analysis: The statutory period for appeal had expired, and the petitioner had not availed the opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner nevertheless undertook to deposit 50% of the disputed tax in cash and to submit a reply with supporting documents.

Outcome: The assessment order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication upon compliance with the stipulated deposit and reply requirements.

Outcome: Appeals disposed of and matters remitted to the jurisdictional High Courts.

Issues: (i) Whether a draft assessment order could be treated as a final assessment order to sustain a demand and penalty proceedings; (ii) Whether the draft-assessment procedure applied where the Transfer Pricing Officer had proposed no variation in the assessee's returned income.

Issue (i): Whether a draft assessment order could be treated as a final assessment order to sustain a demand and penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment order expressly described itself as a draft order under Section 144C(1), characterised the disallowance as a proposed addition, withheld issuance of demand and penalty notices, and granted the assessee an option under Section 144C(2) to accept the proposed variation or file objections. A final assessment determining the sum payable, as required by Section 143(3), was never passed. A demand under Section 156 could not rest on this draft order. The asserted error in selecting an incorrect portal tab was inconsistent with the contents of the order and was not corrected through any subsequent order; Section 292B could not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The draft assessment order could not be deemed a final assessment order; the consequential demand and penalty initiation were invalid. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the draft-assessment procedure applied where the Transfer Pricing Officer had proposed no variation in the assessee's returned income.

Analysis: The Transfer Pricing Officer made no variation to the international transactions because the applicable advance pricing agreement covered the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessee was not an eligible assessee under Section 144C(15)(b), and the Assessing Officer had no occasion to invoke the draft-assessment procedure under Section 144C(1).

Conclusion: The draft assessment order was without authority under Section 144C because the assessee was not an eligible assessee. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The invalid draft assessment order and all consequential fiscal and penalty actions lack legal foundation and stand annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand can arise only from a final assessment determining the sum payable, and a draft order issued under Section 144C cannot be converted into a final assessment through Section 292B, particularly where the assessee is not eligible for the draft-assessment procedure.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had a service permanent establishment in India through activities undertaken by its personnel for its Indian subsidiary; (ii) Whether the Indian subsidiary constituted a dependent agent permanent establishment and, if so, whether any further profit was attributable to it.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee had a service permanent establishment in India through activities undertaken by its personnel for its Indian subsidiary.

Analysis: Article 5(2)(l) requires furnishing of services in India through employees or other personnel, while excluding services falling within Article 12. The established activities comprised oversight of the subsidiary, employee training, administrative support, news-gathering assistance and product-sales support. Oversight was stewardship or auxiliary activity; moreover, the Revenue did not establish that the remaining activities were beyond auxiliary functions or did not constitute technical or consultancy services excluded from the service-PE clause.

Conclusion: The assessee had no service permanent establishment in India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian subsidiary constituted a dependent agent permanent establishment and, if so, whether any further profit was attributable to it.

Analysis: Article 5(4) requires authority habitually exercised to conclude contracts, maintenance of stock for regular delivery on behalf of the enterprise, or habitual securing of orders wholly or almost wholly for it. The subsidiary independently contracted with Indian customers, raised its own invoices, bore contractual responsibilities and indemnified the assessee. The assessee's product-related controls and exclusive distribution arrangement did not displace the principal-to-principal character of sales. Independently, the transfer-pricing order had accepted the transactions between the assessee and subsidiary as arm's length.

Conclusion: The Indian subsidiary was not a dependent agent permanent establishment; consequently, no profit was attributable to it. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No taxable profit could be assessed on the basis of a permanent establishment in India, and the income returned by the assessee was required to be accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsidiary dealing independently with customers on a principal-to-principal basis is not a dependent agent merely because of parental control or exclusive distribution, and a service permanent establishment cannot arise without proof of qualifying services beyond auxiliary activities or services excluded under the treaty.

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129 for transportation without an e-way bill is leviable where the movement is a stock transfer between premises of the same registered person.

Analysis: The movement under a delivery challan was between premises bearing the same GSTIN, involved no distinct counterparty and lacked consideration. It consequently did not constitute a supply under the statutory definition and could not be an intra-State taxable supply attracting the charging provision. Since no tax was payable on the goods, the tax-linked penalty formula under Section 129 could not be invoked. Although the e-way bill requirement applies to movement for reasons other than supply, its breach did not justify recourse to Section 129 in the circumstances; the applicable consequence for such a document-related contravention lay under the specific penal provision. The record also contained no allegation or material establishing fraud, suppression, or non-genuineness beyond the absence of an e-way bill.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 129 is not leviable for transport of goods without an e-way bill where the transport is a stock transfer between premises of the same registered person.

Issues: Whether a penalty order issued 47 days after service of the detention notice is barred by the mandatory seven-day period under Section 129(3).

Analysis: The statutory use of "shall" in Section 129(3), governing coercive detention and penalty proceedings, makes the seven-day period for passing the penalty order mandatory. Strict construction of fiscal statutes and the purpose of preventing prolonged detention require adherence to that limitation. The dates of the notice and penalty order were undisputed and already on record; therefore, reliance on the limitation issue at the Tribunal stage was permissible. The supplies were covered by e-invoices, the tax was reported and paid, and the absence of an e-way bill did not establish mens rea to evade tax.

Conclusion: The penalty order issued beyond seven days of service of the notice was time-barred, illegal and without jurisdiction; the consequential appellate order could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether loss incurred by an undertaking eligible for deduction under Section 10B can be set off against taxable profits of other undertakings.

Analysis: Section 10B requires a separate computation of export profits for determining the deduction available to each eligible undertaking. That computation is confined to the deduction and does not alter the treatment of the undertaking's profit or loss while computing the assessee's combined income. The provisions governing aggregation, set-off and carry forward of losses continue to apply, and a loss of an eligible undertaking is subject to inter-source and inter-head set-off and, where applicable, carry forward.

Conclusion: Loss of a Section 10B-eligible undertaking can be set off against taxable profits of other undertakings and may be carried forward in accordance with law; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the application for provisional release of seized goods and the connected vehicle should be decided under the statutory mechanism pending customs adjudication.

Analysis: Section 110A provides for provisional release of goods seized under Section 110 pending adjudication, upon bond, security and such conditions as may be required. The investigation stood completed and a show-cause notice had been issued, while the application for provisional release remained pending before the competent Adjudicating Authority. Disputed matters concerning the invoice and valuation fall within that authority's adjudicatory domain and require a reasoned determination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The competent Adjudicating Authority must expeditiously decide the application for provisional release of the seized goods and vehicle under Section 110A, determine valuation in accordance with law, and pass a reasoned order.

Issues: (i) Whether concessional customs-duty exemption could be denied on the basis that the Country of Origin Certificates submitted for Malaysian imports were unauthentic; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced for alleged undervaluation; (iii) Whether penalties were sustainable for alleged misdeclaration of origin and undervaluation.

Issue (i): Whether concessional customs-duty exemption could be denied on the basis that the Country of Origin Certificates submitted for Malaysian imports were unauthentic.

Analysis: Of the 38 Certificates of Origin furnished by the assessee, only one appeared in the Malaysian authority's list of unauthenticated certificates, and duty on that import had already been paid without the exemption. The remaining 37 certificates had not been cancelled or revoked and were accepted after verification by Customs at the time of import. A subsequent communication, without particulars of contravention or evidence of the assessee's collusion, could not invalidate certificates that were valid when the goods were cleared.

Conclusion: The 37 Certificates of Origin were authentic and acceptable, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 for the corresponding consignments.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced for alleged undervaluation.

Analysis: The enhanced value was based on contemporary imports without adherence to the valuation requirements. There was no evidence that the assessee paid any amount over and above the invoice value, and no documentary material justified rejection of the declared transaction value.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was acceptable; the enhanced value determined by Revenue was unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties were sustainable for alleged misdeclaration of origin and undervaluation.

Analysis: Since the allegations concerning invalid origin certificates and undervaluation were not established, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was also not proved.

Conclusion: No penalty was imposable on the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The customs exemption for the eligible Malaysian consignments, the declared import values, and the assessee's position against penal liability were sustained.