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: Whether penalty for alleged cash acceptance in breach of the statutory restriction could be sustained against a co-owner after the cash-receipt dates in the sale deed were rectified and no penalty was levied on the other co-owner.

Analysis: The jointly owned property had been sold with a cash component in the consideration. The registered rectification deed corrected the dates of cash receipt from 2016 to 2014. On the basis of that rectification, penalty proceedings against the other equal co-owner for the same transaction resulted in no penalty. Equal treatment was warranted for the assessee, whose position arose from the identical property transaction and cash receipts.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the order granting regular bail in a money-laundering case warranted interference on the ground that the statutory twin conditions for bail had not been satisfied.

Analysis: An appellate challenge to an order granting bail is distinct from cancellation of bail for post-release misconduct or supervening circumstances. Interference with a bail order is warranted where it is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, based on irrelevant material, or reflects non-consideration of relevant factors; a detailed adjudication of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The bail order recorded the absence of material indicating receipt of proceeds of crime by the accused, the completion of investigation, and the lack of an imminent trial, while imposing conditions to protect the proceedings. It therefore disclosed application of mind to the requirements of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and the factors governing bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The bail order was neither illegal nor perverse and did not warrant being set aside merely because the enforcement authority disputed satisfaction of the statutory twin conditions.

Issues: Whether the ex parte appellate orders sustaining the addition and penalty should be set aside where the assessee did not comply with hearing notices.

Analysis: Appellate adjudication under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must conform to the principles of natural justice. Although notices had been issued and remained unanswered, the possibility of circumstances causing the non-compliance could not be ruled out. A further opportunity was therefore warranted for production of evidence and information on the disputed addition and consequential penalty.

Conclusion: The ex parte appellate orders were set aside and the matters were remitted for fresh adjudication after affording adequate opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether rejection of the applications for registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5) on grounds of non-commencement of charitable activities, filing delay, non-submission of activity report or Darpan registration, and inadequate opportunity of hearing was sustainable.

Analysis: The applications initially declared that no charitable activity had commenced, but the record disclosed that the first expenditure towards startup-incubation support was made while the applications were pending. That subsequent activity required verification and consideration for determining the genuineness of charitable activities. The delay-condonation explanation filed with Form 10AB had not been addressed, despite the availability of condonation measures under section 119(2)(b). An activity note had been filed, and no statutory requirement for Darpan registration for purposes of sections 12AB or 80G(5) was identified. The disputed absence of a written show-cause notice and effective hearing also required observance of principles of natural justice through a speaking fresh determination.

Conclusion: The stated grounds did not justify rejection without verification of the subsequent activity and consideration of the delay-condonation request; both applications require fresh determination in accordance with law after due verification and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether the Court could entertain anticipatory-bail petitions notwithstanding a transit-bail direction to approach the jurisdictional court; (ii) Whether custodial interrogation was required for alleged GST-evasion offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether the Court could entertain anticipatory-bail petitions notwithstanding a transit-bail direction to approach the jurisdictional court.

Analysis: A jurisdictional court for anticipatory bail includes both the High Court and the Court of Session, which exercise concurrent jurisdiction. A transit-bail direction to approach the jurisdictional court did not confine the applicants to the Court of Session alone.

Conclusion: The anticipatory-bail petitions were maintainable before the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether custodial interrogation was required for alleged GST-evasion offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The alleged economic offence carried a maximum punishment of five years and was compoundable. The material documentary, financial and electronic records had substantially been secured by the authorities; the petitioners had established business roots and undertook to cooperate with the investigation. These circumstances did not make custodial interrogation indispensable.

Conclusion: Custodial interrogation was not required, and anticipatory bail was granted.

Final Conclusion: The anticipatory-bail protection continued subject to safeguards, with the daily reporting requirement modified to reporting only when required by the authorities.

Issues: Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised despite the availability of a statutory appeal against the order for provisional release of imported goods.

Analysis: The impugned order was independently appealable under the statutory mechanism. No exceptional circumstance was established to bypass that remedy; the pendency and stay of an appeal concerning a prior adjudication involving similar goods did not alter the availability of the appellate remedy against the impugned order.

Outcome: Writ jurisdiction was declined in view of the available statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether a subsequent service-tax adjudication order and consequential recovery action for the same tax period could be sustained after the earlier appellate adjudication had held that the services were exempt and no service tax was payable.

Analysis: The earlier appellate adjudication for the relevant periods had determined that works executed exclusively for Government Departments were exempt under Notification No. 25/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 and that the relevant works were also within the threshold for small-scale service-provider exemption under Notification No. 33/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012. It had consequently found no taxable service, no liability to file statutory returns, and no sustainable demand or late fee. The later order nevertheless confirmed demand for the same period on the basis of income-tax returns and Form 26AS. The two proceedings concerned the same tax periods, while the earlier appellate determination had already resulted in setting aside the demand and refund of the amount deposited.

Conclusion: The subsequent order-in-original and the garnishee recovery notice for the same tax period could not be sustained and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether a BOT road-concessionaire may deduct a scientifically estimated provision for future major repairs where the contractual obligation to undertake such repairs has accrued.

Analysis: The concession agreement imposed enforceable maintenance obligations, including periodic major repairs, consequences of breach, and an obligation to cure defects on termination. The provision was founded on a detailed scientific estimate, and its reliability was supported by subsequent actual expenditure. A business liability that has arisen in the relevant accounting year remains deductible though its quantification and discharge occur later, provided the obligation is present and the estimate is reasonably certain; it is not thereby a contingent liability.

Conclusion: The provision for major repairs was an allowable deduction and could not be disallowed merely because the expenditure was to be incurred in future. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the transfer-pricing adjustment for management support services could be conclusively sustained without examination by the Transfer Pricing Officer of the complete evidence concerning rendition of services, commercial need and benefit, cost allocation, and arm's-length benchmarking.

Analysis: Determination of the arm's length price under Section 92C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 10AB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, requires verification of the evidence relevant to the need, benefit and rendition tests, including the service agreement, costs incurred, allocation keys and benchmarking material. An earlier-year decision in the assessee's case is to be followed where the factual matrix, evidentiary record and contractual arrangements are identical; however, each assessment year remains independently assessable. The complete material now relied upon had not been examined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, and appellate adjudication on the arm's-length price without that factual verification was not appropriate.

Conclusion: The transfer-pricing adjustment was set aside and the arm's-length-price determination was restored to the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh adjudication after examination of the evidence and opportunity of hearing. The merits of the adjustment were left open, with consistency to be maintained if the facts are found identical to the earlier year.

Issues: (i) Whether a moratorium imposed against a corporate debtor precludes prosecution of its director and authorised signatory for cheque dishonour; (ii) Whether the Petitioner made a deliberate suppression or misrepresentation in obtaining exemption from personal appearance.

Issue (i): Whether a moratorium imposed against a corporate debtor precludes prosecution of its director and authorised signatory for cheque dishonour.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 restricts proceedings against the corporate debtor, but does not extend that protection to natural persons made statutorily liable under Sections 141(1) and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The personal penal liability of a director or signatory for acts undertaken before the moratorium is not retrospectively extinguished by suspension of the board's powers under Section 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Where the complaints contain specific averments concerning the signatory's role and issuance of the cheques, defences concerning knowledge, due diligence, or inability to operate the corporate debtor's accounts require determination on trial and cannot be conclusively resolved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Conclusion: The moratorium does not, by itself, bar prosecution of the Petitioner as director and authorised signatory; the challenge to the summoning orders fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the Petitioner made a deliberate suppression or misrepresentation in obtaining exemption from personal appearance.

Analysis: The pleadings identified the Petitioner as a director and authorised signatory and relied on the settlement document bearing his signature. The record did not establish that the recital regarding a director's prior resignation, apparently associated with a co-accused, resulted from a deliberate false statement or suppression by the Petitioner.

Conclusion: No adverse finding of deliberate suppression or misrepresentation is warranted against the Petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaints against the Petitioner may proceed to trial, where liability and available statutory defences must be adjudicated on evidence independently of the observations in these petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A corporate insolvency moratorium protects the corporate debtor, not natural persons whose personal statutory liability for cheque dishonour arises under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issues: (i) Whether fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the period allowed for replying to the show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice; (ii) Whether uploading the show-cause notice and adjudication order in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab constituted due communication.

Issue (i): Whether fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the period allowed for replying to the show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Sections 73 and 75 require an opportunity of hearing where an adverse determination is contemplated. Although time was allowed for filing a reply, the personal hearing was scheduled before the last date for submission of that reply, depriving the petitioners of an effective opportunity to respond before hearing.

Conclusion: Fixing the personal hearing before expiry of the reply period violated principles of natural justice, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading the show-cause notice and adjudication order in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab constituted due communication.

Analysis: The notices and adjudication order were uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. Such uploading is not recognised as due communication for proceedings under Section 73.

Conclusion: Uploading in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not amount to due communication, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not stand because the statutory hearing process and communication requirements were not validly complied with; the matter must be determined afresh after reply and a properly scheduled hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication entailing adverse consequences is invalid where the hearing is fixed before expiry of the reply period or where communication is made only through the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab rather than through legally valid service.

Issues: (i) Whether profits from offshore sales of CKD kits, raw materials, spare parts and CBU cars to the Indian affiliate or customers were taxable in India through a business connection; (ii) Whether the Indian affiliate constituted a fixed place or agency permanent establishment of the German enterprise under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement; (iii) Whether any profits from the relevant sales were attributable to activities in India.

Issue (i): Whether profits from offshore sales of CKD kits, raw materials, spare parts and CBU cars to the Indian affiliate or customers were taxable in India through a business connection.

Analysis: Under Section 9(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only income attributable to operations carried out in India may be brought to tax. The sales were concluded outside India on a principal-to-principal basis, with title and risk passing outside India. The Indian affiliate conducted its own business, including assembly and subsequent sale, while the non-resident undertook no manufacturing, sale or distribution operations in India in respect of those supplies. No distinguishing facts or legal change from the earlier years was shown.

Conclusion: The Indian affiliate did not constitute a business connection, and the profits from the relevant sales were not taxable in India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Indian affiliate constituted a fixed place or agency permanent establishment of the German enterprise under the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

Analysis: Article 5 requires that the foreign enterprise carry on its business through a fixed place at its disposal, or through a qualifying dependent agent. The Indian affiliate's premises were not at the disposal of the assessee; it had no authority to negotiate or conclude contracts for the assessee, did not habitually secure orders or maintain the assessee's stock for delivery, and merely facilitated communications in direct CBU sales. Its activities were independent and preparatory or auxiliary to such direct sales.

Conclusion: The Indian affiliate was neither a fixed place permanent establishment nor an agency permanent establishment of the assessee in India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether any profits from the relevant sales were attributable to activities in India.

Analysis: Article 7 permits taxation only of profits attributable to a permanent establishment. Since no business connection or permanent establishment existed and no operations of the assessee relating to the sales were undertaken in India, the basis for attributing business profits to India failed.

Conclusion: No profits from the sales of CKD kits, raw materials, spare parts or CBU cars were attributable to India. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The deletion of the addition for profits allegedly attributable to Indian activities was sustained for both assessment years.

Ratio Decidendi: Offshore sales by a non-resident are not taxable in India where the Indian affiliate neither performs operations giving rise to the sales income nor satisfies the conditions for a fixed place or agency permanent establishment.

Issues: Whether limited interim access to frozen funds should be permitted for payment of employees' outstanding salaries and statutory dues of the holding company pending adjudication of the appeals.

Analysis: The appellant's holding company did not dispute the genuineness of the salary and statutory liabilities. The applicant, though having no employees or independent business operations, had received substantial funds from its holding company and prima facie owed amounts to it. The balance of convenience supported permitting essential verified payments. Requiring default in remittance of TDS and GST dues was not justified where the Central Government would be the beneficiary of those payments, while safeguards could preserve the purpose of the freezing action.

Outcome: Limited interim relief was granted, subject to verification of employee salary details and statutory dues by the respondent and consequent bank authorization for legitimately due payments. The merits of the pending appeals were left open.

Issues: Whether the proper officer who issued a combined order under Section 73 for operations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra could reject the waiver application concerning Maharashtra for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 128A(1)(b) applied because the tax liability had been discharged before the notified date and the waiver application was filed within time. Explanation (b) to Rule 164 and Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST identify the proper officer for the waiver application as the proper officer for recovery under Section 79. Neither Section 79 nor Chapter XVIII prescribes a basis for identifying a different proper officer in these circumstances. The use of "the proper officer", the requirement of a single waiver application, and the combined Section 73 order indicated that there was no statutory basis to decline jurisdiction over the Maharashtra component.

Conclusion: The rejection of the waiver claim relating to Maharashtra on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was unsustainable and was set aside for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the later assessment order for the same assessment period, founded on the same mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns, was duplicative.

Analysis: The two assessment orders concerned the same assessment period and the same return mismatch. Although the later order did not separately bifurcate SGST and CGST, the amounts under both orders tallied.

Conclusion: The later assessment order was duplicative and could not survive; it was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether a search assessment could validly be framed in the name of an assessee who had died before the commencement and completion of the second-round assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The notices initiating the second-round proceedings and the assessment order were issued and passed in the name of the deceased assessee, who had died before those proceedings. The appellate record also established that the legal heir had pursued the appeal and that the assessing authority had completed the assessment for non-representation without bringing the legal heir on record. An assessment against a non-existent person is invalid in law.

Conclusion: The assessment proceedings for the assessment year were null and void ab initio, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reassessment notices issued for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 under Section 148 were valid notwithstanding the CBDT instructions governing selection of cases for such action.

Analysis: The additional legal ground, founded on facts already on record, was admissible because it went to the root of the assessments. The reasons recorded for reopening contained figures corresponding with the physical information supplied by the investigation wing on 29.01.2021 and received by the Assessing Officer on 02.02.2021, rather than the materially different figures shown on the Insight portal. The reassessments were therefore founded on information received before 04.03.2021. Under the CBDT instruction dated 04.03.2021, as clarified on 12.03.2021, the relevant potential cases based on investigation reports were those flagged through the prescribed process after 04.03.2021; no other category could be selected for action under Section 148 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices violated the binding CBDT instructions and were quashed; the consequential reassessments were also quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether entries in impounded Tally data represented unexplained cash loans or investments of the assessees taxable under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the bank-credit loan received by an assessee from a lender was unexplained money taxable under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether entries in impounded Tally data represented unexplained cash loans or investments of the assessees taxable under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tally ledgers showed that the credit balances in the assessees' names primarily arose from payments and general entries for construction and other expenditure of the educational trust, rather than from cash-loan receipts. Statements recorded during survey established that college fees were collected and entrusted to the assessees for safekeeping, expenditure and bank deposits on behalf of the trust. The impounded data functioned as a controlling account for receipts and payments at the college, while the regular accounts were maintained at the trust's head office. Reconciliation showed that expenditure not recorded during the year was entered in the regular accounts at year-end. No corroborative material established that the assessees advanced funds from unaccounted personal income or that the trust accepted any repayment liability to them.

Conclusion: The entries did not establish unexplained cash loans or investments of the assessees; the additions under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were deleted in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the bank-credit loan received by an assessee from a lender was unexplained money taxable under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The amount was credited to the assessee's bank account, requiring a satisfactory explanation of its source. The explanation that the lender accumulated periodic debit-card withdrawals and redeposited them before advancing the loan was found inconsistent with human probability. The lender's creditworthiness and the source of the bank deposit were not satisfactorily established.

Conclusion: The loan credit remained unexplained money taxable under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the addition was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Additions founded on the impounded entries were unsustainable because they reflected trust funds handled for trust expenditure, whereas the separately credited loan amount remained without a satisfactory source explanation.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained investment requires material showing that the assessee's own unaccounted funds were invested; entries reflecting expenditure from funds handled for another entity do not by themselves establish such investment.