Issues: Whether the landowner's unilateral revocation of the joint development agreement and power of attorney warranted exclusion of the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process, and whether interim preservation of the land was warranted pending disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: The joint development agreement and power of attorney prima facie created irrevocable and non-determinable development rights in favour of the corporate debtor. The contractual period for construction was reckoned from the approvals and the subsequent agreement, and had not expired when termination was asserted. The purported termination was not accepted; the alleged no-objection communication was conditional upon repayment of the proportionate project loan and amounted to a counter-offer. Existing mortgage rights and possible third-party rights could not be conclusively ruled out at this stage.

Outcome: The landowner was permitted to intervene, exclusion of the subject land from the corporate insolvency resolution process was not granted at this stage, and the parties were directed to maintain status quo pending hearing of the appeals.

Outcome: The special leave petition was disposed of as premature, with liberty to seek adjournment before the Adjudicating Authority.

Outcome: Special Leave Petitions dismissed and pending applications disposed of.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail pending trial for alleged fraudulent availment and utilisation of input tax credit.

Analysis: The charge-sheet had been filed, the applicant had remained in custody since 20.07.2026, and the sole criminal antecedent was from 2018. The alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were noted to be non-bailable but compoundable. No opinion on the merits of the prosecution case was expressed.

Outcome: Regular bail was granted on execution of the prescribed bond and compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether a shareholder and personal guarantor, who was not a party to the proceedings relating to implementation of the approved resolution plan, had standing to seek recall; and (ii) Whether excluding the delay in handing over possession from the implementation period and extending the time for balance payment constituted an impermissible modification of the approved resolution plan warranting recall.

Issue (i): Whether a shareholder and personal guarantor, who was not a party to the proceedings relating to implementation of the approved resolution plan, had standing to seek recall.

Analysis: Rule 11 of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2016 was invoked for recall. The applicant was neither a financial creditor nor an operational creditor, was not impleaded in the underlying implementation proceedings, and had not been permitted to intervene. The procedural rights of the suspended management remain subservient to the objectives of the insolvency process after the Committee of Creditors has exercised its commercial wisdom. No legal injury from the extension was established.

Conclusion: The applicant lacked standing to seek recall of the order concerning implementation of the resolution plan.

Issue (ii): Whether excluding the delay in handing over possession from the implementation period and extending the time for balance payment constituted an impermissible modification of the approved resolution plan warranting recall.

Analysis: The successful resolution applicant had made the entire upfront payment, but possession of the subject asset had not been handed over because of continued unauthorised occupation. Handing over possession upon receipt of the upfront amount was an obligation arising under the approved plan. An exclusion of time caused by failure to hand over possession was consistent with implementation of the plan. Extension or exclusion of time for performance of financial obligations in these circumstances does not alter the substantive terms of an approved resolution plan.

Conclusion: The exclusion of delay and consequential extension did not amount to modification of the approved resolution plan and did not warrant recall.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan remains enforceable with appropriate exclusion of time for delay in handing over possession not attributable to the successful resolution applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Extension or exclusion of time for performance under an approved resolution plan, where implementation is impeded by failure to hand over possession despite timely upfront payment by the successful resolution applicant, does not constitute modification of the plan.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was chargeable on the termination amount claimed upon premature cancellation of the lease; (ii) Whether service tax on lease rent for April 2013 to August 2014 was to exclude August 2014 and account for the small-service-provider exemption and tax already paid; (iii) Whether the service tax demand based on monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs received from the subsequent tenant was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was chargeable on the termination amount claimed upon premature cancellation of the lease.

Analysis: The termination claim was not received under the eventual compromise. The amount stipulated upon premature vacation was compensatory for reneging on the lease and could not retain the character of rent after the premises had been vacated.

Conclusion: The service tax demand on the termination claim was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax on lease rent for April 2013 to August 2014 was to exclude August 2014 and account for the small-service-provider exemption and tax already paid.

Analysis: There was no evidence of rent having been paid for August 2014 after vacation of the premises. The small-service-provider exemption, if available, could not be denied, and the tax liability required recomputation after giving credit for tax already deposited.

Conclusion: The demand was partly sustained only after excluding rent for August 2014, allowing the applicable exemption, and appropriating tax already paid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the service tax demand based on monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs received from the subsequent tenant was sustainable.

Analysis: The agreement recording monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs was corroborated by the tenant's confirmation and was found more credible than the later agreement recording substantially lower rent.

Conclusion: The service tax demand computed on monthly rent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs was upheld, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Unreceived compensatory termination amounts were excluded from the taxable value, while the liability on actual lease rent was confined to a recomputed amount and the higher evidenced rent from the subsequent tenancy remained taxable.

Ratio Decidendi: A compensatory amount stipulated for breach of a lease, which is not received and is not rent for continued occupation, is not liable to service tax as consideration for renting.

Issues: (i) Whether taxability and classification are determined by the physical form of goods at the time of sale or by their later end product or end use; (ii) Whether GRD Powder and GRD Mix are classifiable as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages or under the residuary entry.

Issue (i): Whether taxability and classification are determined by the physical form of goods at the time of sale or by their later end product or end use.

Analysis: Taxing statutes require strict construction, and the taxable event is the sale or supply of goods in the form in which they are supplied. A consumer's subsequent choice to mix a powder with milk or water, or to use it in a solid preparation, does not alter the taxable identity of the goods. Common-parlance, functional-character, or basic-nature tests cannot be used to import an end-use criterion where the statutory entry classifies goods by their physical form.

Conclusion: Tax liability and classification are determined by the form in which the goods are sold, not by their possible later end use.

Issue (ii): Whether GRD Powder and GRD Mix are classifiable as non-alcoholic drinks and beverages or under the residuary entry.

Analysis: Entry 20(ii) associates beverages with syrups, cordials, distilled juices, ark and essences, which constitute a class of liquid goods. Applying ejusdem generis, the expression "beverages" takes its meaning from those associated liquid preparations. The expression "including" does not extend the entry to goods of a materially different physical form, and the entry contains no deeming inclusion of powders, concentrates or biscuits used to prepare drinks.

Conclusion: GRD Powder and GRD Mix, being sold as powder and biscuit, are not non-alcoholic drinks or beverages and fall under the residuary entry.

Final Conclusion: Products sold in powder or biscuit form remain subject to the residuary classification notwithstanding their possible subsequent preparation as drinks.

Ratio Decidendi: For fiscal classification, the taxable identity of goods is determined by their physical form at the time of sale, and a later consumer end use cannot convert a powder or solid product into a beverage where the specific entry contextually covers liquid goods.

Issues: (i) Whether acquittal in a separate prosecution for criminal breach of trust and cheating extinguishes the independently acknowledged legally enforceable debt supporting the cheque-dishonour prosecution; (ii) Whether the drawer rebutted the statutory presumptions by a probable defence based on an uncorroborated claim that the cheque leaf was snatched; (iii) Whether the statutory demand-notice requirements were met despite the drawer's plea of non-service; and (iv) Whether the concurrent findings warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether acquittal in a separate prosecution for criminal breach of trust and cheating extinguishes the independently acknowledged legally enforceable debt supporting the cheque-dishonour prosecution.

Analysis: A prosecution for cheque dishonour is founded upon the independently enforceable monetary liability underlying the cheque. The written declaration and notarized agreement acknowledging liability supplied an independent basis for the debt. An acquittal in the separate criminal prosecution because of deficiencies in proof of its distinct penal ingredients did not negate that written acknowledgment or the monetary liability.

Conclusion: The separate acquittal did not extinguish the legally enforceable debt underlying the cheque. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the drawer rebutted the statutory presumptions by a probable defence based on an uncorroborated claim that the cheque leaf was snatched.

Analysis: Upon proof of drawing, presentation and dishonour of the cheque, the statutory presumption of consideration and liability arose. Although the reverse onus could be discharged on a preponderance of probabilities, a bare statement under Section 313, unsupported by defence evidence, a contemporaneous police report or intimation to the bank, did not amount to a probable defence.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions remained unrebutted, as the snatched-cheque defence was not probable. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the statutory demand-notice requirements were met despite the drawer's plea of non-service.

Analysis: Dispatch of the notice by registered post to the drawer's admitted correct address attracted the presumption of due service. No reliable material established incarceration at the relevant delivery time. Further, receipt of court summons with the complaint afforded an opportunity to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days; failure to do so precluded reliance on an alleged defect in notice service.

Conclusion: The statutory notice requirements were satisfied. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the concurrent findings warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is not a second appellate review and is exercisable only where concurrent findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or affected by gross illegality or procedural miscarriage. The findings rested on the cheque, dishonour memo, notice materials, written acknowledgment and the unrebutted statutory presumptions, without any demonstrated patent perversity or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference was established. The issue is decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The independently acknowledged liability, unrebutted statutory presumptions and valid notice process sustain the conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque.

Issues: (i) Whether dates appearing in Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 govern limitation for issuance of show cause notices and adjudication orders under Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether challenges to the invocation of Section 74 and the evidentiary basis of the demand should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Issue (i): Whether dates appearing in Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 govern limitation for issuance of show cause notices and adjudication orders under Sections 74(2) and 74(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 74(2) requires issuance of the substantive notice under Section 74(1), while Section 74(10) requires issuance of the substantive order under Section 74(9) within the stipulated periods. Rule 142(1)(a) treats Form GST DRC-01 as an electronic summary accompanying the notice, and Rule 142(5) treats Form GST DRC-07 as an electronic summary of the order. The substantive notices and orders bore dates preceding the asserted limitation cut-off dates; the later dates on the electronic summaries could not replace or alter the dates of the substantive instruments.

Conclusion: Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 do not determine limitation under Sections 74(2) and 74(10), and their later dates do not render the substantive notices or orders time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether challenges to the invocation of Section 74 and the evidentiary basis of the demand should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an available statutory appeal.

Analysis: The objections concerning fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression, knowledge or collusion, admissibility of input tax credit, computation, penalty, and sufficiency of departmental material require factual examination and appreciation of evidence. Section 107 provides an efficacious appellate remedy competent to address those questions of law and fact. No denial of hearing or patent jurisdictional defect was established, and the limitation objection did not justify bypassing that remedy.

Conclusion: The merits challenges are not to be entertained in writ jurisdiction and may be urged before the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107.

Final Conclusion: Timely substantive notices and adjudication orders are not invalidated by subsequent electronic summaries, and factual challenges to the demand must be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the relevant dates are those of the substantive show cause notice and adjudication order; Forms GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07 are consequential electronic summaries and do not substitute those instruments.

Issues: (i) Whether the computer printouts and private or third-party records were admissible and sufficiently linked to the assessee to establish clandestine manufacture and under-invoicing; (ii) Whether abnormal electricity consumption and alleged theft of electricity established unaccounted manufacture and clearance; (iii) Whether the alleged clandestine production was sustainable in view of the installed furnace capacity; (iv) Whether statements relied upon for the demand could be admitted without compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the computer printouts and private or third-party records were admissible and sufficiently linked to the assessee to establish clandestine manufacture and under-invoicing.

Analysis: Electronic records require compliance with the safeguards under Section 36B, including the prescribed certification concerning their production and device. The separately captioned computer folder, records not bearing the assessee's name, and documents recovered from dealer premises lacked independent verification linking the transactions to the assessee. There was also no tangible corroboration through raw-material consumption, transport, buyers, financial flow-back, or actual excess production.

Conclusion: The computer printouts and private or third-party records were inadmissible or insufficient to establish clandestine manufacture or under-invoicing, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether abnormal electricity consumption and alleged theft of electricity established unaccounted manufacture and clearance.

Analysis: Electricity consumption may vary because of operational and technical factors. Without a scientifically established plant-specific consumption norm and independent evidence linking consumption to quantified unaccounted production and clearance, electricity data and an allegation of electricity theft could not substantiate excise evasion.

Conclusion: Abnormal electricity consumption and alleged theft of electricity did not establish unaccounted manufacture or clearance, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged clandestine production was sustainable in view of the installed furnace capacity.

Analysis: A charge of clandestine manufacture must be tested against the physical capacity of the plant. The alleged production was not shown to be achievable even with both operational furnaces, and no undisclosed manufacturing facility was established.

Conclusion: The alleged clandestine production was not sustainable in view of the unaddressed capacity constraint, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether statements relied upon for the demand could be admitted without compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: Statements recorded during investigation cannot prove the truth of their contents unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D is followed. The required statutory exercise was not undertaken, and the statements had not been tested in the prescribed manner.

Conclusion: The untested statements could not be read in evidence against the assessee, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The cumulative absence of admissible electronic evidence, independently corroborated material, capacity-based proof, and legally usable statements left no sustainable evidentiary basis for excise liability, interest, or penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine manufacture, clearance, or under-invoicing cannot rest on uncertified electronic records, unverified private or third-party documents, untested statements, or electricity consumption alone; it requires legally admissible and independently corroborated evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA; (ii) Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions; (iii) Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Issue (i): Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA.

Analysis: Customs proceedings concerned valuation of imported goods and duty assessment under the Customs valuation framework, whereas the foreign-exchange proceedings concerned unlawful dealing in or transfer of foreign exchange. The rejection of transaction-value redetermination based on extrapolation in the Customs proceedings did not bar an independent determination founded on the requirements and evidence applicable under FEMA.

Conclusion: Prior Customs adjudication did not preclude determination of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions.

Analysis: Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 required a presumption of truth, unless rebutted, for documents seized under that Act or another law. The electronic records were linked with manufacturer and supplier invoices, packing lists, banking entries and the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The forensic examination recorded intact seals and identified the seized hard disks, pen drive and flash drive. No material established tampering or rebutted the statutory presumption. The standard applicable to the adjudication was preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof.

Conclusion: The seized electronic records and the Section 108 statement were accepted as reliable evidence of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Analysis: The documentary data supported foreign-exchange contraventions in relation to 363 import bills involving USD 14,01,850, approximately equivalent to Rs. 7,42,27,152. Allegations founded solely on projections or extrapolation beyond the documented entries lacked corroborative evidence and could not be sustained. The individual appellant was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business and was consequently liable for the proved contraventions under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Conclusion: Liability was confined to the documented contraventions and did not extend to projected amounts. The penalties were reduced to Rs. 75,00,000 for the company and Rs. 25,00,000 for the individual appellant. This issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The foreign-exchange determination was sustained only to the extent supported by the seized and corroborated records, while unsupported extrapolated allegations were excluded and the penalties were recalibrated accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An unrebutted statutory presumption under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, supported by corroborative electronic and documentary material, can establish foreign-exchange contraventions on a preponderance of probabilities, but liability cannot be extended to amounts based only on uncorroborated extrapolation.

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be imposed where the show-cause notice neither proposed confiscation of the goods nor established that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires consideration of whether the offending goods are liable to confiscation. Penalty under Rule 26 is attracted only where the person concerned knows or has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation. The show-cause notice did not propose confiscation, and the orders below did not record any finding that the goods were liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The statutory preconditions for penalty under Rule 26 were not met; the penalty imposed on the assessee was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit was required to be computed from the actual date of utilisation until reversal of the credit.

Analysis: Section 50(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 88B(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, requires interest to be calculated on wrongly availed and utilised input tax credit for the period from its actual utilisation to its reversal. The assessing authority verified that the credit of Rs. 48,643 was utilised on 14.08.2023 and reversed on 24.10.2024, covering 437 days, and accepted that the original assessment had incorrectly adopted an earlier commencement date for interest.

Conclusion: The interest liability stands revised to Rs. 13,977, and the assessment is to be modified accordingly.

Issues: Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal on limitation and the underlying show-cause and adjudication proceedings could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the GST portal's 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation.

Analysis: Section 107 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the appellate framework. The show-cause notice was uploaded only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, resulting in the petitioner being unable to respond. This denied an effective opportunity to contest the proposed demand and violated principles of natural justice. The statutory appeal had been dismissed solely on limitation without an examination on merits.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice, adjudication order and appellate order were set aside, with directions for issuance of a fresh show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, and fresh reasoned adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether an ex parte GST adjudication order could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab without separate intimation, preventing a response.

Analysis: An adverse GST adjudication requires effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice, in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Uploading the notice only under the specified portal tab, without separate intimation, left the assessee unable to submit a reply and constituted a denial of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte adjudication order and consequential notices were set aside, with fresh adjudication to be undertaken after receipt of the assessee's reply and after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the GST adjudication order was vitiated for being non-speaking and for non-application of mind to the taxpayer's reply.

Analysis: Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the corresponding State enactment required a reasoned adjudication of the show-cause notice. The adjudication order did not properly address the detailed reply filed by the taxpayer and contained no cogent reasons for its determination. Its cryptic nature disclosed non-application of mind and perversity. The merits of the tax demand were not examined.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for want of reasons and non-application of mind. A fresh determination is required after considering the taxpayer's reply and granting an adequate personal hearing, without any expression on the merits.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration could be sustained when it was made mechanically without considering the registered person's reply to the show-cause notice.

Analysis: A cancellation decision must reflect due application of mind to the response furnished to the show-cause notice. The acknowledged reply was available on record, whereas the cancellation order proceeded on the erroneous basis that no reply had been filed. The show-cause notice and cancellation order consequently suffered from non-consideration of the reply and lacked proper application of mind. The merits concerning restoration of registration were left for fresh determination by the competent authority after hearing the petitioner.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was unsustainable for failure to consider the reply and required fresh consideration by the competent authority through a speaking and reasoned decision.