Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted where the accused had undergone substantial pre-trial incarceration, cognizance had not been taken, and the trial was likely to take considerable time.

Analysis: The relevant bail inquiry was whether continued custody remained necessary pending trial. The appellant had remained incarcerated for about one year and three months; cognizance had not been taken and the trial was at a nascent stage. The anticipated duration of trial, coupled with bail granted to arrested co-accused and the non-arrest of several others, did not justify continued incarceration.

Conclusion: Continued incarceration was unwarranted, and regular bail was granted on terms to be fixed by the Trial Court.

Issues: (i) Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone a delayed appeal beyond the outer limit under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the Department's appeal remained maintainable after it implemented the order restoring registration.

Issue (i): Whether the First Appellate Authority could condone a delayed appeal beyond the outer limit under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(1) prescribes a three-month period for filing an appeal, while Section 107(4) permits condonation only for a further one month upon sufficient cause. The First Appellate Authority, being a statutory authority, has no inherent or plenary power to extend the outer limitation period. Directions issued by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the facts of particular writ proceedings do not enlarge the Authority's jurisdiction. Equity or hardship cannot override an express statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The First Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the maximum period under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Department's appeal remained maintainable after it implemented the order restoring registration.

Analysis: The Department had acted upon the impugned order, restored the registration, and enabled continuation of business and return filing. Reversal after such implementation would unsettle the assessee's intervening commercial transactions and legal position. Estoppel and orderly administration precluded the Department from seeking ineffective relief against an order it had already implemented.

Conclusion: The Department could not maintain its challenge after implementing the restoration of registration, as no effective relief could be granted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the condonation of delay exceeded the First Appellate Authority's statutory jurisdiction, the restoration of registration remains unaffected because the Department's own implementation precludes effective appellate relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the express outer limit fixed by law; however, where the Department has implemented the impugned restoration of registration, it cannot subsequently obtain relief that would unsettle that implemented position.

Issues: (i) Whether additions for unexplained capital introduction and unreconciled bank credits could be sustained without verification of the assessee's claimed sources and bank entries; (ii) Whether GST late fee for delayed payment is disallowable as expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law.

Issue (i): Whether additions for unexplained capital introduction and unreconciled bank credits could be sustained without verification of the assessee's claimed sources and bank entries.

Analysis: Section 69 applies where an investment is unrecorded and the assessee fails to offer a satisfactory explanation of its nature and source. The capital introduced in the proprietary business was disclosed, and the assessee identified personal-bank funds, loan repayment, LIC maturity proceeds and FD/OD withdrawals as sources. Reconciliation of bank entries, borrower confirmation and documents supporting the stated receipts were material to verification of the explanation. If those records establish the claimed sources, the addition under section 69 and the bank-credit difference addition cannot survive.

Conclusion: The source-of-capital and bank-credit additions were restored for fresh verification after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish relevant evidence, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether GST late fee for delayed payment is disallowable as expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law.

Analysis: Explanation 1 to section 37(1) excludes an expense only where its purpose is itself an offence or is prohibited by law. GST late fee is a statutory payment for delay in payment of tax and compensates for the consequence of such delay; it is not expenditure incurred for an unlawful purpose.

Conclusion: GST late fee is allowable as business expenditure and its disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The capital-source and bank-credit matters require evidence-based verification, whereas the statutory GST late fee remains deductible.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory late fee paid for delayed tax payment is not expenditure incurred for a purpose that is an offence or prohibited by law merely because it arises from a delay under the taxing statute.

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned on sufficient cause; (ii) Whether the indexed cost of acquisition must include the cost of the building transferred along with the land; (iii) Whether deduction under section 54 is available for investment in two adjoining residential flats purchased as a single residential accommodation for assessment year 2012-13.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned on sufficient cause.

Analysis: The assessee's advanced age, difficulty in accessing electronic communications, and prompt action after becoming aware of the appellate order established bona fide and sufficient cause. No material indicated mala fides or a deliberate delay. Limitation provisions were applied liberally to advance substantial justice.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the indexed cost of acquisition must include the cost of the building transferred along with the land.

Analysis: The transferred property comprised both land and the structure standing on it. Although the Assessing Officer had accepted the historical cost attributable to the building, the indexed cost computation omitted that component without any basis. The building's existence and its accepted cost were not disputed; hence, excluding its indexed cost produced an inconsistent capital-gains computation.

Conclusion: The indexed cost must include the building's accepted and allowable cost with corresponding indexation. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains, and the issue was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether deduction under section 54 is available for investment in two adjoining residential flats purchased as a single residential accommodation for assessment year 2012-13.

Analysis: For the relevant assessment year, section 54 did not contain the later express restriction of investment in one residential house in India. The expression "a residential house" permitted exemption where multiple units substantively formed one residential accommodation. The flats were adjoining, purchased on the same date, and intended for use as one residential unit; the later amendment effective from 01.04.2015 did not apply.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 54 was allowable for investment in both adjoining flats, subject to verification of the actual investment and satisfaction of the remaining statutory conditions, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The capital gains require recomputation after granting indexation for the allowable building cost and deduction for investment in both adjoining flats.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the pre-amendment section 54 regime, investment in adjoining residential units acquired and intended as a single residential accommodation may qualify for exemption as investment in a residential house.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit relating to acquisition of leasehold rights in an industrial plot could be denied as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression in respect of such credit.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit relating to acquisition of leasehold rights in an industrial plot could be denied as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Assignment or transfer of leasehold rights in a plot allotted by the industrial development corporation constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and does not qualify as a supply under Section 7(1)(a), read with Clause 5(b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III, nor is it chargeable under Section 9. Section 17(5)(d) presupposes a lawfully taxable inward supply and applies only to goods or services received for construction of immovable property. No construction activity was involved in the transfer of leasehold rights.

Conclusion: The input tax credit could not be characterised as blocked credit under Section 17(5)(d). The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression in respect of such credit.

Analysis: Since the underlying transaction was not taxable and the credit was not ineligible under Section 17(5)(d), the statutory prerequisites for fraud-based recovery under Section 74(1) were absent. The tax collected on the subsequent transfer of leasehold rights had also been deposited with the Government.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 74(1) on allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression was unsustainable. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A demand founded on the premise that acquisition of leasehold rights constitutes taxable construction-related inward supply lacks statutory basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of leasehold rights in land is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a taxable supply; consequently, the blocked-credit restriction for construction of immovable property cannot be applied to such a transaction.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 despite the statutory twin conditions, having regard to prolonged incarceration and delay in investigation and trial.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 imposes additional restrictions on bail but does not create an absolute bar. The petitioner had remained in judicial custody for over two years; charges had not been framed in the money-laundering case, the predicate-offence charge sheet had not been filed despite substantial delay, and further investigation was expected to continue. Since adjudication of the money-laundering case depended upon the scheduled offence, there was no reasonable prospect of an early trial. Continued detention in those circumstances would impair the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The apprehension of witness influence could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to regular bail notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether the contractual dispute concerning reimbursement of DVAT was arbitrable; (ii) Whether DVAT was payable and reimbursable for goods procured for execution of the works contract.

Issue (i): Whether the contractual dispute concerning reimbursement of DVAT was arbitrable.

Analysis: A distinction applies between a statutory determination of tax liability, rate, classification, or exemption, which lies within the tax-authority framework, and an inter se contractual dispute over which party must bear or reimburse a tax. The dispute arose from a contractual reimbursement clause and concerned the parties' reciprocal financial obligations; it neither bound the taxing authority nor displaced its statutory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reimbursement dispute was arbitrable, and the jurisdictional objection failed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether DVAT was payable and reimbursable for goods procured for execution of the works contract.

Analysis: Article 366(29A)(b) of the Constitution of India treats transfer of property in goods involved in a works contract as a deemed sale. Section 7 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 excludes sales occurring in the course of inter-State trade or import, determined by Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The requisite inquiry was whether the movement or import of the goods was occasioned by, or integrally connected with, the works contract. The contractual specifications, approval of suppliers, pre-inspection, customs and excise exemption certificates, custom-made character of the goods, and identification of the consignee established that nexus. Incorporation of the panels into sectioning and sub-sectioning posts did not sever it. The arbitral view was supported by the material and was plausible; reappreciation of evidence or substitution of another view was impermissible under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Conclusion: The procurement constituted sales in the course of import or inter-State trade, DVAT was not applicable, and no contractual reimbursement arose, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The arbitral determination disclosed neither patent illegality nor a basis for intervention under the limited supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral awards.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral tribunal may determine inter se contractual liability for tax reimbursement, and goods procured or imported pursuant to an integral contractual nexus remain inter-State or import sales despite their incorporation in the execution of a works contract.

Issues: Whether ex parte GST assessment orders based on show-cause notices uploaded only on the GST portal, without affording a personal hearing, could be sustained.

Analysis: Although uploading a notice on the portal is a recognised mode of service, where repeated notices receive no response, the proper officer must explore other modes available under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, preferably registered post, to ensure effective service. Mere portal-based service in such circumstances, followed by confirmation of the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing, amounts to an ineffective formality and denies a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessments, having been made without effective service and a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing, could not be sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether defendants 1 and 2 were contractually liable to pay the GST arrears and consequential interest arising from the assignment consideration, and whether the plaintiff could recover that amount from them; (ii) Whether the statutory authorities could proceed against the plaintiff for GST arrears notwithstanding the contractual liability of defendants 1 and 2; (iii) Whether a money decree for the claimed sum could be made against defendants 3 and 4.

Issue (i): Whether defendants 1 and 2 were contractually liable to pay the GST arrears and consequential interest arising from the assignment consideration, and whether the plaintiff could recover that amount from them.

Analysis: The deed of assignment fixed consideration inclusive of GST, and the evidence established that the entire consideration was paid by the plaintiff. The invoices, ledger accounts and communication from defendants 1 and 2 established their undertaking to remit GST. Their failure to remit the GST component despite receiving the full consideration resulted in the GST demand and consequential interest liability asserted against the plaintiff.

Conclusion: Defendants 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to reimburse the plaintiff for the GST arrears and consequential interest forming the suit claim. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory authorities could proceed against the plaintiff for GST arrears notwithstanding the contractual liability of defendants 1 and 2.

Analysis: Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permitted the statutory authorities to proceed against the plaintiff for GST arrears even though defendants 1 and 2 had contractually undertaken to pay the tax. The challenge to the demand remained pending before the appellate authority, whose outcome would govern any further statutory action.

Conclusion: The contractual obligation of defendants 1 and 2 did not prevent statutory proceedings against the plaintiff, subject to the pending statutory appeal. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a money decree for the claimed sum could be made against defendants 3 and 4.

Analysis: Defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded only at the stage of arguments, and the prayer for relief was not amended after their impleadment. The material established a contractual money claim only against defendants 1 and 2, without a basis for a civil money decree against the statutory authorities.

Conclusion: No money decree could be issued against defendants 3 and 4. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The contractual remedy against the suppliers for their GST default remains available to the plaintiff, without limiting the independent statutory process concerning the GST demand.

Ratio Decidendi: A private contractual allocation of GST liability does not restrict statutory recovery from a person liable under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but supports that person's recovery from the contractually liable supplier.

Issues: (i) Whether supplier discounts or incentives disclosed in Column 5(O) of GSTR-9C could, by themselves, justify a demand of output tax from the recipient; (ii) Whether the Revenue could characterise the discounts as consideration for promotion or marketing services at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether supplier discounts or incentives disclosed in Column 5(O) of GSTR-9C could, by themselves, justify a demand of output tax from the recipient.

Analysis: Section 15(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regulates exclusion of discounts from the supplier's taxable value; it does not itself permit the recipient to reduce its own outward taxable turnover. Determination requires verification of the pre-existing agreement, invoice linkage, supplier-issued credit notes, reporting of any value reduction by the supplier, and the consequent applicability of input tax credit reversal. Mere disclosure of an adjustment in the reconciliation statement cannot establish an output-tax liability unless the recipient actually reduced its outward turnover or tax liability in the relevant returns.

Conclusion: No output-tax demand can rest solely on the Column 5(O) disclosure; the tax and input-tax-credit consequences require verification of the underlying documents and return treatment.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could characterise the discounts as consideration for promotion or marketing services at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The allegation that the incentives represented taxable promotion or marketing services was neither part of the show-cause notice nor a basis on which taxable turnover for any such outward service was determined in the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The new characterisation as promotion or marketing services cannot be sustained at the appellate stage and is against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: Taxability and input-tax-credit consequences must be determined after a detailed verification of the underlying agreements, credit notes, invoices, and GST returns, confined to the allegations in the existing show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A recipient's disclosure of supplier discounts in a GST reconciliation statement does not by itself create output-tax liability, and a demand cannot be sustained on a new taxable-supply theory not contained in the show-cause notice.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings for a period preceding approval of a corporate insolvency resolution plan could be initiated against the corporate debtor on the basis of fresh information.

Analysis: Approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 extinguished past claims, including statutory dues, relating to the period before its approval. The binding effect of the approved plan prevented a fresh reassessment from being commenced against the corporate debtor for that period, notwithstanding subsequently received information concerning alleged pre-plan transactions.

Conclusion: Reassessment proceedings for the pre-resolution-plan assessment year could not be initiated against the assessee; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the notice under section 274 read with section 270A was invalid for failing to specify the charge; (ii) Whether the difference between the income processed under section 143(1)(a) and the assessed income constituted under-reported income; (iii) Whether penalty at 200% for misreporting could be sustained where no case under section 270A(9) was established.

Issue (i): Whether the notice under section 274 read with section 270A was invalid for failing to specify the charge.

Analysis: The notice expressly identified the charge as under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting. It therefore disclosed the basis on which penalty proceedings were initiated and was not vague.

Conclusion: The notice was valid; decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the difference between the income processed under section 143(1)(a) and the assessed income constituted under-reported income.

Analysis: Sections 270A(2) and 270A(3) treat the difference between income assessed for the first time and income determined under section 143(1)(a), where a return has been furnished, as under-reported income. The assessed income exceeded the income processed under section 143(1)(a), and the resulting difference was consequently under-reported income.

Conclusion: The differential income constituted under-reported income; decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty at 200% for misreporting could be sustained where no case under section 270A(9) was established.

Analysis: Enhanced penalty under section 270A(8) requires misreporting falling within the instances specified in section 270A(9). The assessment and penalty orders did not identify or establish any applicable instance of misreporting under those provisions, and merely levied penalty at the enhanced rate on the under-reported income.

Conclusion: Penalty at 200% for misreporting was unsustainable; penalty was directed to be levied at 50% of tax on the under-reported income, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty is confined to the rate applicable to under-reporting of income and cannot be imposed at the enhanced rate prescribed for misreporting.

Ratio Decidendi: Enhanced penalty for misreporting under section 270A can be imposed only upon establishing that the case falls within a specified instance of misreporting under section 270A(9); under-reporting alone does not justify the enhanced rate.

Issues: (i) Whether written acceptance of enhanced import value precludes the importer from contesting reassessment; (ii) Whether declared transaction value may be rejected and enhanced solely on undisclosed contemporaneous-import/NIDB data without compliance with the statutory customs-valuation framework.

Issue (i): Whether written acceptance of enhanced import value precludes the importer from contesting reassessment.

Analysis: Written acceptance of reassessment under the statutory scheme relieves the proper officer only of the obligation to issue a speaking order. It does not amount to a waiver of the importer's statutory right to challenge either the formation of opinion for rejecting the declared value or the reassessment on merits. The acceptance letters did not disclose the alleged contemporaneous-import particulars, and could not conclusively establish an informed abandonment of the right to contest valuation.

Conclusion: Written acceptance of the enhanced value did not bar the importer from challenging the reassessment; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether declared transaction value may be rejected and enhanced solely on undisclosed contemporaneous-import/NIDB data without compliance with the statutory customs-valuation framework.

Analysis: Rejection of declared transaction value requires adherence to the mandatory procedure requiring formation and communication of grounds for reasonable doubt, followed by valuation under the prescribed sequential rules. Reliance solely on NIDB or contemporaneous-import data, without disclosed particulars, independent corroborative material, and cogent justification, does not satisfy those requirements.

Conclusion: The declared value could not lawfully be displaced solely on the basis of acceptance letters or unsupported NIDB/contemporaneous-import data; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment was legally unsustainable because mandatory customs-valuation safeguards were not followed and the importer's statutory challenge rights were not extinguished by written acceptance.

Ratio Decidendi: Written acceptance of reassessment waives only issuance of a speaking order and not the statutory right to challenge it; declared customs value cannot be enhanced solely on NIDB data without mandatory valuation safeguards and cogent supporting material.

Issues: Whether Boiler Support Steel Structures imported in completely knocked-down condition are classifiable as parts of boilers under tariff item 84029090, rather than as iron or steel structures under heading 7308 or prefabricated buildings under heading 9406.

Analysis: Under Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff, classification turns on the heading terms and relevant Section and Chapter Notes. Note 2(b) to Section XVI covers other parts suitable for sole or principal use with a particular machine, while heading 7308 excludes constructions clearly identifiable as machinery parts. The goods were fabricated to boiler-specific drawings, with predetermined dimensions, drilled connection points, structural attachments and unique tags corresponding to designated positions in the boiler support arrangement. Their objective identifiability, load-bearing and suspension functions, and inability to be used for another purpose without substantial re-engineering established their sole or principal use with the designated boiler system. The associated platforms, galleries, walkways and maintenance structures formed part of the same specifically engineered boiler-support arrangement. Heading 9406 was inapplicable because the goods neither constituted nor possessed the essential character of a prefabricated building.

Conclusion: The Boiler Support Steel Structures are identifiable machinery parts suitable for sole or principal use with boilers and are classifiable under tariff item 84029090 as other parts of boilers; classification under headings 7308 and 9406 is excluded.

Outcome: The application for condonation of delay was rejected and the special leave petition was dismissed as time barred.

Issues: Whether draft and final assessment orders passed without granting the requested personal hearing through video conferencing were valid.

Analysis: Section 144B(6)(vii) and (viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 incorporates the principles of natural justice in faceless assessment and contemplates a personal hearing through video conferencing where requested. The requested facility could not be availed owing to technical glitches and not due to any default of the assessee; yet the draft assessment order was passed without providing the requested hearing.

Conclusion: The draft assessment order and consequential final assessment order were invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment, demand and penalty notices issued against a company dissolved before issuance of the reassessment notice were valid.

Analysis: The company stood dissolved under Section 302(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 before the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued. Dissolution ended its existence as a juristic person. A valid notice under Section 148 is the foundation for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147; therefore, no reassessment could be initiated or completed against the dissolved entity. Framing an assessment against a non-existent entity is a substantive jurisdictional illegality and not a procedural defect capable of cure under Section 292B.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 148 and all consequential reassessment proceedings, assessment order, demand notice and penalty notice were void and were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether interim protection against suspension of the appellant's operations was warranted pending the contemplated inquiry.

Analysis: A strong prima facie case for interim relief was found. The suspension was prima facie not warranted pending inquiry, and the prescribed timeline under Regulation 11(3) appeared not to have been complied with. The merits of any pending inquiry were directed to remain uninfluenced by the impugned appellate order.

Outcome: The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law, and interim stay was granted against the suspension order and consequential public notice pending inquiry.

Issues: (i) Whether owners of seized gold sold without prior notice under Section 150(1) are, if successful in the confiscation proceedings, entitled to its fair market value on the date of release rather than the sale proceeds received by Revenue; (ii) Whether the value of the gold should be released immediately against bank guarantees while Revenue's statutory appeal remains pending.

Issue (i): Whether owners of seized gold sold without prior notice under Section 150(1) are, if successful in the confiscation proceedings, entitled to its fair market value on the date of release rather than the sale proceeds received by Revenue.

Analysis: Section 150(1) mandates prior intimation to the owner before disposal of seized gold. That requirement was admittedly not followed. Revenue cannot rely on the amount realised in the 2021 sale where the owners were deprived of the statutory prior-notice protection.

Conclusion: If the petitioners succeed in the confiscation proceedings, they are entitled to the fair market value of the gold as on the date of the appellate decision directing release, and not merely the historical sale proceeds. Revenue cannot re-agitate this valuation issue before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue (ii): Whether the value of the gold should be released immediately against bank guarantees while Revenue's statutory appeal remains pending.

Analysis: A departmental appeal under Section 129D(2) against the order declining confiscation remains pending. The merits of that appeal, including the objections concerning abatement and confiscation, were left for the appellate authority. An expedited determination with procedural safeguards was regarded as sufficient to balance the parties' interests.

Conclusion: The request for immediate disbursement against bank guarantees is rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) must determine the departmental appeal on or before 31 December 2026, following which the prescribed conditional payment directions will apply.

Final Conclusion: Disposal of seized gold without the mandated prior notice fixes the applicable valuation, upon the owners' eventual success, at the prevailing fair market value rather than the amount realised on sale; the unresolved confiscation dispute remains for appellate adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seized gold is disposed of without the statutory prior notice required to its owner, the owner who ultimately succeeds is entitled to its fair market value at the time release becomes due, rather than the historical sale realisation.