Issues: (i) Whether an arbitral award-holder's claim, not lodged in the corporate debtor's CIRP and not included in the approved resolution plan, survives and permits continuation of the challenge to the award; (ii) Whether the amount deposited in court as security for stay of enforcement of the award is refundable to the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan.

Issue (i): Whether an arbitral award-holder's claim, not lodged in the corporate debtor's CIRP and not included in the approved resolution plan, survives and permits continuation of the challenge to the award.

Analysis: An amount awarded under an arbitral award constitutes a claim and the award-holder is a creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The approved resolution plan binds creditors, while claims not forming part of that plan stand extinguished. The award-holder did not submit its claim to the resolution professional; consequently, its claim was not incorporated in the approved plan. Continuance of the Section 34 challenge could not revive an extinguished claim.

Conclusion: The claim under the arbitral award stood extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, and the challenge to the award became academic, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount deposited in court as security for stay of enforcement of the award is refundable to the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan.

Analysis: A court deposit required as a condition for stay secures the award amount pending adjudication and does not transfer ownership of the money to the award-holder. Release remains subject to the court's control and may be conditioned or modified. Such deposited funds remain assets of the corporate debtor, notwithstanding custody by the court. Since the underlying award claim was extinguished, no unconditional right to the secured deposit remained with the award-holder.

Conclusion: The deposited amount, together with accrued interest, is refundable to the petitioner, in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Approval of the resolution plan eliminated the unsubmitted award claim and preserved the corporate debtor's entitlement to funds deposited merely as security.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim under an arbitral award that is not submitted and incorporated in an approved resolution plan is extinguished, and money deposited in court solely as security for that award remains an asset of the corporate debtor.

Issues: Whether insolvency proceedings initiated on an operational creditor's application could continue after full settlement of the claim, discharge of the only other creditor's claim, and acknowledgment of a pre-existing dispute.

Analysis: The operational creditor's claim was fully and finally settled and it consented without objection to reversal of the admission order. The record also established that the claim concerning transportation charges had been disputed before issuance of the demand notice, particularly regarding the distance measurements forming the basis of billing. The only claim received during the process, relating to provident-fund dues, had also been paid in full. In these circumstances, there was no subsisting creditor claim requiring continuation of the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The operational creditor's insolvency application could not be sustained, as the debt stood settled and a genuine pre-existing dispute existed before the statutory demand notice.

Issues: (i) Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation; (ii) Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund; (iii) Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers; (iv) Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount; (v) Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed; (vi) Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Issue (i): Whether units booked after 30.06.2018 could be excluded from the anti-profiteering investigation.

Analysis: The ITC benefit is project-specific where construction commenced before GST and continued after its implementation. A post-GST purchaser is entitled to the ITC benefit attributable to post-GST inputs used in construction. Fresh price negotiation or maintenance of average prices, without documented evidence of a commensurate ITC reduction, does not establish that the benefit was passed on.

Conclusion: Post-GST booked units were not excludable; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the net profiteered amount was refundable to identified homebuyers or depositable in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: Deposit in the Consumer Welfare Fund is a residuary measure applicable only where recipients genuinely cannot be identified. Buyer-wise project records identified the 128 eligible homebuyers, and absence of a complaint, current contact details, or transfer of project operations did not render them unidentifiable. The supplier's statutory liability to pass on the benefit survives project transfer.

Conclusion: The net profiteered amount must be returned to the identified homebuyers and cannot be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether excess benefit passed to some buyers could be set off against liability owed to other buyers.

Analysis: The obligation to pass on ITC benefit is owed separately to each recipient. Excess payment to one group of customers cannot discharge the obligation owed to different customers. The statutory framework does not empower recovery of alleged excess benefit from consumers or adjustment of that excess against liabilities due to other recipients.

Conclusion: Set-off of excess benefit passed to 1039 customers against the liability to the remaining 128 customers was refused; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether GST on the inflated base price formed part of the profiteered amount.

Analysis: The excess amount paid by a homebuyer includes GST charged on the inflated base price. Even if that tax was remitted to the Government, it was an additional cost borne by the buyer and must be restored to place the buyer in the position that would have prevailed had the ITC benefit been passed on.

Conclusion: Inclusion of GST at 12% in the profiteered amount was upheld; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether interest was payable and the date from which it was to be computed.

Analysis: Rule 133(3)(b) validly provides for interest at 18% per annum on the amount not passed on to recipients. Since the project-wide computation did not permit identification of the exact date of collection of excess amount for each square foot, the date of payment of the last instalment by each buyer was adopted as the appropriate starting point.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% per annum is payable from the respective date of the last instalment paid by each eligible homebuyer until refund; the finding is against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Whether penalty under Section 171(3A) was applicable.

Analysis: The entire contravention period ended on 30.10.2019, before Section 171(3A) came into force on 01.01.2020. A penal provision cannot be applied retrospectively to a completed period of contravention.

Conclusion: No penalty under Section 171(3A) is payable; the finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The developer remained liable to return the net unpassed ITC benefit of Rs. 40,99,917 to the 128 identified homebuyers, with interest, while no penal consequence could be imposed for the pre-enforcement contravention period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transitional real-estate project, ITC benefit must be passed on project-wise to every eligible recipient, and liability owed to one recipient cannot be neutralised by excess benefit given to another.

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was admissible before the amendment to Rule 12 effective from 20.01.2014; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the credit.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit on duty-paid inputs procured from units availing exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-CE was admissible before the amendment to Rule 12 effective from 20.01.2014.

Analysis: The CENVAT credit scheme requires harmonious reading of its provisions. Credit is available where the input has suffered duty, is used in manufacture of final products or provision of output services, and is received under prescribed documents. As these conditions were undisputedly fulfilled, and the Rules contained no express pre-amendment prohibition against such credit, the later express provision could not be read as restricting credit for the earlier period.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit was admissible before 20.01.2014; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

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

Analysis: The records had been subjected to audits, returns were regularly filed, and refund claims had been processed. Revenue produced no evidence of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The dispute also involved interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, in which circumstances the extended period was not invocable.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disputed input credit remains available and the demand is time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for CENVAT credit are fulfilled and no express prohibition exists, a subsequent amendment expressly allowing such credit does not itself justify denial for the preceding period; extended limitation requires proof of suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: (i) Whether freight incurred for FOR destination sales up to the buyers' premises formed part of the assessable value for central excise duty; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand despite prior departmental knowledge of the freight exclusion and conflicting decisions on the place of removal.

Issue (i): Whether freight incurred for FOR destination sales up to the buyers' premises formed part of the assessable value for central excise duty.

Analysis: Under FOR destination sales, delivery occurs at the buyers' premises. Freight and transportation charges incurred up to that place are consequently includible in the assessable value. The merits issue stood covered against the assessee.

Conclusion: Freight up to the buyers' premises was includible in the assessable value; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the demand despite prior departmental knowledge of the freight exclusion and conflicting decisions on the place of removal.

Analysis: The earlier notice concerning the same exclusion of freight and cartage had already placed the material facts within the Department's knowledge. Further, conflicting decisions on the place of removal made the assessee's belief regarding non-inclusion of freight reasonably possible. The same known facts could not subsequently constitute suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The entire demand was beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable and the demand was time-barred; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although freight was liable to be included in assessable value for FOR destination sales, the time-barred demand, interest and penalty could not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department already possesses the relevant facts, their repetition in a subsequent notice cannot establish suppression for invoking the extended limitation period; a bona fide view supported by conflicting decisions also negates intent to evade duty.

Issues: (i) Whether an independent Chartered Accountant certifying statutory e-Forms is an officer or officer in default amenable to direct prosecution by the Registrar of Companies; (ii) Whether prosecution under Section 628 read with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 can proceed without specific material showing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance by the certifying professional; (iii) Whether the complaint filed in 2020 regarding e-Forms and allotments made between 2011 and 2014 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether an independent Chartered Accountant certifying statutory e-Forms is an officer or officer in default amenable to direct prosecution by the Registrar of Companies.

Analysis: The statutory definitions of officer and officer in default concern persons involved in corporate governance, management, and internal administration. Section 2(60)(v) of the Companies Act, 2013 excludes a person giving advice to the Board in a professional capacity. An external Chartered Accountant certifying statutory forms is not thereby transformed into an internal corporate officer. However, exclusion from officer status does not create an absolute immunity from prosecution under a provision directed at any person where active criminal complicity is prima facie shown.

Conclusion: An independent professional certifier is not an officer or officer in default merely by certifying statutory e-Forms, though prosecution for a separate offence may lie upon material establishing active criminal complicity.

Issue (ii): Whether prosecution under Section 628 read with Section 75 of the Companies Act, 1956 can proceed without specific material showing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance by the certifying professional.

Analysis: Section 628 requires a knowingly false material statement or intentional concealment. The complaint attributed falsification, mala fides, and physical filing of the forms to the company director, while alleging only that the professional certified the forms. It contained no foundational allegation or material indicating personal knowledge of falsity, deliberate concealment, or connivance. The primary responsibility for accurate filing rested on the company and its directors under Rule 10 of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014.

Conclusion: Prosecution of the certifying professional could not proceed because the complaint disclosed no specific material establishing mens rea, knowledge, or active connivance.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint filed in 2020 regarding e-Forms and allotments made between 2011 and 2014 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged offence under Section 628 read with Section 75 carried a maximum punishment of two years and was therefore subject to the three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaint was instituted long after the relevant filings, without an application or sufficient basis for condonation under Section 473 of that Code. The date of filing of the complaint governs computation, and stale prosecution cannot be initiated after expiry of the prescribed period without valid condonation.

Conclusion: The complaint was incurably barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The discharge of the surviving independent professional stands sustained for absence of the essential factual basis for criminal liability and for expiry of the statutory limitation period; this determination does not preclude proceedings in accordance with law against the company or its internal management.

Ratio Decidendi: A professional certifier may incur criminal liability for false statutory filings only upon specific material demonstrating knowing falsity or intentional participation, and a prosecution initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period without condonation is legally untenable.

Issues: Whether a director may be prosecuted under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for fraudulent availment of input tax credit by a company without arraigning the company as an accused.

Analysis: Section 137 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is pari materia with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The statutory phrase making persons in charge liable "as well as the company" makes commission of the offence by, and prosecution of, the company a condition precedent for fastening vicarious criminal liability on its director. The alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit was by the company, which alone was the registered person entitled to take input tax credit under Section 16, while the director's alleged role arose solely from his position in the company. The company had not been arraigned in the complaint.

Conclusion: Prosecution of the director in his personal capacity without arraigning the company is not maintainable; the criminal complaint and consequential proceedings cannot continue against him.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 1,856 days in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was liable to be condoned; (ii) Whether the claim for foreign tax credit in respect of taxes paid in Germany should be restored for verification.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 1,856 days in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was attributable to personal difficulties, disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic, income-tax portal glitches, and the complexity of the foreign tax credit claim. The record also showed that Form No. 67 was available and that the assessee had pursued resolution of the tax demand. An assessee need not explain every day of delay; the length of delay is not decisive where sufficient cause is established.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the refusal to condone it was reversed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for foreign tax credit in respect of taxes paid in Germany should be restored for verification.

Analysis: The assessee claimed credit for German taxes paid on stock-option income, while accepting that credit could only be allowed proportionately to the Indian tax attributable to that income. The claim required substantiation and examination of its admissibility under the applicable law and the India-Germany double taxation arrangement.

Conclusion: The foreign tax credit claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and grant of admissible credit, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate remedy was revived and the foreign tax credit claim was directed to be determined afresh on verification.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantial delay is liable to be condoned where the cumulative circumstances establish sufficient cause; the duration of delay alone is not determinative.

Issues: Whether leasing railway wagons under the Own Your Wagon Scheme constitutes taxable Supply of Tangible Goods Service or a deemed sale.

Analysis: The applicable test is whether the arrangement transfers possession and effective control of the goods to the lessee. The Larger Bench ruling governing leases of wagons to the Railways establishes that transfer of possession and effective control renders the transaction outside the levy under Supply of Tangible Goods Service. The record, however, required verification at the original stage as to whether VAT/sales tax had actually been discharged on the lease rentals as a deemed sale.

Conclusion: Lease rentals for wagons transferred to the Railways with possession and effective control are not liable to service tax under Supply of Tangible Goods Service; the original authority must verify payment of VAT/sales tax, and upon such verification the service-tax proceedings must be dropped.

Issues: Whether the employer could be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax on leave travel concession payments involving foreign travel, where binding interim directions prohibited such deduction during the relevant period.

Analysis: Although exemption for leave travel concession involving a foreign leg stood unavailable on merits, the interim directions of the Madras High Court remained operative throughout the relevant period and required the employer not to deduct tax on the payments. The statutory obligation to deduct tax at source had to yield to those binding judicial directions. A subsequent decision settling the exemption issue on merits could not retrospectively impose default liability for a period in which the employer acted in compliance with the interim orders.

Conclusion: The employer could not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1), and consequential interest under section 201(1A) was not chargeable.

Ratio Decidendi: An employer acting in compliance with binding interim judicial directions restraining tax deduction cannot be subjected to default consequences for that non-deduction, notwithstanding a later merits determination against the underlying exemption.

Issues: Whether an assessment could validly be framed by the Assessing Officer to whom jurisdiction stood transferred without that officer issuing a notice under section 143(2).

Analysis: The original notice under section 143(2) had been issued by a different assessing officer. The officer who completed the assessment had neither issued a fresh notice under section 143(2) nor been shown to have received jurisdiction through an order under section 127 or a jurisdictional transfer by the CBDT. Issuance of notice by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer was treated as a mandatory condition for a valid assessment, and its absence was not a curable defect.

Conclusion: The assessment was without jurisdiction and was quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether beneficiation/washing of coal was taxable as Business Auxiliary Service before 1 June 2007.

Analysis: Beneficiation and washing of coal formed part of mining activity. The subsequent introduction of a distinct taxable category for services in relation to mining from 1 June 2007, without any corresponding change in the definition of Business Auxiliary Service, established that the activity was not covered by Business Auxiliary Service before that date. The settled decisions on the same activity were applicable.

Conclusion: Beneficiation/washing of coal was not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service before 1 June 2007; the demand was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an activity is brought within a newly introduced specific taxable service category without amendment to an earlier general category, it cannot be subjected to tax under that earlier category for the pre-introduction period.

Issues: Whether the ex parte order rejecting the refund application, passed without considering the reply to the show-cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, was sustainable.

Analysis: The impugned refund-rejection order was admittedly made ex parte without considering the petitioner's reply to the show-cause notice. This denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present its case and offended the principles of natural justice. The appropriate course was to restore the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration from the stage of the reply, after fresh notice and hearing.

Conclusion: The ex parte refund-rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication after affording a hearing and passing a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the delay of four days beyond the condonable period for filing the statutory appeal could be condoned.

Analysis: Section 107(1) prescribes a three-month period for appeal, while Section 107(4) permits entertainment of an appeal for a further month on sufficient cause, making the aggregate period 120 days. Although the appeal was filed four days beyond that period, the assessment order determined valuable rights of the assessee; therefore, relief was considered expedient.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned, the appellate dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether implementation of GST conferred an additional input tax credit benefit on the Respondent in respect of the relevant real-estate project, requiring a commensurate reduction in prices under the anti-profiteering provisions.

Analysis: The investigation was confined to the project in which construction continued in both the pre-GST and post-GST periods. After verification of eligible pre-GST credit, post-GST input tax credit, transitional credit, purchase values and reversals attributable to exempt supplies, the eligible-credit-to-purchase-value ratio was found to have decreased from 10.44% in the pre-GST period to 10.08% in the post-GST period. The Tribunal found no reason to differ from the final investigation report.

Conclusion: No additional input tax credit benefit accrued upon implementation of GST; therefore, no contravention of the anti-profiteering requirement was established and no amount was required to be passed on to homebuyers through a commensurate price reduction.

Issues: Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, substantially corresponding with disclosed turnover from a genuine medical business, could be assessed in their entirety as unexplained money.

Analysis: The business existence, turnover and linkage of the bank deposits with declared sales stood substantially supported by business licences, VAT/GST records, books, purchase and sale documents, and financial statements. The turnover broadly matched the VAT returns, the deposits were broadly in line with declared sales, and no defect in the sales or VAT returns was identified. Since the deposits formed part of regular business turnover, their gross amount could not be treated as unexplained money without recognising the expenditure and profit component inherent in the business receipts. Having regard to the nature of trade and comparable profit ratios, profit at 5% of the bank deposits was found appropriate.

Conclusion: The entire cash-deposit addition was deleted; the deposits were to be treated as business receipts and profit was to be assessed at 5% of the deposits after allowing the applicable basic exemption limit.

Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction could be exercised to set aside an assessment allowing deduction of ESOP/ESAR expenditure when the Assessing Officer had examined the claim and adopted a legally sustainable view.

Analysis: The Assessing Officer had sought detailed information regarding the ESOP/ESAR claim, considered the assessee's explanation and the applicable judicial position, and accepted the deduction. The identical claim had also been allowed in the assessee's earlier assessment year. Admission of an SLP against the decision supporting the claim did not render that decision inoperative in the absence of a stay or reversal. The revisional authority identified neither any specific defect in the assessment enquiry nor any failure of application of mind; its direction for fresh verification was founded solely on a different view of an issue pending before the Supreme Court. This constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than a case of lack of enquiry.

Conclusion: The statutory conditions for revision under section 263 were not satisfied; the revisional order was quashed and the original assessment was restored, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition under Section 56(2)(x) based on the difference between the purchase consideration and stamp duty value could be finalised without considering the assessee's objection and request for reference to the District Valuation Officer.

Analysis: The assessee specifically disputed adoption of the stamp duty value and sought valuation by the District Valuation Officer, while furnishing a Registered Valuer's report substantially supporting the purchase consideration. Neither revenue authority dealt with that request. Finalising the assessment without such reference despite the objection and valuation material was unjustified.

Conclusion: The addition cannot be sustained without consideration of the objection and a reference to the District Valuation Officer; the matter is restored for fresh determination in accordance with law, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interest under section 201(1A) could be levied upon the assessee for non-deduction of tax at source on payments to GMADA despite Form 26A certifying that GMADA had accounted for the receipts, filed its return, and paid the due tax.

Analysis: Form 26A certified that the recipient had included the payments in its receipts/income, filed its return, and discharged the tax liability. The adopted principle is that, where the deductee has paid the tax, the deductor cannot be subjected to recovery of the tax demand; interest is sustainable only for the period up to payment of tax by the deductee. On the material placed, the levy of interest was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The interest levied under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) was set aside, in favour of the assessee.