Issues: (i) Whether the ingredients of Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were made out so as to justify termination of the CIRP and dismissal of the company petition on the ground of fraudulent or malicious initiation. (ii) Whether the direction requiring the Resolution Professional to conduct a forensic audit through the Canara Bank empanelled auditor at the cost of Canara Bank was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the ingredients of Section 65 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were made out so as to justify termination of the CIRP and dismissal of the company petition on the ground of fraudulent or malicious initiation.

Analysis: The plea that the debt had been assigned and that no creditor-debtor relationship existed was already raised by the corporate debtor in the Section 7 proceedings and was considered before admission of the insolvency petition. The adjudicating authority had found debt and default, noted the corporate debtor's audited financial statements showing the applicant as financial creditor, and held that the alleged assignment did not establish a basis for denying admission. The application under Section 65 was, in substance, an to reagitate the same issue of debt and default and to recall the admission order. The material on record did not establish that initiation of CIRP was fraudulent, malicious, or in collusion, especially when the financial creditor was not a party to the alleged assignment and the debt had been reflected in the corporate debtor's books for several years.

Conclusion: The conditions for invoking Section 65 were not satisfied, and refusal to terminate the CIRP was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction requiring the Resolution Professional to conduct a forensic audit through the Canara Bank empanelled auditor at the cost of Canara Bank was sustainable.

Analysis: Once the application under Section 65 was declined, no further order of the nature directed in the impugned paragraph was warranted in that application. The forensic audit direction was also unsupported by the prayers in the application and travelled beyond the relief sought.

Conclusion: The direction for a forensic audit was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal to invoke Section 65 failed, but the direction for forensic audit did not survive and was quashed, resulting in one appeal being dismissed and the connected appeal being allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 65 can be invoked only on cogent material showing fraudulent or malicious initiation of insolvency proceedings, and it cannot be used to reopen or indirectly review findings on debt and default already adjudicated in Section 7 proceedings.

Issues: Whether a genuine pre-existing dispute existed regarding the workmen's wage and statutory dues claims so as to justify rejection of the Section 9 application, and whether the insolvency process could be invoked for recovery of a disputed wage claim.

Analysis: The dispute regarding wages and statutory dues was raised before the specialised labour forum well before the demand notice and remained pending before the Industrial Court and the High Court. The record showed that the Corporate Debtor had made substantial payments, had disputed the balance amount on the ground of reconciliation and mismatch in wage data, and had taken a consistent stand that the remaining claim was not crystallised. In Section 9 proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority is required only to see whether a plausible dispute exists and is not to adjudicate the truth of the defence. The materials placed before it disclosed a real dispute concerning both the quantum of dues and entitlement, and the insolvency mechanism could not be used as a substitute for recovery of a disputed claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the Section 9 application was upheld and the appeal failed.

Issues: Whether the application for initiating perjury proceedings against the resolution professional was maintainable and whether the impugned order dismissing that application with costs called for interference.

Analysis: A perjury proceeding can be initiated only on a prima facie satisfaction that the statement complained of contains deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, supported by distinct evidence, and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed. The approved resolution plan had already attained finality and was binding under the insolvency regime. The statements made in the reply affidavit to oppose a subsequent challenge to the resolution plan were only the resolution professional's version of the case and did not disclose mala fide intent, deliberate deception, or any material falsehood warranting perjury action. The repeated attempts to reopen the concluded resolution process were found to be frivolous, and the costs imposed were justified.

Conclusion: The application for perjury proceedings was rightly rejected and the cost order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Perjury action cannot be initiated unless the court is prima facie satisfied of deliberate falsehood on a material issue and expediency in the interest of justice, and a defence affidavit filed in support of a concluded proceeding does not amount to perjury merely because it contests the opponent's allegations.

Issues: Whether the recall application against the Tribunal's earlier order was maintainable on the grounds of alleged errors on the face of the record.

Analysis: Recall jurisdiction is confined to narrow situations such as patent lack of jurisdiction, fraud or collusion in obtaining the order, mistake of the court prejudicing a party, or absence of service of a necessary party. The grounds raised in support of recall were already dealt with in the earlier order and did not disclose any of the recognised grounds for recall. The application sought a review of the earlier decision in the guise of recall, which is impermissible when an appeal is the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion: The recall application was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Issues: Whether interest mentioned only in invoices, without any contractual agreement or established course of conduct showing acceptance or payment, can be added to operational debt for computing the threshold under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and sustaining a Section 9 application.

Analysis: The invoices alone did not establish a binding entitlement to interest. There was no formal agreement between the parties providing for interest on delayed payment, and no past practice of interest being paid by the corporate debtor. In such circumstances, unilateral insertion of an interest clause in invoices could not override the absence of mutual consent or create an enforceable liability. The claimed interest therefore could not be clubbed with the principal outstanding to cross the statutory minimum default threshold. The dispute over interest also constituted a bona fide dispute on enforceability.

Conclusion: Interest stated only in the invoices was not includible in operational debt, and the Section 9 application was not maintainable as the principal outstanding remained below the statutory threshold. The appeal failed.

Issues: (i) whether the medical services rendered under the State welfare scheme fell within the taxable entry for health check-up and treatment services, warranting fresh adjudication on merits; and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalties under the service tax provisions could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether the medical services rendered under the State welfare scheme fell within the taxable entry for health check-up and treatment services, warranting fresh adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The disputed levy turned on the character of the underlying scheme and the nature of the transaction between the hospital, the scheme administrator and the insurer. The record showed that the relevant taxable entry was originally confined to treatment or health check-up where payment was made directly by an insurance company for a person covered under a health insurance scheme, and that the entry was later substituted with effect from 01.05.2011. Following the earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions on materially identical facts, the proper course was to examine the scheme documents and the actual arrangement before concluding whether the receipts were taxable as health services. As the adjudication had not undertaken that factual exercise, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for de novo adjudication on the question of taxability.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation and penalties under the service tax provisions could be sustained.

Analysis: The demand was founded on the allegation that the VCES declaration was incomplete and that tax had been short paid. However, the levy itself was for a limited period and the nature of the scheme created a genuine interpretational dispute. In that setting, the invocation of the extended period was not justified. The Tribunal also followed the earlier view that the case fell within the ambit of reasonable cause, making penal consequences unwarranted, and held that the penalties required to be set aside. The limitation question was left to be examined again in the de novo proceedings, confined to the normal period.

Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked, and the penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits within the normal period, and the assessee obtained relief from the penalties and from invocation of the extended period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxability depends upon the true nature of a welfare-scheme arrangement, the adjudicating authority must first examine the scheme and contractual documents before applying the taxable entry, and an interpretational dispute of that kind can negate invocation of the extended period and penal action.

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax and interest on the construction of the residential complex project was sustainable, including the appellant's plea that the activity was in the nature of works contract and that the dispute was covered by the earlier decision in the appellant's own case.

Analysis: The proceedings concerned the same project for a subsequent period, and the earlier order in the appellant's own case had already been set aside. The definition of "residential complex" excludes only construction intended for personal use as residence, and the project involving 106 dwelling units did not fall within that exclusion. The Tribunal also accepted the appellant's additional ground, holding that new questions of law affecting tax liability could be urged with leave. Further, for the post-1-7-2010 period, the demand was not sustainable under "construction of complex service" where the Department's own quantification showed a composite arrangement rather than service simpliciter. Since the impugned orders rested substantially on the earlier order that no longer survived, the demands of service tax and interest could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The service tax demand and interest were held unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the State GST authorities had jurisdiction to intercept, inspect and detain the goods in West Bengal when the consignment was being transported from Jharkhand to Meghalaya; (ii) Whether the false description of the appellant as an unregistered person in the e-way bill and the use of the driver as signatory to the delivery challan invalidated the documents and justified detention and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the State GST authorities had jurisdiction to intercept, inspect and detain the goods in West Bengal when the consignment was being transported from Jharkhand to Meghalaya.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of cross empowerment under Section 6 of the CGST Act and Section 4 of the IGST Act authorises officers appointed under the State tax law to act as proper officers for the purposes of the central and integrated tax laws, subject to notified exceptions and conditions. No contrary notification or restriction was shown. Since the vehicle was intercepted within West Bengal and the alleged contravention arose during transit within that territory, the officers were competent to act. The contention that West Bengal was only a transport corridor did not displace the territorial authority of the detaining officer.

Conclusion: The detention and inspection were within jurisdiction, and this issue is decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the false description of the appellant as an unregistered person in the e-way bill and the use of the driver as signatory to the delivery challan invalidated the documents and justified detention and penalty.

Analysis: The appellant was a registered person, yet the e-way bill and allied documents described him as an unregistered person. That misdescription was treated as a false declaration and concealment, not a harmless clerical error. The Court also held that the driver, being only an agent of the carrier and not the appellant's authorised signatory, could not validly execute the delivery challan on behalf of the appellant. In the setting of Rule 55 of the West Bengal GST/CGST Rules, 2017 and Rule 138 of the same Rules, the documents accompanying the movement were therefore not reliable proof of a lawful transit, and the authorities were justified in treating the transaction as involving tax evasion.

Conclusion: The detention and penalty were upheld, and this issue is decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was sustained in full, and the appeal did not merit interference.

Ratio Decidendi: State GST officers are competent to exercise interception and detention powers within their territorial jurisdiction under the cross-empowerment scheme, and a false declaration in transit documents coupled with an unauthorised execution of the delivery challan justifies detention and penalty under the GST regime.

Issues: (i) Whether the imported charging case for hearing aids was correctly classifiable as a part or accessory of hearing aids under Tariff Item 9021 90 10, or as a static converter or battery charger under Tariff Item 8504 40 30. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the imported charging case for hearing aids was correctly classifiable as a part or accessory of hearing aids under Tariff Item 9021 90 10, or as a static converter or battery charger under Tariff Item 8504 40 30.

Analysis: The imported goods were examined against the product literature, invoice description, and Chartered Engineer's report, which showed that the charging case did not itself convert electrical energy from AC to DC and contained no rechargeable battery or power pack. The record further showed that the power adapter and charger were procured domestically and not imported with the goods. On physical examination also, the goods were found to contain no battery. In these circumstances, the product was only a medium for keeping and charging hearing aids and not a static converter or separate battery charger.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Item 9021 90 10 was upheld and the classification under Tariff Item 8504 40 30 was rejected, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods had been assessed and examined by the proper officer in earlier clearances, and the department failed to establish suppression or concealment. Since the dispute was purely interpretational and the material facts were already within departmental knowledge, extended limitation could not be invoked. Once the reassessment itself failed, the foundation for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty also could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were held unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned adjudication order and granted consequential relief to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods do not themselves perform electrical conversion and are established, on examination and contemporaneous evidence, to be only accessories for use with another product, they cannot be classified as static converters or battery chargers; and where the department had prior assessment knowledge, extended limitation and penal consequences are not invocable absent suppression.

Issues: (i) whether a demand of service tax under reverse charge on services received from foreign service providers was sustainable when the notice did not specify the applicable limb of Rule 3 of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 and did not separately quantify the consideration for each service; (ii) whether service tax could be demanded on the TDS component paid in relation to architect services received from abroad; (iii) whether Cenvat credit of service tax paid on renting of immovable property could be denied on the ground that the premises was not reflected in the registration and was not an output-service premises; and (iv) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Issue (i): whether a demand of service tax under reverse charge on services received from foreign service providers was sustainable when the notice did not specify the applicable limb of Rule 3 of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 and did not separately quantify the consideration for each service?

Analysis: Section 66A and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) only identify the recipient as the person liable and create the deeming fiction, but taxability of services received from outside India is governed by Rule 3 of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006. A valid demand required the notice to identify the applicable limb under Rule 3 and to state how each alleged service satisfied that limb. The demands were also founded only on figures taken from financial statements without isolating the consideration for each service or quantifying the corresponding tax liability. A show cause notice must contain specific and intelligible allegations and form the basis of the demand; a vague notice cannot sustain the proceedings.

Conclusion: The demand under reverse charge for foreign services is unsustainable and is set aside.

Issue (ii): whether service tax could be demanded on the TDS component paid in relation to architect services received from abroad?

Analysis: The appellant discharged tax on the gross consideration payable for the service, while the TDS amount was separately remitted to the Income Tax Department and did not form part of the consideration for the service. The record did not show any allegation that tax had been paid only on the net amount after deducting TDS. TDS deposited separately over and above the invoice value does not constitute taxable consideration for service tax purposes.

Conclusion: The demand on the TDS component is not sustainable and is set aside.

Issue (iii): whether Cenvat credit of service tax paid on renting of immovable property could be denied on the ground that the premises was not reflected in the registration and was not an output-service premises?

Analysis: The premises was shown by the lease deed to have been taken as a godown/storage facility for the appellant's business. On the facts, the premises was used in connection with the appellant's output activities, and there was no legal requirement that input services must be received only in a registered premises or that one-to-one correlation between the credit availed and the tax paid must be established. The denial of credit on the stated ground was therefore untenable.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit is unsustainable and is set aside.

Issue (iv): whether the extended period of limitation was invocable?

Analysis: The disputes arose from audit of the appellant's records, and the Department had already issued an earlier notice invoking the extended period, which showed awareness of the relevant facts. No positive evidence of suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement with intent to evade tax was established. In these circumstances, the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were not made out.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable.

Final Conclusion: The tax demands, interest, and penalties cannot be sustained, and the appellant is entitled to relief in all the connected appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand of service tax for services received from abroad must be founded on a notice that identifies the applicable charging limb and quantifies each taxable service with specificity; absent such notice, and absent proof of suppression or other statutory ingredients, the demand, related interest, penalties, and consequential credit denial cannot stand.

Issues: Whether the activity undertaken by Biswal for Beekay was a contract for service by way of job work, or a contract of service amounting to manpower recruitment or supply agency service, and whether the resultant service tax and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The contractual terms required production of specified quantities of hot rolled products on a daily basis for job charges fixed per metric tonne, with consideration linked to output and not to manpower, wages, or time. The agreement also placed labour under the contractor's control, imposed statutory compliance on the contractor, and reflected commercial risk and reward on the contractor's side. Applying the control test, the mode of remuneration test, the integration test, and the multifactor approach relevant to distinguishing a contract of service from a contract for service, the arrangement was found to be job work and not manpower supply. The change in business model to reduce tax liability was held to be legitimate tax mitigation, and no fraudulent or sham device was established by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The activity was not liable to be classified as manpower recruitment or supply agency service, and the demands, interest, and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contractual terms show output-oriented job work with remuneration linked to production, labour remaining under the contractor's control, and no proven sham or fraud, the arrangement is a contract for service and not manpower supply for service tax purposes.

Issues: Whether the service tax demand and penalty matter required fresh adjudication on account of incomplete disclosure of material facts and failure to produce primary records, and whether the adjudication could proceed on bank statements and third-party records after the assessee did not furnish invoices and work orders.

Analysis: The dispute concerned valuation of service tax liability arising from commercial construction activity, where the Revenue relied on bank statements and third-party information after repeated requests for invoices, work orders and supporting documents were not met. The governing principles applied were that the initial burden to establish taxability lies on the Revenue, but the assessee must disclose material facts within its special knowledge, and the evidentiary onus may shift when relevant documents are withheld. The record showed repeated summons, calls for records, and partial cooperation, but the factual matrix was still incomplete. In that situation, a conclusive determination on the true nature of receipts, abatements, exemptions, limitation and penalties required fuller fact-finding.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remitted for fresh adjudication, with directions to afford the assessee an opportunity to produce documents and to cooperate in the inquiry.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication was modified to the extent of remitting the matter to the original authority for a fresh, reasoned decision after granting opportunity to both sides and enabling production of all relevant materials.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material facts necessary to determine taxability are within the assessee's special knowledge and primary records are not produced despite opportunity, the dispute may be remitted for fresh adjudication so that liability is decided on a complete factual record.

Issues: Whether a dispute resolution clause stating that disputes "can be settled by arbitration" creates a binding arbitration agreement capable of supporting appointment of an arbitrator.

Analysis: The clause was construed in the light of settled principles that an arbitration agreement must reflect a clear and enforceable intention to submit disputes to arbitration. The word "can" ordinarily denotes possibility or permission, not compulsion, and in the contractual setting the parties' chosen words are the best evidence of their intent. The clause did not show that arbitration was the exclusive or mandatory mode of dispute resolution, nor did it indicate that the parties were already ad idem to arbitrate. Rather, it left arbitration as a future possibility requiring further agreement. On that construction, the clause did not satisfy the essential attributes of an arbitration agreement.

Conclusion: The clause was held not to be a binding arbitration agreement, and the request for appointment of an arbitrator failed.

Issues: Whether the discount arising on the issue of employee stock options is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 37(1) permits deduction of business expenditure and does not require an actual cash outflow. An employee stock option gives employees a right to acquire shares at a predetermined price upon rendering services during the vesting period. The discount between the market price at grant and the option price represents the cost incurred to secure continued employee services. Such cost is an ascertained business liability accruing over the vesting period, although its final quantification occurs when the option is exercised. Issuing shares at a discount is not a short receipt of capital and the resulting loss constitutes expenditure for business purposes.

Conclusion: The discount on employee stock options is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issues: Whether GST is leviable on affiliation fees charged by an educational board for grant of affiliation.

Analysis: The order notes the petitioner's reliance on an earlier ruling that treated affiliation as a statutory and regulatory function outside taxable supply and, alternatively, as exempt. The respondents were granted time to obtain instructions on the applicability of that ruling.

Outcome: Notice issued and the matter posted for 10.07.2026.

Issues: Whether a notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable when the time granted for compliance is less than seven days, and whether the consequential order, reassessment notice, assessment and penalty notices can survive once such notice is set aside.

Analysis: The Court followed its earlier Division Bench decision on the same question and accepted that a notice under Section 148A(b) does not stand where the compliance period is less than seven days. It further held that once the foundational notice is invalidated, the subsequent order under Section 148A(d), the notice under Section 148, the assessment under Sections 147 and 144, and the penalty notices also cannot survive.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148A(b) was held unsustainable, and all consequential proceedings were held to be unsustainable as well.

Issues: Whether a 200% penalty for transportation with an expired e-way bill was justified where the delay in seeking extension was caused by a technical snag and was only 50 minutes beyond the permissible extension period.

Analysis: Section 129 applies upon contravention of the statutory provisions governing goods in transit. Rule 138(10) permits extension of e-way-bill validity in exceptional circumstances and allows a further eight hours after expiry for seeking such extension. The goods were accompanied by otherwise valid documents, no discrepancy apart from expiry of the e-way bill was alleged, and the vehicle was intercepted only 50 minutes after the extension window following a technical halt. The absence of mens rea to evade tax and the limited nature of the lapse made the rigid 200% penalty disproportionate.

Conclusion: The full 200% penalty was unsustainable; the lapse warranted only a token fine of Rs. 10,000, with refund of the remaining penalty amount.

Issues: Whether rejection of the rectification application without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing was valid.

Analysis: Clause 7 of the notification dated 08.10.2024 requires adherence to principles of natural justice where a rectification order adversely affects a person. The undisputed position was that no hearing was afforded before rejection of the rectification application. The rejection therefore violated the applicable requirement of natural justice.

Conclusion: The rectification rejection order was invalid for breach of principles of natural justice and was quashed; the rectification application must be reconsidered in accordance with Clause 7 of the notification and Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues: Whether enhancement of the declared transaction value of imported goods could be sustained merely on the importer's written consent without compliance with the statutory valuation procedure.

Analysis: Section 14(1) makes transaction value the basis of customs valuation. Where the declared value is doubted, Rule 12 requires the proper officer to have reasonable and cogent grounds, seek further information, record reasons for rejecting the declared value, communicate those grounds upon request, and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before proceeding to determine value under the applicable valuation rules. Reassessment under Section 17 must follow this statutory framework. Written acceptance of an enhanced value, particularly for expeditious clearance, does not extinguish the importer's statutory right to challenge the assessment or dispense with the mandatory safeguards governing rejection of transaction value.

Conclusion: Enhancement founded solely on the importer's consent, without a legally compliant Rule 12 process and reassessment in accordance with principles of natural justice, is unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal against cancellation of GST registration could be condoned and the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period under Section 107 of the GST law, and the appellate authority had no unrestricted power to extend the statutory ceiling. However, the delay was found to have arisen from circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, and the Court followed its earlier view that, in appropriate cases, writ jurisdiction may be exercised to prevent denial of a merits-based remedy. The cancellation of registration was also treated as having serious civil and livelihood consequences, making a hyper-technical refusal to hear the appeal on merits unjust.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the appellate order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside, with a direction to the appellate authority to hear the appeal on merits.