Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of a statutory remedy. (ii) Whether the Court should interfere with the blocking of input tax credit communicated by e-mail when the matter formed part of an ongoing investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the cancellation of GST registration could be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite the availability of a statutory remedy.

Analysis: The cancellation order recorded reasons and was founded on alleged violation of the conditions relating to input tax credit under Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21(e) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The remedy of revocation was available under Rule 23 of the CGST Rules, 2017 and Section 30 of the CGST Act, 2017. In view of the efficacious statutory remedy, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked to examine the cancellation order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation of registration was not entertained and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should interfere with the blocking of input tax credit communicated by e-mail when the matter formed part of an ongoing investigation.

Analysis: The blocking of input tax credit was connected with allegations of fraudulent availment and recovery action, and the records indicated that investigation was continuing against the concerned recipients and firms. Interference at that stage would amount to interference in the ongoing investigation and was therefore declined. The petitioner was left to pursue the remedy available before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The prayer to interfere with the blocking of input tax credit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and no relief was granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy exists against cancellation of GST registration, and the challenged action is also intertwined with an ongoing tax investigation, writ intervention is ordinarily unwarranted.

Issues: Whether the rejection of transitional credit and the appellate affirmation thereof were sustainable when the material evidence supporting payment and deposit of service tax was not duly considered, warranting quashing of the impugned orders and remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The claim for transitional credit was founded on materials showing that service tax had been paid in relation to the lease transaction and that the tax had been deposited in the Government treasury. The record also contained a certificate from CIDCO confirming such deposit. The impugned appellate order proceeded without due consideration of this documentary evidence and thus disclosed non-application of mind. In these circumstances, the denial of credit could not be sustained on the basis recorded in the orders under challenge.

Conclusion: The impugned order-in-appeal and order-in-original were quashed and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after granting the petitioner a personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting transitional credit is unsustainable where it ignores relevant documentary evidence and fails to record a reasoned consideration of the material bearing on eligibility.

Issues: Whether a consolidated or common show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can validly cover multiple financial years or multiple tax periods.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 distinguishes between "tax period", "financial year", "such period", and cases where no period is specified. The provisions governing returns, self-assessment, scrutiny, audit, special audit, inspection, search and seizure, and demand and recovery show that, where the legislature intended a proceeding to be confined to a particular period, it said so expressly. Sections 73 and 74 use the expression "any period" for issuance of notice, and the reference to financial year in the limitation provisions does not restrict the scope of the notice itself. The linkage to financial year in the time limit for passing the order is only a reference point for limitation and does not make the proceeding financial year-specific. The language of sub-sections enabling statements for "such periods" beyond the notice period also supports a wider construction. The prescribed form for show cause notice does not alter the substantive scope of the power, and the entries relating to tax period are not mandatory. Concerns about pecuniary jurisdiction and the coexistence of fraud and non-fraud components do not invalidate a composite notice, since limitation and adjudication safeguards continue to apply period-wise.

Conclusion: Consolidated or common show cause notices under Sections 73 and 74 covering multiple financial years or multiple tax periods are permissible and valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned notices failed, the orders of the learned Single Judge were set aside, and the Revenue's position was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permit a notice to cover any period, and the reference to financial year in the limitation provision does not impose a substantive restriction that confines the notice to a single financial year.

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings for non-realisation of export proceeds were barred by the earlier FERA proceedings or by the repeal of FERA in view of the extended due date falling under the FEMA regime; (ii) Whether the individual appellants were liable under Section 42 of FEMA for the contraventions relating to export realisation and whether the penalty was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings for non-realisation of export proceeds were barred by the earlier FERA proceedings or by the repeal of FERA in view of the extended due date falling under the FEMA regime.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings were held not to cover the GRs involved in the present case, as the earlier notice related to different GRs and a different period. The Tribunal also accepted that the relevant default would arise only on expiry of the RBI-extended due date for repatriation, which in the present matter fell when FEMA was already in force. The plea based on res judicata and repeal of FERA was therefore rejected, and the action was treated as one correctly taken under FEMA.

Conclusion: The objection based on earlier proceedings and on the repeal of FERA failed, and the proceedings under FEMA were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the individual appellants were liable under Section 42 of FEMA for the contraventions relating to export realisation and whether the penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that one appellant was admittedly a partner who personally participated in efforts to realise export proceeds and signed export-related documents, while the other appellant, though described as a constituted attorney, also signed letters and participated in the affairs of the firm. On that basis, both were held to have been involved in the conduct of the firm's affairs and responsible for the defaults. The Tribunal further held that no material was shown to establish that they had taken sufficient steps to prevent the contraventions or that the penalty was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Both individual appellants were held liable under Section 42 of FEMA and the penalty was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed in its entirety, and the penalty proceedings against both individual appellants were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the extended date for repatriation of export proceeds expires after FEMA has come into force, the default is governed by FEMA; and a person who is shown to have participated in the conduct of the firm's export affairs may be held liable under Section 42 even if styled as a partner or constituted attorney.

Issues: Whether Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 protected the corporate debtor and its property from continuation of attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 after approval of a resolution plan resulting in a change in management and control.

Analysis: The resolution plan had been approved and the corporate debtor had undergone a change in management to an unconnected resolution applicant. Section 32A was construed as creating immunity for the corporate debtor and its property in relation to offences committed before commencement of CIRP, while preserving liability only against persons involved in the offence and against property of persons other than the corporate debtor. The statutory scheme was read as giving a successful resolution applicant a clean slate and protecting value maximisation, so that enforcement action could not continue against the corporate debtor's assets once the statutory conditions were satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that the challenge to the creditor claim had attained finality and could not revive the basis for attachment.

Conclusion: The attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be continued against the corporate debtor's property after approval of the resolution plan, and the attachment order was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The corporate debtor was entitled to the statutory protection available on successful resolution, and the enforcement attachment could not survive against its assets in the hands of the new management.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 results in a genuine change in control to an unconnected person, Section 32A bars enforcement action against the corporate debtor's property for pre-CIRP offences, while leaving liability to proceed against the responsible persons and other non-debtor property.

Issues: Whether, at the stage of a notice initiating revision, the goods could be directed to be released on payment of a further amount and execution of an undertaking while the revisional proceedings remained pending.

Analysis: The petition was directed against a notice issued in revision and no final revisional order had yet been passed. The Court declined to examine the merits of the jurisdictional objections at that stage and left those contentions open to be raised before the revisional authority. Since the dispute had reached the stage of revisional notice and the petitioner sought release of the detained goods, the Court considered it appropriate to grant limited relief by directing release on deposit of a specified amount in addition to the amount already deposited, coupled with an affidavit undertaking to abide by the final revisional order.

Conclusion: The petitioner obtained limited relief in the form of conditional release of goods, while the challenge to the revisional notice itself was not finally adjudicated and all other contentions were left open before the revisional authority.

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by delay and laches; (ii) whether the outstanding export proceeds were Rs. 1.8 crores or Rs. 2.34 crores and whether any write-off or settlement was established; (iii) whether the appellants had taken reasonable steps to realise and repatriate the export proceeds and whether the directors and legal heir were liable for penalty; (iv) whether the penalties required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice was vitiated by delay and laches.

Analysis: The delay plea was rejected because the proceedings depended on enquiry with the authorised dealer and the Reserve Bank of India. The record also showed that the company itself was pursuing realisation, settlement, and write-off, so the period could not be counted merely from the date of the last export consignment.

Conclusion: The challenge based on delay and laches failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the outstanding export proceeds were Rs. 1.8 crores or Rs. 2.34 crores and whether any write-off or settlement was established.

Analysis: On the documents produced, the Tribunal accepted that the outstanding amount was Rs. 1.8 crores. However, there was no material to show that the Reserve Bank of India had written off that amount, and the record from the bank and the Reserve Bank did not establish that the dues had been settled or extinguished.

Conclusion: The outstanding amount was accepted as Rs. 1.8 crores, but no write-off or settlement was proved.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellants had taken reasonable steps to realise and repatriate the export proceeds and whether the directors and legal heir were liable for penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that some efforts were made through correspondence and personal visits, but those steps were not sufficient to be treated as reasonable steps for recovery of export proceeds. Liability was upheld against the promoter-managing director who was aware of the affairs of the company and the recovery efforts. The legal heir of the deceased former managing director was held not liable, and the two other directors were also found not liable for want of evidence showing responsibility for the contravention.

Conclusion: Penalty was upheld only against Shri Ashok Kasliwal; the penalties on Shri Mukesh Bhansali, Shri Girish Agrawal and Shri Shailesh Jain were set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalties required reduction.

Analysis: Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the company's penalty and the penalty on Shri Ashok Kasliwal to lesser amounts, with adjustment of the pre-deposit already made.

Conclusion: The penalties on the company and Shri Ashok Kasliwal were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by upholding contravention as against the company and Shri Ashok Kasliwal, while granting relief to the other appellants by setting aside their penalties and reducing the remaining penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for non-realisation of export proceeds under FEMA, partial recovery efforts do not suffice unless the appellant shows reasonable steps taken to realise and repatriate the dues, but penalty cannot be fastened on persons against whom no evidence of responsibility for the contravention exists.

Issues: Whether the order-in-original deserved to be set aside and the matter remitted for consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notice, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh reply.

Analysis: The petition challenged an ex parte order-in-original raising a service tax demand. The Court noted the petitioner's request for an opportunity to submit a reply and relied on the earlier directions in connected matters, where similar adjudications had been set aside and matters relegated to the stage of show-cause notice/reply. The Court also directed that the authorities take note of the earlier observations and kept all contentions open.

Conclusion: The order-in-original was set aside and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh reply.

Issues: (i) whether export cargo handling could be treated as an exempted service for denying Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) whether credit could be denied on the footing that the service of supply of tangible goods was not in force for the relevant period; and (iii) whether Cenvat credit on repair of cars and telephone services was inadmissible.

Issue (i): whether export cargo handling could be treated as an exempted service for denying Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Export cargo handling was not a service liable to be treated as exempted service for the purpose of the credit reversal mechanism. The demand based on taking 8% of the value of export-related cargo handling as if it were exempted service was therefore misconceived.

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

Issue (ii): whether credit could be denied on the footing that the service of supply of tangible goods was not in force for the relevant period.

Analysis: The service of supply of tangible goods came into existence only from 16.05.2008. Since the dispute covered the period prior to that date, the activity could not be treated as a taxable or exempted service for the purpose of the demand.

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

Issue (iii): whether Cenvat credit on repair of cars and telephone services was inadmissible.

Analysis: No evidence was produced to show that the repair of cars and telephone services were used for personal purposes. Telephone services, including landline services, were treated as eligible input services, and the credit claim was therefore not liable to be disallowed on this ground.

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

Final Conclusion: The credit demand and related denial of relief could not be sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Services outside the taxable/exempted service framework cannot be treated as exempted services for reversal of credit, and credit cannot be denied without evidence of impermissible personal use where the services otherwise qualify as eligible input services.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appellant's claim should be condoned after approval of the resolution plan. (ii) Whether the appellant's claim arising from allotment of units in lieu of legal fee could be admitted as a claim against the corporate debtor in the CIRP.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appellant's claim should be condoned after approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: The delay was examined in the context of the time-bound framework of insolvency resolution. The appellant was a commercial entity and the claim was filed after the resolution plan had already been approved by the Committee of Creditors and was pending before the adjudicating authority. The record did not show any basis to treat the appellant on par with homebuyers or to apply the exceptional approach adopted in cases where claims were otherwise reflected in the corporate debtor's records.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned and the refusal to admit the belated claim was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's claim arising from allotment of units in lieu of legal fee could be admitted as a claim against the corporate debtor in the CIRP.

Analysis: The sale certificate and the annexed list of allottees showed that the encumbrances recognised for the purchased property were confined to the identified allottees, and the appellant's name did not appear in that list. The appellant had not made any disbursement to the corporate debtor, and the alleged allotment in lieu of legal fee did not satisfy the essential requirement of disbursement against consideration for time value of money. The claim therefore did not constitute a financial debt, nor did it create an enforceable liability on the corporate debtor within the CIRP.

Conclusion: The appellant's claim was not admissible against the corporate debtor and was rightly rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both delay and merits, and the rejection of the claim was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated claim cannot be reopened in a CIRP after approval of the resolution plan, and a claim lacking disbursement against consideration for time value of money does not amount to financial debt.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration and rejection of revocation were liable to be quashed for breach of natural justice and absence of reasons, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The cancellation and rejection orders did not reflect consideration of the petitioner's reply, were passed without affording a personal hearing, and did not contain reasons. In matters involving cancellation of GST registration, which carries serious civil consequences, such an approach is arbitrary and unsustainable. The appellate order rejecting the appeal only on limitation, without examining the merits of the foundational order, was also found to be an unduly pedantic approach where the underlying cancellation itself was prima facie void and non est. The proceedings were therefore required to be reopened and decided afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion: The impugned notices and cancellation orders were quashed and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication after granting a personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An order cancelling GST registration, if passed without a personal hearing and without reasons, is liable to be set aside, and an appellate dismissal on limitation cannot be allowed to sustain a foundational order that is ex facie illegal and non est.

Issues: (i) Whether the tax appeals could be sustained where the only substantial questions of law stood covered by the Supreme Court's decision on the same issue of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the tax appeals could be sustained where the only substantial questions of law stood covered by the Supreme Court's decision on the same issue of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The appeals concerned the question of unjust enrichment, and the Court noted that the identical issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court. Once the Supreme Court had answered the controversy in favour of the assessee, no surviving substantial question of law remained for independent adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were brought to an end because the governing legal issue had already been settled against the Revenue's case and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the sole substantial question of law in a tax appeal is covered by a binding Supreme Court ruling in favour of the assessee, the appeal cannot survive and must fail.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported powdered extract derived from the root of Pelargonium sidoides, with maltodextrin as carrier, is classifiable under Heading 1302 or under Heading 3003 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; (ii) whether the goods are eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 45/2025-Cus. dated 24.10.2025.

Issue (i): Whether the imported powdered extract derived from the root of Pelargonium sidoides, with maltodextrin as carrier, is classifiable under Heading 1302 or under Heading 3003 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: Heading 1302 covers vegetable saps and extracts, but the Explanatory Notes exclude products that, by reason of further processing, addition of other substances, or therapeutic/prophylactic character, acquire the character of medicaments or fall within more specific pharmaceutical headings. The product here was found to be a standardized hydro-ethanolic extract, vacuum dried, mixed with maltodextrin, and imported exclusively for pharmaceutical manufacture and therapeutic use. On that basis, it was treated as more than a crude botanical extract and as a mixed preparation having the essential character of a medicament.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Heading 3003, specifically under sub-heading 3003 90 90, and not under Heading 1302.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods are eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 45/2025-Cus. dated 24.10.2025.

Analysis: The claimed concession was linked to goods falling under Heading 1302. Once the goods were determined to be classifiable under Heading 3003, the notification-based concessional treatment claimed by the applicant could not apply to them.

Conclusion: The goods are not eligible for the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 45/2025-Cus. dated 24.10.2025.

Final Conclusion: The ruling settles the tariff classification against the applicant's claimed vegetable-extract heading and confirms classification as a pharmaceutical preparation, with the consequential denial of the claimed customs-duty concession.

Ratio Decidendi: A standardized plant extract, after processing and addition of an inert carrier, is classifiable as a medicament under Heading 3003 when its essential character is therapeutic and it is imported as a pharmaceutical intermediate rather than as a crude vegetable extract.

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid. (ii) Whether the addition made under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards loading and supervision charges was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were valid.

Analysis: Reassessment beyond four years required failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The record showed that the assessee had furnished complete details of the impugned expenditure during the original assessment and no specific lapse by the assessee was brought out in the recorded reasons. The reasons also disclosed inconsistency and uncertainty as to the nature of the alleged transaction and were founded only on general information from the Investigation Wing without independent verification. In these circumstances, the jurisdictional precondition for reopening was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The reopening was invalid and the reassessment could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards loading and supervision charges was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee produced invoices, ledger accounts, bank statements, tax deduction particulars and other primary evidence to support the expenditure. The Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiry, did not issue effective verification notices to the recipient, and did not establish any cash trail or other corroborative material showing that the expenditure was bogus. The addition rested substantially on third-party statements and general search material, while the documentary evidence and business explanation remained unrebutted by cogent evidence. Suspicion and surrounding circumstances, without corroboration, were insufficient to disallow the claim under section 69C.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69C was unsustainable and was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was quashed and the impugned additions were deleted, resulting in full relief to the assessee in both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment initiated beyond four years is invalid absent a recorded failure to disclose material facts, and an addition under section 69C cannot rest merely on unverified third-party material or suspicion when the assessee has furnished primary evidence and no independent corroboration is brought on record.

Issues: (i) Whether depreciation was allowable on goodwill arising on amalgamation as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii); (ii) Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of inter-unit sale of electricity for computing deduction under section 80IA was justified.

Issue (i): Whether depreciation was allowable on goodwill arising on amalgamation as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii).

Analysis: The goodwill arose pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court and represented consideration for acquisition of a running business together with commercial rights and business advantages. The issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier assessment years, and the consistent view had been affirmed in the assessee's own case. No distinguishing feature in facts or law was shown for the year under consideration.

Conclusion: Depreciation on goodwill was allowable, and the disallowance was rightly deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the transfer pricing adjustment in respect of inter-unit sale of electricity for computing deduction under section 80IA was justified.

Analysis: The assessee's internal CUP, based on the rate charged by the distribution company for electricity supplied to consumers, was accepted as a reliable benchmark because electricity is a homogeneous commodity. The substitute tariff rate adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer was not accepted. The issue was also covered by earlier decisions in the assessee's own case, including consistent appellate relief in prior years, and no contrary material was shown for the year in question.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment was not justified, and the deduction under section 80IA was rightly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed on both grounds, and the appellate relief granted to the assessee was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goodwill arising from amalgamation of a running business is depreciable as an intangible asset when the issue is settled by consistent precedent, and for captive electricity transfers, a reliable internal CUP may be adopted for arm's length pricing where the commodity is homogeneous and no contrary distinguishing facts are shown.

Issues: Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted in a GST investigation concerning alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit based substantially on documentary material.

Analysis: The petitioner's transactions were supported by invoices, e-way bills, transport records and banking trail, and the investigation had already collected the relevant documents. The Court noted the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the petitioner's cooperation with the inquiry, and the lack of compelling material showing that custodial interrogation was necessary. It treated the matter as predominantly documentary and relied on the settled principle that anticipatory bail may be granted where arrest is apprehended and liberty requires protection, particularly when the evidence is already available with the investigating agency.

Conclusion: Pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority, while dealing with transitional credit under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, could travel beyond the scope of Section 140 and rely on a mismatch issue said to fall within the Maharashtra Value Added Tax regime; (ii) whether the impugned appellate order was liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of the transitional credit claim.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority, while dealing with transitional credit under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, could travel beyond the scope of Section 140 and rely on a mismatch issue said to fall within the Maharashtra Value Added Tax regime.

Analysis: The scope of adjudication under Section 140 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was confined to entitlement to transitional credit. The appellate authority was required to stay within that statutory field and could not base its decision on matters lying in the domain of assessment or inquiry under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The finding on system-generated mismatch was found to be unclear and beyond the proper jurisdictional ambit of the transitional credit proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellate authority could not lawfully rely on the extraneous mismatch issue while deciding the transitional credit claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned appellate order was liable to be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration of the transitional credit claim.

Analysis: Since the appellate order suffered from lack of clarity and had proceeded on an impermissibly wide footing, independent reconsideration of the claim was necessary. The proper course was to set aside the order and restore the appeal for a fresh decision confined to the statutory scope of transitional credit under Section 140, after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the appellate order and securing a fresh decision on the transitional credit issue, while leaving the substantive entitlement open for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings concerning transitional credit, the adjudicating authority must confine itself to the statutory parameters governing that credit and cannot decide the matter on issues falling outside that jurisdiction.

Issues: (i) whether recovery notices for outstanding tax demand could be sustained when the assessment order and corresponding records were not traceable and had not been served; (ii) whether interest and default consequences could be fastened in the absence of service of the assessment order and demand particulars.

Issue (i): whether recovery notices for outstanding tax demand could be sustained when the assessment order and corresponding records were not traceable and had not been served

Analysis: The notices were issued for recovery of an alleged outstanding demand, but the assessment order was not traceable and the respondents ed that the order and corresponding records were unavailable. In the absence of service of the assessment order and particulars of the demand, no enforceable demand could be said to exist and recovery action could not validly be initiated.

Conclusion: The recovery notices could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether interest and default consequences could be fastened in the absence of service of the assessment order and demand particulars

Analysis: Liability to interest and the treatment of the assessee as being in default depended upon service of the assessment order and the demand notice. Without such service, the assessee could not be saddled with interest upto the date of service, nor could default consequences be imposed.

Conclusion: Interest could not be fastened and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default until service of the assessment order, if any.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned recovery notices were quashed, and the demand was directed to be removed from the petitioner's portal record.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of tax demand and consequential interest cannot proceed unless the assessment order and demand particulars are served, because without such service no enforceable demand exists and default consequences cannot be imposed.

Issues: Whether the assessee-company's place of effective management was in India so as to treat it as resident in India and tax its global income in India.

Analysis: The appellate authority recorded that the factual bases relied upon to conclude that the assessee's place of effective management was in India were not borne out by the documentary material placed on record. It nevertheless sustained the assessment only because the earlier collegium comprised of three Commissioners of Income-tax and the authority considered itself bound by that view. Since the factual foundation for the residential finding was itself found to be unsound and remained unrebutted, there was no sustainable basis to uphold the conclusion that the assessee had its place of effective management in India for the relevant year.

Conclusion: The finding that the assessee was resident in India on the basis of place of effective management was not sustained, and the addition of its global income was liable to be deleted.