Issues: (i) Whether Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the High Court from modifying a condition imposed in its earlier bail order; (ii) Whether the condition requiring deposit of Rs. 64,00,000 in fixed deposit as a prerequisite to bail warranted revocation.

Issue (i): Whether Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the High Court from modifying a condition imposed in its earlier bail order.

Analysis: Section 362 applies only to a judgment or final order disposing of a case. A bail order is interlocutory in nature and does not finally determine the criminal case; bail conditions may be varied where changed circumstances justify such variation. The inherent jurisdiction preserved by Section 482, read with the High Court's status as a constitutional court of record under Article 215, may be exercised to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The contrary coordinate-bench view was treated as per incuriam because it did not consider the statutory meaning of judgment and the binding authorities treating bail orders as interlocutory.

Conclusion: Section 362 does not bar modification or revocation of a condition imposed in a bail order; the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 where the circumstances warrant it.

Issue (ii): Whether the condition requiring deposit of Rs. 64,00,000 in fixed deposit as a prerequisite to bail warranted revocation.

Analysis: A bail condition requiring deposit of money without prima facie determination of guilt is unreasonably onerous and cannot convert criminal proceedings into a mechanism for recovery of alleged dues. The prosecution sanction against co-accused had been quashed, the trial proceedings had been closed and records consigned, and there was no prospect of an early conclusion of trial. The continuing restraint on the petitioner's funds, deposited only until conclusion of trial, caused failure of justice in the materially changed circumstances.

Conclusion: The deposit condition was revoked, and the fixed-deposit amount with accrued interest was directed to be released to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was invoked to remove an unjustified continuing bail condition in light of the stalled criminal proceedings and the unreasonable financial restraint.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail order is interlocutory and is not protected from variation by the bar under Section 362; the High Court may, under its inherent jurisdiction, modify or revoke an onerous bail condition when changed circumstances make its continuance unjust.

Issues: Whether input tax credit for November 2018 to March 2019 could be denied for delayed filing of returns despite their filing before the extended cut-off under Section 16(5).

Analysis: The returns for the relevant months were filed between 29.10.2019 and 04.01.2020, all before 30.11.2021. The extended statutory time limit under Section 16(5) governed eligibility for the claimed input tax credit, subject to satisfaction of other conditions.

Conclusion: The denial of input tax credit on the basis of Section 16(4) was unsustainable; the assessee is entitled to reconsideration and grant of credit if otherwise eligible.

Issues: Whether a single show cause notice and composite assessment order may cover multiple tax periods or financial years.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was construed to require separate proceedings for each tax period where assessment is undertaken before the annual-return due date, or for each year where that due date has been reached. Permitting a common notice and order for multiple periods would impair the registered person's entitlement to statutory benefits and appellate remedies.

Conclusion: A composite notice and composite assessment order covering more than one tax period or financial year are impermissible; the impugned notice and assessment order were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the order sanctioning tariff value of seized goods pursuant to an earlier judicial direction was an appealable adjudication order requiring recourse to the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the appellant's unconsidered representation seeking interest on delayed payment of the tariff value required determination by the customs authority.

Issue (i): Whether the order sanctioning tariff value of seized goods pursuant to an earlier judicial direction was an appealable adjudication order requiring recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The sanction order merely implemented the earlier direction permitting recovery of the value of perished seized goods. It did not adjudicate a dispute, and the appellant accepted the tariff value sanctioned. The outstanding claim for interest had not been decided in that order.

Conclusion: The sanction order was not an appealable adjudication order under the statutory appellate mechanism, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's unconsidered representation seeking interest on delayed payment of the tariff value required determination by the customs authority.

Analysis: The representation expressly sought payment with interest, but the interest claim had not been adjudicated by the authority or any judicial forum. The prior proceedings left the appellant free to pursue remedies available in law for that claim.

Conclusion: The customs authority must decide the representation seeking interest in accordance with law within the stipulated period, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The erroneous relegation to the statutory appellate forum was corrected, and the unresolved interest claim was required to receive a reasoned administrative determination.

Ratio Decidendi: An order merely sanctioning payment in compliance with a prior judicial direction, without adjudicating the claimant's pending interest request, is not an appealable adjudication order; the unaddressed claim must be decided by the competent authority.

Issues: Whether a show-cause notice proposing fraud classification could be sustained when founded on an inconclusive forensic-audit report prepared without the borrower's complete records.

Analysis: The forensic-audit report expressly recorded that it was based on limited lender-provided material, that the borrower's books and supporting records were unavailable, and that its opinion remained subject to further findings upon production of complete records. Since the company was in liquidation, its records were under the Liquidator's custody, and any proper forensic exercise required requisition and examination of available records through the Liquidator or the investigating authority. Fairness in an adjudicatory process requires reliance on complete and relevant material capable of supporting a definite finding.

Conclusion: The impugned show-cause notice was invalid because its foundational forensic-audit report was inconclusive; the bank may undertake fresh action in accordance with law after obtaining the necessary records and a definite forensic finding.

Issues: Whether service tax was payable on rental receipts from electricity supply companies, supervision charges for transmission infrastructure works, and reimbursements connected with electricity transmission and distribution.

Analysis: The impugned activities had a clear nexus with transmission and distribution of electricity and fell within the scope of services in relation to transmission of electricity. The exemption under Notification No. 45/2010-S.T. dated 20.07.2010 was applicable to those activities.

Conclusion: No service tax was payable on the impugned activities; the demands of tax, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether input tax credit for March 2020 was available where the return was furnished on 04.01.2021 within the period prescribed under Section 16(5).

Analysis: Section 16(5) preserves entitlement to input tax credit where the relevant return is furnished on or before 30.11.2021. The return for March 2020 was filed on 04.01.2021, which fell within that prescribed period. The denial of credit on the basis of an earlier cut-off date was therefore inconsistent with the statutory benefit under Section 16(5).

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to consideration for input tax credit under Section 16(5), subject to satisfaction of other applicable requirements.

Issues: (i) Whether the payments credited to the applicants for physical-education training prima facie constituted proceeds of crime so as to attract the offence of money-laundering and the bail rigours under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether post-arrest statements recorded under Section 50 could support the prosecution case; (iii) Whether parity, prolonged incarceration, delayed trial and the triple test justified regular bail.

Issue (i): Whether the payments credited to the applicants for physical-education training prima facie constituted proceeds of crime so as to attract the offence of money-laundering and the bail rigours under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Property can qualify as proceeds of crime only where it is derived or obtained as a result of an already accomplished scheduled offence. The payments relied upon were stated to be remuneration for training services, substantially received before the association was declared unlawful and before the predicate FIR. Neither applicant was charge-sheeted in the predicate offence, and no material prima facie established that the credited sums were derived from an identified and accomplished scheduled offence. Personal receipt of money may raise a question of dominion or control only after the money is first shown to be proceeds of crime; it cannot itself establish that foundational requirement. The amounts attributed to the applicants were also below the monetary threshold referred to in the proviso to Section 45.

Conclusion: The alleged payments were not prima facie shown to be proceeds of crime, and the applicants satisfied the applicable bail threshold under Section 45, in favour of the applicants.

Issue (ii): Whether post-arrest statements recorded under Section 50 could support the prosecution case.

Analysis: Statements recorded by the investigating agency after the applicants' formal arrest were prima facie affected by the protection against compelled self-incrimination and the bar relating to confessional statements. The remaining pre-arrest statements describing payments as honorarium established only receipt of money, not that the money was derived from a scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The post-arrest statements could not prima facie be relied upon against the applicants, and the pre-arrest statements did not establish proceeds of crime, in favour of the applicants.

Issue (iii): Whether parity, prolonged incarceration, delayed trial and the triple test justified regular bail.

Analysis: The applicants had remained in custody for over two years and three months; charges were yet to be framed against them, and the extensive prosecution material and large number of witnesses made an early trial unlikely. Continued pre-trial detention in those circumstances would offend personal liberty. Their role was not prima facie graver than that of co-accused already granted bail. They were not shown to be flight risks, the principal evidence was seized documentary and digital material, and no substantial risk of witness influence was established.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to regular bail on grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration, likely delay in trial and satisfaction of the triple test, in favour of the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applicants obtained release on regular bail, while the merits of the pending trial remain open for independent determination.

Ratio Decidendi: For a money-laundering prosecution, dominion or control over funds is legally relevant only after the funds are prima facie shown to be derived from an accomplished scheduled offence; prolonged pre-trial incarceration and an unlikely early trial can independently justify bail despite statutory restrictions.

Issues: Whether input tax credit could be denied for delayed furnishing of returns under Section 16(4) despite the taxpayer having filed the relevant returns before the cut-off stipulated in Section 16(5).

Analysis: The returns for the relevant period were furnished between 05.10.2018 and 23.04.2019, which was before 30.11.2021. The statutory benefit under Section 16(5) therefore applied to the claim for input tax credit, subject to the taxpayer satisfying other eligibility requirements.

Conclusion: Denial of input tax credit solely for breach of the time limit under Section 16(4) was unsustainable; the taxpayer was entitled to reconsideration of the claim under Section 16(5).

Issues: (i) Whether Orangescape Technologies Ltd. and Infomile Technologies Ltd. should be included as comparable companies for benchmarking software development services; (ii) Whether Net4Nuts Ltd., Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd. and Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded from the comparable set on account of functional dissimilarity; (iii) What interest benchmark applies to delayed receivables from an associated enterprise; (iv) Whether self-assessment tax credit requires verification and grant.

Issue (i): Whether Orangescape Technologies Ltd. and Infomile Technologies Ltd. should be included as comparable companies for benchmarking software development services.

Analysis: The two companies were available in the Prowess database relied upon by the assessee, and their exclusion merely because they did not feature in the Transfer Pricing Officer's search output was not sustainable. No functional dissimilarity was established. Comparable selection must turn on functional, asset and risk criteria rather than the outcome of a revised database search.

Conclusion: Orangescape Technologies Ltd. and Infomile Technologies Ltd. shall be included as comparables after necessary verification. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Net4Nuts Ltd., Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd. and Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd. should be excluded from the comparable set on account of functional dissimilarity.

Analysis: The companies rendered diversified services, including enterprise solutions, cloud computing, infrastructure management, testing, quality assurance, speech and signal-processing solutions, which materially differed from captive software development services. Their functional profiles therefore did not support comparison with the assessee.

Conclusion: Net4Nuts Ltd., Aptus Software Labs Pvt. Ltd. and Consilient Technologies Pvt. Ltd. shall be excluded from the comparable set. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): What interest benchmark applies to delayed receivables from an associated enterprise.

Analysis: Receivables arising from transactions with an associated enterprise, where denominated in foreign currency, constitute international transactions. The applicable interest benchmark depends upon the currency of the underlying invoices: LIBOR plus 2% applies to foreign-currency transactions, whereas SBI PLR applies to domestic-currency transactions. The currency position required factual verification.

Conclusion: The interest adjustment shall be recomputed after verification of the transaction currency by applying LIBOR plus 2% for foreign-currency receivables and SBI PLR for domestic-currency receivables.

Issue (iv): Whether self-assessment tax credit requires verification and grant.

Analysis: The claimed shortfall in self-assessment tax credit depended on verification of the payment records and computation.

Conclusion: The self-assessment tax credit claim shall be verified and credit granted if found payable in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing computation must be revised by including the two functionally comparable companies and excluding the three functionally dissimilar companies; the interest adjustment and tax-credit computation require fresh verification.

Issues: Whether penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars could be imposed for depreciation mistakenly claimed on assets acquired from government grants where the assessee's income was exempt.

Analysis: The depreciation claim was disallowed because the actual cost of assets acquired directly or indirectly from Central Government funds was nil. The assessee voluntarily accepted the disallowance and had statutory exemption for its entire income. Charging depreciation in its accounts pursuant to applicable financial regulations did not affect its tax liability. The claim resulted from a genuine omission to account for the restriction on depreciation, without wilful suppression or a deliberate attempt to reduce tax.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable, as the incorrect depreciation claim was a bona fide, inadvertent human error; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within limitation; (ii) Whether street-light installation and LT-line works executed for Panchayats were eligible for service-tax exemption; (iii) Whether the confirmed service-tax demand was sustainable under the extended period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within limitation.

Analysis: The order-in-original was dispatched over four months after it was made and was sent to an earlier address at which the appellant was found unavailable. The recovery email, the appellant's immediate response, and the subsequent supply of a true copy supported the appellant's asserted date of communication. The High Court had also directed consideration of delay after accounting for the proceedings before it.

Conclusion: The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed within the prescribed time. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether street-light installation and LT-line works executed for Panchayats were eligible for service-tax exemption.

Analysis: The works involved installation and commissioning of public street lighting and electrical lines pursuant to orders issued by Panchayats. A Panchayat falls within the definition of local authority, and the exemption covered erection, commissioning and installation of original works predominantly intended for non-commercial public use; it was not confined to construction alone.

Conclusion: The services were covered by the exemption applicable to works performed for local authorities for public use. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the confirmed service-tax demand was sustainable under the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: For the 2016-17 period, the show-cause notice was issued beyond even the five-year period reckoned from the relevant dates. For the remaining period, the Revenue established no deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax. The demand was founded on Form 26AS and income-tax data without adequate verification of the nature of the exempt public-utility works, while the assessee could reasonably entertain a bona fide belief of exemption and had not collected service tax.

Conclusion: The extended period was unavailable and the entire confirmed demand was barred by limitation. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed service-tax liability does not survive, with consequential relief available in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period for service-tax recovery cannot be invoked merely from Form 26AS or income-tax data without cogent evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax, particularly where the assessee had a bona fide basis to treat public-utility works for a local authority as exempt.

Issues: (i) Whether the services supplied to the municipal authority and medical college were cleaning services eligible for exemption rather than manpower supply services; (ii) Whether amounts collected as service tax despite exemption were recoverable under Section 73A; (iii) Whether penalties imposed on the company's authorised persons were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the services supplied to the municipal authority and medical college were cleaning services eligible for exemption rather than manpower supply services.

Analysis: The agreements established that cleaning was the essential character of the contracted activity. Superintendence and control over the personnel remained with the service provider and did not pass to the municipal authority. Cleaning services supplied to the governmental authority and educational institution fell within the applicable entries of the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The services were cleaning services exempt from service tax, and the dropped demand was correctly not sustained. This finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether amounts collected as service tax despite exemption were recoverable under Section 73A.

Analysis: The documentary material established collection of amounts representing service tax, although no service-tax liability arose because the underlying services were exempt. Section 73A required amounts so collected in the name of service tax to be credited to the Government; the assessee could not retain such amounts.

Conclusion: The large demands confirmed under Section 73A were modified, with liability confined to the amounts actually collected as service tax and required to be deposited. This finding is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties imposed on the company's authorised persons were sustainable.

Analysis: Collection and retention of amounts as service tax despite the absence of tax liability evidenced an intention to obtain unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: The penalties were sustained. This finding is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Exempt cleaning services did not attract service tax, but amounts collected by representing them as service tax remained payable to the Government, while the penal consequences for such collection were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exempt service provider collects an amount as service tax, Section 73A requires deposit of the amount actually collected, notwithstanding that the underlying service is not taxable.

Issues: Whether tax and penalty based on the deemed intra-State sale of goods for failure to obtain a transit pass may be sustained when the carrier produces material showing that the goods were transported outside Tamil Nadu.

Analysis: Section 70(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 creates a rebuttable presumption that goods were sold within the State where the transit-pass requirement is not complied with. Its proviso permits the owner or person in charge to rebut that presumption by proving that the goods moved outside the State. The material produced prima facie indicated such outward movement after release of the goods and required verification. Although penalty for the separate offence of not obtaining a transit pass may remain available, tax and penalty assessed on the value of the goods cannot be imposed solely on the deemed-sale basis once the legal fiction is rebutted.

Conclusion: The deemed-sale assessment requires fresh consideration after verification of the evidence of movement of goods outside the State, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming fiction of intra-State sale based on non-compliance with transit-pass requirements is rebuttable where the carrier establishes that the goods were transported outside the State.

Issues: (i) Whether addition for unexplained expenditure could be sustained merely on jantri valuation without evidence of expenditure outside the books; (ii) whether deduction for the housing project was allowable on the basis of completion certificates; (iii) whether income disclosed during survey constituted business income eligible for the housing-project deduction.

Issue (i): Whether addition for unexplained expenditure could be sustained merely on jantri valuation without evidence of expenditure outside the books.

Analysis: The factual findings established that no material, including material found in survey, showed that any expenditure had been incurred outside the books. Jantri valuation alone did not establish undisclosed expenditure.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for unexplained expenditure was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether deduction for the housing project was allowable on the basis of completion certificates.

Analysis: The competent authority had issued part-completion certificates and a final completion certificate for the entire project. No contrary material was produced to establish non-compliance with the statutory conditions for the deduction.

Conclusion: The allowance of deduction for the housing project was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether income disclosed during survey constituted business income eligible for the housing-project deduction.

Analysis: The assessee carried on no business other than construction, and no evidence showed that the disclosed income arose from a source other than that business.

Conclusion: The disclosed income was held to be business income eligible for the deduction, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings were not shown to be unsupported by evidence, and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax appeal does not give rise to a substantial question of law where concurrent factual findings are supported by the record and no contrary evidence is shown.

Issues: (i) Whether the waterproofing works qualified for exemption as services relating to original works pertaining to a single residential unit; (ii) Whether waterproofing undertaken for the first time on an existing structure could qualify as original works; (iii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for a demand founded on Form 26AS data against a registered assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the waterproofing works qualified for exemption as services relating to original works pertaining to a single residential unit.

Analysis: The exemption required proof that the works pertained to single residential units. The material produced did not clearly establish that the works were undertaken for such units.

Conclusion: The claim for full exemption was not allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether waterproofing undertaken for the first time on an existing structure could qualify as original works.

Analysis: Original works include new construction as well as work on abandoned or damaged existing structures required to make them workable. Waterproofing undertaken for the first time to address seepage in an existing building could therefore fall within original works; the distinction based solely on whether the premises were newly constructed was erroneous.

Conclusion: Waterproofing carried out for the first time on an existing damaged structure can qualify as original works, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for a demand founded on Form 26AS data against a registered assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had been registered since 2011, while the Department raised no query regarding non-payment or non-filing of returns for about ten years. The notice treated the entire Form 26AS receipts as taxable consideration without first verifying the nature of the works or the assessee's status. The Revenue produced no material establishing collection of service tax or willful suppression. A demand based solely on income-tax data, without proper verification or corroborative evidence of taxable services, could not justify invocation of the extended limitation period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was unsustainable and the confirmed demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service-tax demand could not survive because it was raised beyond the permissible limitation period without proof of willful suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation cannot be invoked merely on the basis of Form 26AS or income-tax data where the Revenue has not undertaken proper verification or established willful suppression by a registered assessee.

Issues: Whether receipts from ancillary services connected with software licensing were taxable as fees for technical services under the applicable tax treaty, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal's treatment of the ancillary-service receipts was governed by the precedent concerning software licence transactions. The identical issue for the preceding assessment year had already been disposed of on the basis of that precedent, whose review had also been dismissed. No distinguishing basis warranting reconsideration was shown.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose; the Tribunal's treatment of the receipts was sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether, while allowing restoration of an appeal dismissed in the absence of the appellant, the Tribunal could decide the appeal's maintainability.

Analysis: Restoration was warranted to afford an opportunity of hearing because the original dismissal followed an unrepresented hearing. Restoration merely returns the appeal to the stage at which it stood dismissed and does not determine its maintainability. A finding that the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal, rather than by revision before the Central Government, could not be rendered in a restoration proceeding, since that would effectively recall and replace the earlier dismissal through review.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's direction restoring the appeal for rehearing was sustained, but its finding that the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal was set aside. Maintainability remains open for determination by the Tribunal through a speaking order at the admission stage.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for alleged suppression of sales could be sustained on employee statements without corroborative material; (ii) Whether cash found with the assessee was taxable as unexplained money.

Issue (i): Whether additions for alleged suppression of sales could be sustained on employee statements without corroborative material.

Analysis: The finding of suppressed sales rested solely on statements, with no corroborative material. There was no unaccounted investment, unexplained asset or expenditure, and the source of the alleged suppressed turnover had been disclosed and included in the returns. The income was also already taxed. The Tribunal's finding was factual and did not warrant interference in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged suppression of sales was rightly deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash found with the assessee was taxable as unexplained money.

Analysis: No material substantiated the Revenue's case of unaccounted cash, and the Tribunal's factual finding on the absence of supporting material could not be reappreciated in the appeal.

Conclusion: The cash was not liable to be brought to tax as unexplained money, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for suppression of sales or unexplained money cannot be sustained solely on statements where no corroborative material supports the allegation and the relevant income has been disclosed and taxed.

Issues: Whether the State GST authorities could sustain assessment and rectification orders on issues and for an assessment period already adjudicated by the Central GST authorities, whose order was pending in appeal.

Analysis: The State and Central GST orders concerned identical issues and the same assessment period. The Central GST order preceded the State proceedings and remained under appellate consideration. In these circumstances, parallel State adjudication duplicated the earlier Central GST proceedings and could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The State GST assessment and rectification orders were unsustainable and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.