Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to apply the concessional tax rate under section 115BAA on the basis of Form 10IC filed after filing of the return.

Analysis: The assessee had not filed Form 10IC along with the return of income, and the intimation under section 143(1) applied the normal rate of tax on that basis. Rectification under section 154 is confined to a mistake apparent from the record, and the non-filing of the prescribed form with the return did not disclose such a mistake. The objection regarding opportunity before adjustment under section 143(1) was not examined in this appeal.

Conclusion: The rectification claim was not maintainable and the denial of relief was upheld, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of credits in the bank account and the direction to consider peak credit required interference.

Analysis: The assessee produced confirmations, bank statements, income-tax returns and other documentary material to explain the credits and the source of funds. The appellate authority nevertheless found that the source of funds and creditworthiness of the parties were not established to the required extent, particularly because the evidence did not satisfactorily prove the receipt and distribution of the alleged advances or sale proceeds. It also noticed that some credits reflected mutual fund redemption proceeds and loan repayments, but concluded that the overall explanation remained unproved. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb those findings and accepted the direction to verify peak credit only as part of the appellate conclusion.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was sustained and the assessee's challenge failed.

Issues: Whether the restriction of commission income to 1% by the first appellate authority was justified, or whether the Assessing Officer's estimation at 5% on the total transaction value should be restored.

Analysis: The assessee's transactions in the relevant scrip and on the commodity exchange were found to be of a large scale and outside the ordinary course of business. The record reflected synchronized trades, creation of artificial volumes, manipulation of share price, and debarment by SEBI. On those facts, the appellate authority's acceptance of a reduced 1% commission rate was held to be unsupported, particularly because the activity was not normal brokerage but a specialized and high-risk manipulation service. The reasoning also accepted that the 5% adopted by the Assessing Officer was linked to the nature of the clandestine arrangement and the transaction pattern.

Conclusion: The 1% estimation was rejected and the Assessing Officer's addition based on 5% commission was restored, in favour of the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the Assessing Officer, in the set-aside proceedings, travelled beyond the limited directions issued by the Tribunal and enlarged the scope of enquiry. (ii) Whether the alleged on-money could be brought to tax in the year under consideration when the corresponding flats were not sold in that year.

Issue (i): Whether the Assessing Officer, in the set-aside proceedings, travelled beyond the limited directions issued by the Tribunal and enlarged the scope of enquiry.

Analysis: The remand was confined to examining whether the identified flats were sold during the relevant year, considering the sale deeds and other supporting evidence, and then determining the correct year of taxability. Instead of restricting the enquiry to those flats, the Assessing Officer called for details of all 44 flats and relied on alleged deficiencies in the broader record. Such an approach was beyond the mandate of the remand and did not comply with the appellate directions.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of the remand directions, and the partial sustenance of the addition by the first appellate authority was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged on-money could be brought to tax in the year under consideration when the corresponding flats were not sold in that year.

Analysis: The evidence on record, including registered agreements, Index-II copies and property-related documents, showed that three flats were sold in subsequent years and the remaining two flats continued to remain unsold inventory. The statement relied upon by the Revenue reflected consolidated project-wise and year-wise receipts, not a year-specific receipt attributable to the year under appeal. Since the foundational fact of sale during the relevant previous year was absent, the alleged cash component could not be taxed in that year. Cash receipts linked to flat sales are taxable in the year in which the flats are actually sold.

Conclusion: The addition on account of alleged on-money could not be sustained in the year under consideration and was liable to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned addition was deleted in full, and the assessee obtained complete relief for the year under appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In set-aside proceedings, the authority is bound by the specific remand directions, and where on-money is linked to sale of flats, it is taxable only in the year in which the corresponding sale actually takes place.

Issues: (i) Whether the gratuity adjustment was disallowable under section 40A(7); (ii) whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was sustainable for lease rental and professional charges, including where the grievance related to short deduction of tax; (iii) whether waiver of interest was liable to be added back in the year under consideration; (iv) whether the transition amount under section 115JB(2C) could be treated as prior period expense in the normal computation; (v) whether repair and maintenance expenditure capitalised in the books could still be allowed as revenue expenditure for tax purposes; and (vi) whether CSR expenditure could be excluded while computing book profit under section 115JB.

Issue (i): Whether the gratuity adjustment was disallowable under section 40A(7).

Analysis: The gratuity debit represented an adjustment against excess contribution already made to an approved gratuity trust in earlier years. The gratuity fund was duly approved, and the amount did not represent a fresh provision or unpaid liability. Section 40A(7)(b) therefore operated in favour of allowance.

Conclusion: The disallowance was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was sustainable for lease rental and professional charges, including where the grievance related to short deduction of tax.

Analysis: For the lease rental payment, the deduction was allowed in the subsequent year after TDS was deducted and deposited, and the appellate direction was held to be in line with section 40(a)(ia). For the professional fee item, the Tribunal held that section 40(a)(ia) applies to short deduction as well, and directed proportionate disallowance to the extent of the short-deducted amount. The alternate plea based on the deductee having offered income was not accepted for deletion of the disallowance in the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The lease rental issue was decided against both sides, and the short-deduction issue was decided against the assessee with only proportionate relief on computation.

Issue (iii): Whether waiver of interest was liable to be added back in the year under consideration.

Analysis: The dispute on interest waiver was already under consideration in connected proceedings, and the appellate view below had been taken with reference to the earlier Tribunal order and the pending High Court proceedings. No reason was found to disturb that approach in the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The addition on waiver of interest was sustained and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the transition amount under section 115JB(2C) could be treated as prior period expense in the normal computation.

Analysis: The amount was a statutory Ind-AS transition adjustment. The treatment had been consistently accepted in later assessment years, and the rule of consistency supported the assessee's stand. The amount could not be characterised as prior period expense for the purpose of the impugned addition.

Conclusion: The addition was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether repair and maintenance expenditure capitalised in the books could still be allowed as revenue expenditure for tax purposes.

Analysis: The accounting treatment under Ind AS / ICDS did not govern the tax character of the expenditure. The items were for repairs, replacement and maintenance necessary for business operations, and the genuineness and business necessity were not disputed. The expenditure was therefore revenue in nature for income-tax purposes.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether CSR expenditure could be excluded while computing book profit under section 115JB.

Analysis: Section 115JB does not provide a specific adjustment for CSR expenditure. Since the item did not fall within the permitted adjustments for book profit computation, the deletion of the addition was sustained.

Conclusion: The adjustment was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained relief on the gratuity, transition adjustment, repairs and maintenance, and CSR issues, while the disallowance relating to lease rental, short deduction of TDS, and waiver of interest was not disturbed, resulting in only partial relief overall.

Ratio Decidendi: For tax purposes, the true character of an item must be determined independently of its accounting treatment, and disallowances under the TDS and book-profit provisions must be applied according to their specific statutory conditions.

Issues: (i) whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation; (ii) whether receipt of a new residential flat in lieu of surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement attracted addition under section 56(2)(x).

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was found to be neither intentional nor deliberate, and the assessee had shown sufficient cause for not pursuing the appeal within time. The Tribunal also took note of the assessee's intention to pursue the matter on merits.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipt of a new residential flat in lieu of surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement attracted addition under section 56(2)(x).

Analysis: The assessee received a new residential flat in exchange for surrender of the old flat. On similar facts, it was held that such a transaction is not one of receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration within the scope of section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal applied that reasoning and held that the deeming provision did not cover the transaction.

Conclusion: The addition under section 56(2)(x) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the assessment addition was set aside, with the assessee obtaining relief both on limitation and on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Receipt of a new residential flat in lieu of an old flat surrendered under a redevelopment arrangement does not, by itself, constitute receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration so as to attract section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether the Order-in-Original confirming service tax liability and demand was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

Analysis: The adjudication was challenged on the ground that it proceeded on material drawn from income tax returns and other inputs, and on the contention that the underlying activity was claimed to be exempt under the service tax exemption notification. The Court noted the earlier order in the connected matters, where similar disputes had been remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice with directions that the authorities bear in mind the questions relating to liability under Section 65B(44), applicability of the negative list, exemption notifications, liability under the relevant reverse charge framework, and limitation. In the present case, the impugned adjudication was treated consistently with that approach, and the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh reply before the competent authority.

Conclusion: The Order-in-Original was set aside and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice, with the authorities directed to consider the earlier observations and to keep the contentions open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service tax adjudication requires reconsideration in light of binding directions in connected matters, the impugned order may be set aside and the dispute remitted to the pre-adjudication stage so that the assessee can file a reply and the authority can decide the matter afresh on all open issues.

Issues: Whether banks were entitled to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on premium for deposit insurance obtained from the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the deposit insurance premium qualified as an input service for the banks. The controversy had already been resolved against the Revenue by the decision of the Larger Bench and thereafter by the High Court of Kerala, with similar approval by the Bombay High Court. In light of those decisions, the issue was treated as no longer res integra. The Court found no basis to take a different view and followed the earlier binding reasoning.

Conclusion: The banks were entitled to CENVAT credit on the premium paid for deposit insurance, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether the value of goods supplied free of cost by customers was liable to be included in the assessable value of intermediate products manufactured by the job worker under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (ii) Whether the demand was sustainable beyond the normal period of limitation and whether interest and penalty could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the value of goods supplied free of cost by customers was liable to be included in the assessable value of intermediate products manufactured by the job worker under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The determining principle applied was that, where the dispute concerns an intermediate product manufactured by a job worker, the cost of customer-supplied material is not automatically includible in its assessable value merely because the goods are used in the manufacturing process. The earlier authority relied on by the Tribunal was distinguished because it dealt with the final product and not liability of the intermediate product. On the facts, the materials sent by customers were treated as goods covered by returnable or inspection-based dispatches, and the record did not support the premise that the value of such supplied items had to be loaded into the assessable value of the intermediate clearances.

Conclusion: The value of the free-supplied goods was not includible in the assessable value, and the demand on that count was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was sustainable beyond the normal period of limitation and whether interest and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The extended period was held to be unavailable because the assessee entertained a bona fide view on valuation under Rule 4(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the materials on record did not establish suppression, wilful misstatement, or a comparable culpable intent. The disclosure of relevant clearances in periodic returns also weighed against invocation of the larger period. Since the demand itself could not stand on merits, the consequential levy of interest and penalty also failed.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, and the demands of interest and penalty were not sustainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a job-work valuation dispute, free-supplied customer inputs are not necessarily includible in the assessable value of an intermediate product, and a bona fide valuation view defeats invocation of the extended period absent proof of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Issues: Whether the addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) could be sustained without verifying whether the allotment letter/booking arrangement could be treated as the agreement date and whether consideration had been paid through prescribed banking channels so as to attract the proviso permitting adoption of stamp duty value on the date of agreement.

Analysis: The provision taxes the difference between consideration and stamp duty value where immovable property is received for inadequate consideration. The proviso allows adoption of stamp duty value as on the date of agreement, but only where part or whole consideration has been paid through prescribed banking channels on or before that date. The record indicated advance payments at the time of booking, but the mode of such payments and the factual foundation for claiming the proviso benefit were not satisfactorily verified. In these circumstances, the matter required fresh factual examination rather than a summary affirmation of the addition.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification of the mode and timing of payment and the applicability of the proviso, with the result that the assessee obtained partial relief by way of remand and the addition was not finally sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether separate transfer pricing adjustment on interest attributable to overdue receivables was warranted, and whether the assessee was entitled to credit for the agreed credit period and working capital adjustment; (ii) whether the foreign exchange loss was wrongly subjected to double addition and whether the assessed income/computation mismatch required correction; (iii) whether relief was admissible in respect of tax credit and interest under section 234A.

Issue (i): Whether separate transfer pricing adjustment on interest attributable to overdue receivables was warranted, and whether the assessee was entitled to credit for the agreed credit period and working capital adjustment.

Analysis: The receivable for services was examined as a distinct international transaction for benchmarking purposes. The invoices showed an agreed credit period of 90 days, and interest for that period was already embedded in the service pricing. The credit period adopted by the transfer pricing officer at 60 days was therefore found to require correction. At the same time, the plea that the assessee was debt-free did not justify exclusion of notional interest on amounts outstanding beyond the agreed period. The rate of interest adopted by the transfer pricing officer and the alternative suggested by the assessee were both found to be unsupported; the matter required fresh benchmarking on comparable factors and FAR analysis. The claim for working capital adjustment was rejected because it had not been claimed in the transfer pricing study report and the arm's length pricing exercise had been carried out without such adjustment.

Conclusion: The adjustment was not deleted in full. The transfer pricing officer was directed to recompute the working by adopting a 90-day credit period, verify whether similar credit was available to non-associated enterprises, and determine the interest rate on a proper comparable basis. The assessee's request for working capital adjustment was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the foreign exchange loss was wrongly subjected to double addition and whether the assessed income/computation mismatch required correction.

Analysis: The foreign exchange loss had already been disallowed by the assessee in the computation, and its further inclusion in the assessment resulted in double addition. The assessment order and the computation sheet also showed different total income figures, creating an apparent inconsistency requiring verification and correction by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The foreign exchange loss addition and the computation discrepancy were directed to be rectified in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether relief was admissible in respect of tax credit and interest under section 234A.

Analysis: The return had been filed within the extended due date, so charging interest under section 234A was not sustainable. The assessee was also entitled to correction of tax deducted at source credit and foreign tax credit in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Relief was granted by directing deletion of interest under section 234A and granting the tax credits as admissible.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained substantial relief, but the transfer pricing issue concerning overdue receivables survived only for recomputation on corrected factual and benchmarking parameters.

Ratio Decidendi: Interest on overdue receivables may be separately benchmarked for transfer pricing purposes, but the credit period actually agreed and already embedded in service pricing must be respected, and any imputed interest must rest on proper comparables and FAR analysis; claims for working capital adjustment must be supported by the transfer pricing study and the record.

Issues: (i) Whether the contravention of Section 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was established on the basis of the recorded statements and surrounding material; (ii) whether the earlier customs settlement proceedings and the retraction of statements barred or displaced the FEMA proceedings; (iii) whether the penalties required reduction on a proportional basis.

Issue (i): Whether the contravention of Section 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was established on the basis of the recorded statements and surrounding material.

Analysis: The recorded statements of the managing director were treated as admissible and reliable because they were confirmed before the enforcement authority and were supported by the surrounding material. The reasoning accepted that the import invoices reflected declared values, while the differential value was paid through agents in India to overseas suppliers. The Court also applied the principle that in adjudication proceedings, clandestine violations may be proved on a preponderance of probabilities and need not satisfy the standard of criminal proof.

Conclusion: The contravention was held to be established against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier customs settlement proceedings and the retraction of statements barred or displaced the FEMA proceedings.

Analysis: The customs settlement and the FEMA action were treated as concerning different legal wrongs. The customs settlement dealt with duty-related consequences, whereas the FEMA proceedings arose from compensatory payments made for under-invoiced imports. The retraction was not accepted because the statements had been reiterated before the enforcement authority and no cogent evidence of coercion or duress was produced. Reliance was placed on the principle that a retracted statement may still be acted upon if it is substantially corroborated by independent material.

Conclusion: The FEMA proceedings were held to be maintainable, and the retraction did not discredit the adjudication.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties required reduction on a proportional basis.

Analysis: Although the contravention was sustained, the Court considered the appellants' plea for proportionality in view of the stated hardship and the impact on the business entities. The original penalties were therefore reassessed in a reduced form.

Conclusion: The penalties were reduced to the extent indicated in the order.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of penalty, while the finding of contravention under FEMA was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement may be relied upon in adjudication when it is voluntarily recorded or reiterated and is corroborated by independent material, and customs settlement proceedings do not bar FEMA action where the latter concerns a distinct foreign exchange contravention.

Issues: Whether the second show cause notice and the consequential adjudication proceedings overlapped the earlier proceedings on the same subject matter under the CGST framework.

Analysis: The first proceeding related to alleged short payment of tax based on a comparison between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, whereas the later show cause notice confined itself to alleged excess availment of input tax credit on invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A with reference to GSTR-9. On that factual distinction, the second proceeding concerned a different subject matter and did not duplicate the first proceeding. The principle against initiation of proceedings on the same subject matter was therefore not attracted.

Conclusion: The second proceedings were held not to overlap the first proceedings.

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) on the concession rights acquired under the DBFOT concession agreement for construction, operation and maintenance of the highway project, including the right to receive annuity.

Analysis: The concession agreement granted the assessee exclusive rights, licence and authority to construct, operate and maintain the project for the concession period in return for investment made by it. The project itself belonged to the authority, but what the assessee acquired against its expenditure was a valuable commercial right to operate the facility and recover its investment through annuity. Such right was held to be an intangible asset within the scope of section 32(1)(ii), as a licence or, at the least, a business or commercial right of similar nature. The contrary view treating the claim as depreciation on the toll road itself was rejected as a misreading of the assessee's claim. The issue was also supported by the view that the same expenditure could alternatively be amortised over the concession period, making the matter revenue neutral in effect.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to depreciation on the intangible concession right, and the disallowance was directed to be deleted.

Issues: Whether the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential order under section 148A(d) were barred by limitation when the reassessment was initiated on an incorrect and inflated figure of cash deposits, whereas the actual cash deposits reflected in the bank statements were below the statutory threshold.

Analysis: The additional legal grounds were admitted because the challenge went to the root of jurisdiction and could be decided on the existing record. The reassessment machinery was triggered on the basis of information showing cash deposits in excess of Rs. 50 lakhs, but the bank statements produced by the assessee showed that the actual cash deposits were only Rs. 19,50,000. The material placed before the Assessing Officer was not properly examined, and the impugned notices and order proceeded on incorrect and non-existing facts. On the correct facts, the case fell within the lower threshold under section 149(1)(b), so the reopening could be made only within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Since the notice under section 148 was issued beyond that period, the reopening was time-barred. The defect in the foundational notice vitiated the reassessment order as well.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 and the consequential reassessment proceedings were invalid and liable to be set aside. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation for reassessment must be computed on the basis of the correct and actual material available on record, and a notice issued on an inflated or non-existent factual foundation cannot be saved by treating the case as falling within the extended limitation regime.

Issues: Whether the respondents had contravened FEMA and the RBI guidelines by allegedly submitting forged certificates and whether the share transfer transaction was non-compliant with the pricing, documentation, and reporting requirements.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the evidentiary value of the Chartered Accountant's denial against the documentary record produced by the respondents. The record showed submission of the seller and buyer consent letters, undertaking on pricing compliance, certificate on overseas corporate body status, fair value certificate, tax clearance documents, and banking records through the authorised dealer bank. The adjudicating authority and the appellate tribunal found that the appellant relied only on the statement of the Chartered Accountant and failed to produce corroborative evidence proving forgery. The tribunal also noted the supporting invoice and the parallel valuation certificate obtained from another Chartered Accountant, which reinforced the respondents' version that the transaction was processed in accordance with the RBI circular and FEMA framework. In these circumstances, the allegation of forged documents and resultant contravention of FEMA was held not to be established.

Conclusion: The alleged FEMA violation was not proved, and the exoneration of the respondents was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A charge of forgery or FEMA contravention cannot be upheld on a bare denial alone when the transaction is supported by contemporaneous documentary compliance with the RBI framework and no independent corroboration of wrongdoing is produced.

Issues: (i) Whether the attachment was invalid because the scheduled offence provision was inserted after the loan sanction date; (ii) Whether properties acquired before the alleged fraud were liable to attachment; (iii) Whether settlement with the bank in Lok Adalat required release of the attached properties; (iv) Whether the property of a discharged co-appellant had to be released; and (v) Whether the properties of persons not named as accused in the predicate case were liable to be retained under attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the attachment was invalid because the scheduled offence provision was inserted after the loan sanction date?

Analysis: The relevant date for the offence of money-laundering is when proceeds of crime are dealt with, projected as untainted, concealed, possessed, acquired, or used. The offence is independent of the date of the predicate offence and may be continuing in nature. The insertion of the scheduled offence provision after the loan sanction date did not defeat the attachment where the laundering activity continued thereafter.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether properties acquired before the alleged fraud were liable to attachment?

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime is wide enough to include not only property directly derived from criminal activity but also the value of such property. Properties acquired earlier are not immune if they represent the value of proceeds of crime or if the accused retained an interest when the criminal activity occurred. On the facts, attachment was only to the extent of equivalent value and was supported by the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether settlement with the bank in Lok Adalat required release of the attached properties?

Analysis: Settlement of the bank's claim did not conclude the predicate prosecution or the PMLA proceedings. Releasing the properties at that stage would frustrate the object of attachment and could render later confiscation proceedings ineffective if conviction followed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether the property of a discharged co-appellant had to be released?

Analysis: Discharge of one person in the predicate case does not by itself bar attachment where the property is alleged to represent proceeds of crime and the source of acquisition is unexplained. A plea of stridhan or independent ownership required proof and could not be accepted at the attachment stage on the existing material.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (v): Whether the properties of persons not named as accused in the predicate case were liable to be retained under attachment?

Analysis: The sweep of provisional attachment is not confined to accused persons in the scheduled offence. Any person in possession of or involved with proceeds of crime may face attachment if the property is connected with the laundering activity.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The attachment orders were sustained, and the appeals failed because the properties were found to be linked to proceeds of crime or their equivalent value, notwithstanding the dates of acquisition, settlement with the bank, discharge of one party, or the non-arraying of certain holders as accused.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment can extend to property or its equivalent value wherever it represents proceeds of crime, and the power is not confined to persons named as accused in the predicate offence; the material date is the laundering activity, not merely the date of the scheduled offence.

Issues: Whether the respondent, an officer of the State Government, could be treated as a "tour operator" and subjected to service tax on fees collected in the course of performing conservation-related statutory duties.

Analysis: The respondent collected permit fees, entry fees and allied charges in his official capacity for management and conservation of the forest area. The receipts were collected on behalf of the State Government and credited to the State's consolidated fund. The activity was held to be a sovereign and statutory function of the State, not a private commercial operation undertaken for taxable consideration. On that basis, the levy of service tax and the consequential penalty were found to be without jurisdiction, and the Central levy could not be applied to such State-collected statutory charges.

Conclusion: The respondent was not liable to service tax as a "tour operator", and the demand and penalty were unsustainable; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Fees collected by a State officer in discharge of sovereign statutory functions, and credited to the State's consolidated fund, do not constitute consideration for a taxable service and cannot be subjected to service tax under a central levy.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order and the appellate order were liable to be set aside for want of opportunity of personal hearing in terms of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner was not afforded any personal hearing before the adverse adjudication order was passed. The statutory requirement under Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of hearing before adverse action is taken, and the absence of such hearing amounted to a breach of natural justice and of the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The adjudication order and the appellate order were set aside. The matter was permitted to be proceeded with afresh in accordance with law and after complying with Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether the summons issued under the Goods and Services Tax law were liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The summons were found to have been issued under the statutory power to summon a person whose attendance is considered necessary in an inquiry, including for giving evidence or producing documents or things. The Court noted that the enquiry concerned alleged fake input tax credit and that interference at the stage of summons would amount to scuttling the ongoing inquiry.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summons was rejected and no interference was called for.