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 an assessee that replied to a show-cause notice may invoke the applicable remedy of appeal where the order-in-original was served only by uploading it on the common portal.

Analysis: The petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice established knowledge of the notice. The governing principle for an order passed after contest and served solely through the common portal is that such portal upload does not trigger the limitation period for appeal; the assessee may avail the appellate remedy within the period prescribed by the applicable directions. The challenge to the State notifications was not pressed, while the challenge to the Central notifications remained subject to the Supreme Court's eventual decision.

Conclusion: The petitioner may avail the statutory appellate remedy in accordance with the governing directions; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest is payable on the refund of IGST collected on ocean freight from the date of its original payment.

Analysis: The claim was accepted as identical to the precedent governing refund of IGST levied on ocean freight. That precedent treats the declaration invalidating the levy as operative from inception, absent an express prospective limitation, and recognises that interest compensates the taxpayer for being deprived of the refunded amount during its retention by the authorities.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest on the refunded IGST in the manner specified in the governing precedent.

Issues: Whether rejection of condonation of an 18-day delay in furnishing Form 10B for claiming exemption was sustainable.

Analysis: The audit report was delayed by only 18 days during the continuing Covid-19 pandemic. The requirement of furnishing the audit report is procedural, and the report may be produced before the assessment or appellate authority upon sufficient cause. The pandemic-related inability to file the report was accepted as genuine, establishing genuine hardship. The delegated discretion under Section 119(2)(b) required a pragmatic application favouring substantial justice over technicality; the refusal did not reflect proper application of that discretion.

Conclusion: The rejection of condonation was invalid. The delayed Form 10B must be treated as having been filed within the prescribed period and taken into account for the exemption claim.

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.

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.