Issues: Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised to challenge a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the alleged absence of a scheduled offence and alleged excess in the quantification of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides a time-bound adjudication of provisional attachment, followed by appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Writ jurisdiction despite that remedy is confined to exceptional cases of patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or manifest lack of jurisdiction. The provisional attachment order referred to FIRs alleging cheating, which is a scheduled offence, and the Enforcement Directorate had contemporaneously transmitted information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2). A pre-registered case concerning the scheduled offence is not indispensable for provisional attachment under Section 5. The objections concerning advertisements directed outside India and the amount treated as proceeds of crime concern quantification and disputed facts, appropriately examinable in the statutory proceedings.

Conclusion: No manifest lack of jurisdiction was established; the challenges to the attachment, including the predicate-offence and quantification objections, must be pursued through the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether the appellant's documents concerning road repair and maintenance services required reconsideration for determining entitlement to service-tax exemption.

Analysis: The certificates and documents produced related to repair and maintenance of roads and were material to the exemption claim. Since those documents went to the root of the matter, the exemption claim required fresh examination by the original authority. The issue of limitation was not examined.

Outcome: The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration on merits within three months.

Issues: (i) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demand of Service tax on royalty paid for mining rights; (ii) Whether Service tax was leviable on royalty paid after 01.04.2016 where the mining rights had been allotted before that date.

Issue (i): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demand of Service tax on royalty paid for mining rights.

Analysis: The entire demand for April 2016 to June 2017 was raised through a notice dated 20.10.2021 beyond the normal limitation period. Taxability of royalty for assignment of natural-resource rights was a contentious interpretational issue marked by conflicting views. The mining lease, royalty payments and relevant transactions were disclosed in statutory records, and the demand was based on the assessee's records. A bona fide belief regarding non-taxability did not establish suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement or intent to evade tax.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the demand was barred by limitation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Service tax was leviable on royalty paid after 01.04.2016 where the mining rights had been allotted before that date.

Analysis: The right to use natural resources was allotted and agreed to be provided on 03.02.2015, when the relevant Government service remained within the negative list. Execution of the formal lease deed after 01.04.2016 only continued the concluded arrangement and did not alter the date on which the mining rights were assigned. The Point of Taxation Rules could not enlarge the charging provision or make taxable a service that was not taxable when provided or agreed to be provided.

Conclusion: No Service tax was leviable on royalty paid after 01.04.2016 pursuant to mining rights allotted before that date; the tax demand, consequential interest and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Royalty attributable to mining rights assigned before their exclusion from the negative list cannot be subjected to Service tax merely because payment was made subsequently, and the extended limitation period is unavailable absent suppression or intent to evade.

Ratio Decidendi: Taxability of assignment of natural-resource rights is determined when the right is provided or agreed to be provided; subsequent payment cannot attract Service tax where the assignment was then in the negative list, and a bona fide interpretational dispute does not justify extended limitation.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit of service tax could be denied merely because it was availed on a proforma invoice; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the Cenvat credit.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit of service tax could be denied merely because it was availed on a proforma invoice.

Analysis: The service was admittedly rendered, the service provider had discharged the service-tax liability, and the proforma invoice contained the material particulars, including service-tax registration details, assessable value and tax amount. Subsequent regular invoices covering the same service and tax were also issued. Rule 9 requires material statutory particulars for credit, and credit cannot be denied where the underlying service, tax payment and requisite particulars are undisputed merely because the document is styled as a proforma invoice.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible on the proforma invoice. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The credit had been disclosed in the ER-1 return for March 2011, and the audit report of December 2012 had already quantified the disputed credit and recorded the tax payments and subsequent invoices. No material established suppression, nor was further investigation shown before issuance of the show-cause notice more than three years later. Disclosure in returns and departmental knowledge precluded invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation, and the extended period was not invocable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The credit remains available and the proposed recovery cannot be sustained on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxable service, payment of tax and material prescribed particulars are established, Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely because the supporting document is a proforma invoice; the extended limitation period requires evidence of suppression despite disclosure and departmental knowledge.

Issues: Whether compression of natural gas into cascades solely to transport it to customers, followed by decompression and sale as natural gas, constitutes manufacture of compressed natural gas liable to central excise duty; and whether penalties on the company and its Chairman-CEO consequently survive.

Issue (i): Whether compression of natural gas into cascades solely to transport it to customers, followed by decompression and sale as natural gas, constitutes manufacture of compressed natural gas liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: Note 5 to Chapter 27 deems compression of natural gas to be manufacture only where it is undertaken for marketing the gas as CNG. The established factual position was that compression was used solely to facilitate transportation in cascades; at the customers' premises the gas was decompressed through pressure-reducing skids and sold as natural gas at normal pressure. The Tribunal's earlier decision on identical facts and the analogous decision concerning compression of coal-bed methane for transport were applicable.

Conclusion: Compression solely for transportation, where the product is marketed and sold as natural gas rather than CNG, does not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Note 5 to Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The excise-duty demand, interest and company penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties imposed on the Chairman-CEO survive after the excise-duty demand against the company is set aside on merits.

Analysis: The personal penalties were consequential to the demand against the company, which was unsustainable on merits.

Conclusion: The penalties on the Chairman-CEO do not survive and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The compression and transport arrangement did not create an excisable manufacture of CNG, and no consequential personal penal liability remained.

Ratio Decidendi: Compression of natural gas constitutes deemed manufacture only when undertaken for marketing the gas as CNG; compression exclusively to enable transportation, followed by sale after decompression as natural gas, is not manufacture.

Issues: (i) Whether umbrella panel fabric cut into triangular shape and size is classifiable as made-up textile articles under Heading 6307 or as woven synthetic filament fabric under Heading 5407; (ii) Whether the extended period under Section 28(4) could sustain the differential-duty demand.

Issue (i): Whether umbrella panel fabric cut into triangular shape and size is classifiable as made-up textile articles under Heading 6307 or as woven synthetic filament fabric under Heading 5407.

Analysis: Section Note 7 of Section XI treats articles cut otherwise than into squares or rectangles as "made-up". The imported triangular panels had acquired the essential character and commercial identity of umbrella panels rather than textile fabric. Heading 6307 specifically covers made-up textile articles, whereas Heading 5407 is a general heading for woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn; the specific heading prevails.

Conclusion: The goods are classifiable under Heading 6307 as made-up textile articles and not under Heading 5407. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period under Section 28(4) could sustain the differential-duty demand.

Analysis: The goods' description and classification were fully declared in the Bills of Entry and the assessments were completed without objection. No suppression or misdeclaration was established; consequently, a classification dispute could not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The entire demand was barred by limitation. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reclassification, differential customs duty, interest and penalty could not be sustained either on classification or limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Textile fabric cut into non-rectangular panels that acquires the essential character and commercial identity of a finished made-up article is classifiable under the specific heading for made-up textile articles; an extended limitation period requires established suppression or misdeclaration and cannot rest on an openly declared classification dispute.

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed on a customs broker's G-card holder under Section 112A for alleged involvement in the importation of restricted goods concealed in a consignment.

Analysis: The appellant had returned the import documents without clearing the goods after a mismatch between the declared description and the cargo was noticed, and had intimated Customs of the return. The cash credited to the appellant's account was explained as being used for customs duty, transportation and logistical expenses. The record did not establish that the appellant knew of, abetted, did, or omitted any act rendering the goods liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 112A was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issues: Whether weld mesh manufactured exclusively as top, bottom, side, door and partition components of poultry battery cages is classifiable as parts of poultry-keeping machinery under CETH 84369100 or as iron and steel structures under CETH 73089090.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured from galvanised iron wire to specified designs and were exclusively used as identifiable components of poultry battery cages. The proposed entry for iron and steel structures covers structural articles of the nature specified therein, whereas the Revenue did not provide convincing material or reasoning showing how the specialised weld-mesh cage components fell within that entry. Reliance on an earlier decision concerning poultry equipment was misplaced, since the subsequent appellate proceedings accepted classification under CETH 84369100.

Conclusion: The declared classification under CETH 84369100 is correct; rejection of that classification and proposed classification under CETH 73089090 are unsustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted execution of the dishonoured cheque and disproved the legally enforceable debt; (ii) Whether the High Court could, in revisional jurisdiction, reverse concurrent findings of conviction by reappreciating the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted execution of the dishonoured cheque and disproved the legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: Admission of the signature on the cheque attracted the mandatory presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt or liability. The complainant established compliance with the requirements for dishonour of cheque, including timely presentation, demand notice and non-payment. The defence that a blank cheque had been furnished as security for a different loan lacked supporting contemporaneous evidence; the later notice demanding return of the cheque was treated as an afterthought. The complainant's evidence concerning the loan and financial assistance received from others remained credible after cross-examination. Financial incapacity was not established merely from the complainant's monthly income, particularly when evidence showed other investments and financial assistance. The accused had neither replied to the demand notice raising that defence nor adduced cogent material to displace the presumptions.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumptions or disprove the legally enforceable debt; the conviction for dishonour of cheque was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could, in revisional jurisdiction, reverse concurrent findings of conviction by reappreciating the evidence.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. Concurrent factual findings may be disturbed only where they are perverse, grossly erroneous, based on irrelevant or no material, or result from non-consideration of relevant material or arbitrary exercise of discretion. The High Court substituted its own assessment of the evidence without identifying any such defect in the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in reversing the concurrent conviction.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings sustaining criminal liability for dishonour of cheque stand restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions of consideration and discharge of liability operate unless displaced by cogent evidence; a revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings absent perversity or a jurisdictional defect.

Issues: Whether a former director could maintain an appeal in an individual capacity against orders passed in company winding-up proceedings concerning creditors' and buyers' claims.

Analysis: The appellant's locus to challenge such orders had already been determined between the same parties on identical facts in an earlier order that attained finality. That determination precluded reconsideration of the appellant's entitlement to pursue the appeal. The record also disclosed repeated obstructive conduct affecting crystallised rights of bona fide buyers, warranting costs.

Conclusion: The former director lacked locus standi to maintain the appeal; the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issues: Whether the assessee-employer was liable to deduct tax at source on leave travel concession payments where employees' journeys involved a foreign leg.

Analysis: Leave travel concession exemption is confined to travel within India under Section 10(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court decision applied by the Tribunal establishes that a journey involving a foreign leg is not travel within India, irrespective of the domestic starting and destination points or reimbursement being restricted to the shortest domestic route. The employer, having complete travel details while settling claims, was required to estimate taxable income and deduct tax under Section 192(1). The pending proceedings concerning the bank's internal circulars did not displace this binding determination, though the appellate directions concerning recovery were retained pending the final outcome of the related Supreme Court proceeding.

Conclusion: The assessee was liable for tax deduction at source on leave travel concession payments for journeys involving a foreign leg; the appellate order remains subject to the final outcome in the pending Supreme Court proceeding.

Issues: Whether addition for the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp-duty valuation of immovable property could be made where the purchase agreement and cheque payment preceded the coming into force of Section 56(2)(vii)(b).

Analysis: The agreement for purchase was executed on 16.05.2010 for the agreed consideration, and advance payment was made through cheque and supported by receipts and bank records. The provision invoked for taxing the difference in stamp-duty value was held not to operate retrospectively against an agreement entered before its introduction. The conditions concerning adoption of the stamp-duty value on the agreement date were also satisfied because part consideration had been paid through banking channels before the agreement date.

Conclusion: The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was unsustainable and was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequently introduced charging provision cannot be applied retrospectively to an immovable-property purchase agreement executed before its commencement, particularly where consideration was paid through banking channels under that agreement.

Issues: (i) Whether the project office of an affiliated entity constituted a fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee in India; (ii) Whether receipts from offshore supply of equipment and offshore repair and refurbishment were taxable in India, including whether the offshore and onshore agreements were artificially split.

Issue (i): Whether the project office of an affiliated entity constituted a fixed place permanent establishment or dependent agent permanent establishment of the assessee in India.

Analysis: The Revenue bore the burden of establishing the conditions for a permanent establishment under Article 5. The service agreement relied upon was between the customer and the affiliated entity, was signed by its project director in that entity's capacity, and contained no authority from the assessee or reference showing that the project office was at the assessee's disposal. No evidence established that the office was used for the assessee's business, that it maintained the assessee's goods, or that it habitually exercised authority to conclude contracts or secure orders for the assessee. The facts were materially consistent with earlier years in which no permanent establishment was found.

Conclusion: The assessee had neither a fixed place permanent establishment nor a dependent agent permanent establishment in India. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether receipts from offshore supply of equipment and offshore repair and refurbishment were taxable in India, including whether the offshore and onshore agreements were artificially split.

Analysis: The bid documents and agreements showed separate onshore and offshore arrangements from the bid stage. Under the offshore agreements, supplies and repairs were performed outside India, and title to the equipment passed outside India upon export. The Revenue did not establish that the separation of contracts was artificial. As the offshore transactions were concluded outside India and the assessee had no Indian permanent establishment, the receipts lacked a taxable nexus with India under the treaty.

Conclusion: Receipts from the offshore supplies, repairs and refurbishment were not taxable in India, and no profit could be attributed to an alleged Indian permanent establishment. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessed addition relating to offshore receipts and attribution of profit to an alleged Indian presence cannot be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign enterprise cannot be treated as having a permanent establishment merely because an affiliated entity maintains an Indian office; the Revenue must prove that the treaty conditions for a fixed place or dependent agent permanent establishment are independently satisfied, and offshore receipts from transactions concluded outside India are not taxable absent an Indian taxable nexus.

Issues: Whether the difference between the stamp-duty value and purchase consideration of immovable property was taxable in the hands of the HUF under section 56(2)(vii)(b), and whether the first appellate authority relied on additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A.

Analysis: The sale deed and sale agreement had already been furnished during reassessment, and the first appellate authority merely evaluated that existing material; consequently, there was no prohibited admission of fresh additional evidence. The sale agreement, patta and encumbrance certificate established that the property was acquired by the Karta in his individual capacity. The Revenue produced no cogent material showing that the HUF funded the purchase or that the property was an HUF asset. The inadvertent mention of the HUF PAN in the sale deed, without more, could not establish HUF ownership.

Conclusion: Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was not attracted in the hands of the HUF, and deletion of the addition was sustained. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the cash deposits during demonetisation were liable to be treated as unexplained investment; (ii) Whether the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision for unexplained income applied to cash deposits made before the amendment's effective date.

Issue (i): Whether the cash deposits during demonetisation were liable to be treated as unexplained investment.

Analysis: The assessee's explanation that the deposits represented accumulated salary savings was supported only by self-prepared financial statements. There was no contemporaneous evidence of the asserted cash availability, and bank records did not show withdrawals commensurate with the claimed cash balance. The subsequent transfer of the deposited amount to a company connected with the assessee's husband, without supporting documentation, further failed the test of human probabilities. No evidence established that the husband's income had been transferred to the assessee.

Conclusion: The cash deposits were rightly treated as unexplained investment, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision for unexplained income applied to cash deposits made before the amendment's effective date.

Analysis: The deposits were made in November 2016, before 1 April 2017. The enhanced rate introduced by the amendment was prospective and could not govern transactions occurring before its effective date.

Conclusion: The enhanced rate of tax under the amended provision was inapplicable to the impugned addition, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition remains sustainable, but tax must be computed under the law applicable on the date of the deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: An enhanced tax rate introduced prospectively cannot be applied to unexplained-income transactions completed before the amendment became effective.

Issues: Whether compensation paid by a co-producer and director to settle litigation arising from a film-production project was deductible as business expenditure despite having been claimed as bad debts in the return.

Analysis: The payment arose from the assessee's professional role as co-producer and director, obligations connected with timely completion of the project, and commercial litigation in which the assessee was personally impleaded. Consent terms and subsequent judicial directions for payment established that the liability had crystallised and was commercially connected with the professional activity. The deduction depended on the true substance of the expenditure, not its erroneous description as bad debt in the return. The absence of direct contractual privity under the later memorandum, the earlier denial of liability, lack of income from the recipient, and relationship with a partner of the production concern did not displace the professional nexus of the payment.

Conclusion: The compensation of Rs. 3 crore was allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the alleged erroneous inclusion of capital receipts while allowing only revenue expenditure in computing taxable income after denial of exemption constitutes a mistake apparent from the record rectifiable under section 154.

Analysis: Rectification is confined to an obvious, patent and self-evident error and cannot be used for a matter requiring verification, examination of facts, interpretation of law, or a process of reasoning on which more than one view is possible. Determining the nature and treatment of receipts, allowability of expenditure, and the proper computation of income after denial of exemption requires substantive adjudication. The same computation controversy was also pending in the quantum appeal and could not be reopened through rectification proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged computational error is not a mistake apparent from the record and is not rectifiable under section 154; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide disputed questions concerning income computation that require factual verification, legal interpretation, or detailed reasoning.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2015-16 after 1 April 2021 was barred by limitation and consequently deprived the Assessing Officer of jurisdiction to make the reassessment.

Analysis: The binding position applicable to Assessment Year 2015-16 required all reassessment notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 to be dropped, as they could not be completed within the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The notice under section 148 was issued on 31 March 2022. It was therefore time-barred, without authority of law and incapable of conferring jurisdiction for reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was invalid and the assessment founded upon it was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory bar on CESTAT appeals concerning payment of drawback extends to a claim for interest on delayed payment of sanctioned drawback under Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether interest on delayed drawback accrues one month after the Let Export Order, or only after adjudicatory proceedings concerning drawback attain finality.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory bar on CESTAT appeals concerning payment of drawback extends to a claim for interest on delayed payment of sanctioned drawback under Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes CESTAT jurisdiction only for disputes relating to payment of drawback under Chapter X of the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules thereunder. A restrictive proviso to a statutory appellate right must be strictly construed and cannot be enlarged by implication. A claim for interest under Section 75A is founded on a separate statutory liability arising from delay in disbursement after drawback becomes payable; it is distinct from adjudication of entitlement to, or quantum of, drawback.

Conclusion: The CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal concerning interest on delayed drawback; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on delayed drawback accrues one month after the Let Export Order, or only after adjudicatory proceedings concerning drawback attain finality.

Analysis: Rule 13 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 deems the shipping bill to be the drawback claim on the date of the order permitting export. Section 75A links interest to non-payment within one month from filing of the claim and does not defer accrual until completion of adjudication. Pending proceedings challenging the claim do not displace the statutory deeming of the claim date. Where the proceedings ultimately establish the exporter's entitlement, subsequent sanction gives effect to that entitlement rather than creating a fresh entitlement. Construing the provisions otherwise would permit indefinite postponement of compensatory interest through prolonged proceedings.

Conclusion: Interest under Section 75A accrued after expiry of one month from the Let Export Order dated 13.03.2003 until actual payment of the sanctioned drawback; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appellate remedy remains available for a delayed-drawback interest claim, and the exporter receives interest calculated from the deemed date of filing under the drawback rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdictional exclusion concerning payment of drawback cannot be extended to a distinct statutory claim for interest on delayed disbursement, and statutory interest accrues from the deemed filing date fixed by the drawback rules unless the legislation expressly provides otherwise.

Issues: (i) Whether service of the injunction application with the plaint annexed, but without separate service of the plaint and its annexures, complied with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the plaintiff had and disclosed a cause of action concerning the alleged provident-fund deficit or defalcation; (iii) Whether the Provident Fund statutory regime barred the civil suit; (iv) Whether the suit was liable to fail for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; (v) Whether the ex parte injunction was obtained by material suppression; and (vi) Whether the SFIO investigation could continue.

Analysis: The Court found substantial compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 because the application served upon the contesting defendants included the plaint, while the plaint annexures were separately included with corresponding pleadings in the application. The defendants were able to contest the matter fully and had not sought a complete set before advancing their objections. Delay in service did not warrant vacating the injunction where service was effected before the returnable date.

Analysis: The plaint prima facie disclosed a cause of action. The plaintiff, as the exempted establishment responsible for statutory provident-fund contributions, could be required to account for any deficit notwithstanding that the trust was separately constituted. The defendants had not produced cogent material concerning the trust accounts for the relevant later financial years to dislodge the prima facie allegation of defalcation. The exclusion of provident-fund dues from the resolution plan also did not preclude the plaintiff from pursuing the alleged deficit.

Analysis: The powers of the Provident Fund authorities under the statutory scheme did not oust the civil court's jurisdiction over the alleged defalcation. Nor did the absence of every trustee as a party justify, at the interim stage, treating the suit as barred, where specific allegations were pleaded against the impleaded trustees.

Analysis: There was no material suppression concerning the police complaint or FIR, as the complaint was lodged after verification and filing of the plaint and the FIR was registered after the initial injunction. In any event, parallel civil recovery proceedings and criminal investigation could continue because criminal proceedings would not by themselves secure recovery of the allegedly misappropriated funds.

Analysis: Given the pan-India operations, multiple regional provident-fund jurisdictions, and allegations involving statutory employee contributions reflected in the company's accounts, SFIO was considered an appropriate agency for investigation. The Court's power to direct such investigation was not curtailed by Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the alleged defalcation was sufficiently connected with the affairs of the exempted establishment.

Outcome: The applications seeking vacation of the ad interim order were dismissed; the interim protection and SFIO investigation were continued pending adjudication of the injunction application on affidavits.