Outcome: The delay-condonation application and the special leave petition were dismissed.

Issues: Whether notices issued under Section 153C after a delay of ten months from completion of the searched person's assessment proceedings were valid.

Analysis: Section 153C requires the satisfaction note and consequential notice to be issued immediately. The satisfaction notes and notices were issued ten months after completion of the searched person's assessment proceedings. That interval was not a reasonable time and was governed by the binding determination in respect of the same assessee for other assessment years on identical facts.

Conclusion: The Section 153C notices were time-barred and invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the ICDS adjustment relating to notional income from unwinding of an interest-free security deposit was taxable; (ii) Whether royalty recognised under Ind AS during the year could be taxed again after the entire upfront royalty had been offered to tax in an earlier year; (iii) Whether EPCG customs-duty benefits recognised as income under Ind AS were taxable notwithstanding the statutory treatment of grants connected with assets; (iv) Whether the difference between borrowing-cost capitalisation under Ind AS and ICDS IX constituted an impermissible double deduction; (v) Whether the cost of acquisition and consequential capital gain or loss on sale of TDRs could be determined without verification of the earlier-year assessment records; (vi) Whether the provision for leave entitlement had already been disallowed and would result in double disallowance; (vii) Whether gift expenditure was allowable on the basis of its nature, purpose and supporting evidence; (viii) Whether absence of Form 3CL could deny weighted deduction for an approved in-house research and development facility.

Issue (i): Whether the ICDS adjustment relating to notional income from unwinding of an interest-free security deposit was taxable.

Analysis: Taxable income is determined under the Income-tax Act and applicable ICDS, while Ind AS financial statements are only the starting point for computation. The rental income and corresponding amortisation arose solely from discounting and unwinding required by Ind AS 109; no actual rental income, receipt or enforceable right to receive the amount was established. The amortisation had been added back, and the net adjustment merely neutralised the accounting impact. The Revenue also identified no distinguishing fact to depart from the accepted treatment in other assessment years.

Conclusion: The security-deposit adjustment was not taxable; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether royalty recognised under Ind AS during the year could be taxed again after the entire upfront royalty had been offered to tax in an earlier year.

Analysis: The entire upfront royalty had been offered to tax in the earlier assessment year. Recognition of a portion of that receipt in the current financial statements under Ind AS was an accounting allocation over the agreement period and did not represent a fresh receipt or accrual. No material showed that the amount was additional consideration beyond the upfront royalty already taxed.

Conclusion: The royalty recognised under Ind AS could not be taxed again; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether EPCG customs-duty benefits recognised as income under Ind AS were taxable notwithstanding the statutory treatment of grants connected with assets.

Analysis: The tax treatment of a government grant connected with acquisition of assets is governed by Section 2(24)(viii) read with Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than by its presentation as income under Ind AS 20. No independent taxable income apart from the asset-related duty benefit was shown, and the benefit was not included in the relevant block of assets for depreciation.

Conclusion: The EPCG-duty benefit could not be taxed solely because it was credited to the profit and loss account; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the difference between borrowing-cost capitalisation under Ind AS and ICDS IX constituted an impermissible double deduction.

Analysis: Computation of taxable income must give effect to the capitalisation methodology prescribed by ICDS IX, even where it differs from the method used in Ind AS financial statements. A computational difference does not establish double deduction without a specific demonstration that the same borrowing cost was actually deducted twice. The adjustment was not a fresh claim of expenditure.

Conclusion: The borrowing-cost adjustment did not constitute double deduction; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the cost of acquisition and consequential capital gain or loss on sale of TDRs could be determined without verification of the earlier-year assessment records.

Analysis: The claimed cost of the TDRs depended on whether capital gains on surrender of land in the earlier year had been offered to tax, the basis on which the TDR cost was determined, and whether the loss on the first tranche of TDRs had been accepted. The correctness of the proportionate cost and consequential set-off could not be finally determined without examining those assessment records.

Conclusion: The TDR capital-gain and set-off issue was restored for fresh determination; no final finding was made on the assessee's claim.

Issue (vi): Whether the provision for leave entitlement had already been disallowed and would result in double disallowance.

Analysis: The primary verification required was whether the provision had already been added back in the computation of income under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If already disallowed, a further addition would result in double disallowance; otherwise, its allowability required examination under the applicable law.

Conclusion: The leave-entitlement issue was restored for limited verification; no final finding was made on the assessee's claim.

Issue (vii): Whether gift expenditure was allowable on the basis of its nature, purpose and supporting evidence.

Analysis: The allowability of the expenditure required examination of its nature, business purpose and documentary support. As the claim had not been conclusively adjudicated on merits and adequate opportunity was required, fresh consideration was necessary.

Conclusion: The gift-expenditure issue was restored for fresh adjudication; no final finding was made on allowability.

Issue (viii): Whether absence of Form 3CL could deny weighted deduction for an approved in-house research and development facility.

Analysis: Approval of the in-house research and development facility in Form 3CM for the relevant period was undisputed. Furnishing Form 3CL was an act required from the prescribed authority, and the assessee had pursued its issuance. Failure of that authority could not defeat an otherwise eligible weighted deduction.

Conclusion: Absence of Form 3CL could not deny deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The additions arising solely from Ind AS accounting recognition and the denial of the research-and-development deduction were unsustainable, while the unresolved TDR, leave-entitlement and gift-expenditure matters require verification and fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Accounting recognition under Ind AS does not by itself determine taxable income where the Income-tax Act or applicable ICDS prescribes a different computation, and an amount lacking real accrual or already taxed cannot be brought to tax again.

Issues: (i) Whether customs duty and interest remained payable for failure to fulfil the export obligation under the EPCG exemption, notwithstanding flood damage to the imported machinery. (ii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty could be sustained for that failure.

Issue (i): Whether customs duty and interest remained payable for failure to fulfil the export obligation under the EPCG exemption, notwithstanding flood damage to the imported machinery.

Analysis: Notification No. 97/2004-Customs required fulfilment of the stipulated export obligation and mandated payment of proportionate duty with interest upon default. Though the machinery was installed, subsequently damaged beyond repair in the Surat floods, and the export obligation remained unfulfilled for reasons beyond control, no waiver of export obligation had been obtained from the committee or the licensing authority under the waiver mechanism inserted by Notification No. 72/2007-Customs. The exemption conditions therefore required strict application.

Conclusion: The demand of duty saved and interest is sustainable; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty could be sustained for that failure.

Analysis: The imported machinery had been installed and was damaged by unprecedented floods. The failure to meet the export obligation in these circumstances did not justify confiscation under Section 111(o) or penal consequences under Section 112(a), notwithstanding the surviving duty and interest liability.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties are unsustainable and are set aside; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The fiscal consequences of non-fulfilment of the EPCG export obligation remain enforceable, while the confiscatory and penal consequences are removed.

Issues: Whether services performed in India in relation to external commercial borrowing facilities booked by the Singapore head office constituted intermediary services liable to service tax.

Analysis: The Indian branch and its Singapore head office were the same legal person; consequently, activities between them could not be treated as services supplied by one person to another. Independently, intermediary service requires three parties, an identifiable main supply between two principals, and a separate ancillary arrangement or facilitation service. The Indian office performed loan-origination, structuring, credit assessment, monitoring and related functions on its own account, while the Singapore office alone entered into and bore the risks of the credit facilities. The remuneration was independently determined and was not consideration for facilitating a supply between the head office and borrowers. Rule 3, rather than Rule 9(c), governed the place of provision.

Conclusion: The activities were not intermediary services and were not liable to service tax; the service-tax demand and consequential penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether failure to pass the residual quantified additional input tax credit benefit contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether interest on the unpassed input tax credit benefit was payable at 18% per annum from 01.07.2017; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was attracted for the contravention after 01.01.2020.

Issue (i): Whether failure to pass the residual quantified additional input tax credit benefit contravened Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 171 requires the benefit of additional input tax credit to be passed to recipients through a commensurate reduction in prices. The supplementary investigation, accepted by the respondent, verified substantial benefit passed through invoices and receipts but identified a beneficiary-wise shortfall of Rs. 14,94,622 payable to 25 eligible recipients.

Conclusion: The respondent contravened Section 171 to the extent of the unpassed input tax credit benefit of Rs. 14,94,622. The issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the unpassed input tax credit benefit was payable at 18% per annum from 01.07.2017.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 provides for return of the amount not passed on together with interest at 18% per annum. Recipients were deprived of the benefit from the commencement of the GST regime, and proposals to compute interest from later dates or at rates linked to delayed-payment interest were not accepted.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable on the unpassed benefit from 01.07.2017 until payment. The issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was attracted for the contravention after 01.01.2020.

Analysis: The contravention continued beyond 01.01.2020, when Section 171(3A) came into force. The statutory proviso excludes penalty where the profiteered amount is deposited within 30 days of the order.

Conclusion: Penalty at 10% is attracted in respect of profiteering relatable to the period from 01.01.2020, unless the statutory deposit is made within 30 days. The issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The residual beneficiary-wise input tax credit shortfall is enforceable with interest and the applicable statutory penalty consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered person who fails to pass additional input tax credit by commensurate price reduction remains liable for the verified residual shortfall, interest from the commencement of GST, and penalty where the statutory conditions are met.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, leaving the question of law open.

Issues: Whether the assessable value of provisionally assessed iron ore exports could be enhanced on the basis of departmental laboratory analysis despite the contractually determined final invoice value and banking-channel realization.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 make the price actually paid or payable the primary basis of export valuation. The buyer and seller were unrelated, the price was contractually adjustable according to quality parameters, and there was no evidence of additional remittance, side payment, flowback, or other consideration beyond the final invoice value supported by the Bank Realization Certificate. A laboratory result concerning iron content may establish quality but cannot, by itself, replace the transaction value with a notional value without a legally sustainable basis for rejecting that value. The undisclosed test report and selective reliance on separate reports for different parameters also failed to support the adverse assessment.

Conclusion: Enhancement of assessable value was unsustainable; the provisional assessments must be finalized on the genuine final transaction value actually realized by the assessee, upon verification of the relevant export documents.

Issues: Whether the one-year limitation stipulated for refund of Special Additional Duty under the amending customs notification could bar the refund claim.

Analysis: Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, prescribed filing of the refund claim within one year from payment of Special Additional Duty. The limitation condition had been read down in binding jurisdictional precedent on the basis that a substantive limitation adversely affecting refund rights could not be imposed through subordinate legislation without statutory authority. The contrary view of another High Court did not displace the applicable precedent.

Conclusion: The one-year limitation introduced through Notification No. 93/2008-Customs could not defeat the assessee's refund claim for Special Additional Duty.

Issues: (i) Whether the remedy under Section 100(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 is exclusive, requiring exhaustion before an application under Section 98 may be made; (ii) Whether the facts established impracticability warranting an order under Section 98 for convening an extraordinary general meeting.

Issue (i): Whether the remedy under Section 100(4) of the Companies Act, 2013 is exclusive, requiring exhaustion before an application under Section 98 may be made.

Analysis: Section 100(4) confers an absolute additional right on requisitioning members to themselves call and hold an extraordinary general meeting where the Board fails to act on a valid requisition. Section 98 independently empowers the Tribunal to direct a meeting where it is impracticable to convene or conduct it in the prescribed manner. These remedies operate independently; recourse to Section 98 is not conditional upon prior exhaustion of Section 100(4).

Conclusion: Section 100(4) is an alternative and not an exclusive remedy; an application under Section 98 is maintainable without first invoking Section 100(4).

Issue (ii): Whether the facts established impracticability warranting an order under Section 98 for convening an extraordinary general meeting.

Analysis: The statutory jurisdiction under Section 98 is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly because corporate affairs ordinarily remain governed by internal democracy and domestic management. Impracticability must be established on facts from the perspective of reasonable prudence, showing that a meeting cannot realistically be convened without intervention. Mere division among directors and the Board's rejection of the requisition by a majority did not establish that an extraordinary general meeting could not be convened, particularly where the company had numerous other shareholders. No foundational facts or proof of impracticability were placed on record, and no attempt had been made to convene the meeting under Section 100(4).

Conclusion: The precondition of impracticability for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 98 was not established; the issue is decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The exceptional statutory power to direct convening of a company meeting cannot displace internal corporate processes absent a demonstrated factual necessity for intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: A requisitioning member may invoke Section 98 without first resorting to Section 100(4), but relief under Section 98 requires concrete facts establishing reasonable impracticability of convening the meeting through ordinary corporate mechanisms.

Issues: Whether the Committee of Creditors validly rejected the proposed resolution plan after it was remitted for reconsideration and the resolution applicant declined to revise it.

Analysis: The directions requiring consideration of statutory and stakeholder claims, and remitting the plan to the Committee of Creditors, were never challenged and had attained finality. The resolution applicant's affidavit itself contemplated revision of the plan, but it subsequently declined to revise the plan value or accommodate the additional claims. The Committee of Creditors was therefore entitled to reconsider and reject the plan. Its commercial decision concerning acceptance, rejection and liquidation remained non-justiciable, particularly since the plan had not received approval from the Adjudicating Authority. Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 permits the Committee of Creditors to resolve for liquidation before approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion: The rejection of the proposed resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors, and the refusal to interfere with that decision, were valid.

Issues: Whether an unsuccessful scheme proponent that withdrew from the process after its scheme was not accepted could be compelled to deposit the earnest money deposit guarantee into the liquidation estate.

Analysis: The earnest money deposit secured submission of the appellant's proposed scheme. Once that scheme was not accepted and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, the appellant retained the commercial choice whether to continue in the process. A scheme proponent undertakes to submit its own scheme, not to remain bound to formulate or pursue a scheme meeting the requirements of the committee of creditors or the Adjudicating Authority. The liquidator did not establish any legal basis for recovery of the guarantee amount after the appellant withdrew.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to pay the earnest money deposit guarantee to the liquidation estate; the recovery claim was unsustainable in law.

Issues: (i) Whether production before an available Magistrate other than the nearest Magistrate after court hours rendered the arrest or detention unlawful; (ii) Whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner's relatives in breach of the constitutional requirement; (iii) Whether prolonged custody and the material on record warranted bail despite the statutory restrictions under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether production before an available Magistrate other than the nearest Magistrate after court hours rendered the arrest or detention unlawful.

Analysis: Production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at night, instead of the nearer Magistrate who may not have been available after court hours, was treated as a precautionary measure. The petitioner was produced before the Special Court within twenty-four hours, and no resulting prejudice was established.

Conclusion: The production before the available Magistrate did not vitiate the arrest or detention. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner's relatives in breach of the constitutional requirement.

Analysis: The grounds of arrest were admittedly supplied to the petitioner. The subsequent search record showed that those documents were no longer with him, supporting the inference that he had handed them to relatives present at the premises. Prompt steps in the criminal proceeding, including moving for bail, also negatived any prima facie case that the relatives lacked knowledge of the arrest or its grounds, or that prejudice resulted.

Conclusion: No prima facie breach of the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to the petitioner or his relatives was made out. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether prolonged custody and the material on record warranted bail despite the statutory restrictions under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Custody of about one year and two months was insufficient to override the statutory bail restrictions because the proceeding had progressed and charges were expected to be framed. The material allegedly linked the petitioner to numerous mule accounts, illegal betting operations and substantial proceeds of crime. The alleged leading role, prior abscondence, possibility of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and risk of fleeing were material aggravating factors. The petitioner could not prima facie establish lack of guilt or that he would not commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied, and the custody period did not justify release. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The arrest-related objections did not establish illegality or prejudice at this stage, while the gravity of the alleged money-laundering activity, prima facie material, and risks to the process outweighed the claim based on incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 requires satisfaction of the statutory threshold, and custody duration alone does not warrant release where prima facie incriminating material and a substantial flight or interference risk persist.

Issues: (i) Whether the aircraft arrangement constituted Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a transfer of possession and effective control outside that taxable entry; (ii) Whether amounts recorded as "other collections" were includible in the taxable value; (iii) Whether taxing the appellant on receipts already made subject to proceedings against the related concern resulted in double taxation; (iv) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable; and (v) Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the aircraft arrangement constituted Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a transfer of possession and effective control outside that taxable entry.

Analysis: Section 65(105)(zzzzj) applies where tangible goods are supplied for use without transfer of possession and effective control, whereas a transfer of the right to use goods requires exclusive legal possession and control. The contractual terms permitted the lessor to use the aircraft when not used by the lessee, required redelivery after each trip, retained operational, maintenance and running-cost responsibility with the lessor, and allowed termination on thirty days' notice. These features established that effective control and legal possession remained with the lessor.

Conclusion: The arrangement was taxable as Supply of Tangible Goods Service, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amounts recorded as "other collections" were includible in the taxable value.

Analysis: The show-cause notices alleged only Supply of Tangible Goods Service concerning the aircraft lease. The other collections were neither alleged to arise from the lease nor shown to have a nexus with that transaction. Taxable value could not be expanded beyond the allegations forming the foundation of the notices.

Conclusion: Other collections were not includible in the taxable value, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether taxing the appellant on receipts already made subject to proceedings against the related concern resulted in double taxation.

Analysis: The assertion that the same lease receipts were already included in a demand proposed against the related concern remained uncontroverted. Confirmation of tax against the appellant on those identical receipts would duplicate the levy on the same transaction.

Conclusion: Tax could not be confirmed on receipts already subjected to demand against the related concern, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The Department had knowledge of the relevant transaction and receipts when it issued the earlier notice to the related concern. The subsequent notice proceeded on the same facts, without establishing a fresh positive act of suppression or an intent to evade payment. The prerequisites for the extended period were therefore absent.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; only demands falling within the normal limitation period could survive, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were sustainable.

Analysis: Fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression with intent to evade tax was not established. The circumstances also warranted the statutory benefit available for reasonable cause.

Conclusion: The penalties under Sections 77 and 78 were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Tax liability survives only for the applicable normal period on the taxable aircraft-supply arrangement, excluding unrelated collections and duplicate levy, without penalties.

Issues: Whether an amount deposited during investigation and remaining unspent in the personal ledger account, before determination of duty liability, attracts interest from the date of deposit at 12% per annum rather than interest only under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amount was deposited before any determination or appropriation of duty liability and was refundable as a revenue deposit/unspent advance deposit. Such amount did not acquire the character of duty merely because it was credited in the personal ledger account. The statutory scheme under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governing refund of duty and delayed statutory refunds was therefore inapplicable. The jurisdictional High Court decision on materially identical facts was treated as binding and as affirming interest from the date of deposit, including interest at 12% per annum where the Revenue had retained the amount for a prolonged period.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refundable revenue deposit from the respective dates of deposit until refund.

Issues: Whether fertilizer subsidy received directly from the Government of India under the Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy is includable in the assessable value as additional consideration for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: Section 4 bases valuation on transaction value where price is the sole consideration. Rule 6 permits addition only where additional consideration flows directly or indirectly from the buyer to the manufacturer. Subsidy paid independently by the Government under a policy scheme to make fertilizers affordable does not emanate from purchasers merely because its amount is linked to the quantity or category of fertilizers sold. The applicable Board clarification, binding on departmental authorities, also treats such fertilizer subsidy as not linked to the buyer.

Conclusion: The Government subsidy is not additional consideration flowing from the buyer and is not includable in the assessable value; the consequential duty, interest and penalty demands cannot survive.

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted to a foreign national accused of an NDPS offence involving commercial quantity was sustainable under the statutory conditions governing bail; (ii) Whether uniform safeguards concerning bail, sureties and monitoring of foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity could be issued.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted to a foreign national accused of an NDPS offence involving commercial quantity was sustainable under the statutory conditions governing bail.

Analysis: Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires satisfaction of both conditions that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The material concerning the alleged role, the commercial quantity involved, prior conviction in an NDPS case, and the possibility of enhanced punishment under Section 31A required heightened scrutiny. Prolonged custody and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 do not dispense with the mandatory statutory framework. The bail order did not record the requisite satisfaction under Section 37 or address the likelihood of reoffending. The accused also absconded after release and the surety furnished was found to be fictitious.

Conclusion: The grant of bail was unsustainable and the bail stood cancelled, against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether uniform safeguards concerning bail, sureties and monitoring of foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity could be issued.

Analysis: Fabricated sureties and the absence of a uniform verification mechanism created a systemic gap capable of frustrating criminal proceedings. Article 142 of the Constitution of India permits limited measures to secure complete justice where existing procedures prove inadequate, without supplanting substantive law. The safeguards were confined to foreign nationals accused in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity and were calibrated to preserve personal liberty, proportionality and judicial discretion where appropriate.

Conclusion: Binding safeguards were issued requiring, among other measures, deposit of passport, FRRO registration, ordinarily two verified sureties, re-verification of the accused's address and contact details before release, disclosure of financial sources and bank accounts, intimation to the concerned Embassy, creation of centralised databases and digital verification systems, departmental inquiry where verified sureties are subsequently found fake, creation of lien or charge over surety property, and insertion of Form 47A under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Final Conclusion: A uniform and targeted bail-security framework was established for foreign nationals accused of commercial-quantity NDPS offences, while retaining the constitutional requirement that restrictions on liberty remain lawful and proportionate.

Ratio Decidendi: In commercial-quantity NDPS cases, the statutory twin conditions for bail must be affirmatively satisfied and cannot be displaced solely by the duration of pre-trial custody; Article 21 operates harmoniously within that statutory framework.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution alleging GST evasion through transportation of goods without invoices and e-way bills.

Analysis: The application was considered under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The record indicated that the accused was a transporter rather than a manufacturer or supplier, no computation or determination of GST liability attributable to him had been made, the charge sheet had been filed, he had remained in custody since 12.04.2026, and the trial was likely to take time. The assessment was made without commenting on the merits of the prosecution.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to regular bail.