Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority had jurisdiction to direct suspended directors of a lessee corporate debtor to assist the resolution professional of the lessor corporate debtor in identifying and recovering leased electric vehicles.

Analysis: Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 confers broad jurisdiction over questions of law or fact arising out of or relating to the insolvency resolution process. The recovery of vehicles owned by the corporate debtor and leased to the other corporate debtor bore a direct nexus to preservation and control of the former's assets during its insolvency resolution. The appellants, as members of the suspended management of the lessee corporate debtor, had acknowledged their responsibility to provide available information and assistance concerning the vehicles. The direction required their cooperation for identification and recovery of assets and was therefore within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the appellants to assist in identification and recovery of the leased vehicles was valid and within the Adjudicating Authority's jurisdiction, against the appellants.

Issues: Whether an indivisible turnkey contract for the supply, installation and commissioning of ATMs, executed for a composite consideration before 01.06.2007, could be vivisected to levy service tax on a notional installation and commissioning component under the taxable category of commissioning or installation.

Analysis: The contracts had a single commercial objective of delivering fully functional ATMs and provided one composite consideration. Installation and commissioning were integral and inseparable obligations incidental to the supply of ATMs, rather than independently contracted or separately remunerated services. During the relevant period, the charging provisions for taxable services and the valuation provision did not authorise segregation of the service element from an indivisible composite contract. A valuation exercise could not create a taxable event or sustain the Revenue's notional attribution of 33% of the consideration. The later introduction of a distinct works-contract taxable entry with a valuation mechanism from 01.06.2007 confirmed that the earlier statutory framework did not cover indivisible composite works contracts.

Conclusion: No part of the composite consideration under the turnkey ATM contracts was liable to service tax as commissioning or installation service for the relevant period. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the petitioner's representations concerning computation of interest on self-assessed tax and the effect of amounts in its Electronic Cash Ledger should be decided before coercive recovery under the impugned garnishee notices.

Analysis: Divergent judicial views existed on the substantive controversy. The petitioner's representations regarding interest computation had admittedly not been decided or adjudicated by the competent respondent. The merits of the rival positions, including the sustainability of the garnishee proceedings, were expressly kept open for determination by that respondent through a reasoned order.

Outcome: The competent respondent was directed to decide the representations by a reasoned order within six weeks, and no precipitative recovery action pursuant to the impugned notices may be taken until that decision is communicated.

Issues: (i) Whether inspection, search and seizure under Section 67 require distinct and specific authorisation, valid reasons to believe, and compliance with Document Identification Number requirements; (ii) Whether the impugned search could be invalidated despite the petitioner having earlier secured release of seized goods on the basis of payment of tax and penalty; (iii) Whether the payment made during the search was voluntary and refundable.

Issue (i): Whether inspection, search and seizure under Section 67 require distinct and specific authorisation, valid reasons to believe, and compliance with Document Identification Number requirements.

Analysis: Inspection, search and seizure are conceptually distinct powers under Section 67. An authorisation in Form GST INS-1 must specifically disclose the power conferred and cannot mechanically reproduce statutory alternatives. Exercise of the powers requires recorded reasons to believe founded on relevant material and remains subject to judicial review. The CBIC circular makes generation and display of DIN mandatory; reliance on technical difficulty requires contemporaneous record of the difficulty, and a subsequently generated DIN must be shared with the noticee to preserve transparency and enable verification.

Conclusion: A valid exercise of power under Section 67 requires specific authorisation, reasons to believe, and strict compliance with the DIN safeguards, including communication of a subsequently generated DIN to the noticee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned search could be invalidated despite the petitioner having earlier secured release of seized goods on the basis of payment of tax and penalty.

Analysis: The authorisation was defective: it was unclear whether it authorised inspection or search, lacked a DIN without substantiated contemporaneous reasons, and the subsequently generated DIN was not disclosed. Nevertheless, the petitioner had previously obtained release of the seized goods by representing that the applicable tax and penalty had been paid. The earlier order granted release without setting aside the seizure. Nullifying the preceding search in the present proceedings would indirectly achieve relief not obtained in the earlier proceedings.

Conclusion: The search was procedurally defective but cannot be invalidated in these proceedings; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the payment made during the search was voluntary and refundable.

Analysis: Tax recovery during search or inspection cannot be compelled before statutory demand proceedings. Payment under Section 74(5) must be preceded by the assessee's written self-ascertainment of liability, communicated to the proper officer and acknowledged in Form GST DRC-4. The assessee must also be informed in writing of the statutory option to obtain provisional release of seized goods by bond and security. A payment not meeting these safeguards is involuntary. The payment here was extracted during the search without the prescribed safeguards and included a 100% penalty inconsistent with Section 74(5).

Conclusion: The payment was not voluntary and the assessee may seek refund; whether refund is ultimately due shall depend on fresh assessment proceedings.

Final Conclusion: Fresh assessment confined to the subject matter of the writ petition must be initiated after notice and enquiry, with the intervening period excluded for limitation; entitlement to refund will abide by that assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Payment collected during GST search is involuntary unless preceded by the assessee's written self-ascertainment, observance of statutory safeguards, and a genuine opportunity to elect provisional release of seized goods.

Issues: Whether the department may retain files and documents taken during an inspection conducted under an authorisation letter that was subsequently withdrawn.

Analysis: The statutory power under Section 67 to seize and retain documents is contingent on a valid authorisation. The withdrawal of the authorisation letter removed the foundation for the inspection and consequent seizure. Having withdrawn the authorisation in proceedings challenging its validity, without reserving any liberty to retain the material obtained, the department could not retain the fruits of that action. The principles concerning admissibility of evidence procured through an illegal search did not govern the distinct question of retention of documents.

Conclusion: The department is not entitled to retain the files and documents obtained during the inspection conducted pursuant to the withdrawn authorisation and must return them immediately.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging an appealable GST adjudication order was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The asserted denial of relied-upon documents was unsupported by particulars or material showing prejudice; the record indicated that the show-cause notice and relied-upon documents had been supplied electronically and that the petitioner had responded to the hearing notice. No exceptional circumstance was established to bypass the efficacious statutory remedy. The merits of the tax demand and rival contentions were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable; the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal, with liberty to do so within the period granted.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction could be invoked to direct initiation of penalty proceedings for under-reporting of income where the assessment did not result in under-reporting and the Assessing Officer had not initiated such proceedings.

Analysis: The assessment treated the contractual receipts as bogus and disallowed tax deducted at source credit, but retained the returned income. The disallowed tax credit was already included in the disclosed turnover and returned income; hence, there was no under-reporting of income. The statutory mechanism for computing penalty for under-reporting was consequently inapplicable. Initiation of penalty proceedings depends upon the Assessing Officer's satisfaction and is discretionary, not mandatory. The assessment order was therefore not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue merely because penalty proceedings were not initiated.

Conclusion: The revisionary order directing initiation of penalty proceedings was unsustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the declared transaction value and re-determination by a uniform loading based on unrelated import data were sustainable; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period for recovery of differential customs duty was validly invoked; (iii) Whether the seized currency and investigation deposit appropriated towards the demand were liable to be released or refunded.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the declared transaction value and re-determination by a uniform loading based on unrelated import data were sustainable.

Analysis: The declared values had been scrutinised at import, enhanced where considered necessary, and the goods were finally assessed and cleared. No review of those assessments was shown. The Revenue produced no independent evidence of additional consideration, remittance trail, or hawala payment. The third-party import values relied upon were not established to be comparable in grade, quality, quantity, commercial level, or time of import, while the flat loading was adopted despite inability to ascertain any consignment-specific undervaluation. The disputed statements lacked the prescribed evidentiary safeguards and corroboration, and the electronic records were unsupported by the requisite statutory certificate and proof of integrity.

Conclusion: The rejection of transaction value, re-determination of assessable value, duty demand, confiscation, interest and penalty were unsustainable in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period for recovery of differential customs duty was validly invoked.

Analysis: The imports were made during 2007-2009, whereas the notice was issued in April 2012. The import transactions, invoices and values had been disclosed to and scrutinised by departmental officers at assessment. The evidence did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression, or intent to evade duty. The investigation materials had substantially been gathered in July 2009, but no satisfactory basis for the delayed notice or fresh subsequent material was shown.

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

Issue (iii): Whether the seized currency and investigation deposit appropriated towards the demand were liable to be released or refunded.

Analysis: No cogent material connected the seized currency with undervaluation or any customs offence. As the underlying duty demand failed, the investigation deposit could not be retained without authority of law.

Conclusion: The seized currency was directed to be released with applicable interest, and the investigation deposit was directed to be refunded with applicable interest in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The valuation proceedings lacked legally admissible and corroborative evidence, the limitation defence succeeded, and the assessee became entitled to consequential restoration of the amounts appropriated.

Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value cannot be displaced on suspicion, unverified third-party import data, uncorroborated statements, or uncertified electronic material; the extended limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether export duty exemption for iron ore fines was rightly denied by relying exclusively on a belated re-test report showing Fe content above 58%, instead of contemporaneous test reports showing Fe content below that threshold.

Analysis: Re-testing under the applicable circular requires objective and legally sustainable grounds; it cannot be used to disregard contemporaneous evidence arbitrarily. The Customs-drawn representative samples tested by CRCL, Visakhapatnam showed Fe content of 57.60%, which was independently corroborated by the load-port and discharge-port reports. Those reports had substantial evidentiary value because they were contemporaneous and based on representative sampling.

Analysis: The subsequent CRCL, New Delhi re-test was undertaken and reported more than one year after export. The unexplained delay impaired the sample's reliability, particularly because moisture loss during prolonged storage could alter the physical characteristics relevant to dry-basis Fe determination; laboratory roasting could not reconstruct moisture already lost. The Revenue did not establish that the earlier CRCL report or corroborative commercial evidence was scientifically or procedurally unreliable. The final invoice and realised export proceeds, adjusted under the contractual quality mechanism, also supported the contemporaneous evidence. Selectively accepting the sampling procedure for both laboratory reports while rejecting the earlier CRCL result without cogent grounds was arbitrary.

Conclusion: The contemporaneous CRCL, Visakhapatnam report and corroborative load-port and discharge-port reports established Fe content below 58%; the belated CRCL, New Delhi re-test could not validly support denial of exemption or levy of export duty and cess. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the Department proved deliberate under-invoicing by the appellants so as to reject the declared transaction values and sustain the consequential customs liabilities; (ii) Whether redetermination under the residual method was validly undertaken under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007; (iii) Whether the earlier Tribunal ruling in comparable Slack Wax import cases and the final appellate assessments supported the appellants' case.

Issue (i): Whether the Department proved deliberate under-invoicing by the appellants so as to reject the declared transaction values and sustain the consequential customs liabilities.

Analysis: The materials recovered in the commodity-specific investigation concerned other importers and did not establish any business nexus, common design, parallel invoices, extra consideration, clandestine remittance, or other incriminating circumstance relating to the appellants' imports. Similarity in declared prices with those of other investigated importers could not substitute importer-specific proof of under-invoicing. The burden to establish undervaluation remained on the Revenue and was not discharged by assumptions, generalized inferences, or third-party material.

Conclusion: The allegation of deliberate under-invoicing was not established; rejection of the declared transaction values and the resulting duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether redetermination under the residual method was validly undertaken under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

Analysis: Transaction value is the primary valuation basis and may be displaced only by cogent material satisfying the applicable Rules. The enhanced values lacked a reasoned and reliable valuation foundation; the adjudication did not adequately address contemporaneous imports at comparable or lower values, nor establish the comparability or reliability of private price-publication data. Further, the prescribed sequential valuation methods were not properly considered before resorting to the residual method.

Conclusion: Resort to the residual method and the resultant enhancement of assessable value were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier Tribunal ruling in comparable Slack Wax import cases and the final appellate assessments supported the appellants' case.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal ruling arising from the same wider investigation involved substantially identical deficiencies, including third-party evidence, absence of importer-specific investigation, defective rejection of transaction value, and reliance on comparable-import data. That ruling remained operative and required adherence under judicial discipline. The appellate orders setting aside enhancement for the same Bills of Entry had also attained finality and provided additional support for the appellants' position.

Conclusion: The binding comparable ruling and final assessment orders reinforced that the impugned valuation and consequential liabilities could not stand, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Declared transaction values remain legally sustainable where the Revenue fails to produce admissible importer-specific evidence of undervaluation and does not follow the mandatory valuation methodology.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared customs transaction value cannot be rejected on third-party investigation material, indicative market data, or mere suspicion without cogent importer-specific evidence of undervaluation and compliance with the sequential valuation framework.

Issues: Whether the imported plant-related items, including parts, spares and accessories used for setting up and modernising manufacturing facilities, qualified as capital goods under Notification No. 104/2009-Cus. dated 14.09.2009, and whether the 10% restriction applicable to components, spares and parts of capital goods imported earlier applied to those imports.

Analysis: The notification defines capital goods broadly to include plant, machinery, equipment and accessories required directly or indirectly for manufacture, including those required for replacement, modernisation, technological upgradation and expansion. The imported items were used in the appellant's plant-modernisation and expansion projects, which was undisputed. Applying the earlier Tribunal decisions, parts, spares and accessories having the requisite manufacturing nexus fall within this broad definition as capital goods. The 10% ceiling is confined to components, spares and parts of capital goods imported earlier; it does not restrict the import of capital goods, including accessories, which were not imported earlier.

Conclusion: The imported items were capital goods eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 104/2009-Cus. dated 14.09.2009, and the 10% restriction was inapplicable. The duty demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether duty demand against an importer using transferable DFIA licences could be sustained on the alleged fraudulent procurement of the licences by the exporter, and whether the extended limitation period was validly invoked.

Analysis: The allegations against the exporter had not been established, and the exporter's licences remained uncancelled. The respondent, as a bona fide purchaser of transferable licences, could not be attributed involvement in any fraudulent method of import merely on the alleged irregularity in the licences' procurement. In the absence of a sustainable charge on merits, invocation of the extended period of limitation also lacked justification.

Conclusion: The duty demand was unsustainable on merits and limitation; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the allegation that the imported dry dates were of Pakistani origin and were misdeclared as originating in Saudi Arabia was established by reliable evidence; (ii) Whether confiscation could be sustained for goods already cleared for home consumption and for seized goods lacking phytosanitary certificates; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed where it was not proposed in the show cause notices.

Issue (i): Whether the allegation that the imported dry dates were of Pakistani origin and were misdeclared as originating in Saudi Arabia was established by reliable evidence.

Analysis: The overseas transshipment documents were unsigned, unstamped and unauthenticated printouts, and the manner of their procurement and transmission was not satisfactorily established. The Revenue bears the burden of proving misdeclaration and could not require the importers to disprove unverified material. Foreign intelligence inputs may initiate an investigation but cannot constitute conclusive proof unless supported by authenticated, verified and independently corroborated evidence. No verification was made with the issuing authority concerning the certificates of origin or phytosanitary certificates, and no reliable financial or other evidence linked the imports to Pakistani suppliers.

Conclusion: The allegation of Pakistani origin and misdeclaration of country of origin was not established; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation could be sustained for goods already cleared for home consumption and for seized goods lacking phytosanitary certificates.

Analysis: Confiscation founded on the unproved allegation of origin misdeclaration could not survive. Goods that had been examined and cleared for home consumption could not subsequently be confiscated for alleged non-compliance with phytosanitary requirements. However, seized consignments for which the mandatory phytosanitary certificates had not been produced remained liable to confiscation under the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003. The redemption fine was required to reflect the facts, profit margin and detention and demurrage burden.

Conclusion: Confiscation and allied demands based on alleged origin misdeclaration, including in respect of cleared goods, were set aside; confiscation of the seized goods without phytosanitary certificates was sustained with a redemption option and subject to production of the required certificate. The finding is partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be imposed where it was not proposed in the show cause notices.

Analysis: The show cause notices did not propose penalties under Section 112 against the importing entities. An adjudicating authority cannot impose a penalty beyond the scope of the allegations and proposals contained in the notice.

Conclusion: Penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 without a corresponding proposal in the show cause notices were set aside; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary foundation for origin-based misdeclaration was rejected, while limited confiscation was retained only for seized consignments lacking mandatory phytosanitary documentation.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthenticated foreign customs intelligence or electronic printouts, without verified origin-certificate enquiry and independent corroboration, cannot by themselves establish customs misdeclaration; a penalty cannot be imposed on a ground not proposed in the show cause notice.

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable to challenge an Enforcement Case Information Report and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: An ECIR may be an internal administrative document and not equivalent to an FIR registered under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; consequently, precedents limiting a challenge solely under Section 482 to the ECIR itself do not restrict the constitutional jurisdiction invoked under Article 226. The constitutional power of judicial review cannot be curtailed by the administrative nomenclature of the initiating document, particularly where the ECIR generates coercive consequences including search, seizure, attachment, arrest and prosecution. A challenge to the ECIR and its consequential proceedings constitutes a single cause of action and cannot be fragmented merely because the ECIR is described as an internal record. Further, proceedings for money laundering are founded on the existence of criminal activity and proceeds of crime; where the predicate offence has ceased through acceptance of a closure report, the continuing legality of action founded on that offence is open to judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion: A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable to examine the legality of an ECIR and all consequential action founded on it. The preliminary objection to maintainability is rejected.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax was demandable on construction of residential complex services for the period April 2008 to March 2011 where tax had been discharged on the relevant consideration; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether service tax was demandable on construction of residential complex services for the period April 2008 to March 2011 where tax had been discharged on the relevant consideration.

Analysis: Construction of residential complex service became taxable only from 1 July 2010. The departmental clarifications and consistent precedent establish that such service was not taxable before that date. The documentary material, including the chartered accountant's certificate and challans, showed discharge of tax on the relevant consideration for the taxable period.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in the absence of suppression.

Analysis: The assessee was registered, paid service tax on its share of receipts, and filed ST-3 returns. These disclosed circumstances did not establish suppression so as to justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended-period demand was time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained; voluntary payments made without protest were not held refundable.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for construction of residential complex service cannot be sustained for the pre-1 July 2010 period, and the extended limitation period is unavailable where registration, returns and tax payments negate suppression.

Issues: Whether a service-tax demand based on differences between income-tax returns, ST-3 returns and unbilled revenue could be sustained where the show cause notice did not identify the taxable service, service recipient or consideration.

Analysis: Under the positive-list service-tax regime, liability had to be founded on identification of the particular taxable service, its recipient and the consideration attributable to that service. The show cause notice merely relied on audit objections, unbilled-revenue figures and discrepancies between returns, without specifying the service allegedly rendered or explaining the basis on which the amounts were taxable. Registration under several service categories did not relieve the Department of its obligation to identify the specific service forming the subject of the demand. The departmental correspondence also focused on numerical discrepancies rather than the underlying nature of the transactions.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was vague and unsustainable; consequently, the demand founded upon it could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a cheque-dishonour complaint instituted by a co-operative society through its authorised Secretary is liable to be quashed merely because the Secretary's name precedes the Society's name in the cause title.

Analysis: The complaint, statutory notice, agreement and cheque showed that the underlying transaction was between the petitioner and the Society and that the Society was the cheque payee. The Society's bye-laws and Managing Committee resolution authorised its Secretary to institute proceedings. An incorporeal complainant necessarily acts through an authorised official; the sequence in which the official's and entity's names appear in the cause title does not determine whether the complaint was instituted personally or on behalf of the entity. The cause-title formulation was, at most, a technical defect and did not affect the Secretary's authority or the maintainability of the prosecution. A disputed factual enquiry at the pre-trial quashing stage was also unwarranted in view of the statutory presumption attached to the cheque.

Conclusion: The complaint was validly instituted by the Society, as payee, through its duly authorised Secretary; the cause-title objection did not warrant quashing of the prosecution.

Issues: Whether the arrest and judicial custody of the petitioner for alleged GST evasion were illegal for non-compliance with the statutory conditions and safeguards governing arrest.

Analysis: The arrest-power must not be exercised routinely or mechanically; credible material, necessity for investigation, and risks of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses are material considerations under the departmental circular and the statutory scheme. The grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner recorded alleged facilitation of online-money-gaming transactions through fictitious entities, suppression of taxable value, routing and layering of funds, personal financial benefit, non-cooperation, and apprehended interference with the investigation. Those grounds also recorded reasons justifying custody and were found adequate. The governing principles applicable to offences under special enactments permit arrest for cognizable offences carrying a sentence below seven years where reasons and necessity for arrest are recorded.

Conclusion: The arrest was lawful and in conformity with the applicable statutory requirements and arrest guidelines; the petitioner's custody was not illegal.

Issues: Whether confiscated gold forming part of undeclared passenger baggage could be permitted to be re-exported by exercising the redemption power under Section 125 notwithstanding non-compliance with the declaration and detention requirements under Sections 77 and 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 77 mandates a truthful declaration of baggage. Section 80 is a special provision governing detention and subsequent return or re-export of dutiable or prohibited passenger baggage, and makes that benefit conditional on a true declaration under Section 77. Section 125 confers a general and discretionary power to grant redemption of prohibited confiscated goods on payment of fine; it does not independently confer a right to re-export or override the special baggage regime. Reading Section 125 to permit re-export despite non-compliance with Section 80 would render the declaration condition under Section 77 and the safeguards under Section 80 ineffective. The petitioner neither declared the gold nor sought its detention before being intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. The revisional correction of the erroneous re-export direction consequently fell within the power under Section 129DD.

Conclusion: Re-export of confiscated undeclared passenger baggage cannot be granted under Section 125 where the conditions for re-export under Sections 77 and 80 are not satisfied; the finding is against the assessee.