Issues: (i) Whether a sub-contractor remains liable to service tax where the principal contractor has discharged tax on the services; (ii) Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for the demand.

Issue (i): Whether a sub-contractor remains liable to service tax where the principal contractor has discharged tax on the services.

Analysis: The Larger Bench ruling established that payment of service tax by the principal contractor does not extinguish the sub-contractor's separate obligation to discharge tax on the consideration received by it.

Conclusion: The sub-contractor is independently liable to pay service tax notwithstanding payment of tax by the principal contractor; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended limitation period could be invoked for the demand.

Analysis: The notice did not contain substantive evidence establishing wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The liability of sub-contractors had been subject to contradictory Tribunal decisions until settled by the Larger Bench, rendering the matter interpretational. Such circumstances did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not invocable; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Although the substantive tax liability of a sub-contractor was affirmed, the demand failed because the show-cause notice was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The extended limitation period cannot be invoked in an interpretational dispute absent evidence of wilful suppression with intent to evade tax.

Issues: (i) Whether freight expenditure could be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) where sub-contractors furnished Form 15-I and Form 15-J was filed with a non-jurisdictional Commissioner; (ii) Whether the freight expenditure could alternatively be wholly disallowed under section 37(1) without rejection of accounts or estimation of profits.

Issue (i): Whether freight expenditure could be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) where sub-contractors furnished Form 15-I and Form 15-J was filed with a non-jurisdictional Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 194C(3), read with Rule 29D, exempted the contractor from tax deduction where eligible sub-contractors furnished verified declarations in Form 15-I. Verification of the declaration was the sub-contractor's obligation, not that of the contractor receiving it. Section 40(a)(ia) applies only where tax was deductible but was not deducted or deposited. Filing Form 15-J with a Commissioner lacking territorial jurisdiction was a procedural lapse and did not revive a substantive obligation to deduct tax. The revenue authorities had not disputed receipt of the declarations or undertaken available statutory inquiry to verify the truck owners and declarations.

Conclusion: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was impermissible; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the freight expenditure could alternatively be wholly disallowed under section 37(1) without rejection of accounts or estimation of profits.

Analysis: The transport-business income was accepted, and corresponding freight expenditure could not be entirely denied merely because doubts were raised about the declarations. In the absence of rejection of the books of account and a reasoned estimation of profit, a wholesale disallowance of the expenditure under section 37(1) was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The alternative disallowance under section 37(1) was impermissible; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory exemption from tax deduction on the eligible freight payments remained available, and the accepted business receipts could not support a wholesale denial of the corresponding expenditure.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural defect in furnishing particulars after a valid statutory declaration does not create a tax-deduction obligation or attract disallowance for non-deduction, and accepted business income cannot justify wholesale expense disallowance without rejection of accounts and proper profit estimation.

Issues: Whether the penalty order under Section 270A and the consequential demand notice under Section 156 for Assessment Year 2020-21 were liable to be quashed as covered by a coordinate-bench decision.

Analysis: The exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was sought against an order imposing penalty under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the consequential demand under Section 156 of that Act. The coordinate-bench decision had quashed an equivalent penalty order and consequential demand notice. The applicability of that decision to the present matter was undisputed.

Conclusion: The penalty order under Section 270A and the consequential notice of demand under Section 156 were quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Validity of reassessment jurisdiction based on satisfaction under Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Applicability of the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) where the embedded profit element was below Rs. 50 lakh; (iii) Validity of reopening for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 beyond six years where alleged undisclosed purchases were not an asset; (iv) Whether third-party digital tally data constituted entries in the assessee's books of account under Section 149(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (v) Effect of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after a delayed return in response to notice under Section 148; and (vi) Validity of additions founded on third-party material without granting requested cross-examination.

Issue (i): Validity of reassessment jurisdiction based on satisfaction under Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Under the amended reassessment regime, the requirement is information suggesting escapement of income and satisfaction, with prescribed approval, that seized information relates to the assessee. The seized tally information was linked to alleged unrecorded purchases, compared with the assessee's return, and supported by approval. Similarity of satisfaction notes across years and the fact that the tally data related to multiple entities did not invalidate the satisfaction; no separate independent enquiry was statutorily required at this stage.

Conclusion: The satisfaction under Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 was valid; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Applicability of the extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) where the embedded profit element was below Rs. 50 lakh.

Analysis: Income chargeable to tax from alleged unrecorded purchases was confined to the embedded profit element rather than the gross purchase amount. On that basis, the escaped income for each assessment year from 2014-15 to 2018-19 was below Rs. 50 lakh. Escaped income of separate assessment years could not be aggregated to meet the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b) was unavailable, and the notices for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were time-barred; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Validity of reopening for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 beyond six years where alleged undisclosed purchases were not an asset.

Analysis: For a non-searched person, the relevant block period was reckoned from initiation of action against that person. The relevant years fell beyond the six-year period. Further, alleged undisclosed purchases did not fall within the restricted statutory definition of an asset for extending the period under the fourth proviso to Section 153A.

Conclusion: The reopenings for assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 were invalid and void ab initio; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether third-party digital tally data constituted entries in the assessee's books of account under Section 149(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The seized digital tally was maintained by third parties, related to multiple entities, and was not reflected in books maintained by the assessee. The allegation itself was of purchases outside the assessee's books. Third-party tally records could not be treated as entries in the assessee's books of account for invoking Section 149(1)(b)(iii).

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 149(1)(b)(iii) was legally unsustainable, and the notices and consequent reassessments for assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19 were invalid; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): Effect of non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after a delayed return in response to notice under Section 148.

Analysis: The return in response to the Section 148 notice was filed beyond the period allowed and no extension was sought. Under the third proviso to Section 148, such delayed return was not deemed to be a return under Section 139. Consequently, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2), applicable to a return under Section 139 or in response to Section 142(1), was not attracted.

Conclusion: Non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) did not invalidate the assessment for assessment year 2014-15; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (vi): Validity of additions founded on third-party material without granting requested cross-examination.

Analysis: The additions rested on seized third-party data and statements. The requested cross-examination was denied despite uncertainty over the identity recorded in the seized ledger and absence of corroborative material directly linking the entries to the assessee. Unverified third-party material and statements, not tested by cross-examination, lacked evidentiary value for sustaining the additions.

Conclusion: Denial of the requested cross-examination violated natural justice and vitiated the assessments for assessment years 2014-15 to 2021-22; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessments were unsustainable because the extended limitation conditions failed for the relevant years and, independently, the additions were based on third-party material without effective cross-examination. The merits of the additions were not adjudicated.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment based on adverse third-party statements or material cannot be sustained where a specifically requested cross-examination is denied and no corroborative evidence reliably connects that material with the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) was justified for failure to substantiate supplier balances and purchases; (ii) Whether estimation of gross profit at 13% of turnover was justified.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) was justified for failure to substantiate supplier balances and purchases.

Analysis: Although ledger accounts and a reconciliation explaining the difference between net purchases and creditor balances on account of GST were produced, confirmations from suppliers were not furnished. Certain suppliers' complete addresses and PAN details were also unavailable. The purchases consequently remained unverifiable, constituting a defect warranting rejection of the books of account.

Conclusion: Rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) is upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether estimation of gross profit at 13% of turnover was justified.

Analysis: The declared gross profit rate of 0.87% was substantially lower than the rates of comparable entities and the 1% to 5% range indicated for the relevant trade. Given the substantial increase in turnover and the comparable gross profit data, a 4% gross profit rate was considered fair and reasonable instead of 13%.

Conclusion: Gross profit shall be estimated at 4% of the declared turnover, and the addition shall be recomputed accordingly, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of books remains valid, but the profit addition is restricted through application of a 4% gross profit rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where purchases remain unverifiable for want of supplier confirmations, rejection of books may be sustained; however, the resulting gross profit estimate must be reasonable and supported by relevant comparable industry data.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee's suo motu disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) absolved it from compliance with tax-deduction obligations under Chapter XVII-B; (ii) Whether the assessee could be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax on year-end expense provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee's suo motu disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) absolved it from compliance with tax-deduction obligations under Chapter XVII-B.

Analysis: Section 40(a)(ia) operates as a deterrent disallowance for failure to comply with tax-deduction requirements. Its application does not displace the independent obligation to deduct and deposit tax under Chapter XVII-B or the consequences prescribed by Section 201(1).

Conclusion: A suo motu disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from compliance with tax-deduction obligations under Chapter XVII-B. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax on year-end expense provisions.

Analysis: The gross disclosures in the tax audit report were insufficient to establish the precise tax-deduction liability. Determination requires verification of the manner in which provisions were created, whether particular vendors and amounts were credited, whether liabilities were based on estimates or invoices, whether the provisions were reversed, and whether tax was deducted when invoices were subsequently received.

Conclusion: The question whether the assessee is an assessee in default requires fresh factual verification by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The deletion of the tax and interest demand cannot be sustained without examination of the underlying vendor-wise provisions and the asserted subsequent tax-deduction compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Disallowance of expenditure for non-deduction of tax does not extinguish the independent tax-deduction obligation; liability for year-end provisions under the tax-deduction regime depends on verified facts concerning identifiable payees, credited sums, and subsequent compliance.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies to a pending application against personal guarantors under Section 95 and consequently removes the interim moratorium; (ii) Whether limited protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be granted pending arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether Section 96(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 applies to a pending application against personal guarantors under Section 95 and consequently removes the interim moratorium.

Analysis: Section 96(4), effective from 26 May 2026, excludes applications concerning personal guarantors to corporate debtors from the operation of Section 96. The expression "where an application is filed" encompasses applications already filed and continuing before the adjudicating authority. Its application to pending proceedings is retroactive, not retrospective: it operates prospectively from its commencement upon an existing and continuing status, without impairing vested rights. The provision is agnostic to the identity of the applicant who initiated the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The interim moratorium under Section 96 ceased to operate from 26 May 2026 in respect of the pending applications against the personal guarantors; the Section 9 petition was not barred. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether limited protective measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be granted pending arbitration.

Analysis: The requested measures were confined to disclosure of assets and restraint against their dissipation, rather than a direction to deposit the claimed amount. Given the admitted arbitration agreements and the equitable character of Section 9 jurisdiction, these limited measures were reasonable pending commencement of arbitration.

Conclusion: Asset disclosure and restraint against alienation or dissipation of the disclosed assets pending arbitration are granted. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Pending insolvency applications against personal guarantors do not prevent recourse to narrowly tailored arbitral protective measures after Section 96(4) became operative.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment prospectively regulating the consequences of a pending and continuing proceeding is retroactive rather than retrospective where it does not impair vested rights.

Issues: Whether reassessment could be initiated after a completed scrutiny assessment on the basis of bank-credit information already available to and examined by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The original assessment under Section 143(3) followed detailed queries requiring bank-account particulars and production of bank statements. The acceptance of the returned income therefore reflected conscious consideration of the cash deposits and corresponding RTGS transactions. Information from the insight portal merely repeated the bank-credit information already available during the original assessment. Where one possible view of an examined transaction had been taken in scrutiny assessment, a successor Assessing Officer could not reopen the matter merely because of a different view. Further, the recorded reasons omitted the material jurisdictional fact of the completed scrutiny assessment and did not identify any undisclosed transaction, despite the bank statements having been furnished. The assertion of failure to make full and true disclosure was consequently unsupported, and the approval process was deprived of the complete factual position.

Conclusion: The reassessment initiation was without jurisdiction, being founded on a change of opinion and an unsubstantiated allegation of non-disclosure; the consequential reassessment and demand could not survive.

Issues: (i) Whether rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) and estimation of profit at 15% of turnover were justified; (ii) Whether the allegation of sales below ready reckoner value supported an inference of unaccounted consideration; (iii) Whether the survey statement, alleged cash transactions, and Income Declaration Scheme disclosure justified the addition.

Issue (i): Whether rejection of the books of account under Section 145(3) and estimation of profit at 15% of turnover were justified.

Analysis: The comparison with a substantially larger real-estate entity was not a valid comparable analysis because the assessee executed a sole redevelopment project and incurred tenant-rent expenditure peculiar to that activity. The project completion method and revenue recognition adopted by the assessee were not shown to be unreliable, particularly where statutory approvals and the occupation certificate remained pending. No specific defect in the audited books established that their correctness or completeness warranted rejection under Section 145(3).

Conclusion: Rejection of the books of account and estimation of profit at 15% of turnover were unjustified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegation of sales below ready reckoner value supported an inference of unaccounted consideration.

Analysis: The relevant ready reckoner valuation was required to be considered on the booking date rather than solely on the agreement date. The complete sales data demonstrated that the sale consideration was not below the applicable ready reckoner value, and this position remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The allegation of undervalued sales and unaccounted consideration was not established, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the survey statement, alleged cash transactions, and Income Declaration Scheme disclosure justified the addition.

Analysis: A survey statement estimating income before the close of the financial year could not, without corroborative evidence, displace audited accounts where no specific error was shown. The cash transactions relied upon pertained to earlier years and were covered by the Income Declaration Scheme disclosure; the assessee had only one redevelopment project, supporting the linkage of that disclosure to the project.

Conclusion: The survey statement and alleged cash transactions did not justify the addition, and credit for the Income Declaration Scheme disclosure could not be denied, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The addition founded on rejected books, an unsuitable profit comparison, alleged undervaluation, and an uncorroborated survey disclosure was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Books of account cannot be rejected and income estimated merely on an unsuitable comparable, alleged accounting irregularities, or an uncorroborated survey disclosure, absent demonstrated defects in the accounts and reliable supporting material.

Issues: (i) Whether Nikhil Adhesives Limited and Solvo-chem (India) Private Limited were liable to be included as comparables for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's purchase of specialty fertilizers from associated enterprises; (ii) Whether notional interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises could be separately adjusted where working capital adjustment had been granted.

Issue (i): Whether Nikhil Adhesives Limited and Solvo-chem (India) Private Limited were liable to be included as comparables for determining the arm's length price of the assessee's purchase of specialty fertilizers from associated enterprises.

Analysis: Directions of the DRP are binding while giving effect to them. Where audited segmental data identifies a comparable's trading segment and its segmental margin is used, an entity-level trading-income filter is inapplicable. Nikhil Adhesives Limited had separately ascertainable audited results for its trading segment; its entity-level trading revenue composition was therefore immaterial. Solvo-chem (India) Private Limited was engaged exclusively in trading during the relevant year, as evidenced by nil material-consumption cost, and satisfied the trading-income filter.

Conclusion: Both companies shall be included in the final set of comparables and the arm's length price shall be recomputed; the corresponding adjustment shall be deleted if the assessee's margin falls within the permissible range. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether notional interest on delayed receivables from associated enterprises could be separately adjusted where working capital adjustment had been granted.

Analysis: Although delayed receivables may constitute a separate international transaction requiring benchmarking, a separate adjustment is unwarranted where the working capital adjustment in the transfer-pricing analysis already captures the differential impact of outstanding receivables vis-a -vis comparables.

Conclusion: The addition towards notional interest on delayed receivables shall be deleted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The transfer-pricing analysis must use the identified trading-segment comparables, and no independent receivables adjustment survives where its effect is subsumed in the working capital adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: Audited segmental data prevails over entity-level revenue filters for functional comparability, and delayed receivables cannot be separately benchmarked where their pricing impact has already been accounted for through a working capital adjustment.

Issues: Whether the amendment effective from 15.06.2026 could be relied upon to decline consideration of provisional release of goods imported under a Bill of Lading dated before that amendment.

Analysis: The amendment did not expressly operate retrospectively. A statutory notification operates prospectively unless retrospective effect is expressly provided. Since the Bill of Lading predated the amendment's commencement, the amendment could not govern the import. The request also concerned similar goods for which provisional release had previously been directed, and no distinguishing feature was established.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be invoked to refuse consideration of provisional release; the request must be considered under Section 110A.

Issues: Whether the educational institution was entitled to complete exemption from property tax on the basis of a registration certificate under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 136(c) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 wholly exempts an educational institution registered under Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while an institution without such registration may receive a rebate of up to fifty per cent. The certificate produced was issued to an institution at Kunkuri, Raigarh district, and did not establish Section 12A registration of the petitioner-school at Seepat Road, Bilaspur. The two institutions could not be treated as the same entity for claiming the exemption.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to full property-tax exemption; the demand notices were valid. The issue was decided against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether income accumulated under section 11(2) in financial year 2016-17 could be utilised in financial year 2022-23 notwithstanding the omission, effective from 01.04.2023, of the provision permitting utilisation in the immediately following year; (ii) Whether the claim for such utilisation could be disallowed through an adjustment under section 143(1).

Issue (i): Whether income accumulated under section 11(2) in financial year 2016-17 could be utilised in financial year 2022-23 notwithstanding the omission, effective from 01.04.2023, of the provision permitting utilisation in the immediately following year.

Analysis: The conditions governing the accumulation were those prevailing when the accumulation was made. The pre-amendment provision allowed utilisation during the prescribed five-year period or in the immediately succeeding year. The subsequent omission was prospective and could not curtail the period already available for an accumulation made in financial year 2016-17.

Conclusion: The accumulated income was validly eligible for utilisation during financial year 2022-23. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for such utilisation could be disallowed through an adjustment under section 143(1).

Analysis: The adjustment was founded on the legal view that utilisation in financial year 2022-23 was impermissible, not on an arithmetical error or a communicated patent inconsistency. Questions concerning the applicable utilisation period, prospective operation of the amendment, and reconciliation of statutory forms required legal interpretation or factual verification and fell outside the scope of a prima facie adjustment.

Conclusion: The adjustment treating the utilised accumulated income as chargeable under section 115BBI was unsustainable and had to be deleted. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Accumulations made under the earlier statutory regime retain the then-available period for application, and a legally debatable claim requiring examination cannot be denied through summary return processing.

Ratio Decidendi: A prospective amendment removing the immediately succeeding year for application of accumulated charitable income cannot retrospectively curtail that period for accumulations made under the pre-amendment law; a claim dependent on such debatable legal interpretation is not amenable to adjustment under section 143(1).

Issues: Whether the petitioner satisfied the statutory twin conditions for regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The material indicated that the petitioner, as a senior corporate functionary, was allegedly involved in undervalued asset sales using revoked board resolutions and in the diversion and concealment of unaccounted sale proceeds. The alleged use of judicially permitted asset liquidation as a means to generate and siphon unrecorded cash was treated as conduct falling within money laundering, not a mere corporate or civil irregularity. The digital material and unresolved money trail did not support a finding, at the bail stage, that the petitioner was not guilty. The challenge to arrest based on alleged defects in electronic evidence did not establish an undeniable illegality capable of displacing the statutory bail conditions. The asserted age, medical condition, detention period and parity were insufficient, particularly given the petitioner's alleged distinct role, absconding co-accused, ongoing investigation, and risks of witness intimidation and evidence manipulation.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of money laundering or that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail; regular bail was therefore refused.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to release of the detained perishable goods as their owner under Section 129(1)(a); (ii) Whether the direction requiring auction of the goods and permitting the appellant to participate in that auction was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to release of the detained perishable goods as their owner under Section 129(1)(a).

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had specifically found that the appellant was not the owner and that the owner could not be traced. The appellant's assertion that his statement disclaiming connection with the registered concern was obtained by coercion involved matters of evidence not suitable for determination in the appeal. Since the goods were perishable, a person who was not the owner could seek release under Section 129(1)(b).

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to release of the goods under Section 129(1)(a), but could approach the authority for release under Section 129(1)(b). This is against the assessee on the claim of ownership-based release.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction requiring auction of the goods and permitting the appellant to participate in that auction was sustainable.

Analysis: The finding that the appellant was not the owner did not justify directing an auction in which the appellant was to participate. The direction concerning release of the vehicle to its registered owner was separately sustained.

Conclusion: The auction direction and the direction requiring the appellant to participate in the auction were set aside. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellant may pursue release of the perishable goods as a non-owner, while the dispute concerning the detention authority's jurisdiction remains open for fresh adjudication in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudicating authority has found that a claimant is not the owner of detained perishable goods, release cannot be claimed under the owner-specific provision, though the claimant may invoke the provision applicable to a non-owner.

Issues: (i) Whether a writ direction for an independent investigation into alleged corruption by Customs officials was warranted; (ii) Whether compensation for delayed clearance of the imported consignment could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction; (iii) Whether directions could be issued requiring the Government and Customs authorities to formulate policies for cryptocurrency-mining-equipment imports and to introduce a mechanism penalising departmental delay.

Issue (i): Whether a writ direction for an independent investigation into alleged corruption by Customs officials was warranted.

Analysis: The discrepancies in description and declared value of the imported goods required verification and assessment by Customs authorities as part of their statutory functions. The material did not establish illegal gratification, manipulation of records, abuse of authority, mala fides, or any credible circumstance supporting a reasonable suspicion of corruption. Administrative delay, without material connecting it to extraneous considerations or abuse of power, could not justify an extraordinary direction for an independent investigation.

Conclusion: No direction for an independent investigation was warranted; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation for delayed clearance of the imported consignment could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The alleged loss, its causation, the respective responsibility of the Customs authorities, courier agency and foreign supplier, and the effect of the importer declining to pay assessed duty involved disputed factual questions requiring evidence. Such claims could not be resolved under Article 226 and were amenable to remedies before the competent civil court or other forum.

Conclusion: Compensation was not adjudicable in writ jurisdiction; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether directions could be issued requiring the Government and Customs authorities to formulate policies for cryptocurrency-mining-equipment imports and to introduce a mechanism penalising departmental delay.

Analysis: Formulation of import, fiscal and administrative policy lies within the legislative and executive domain. In the absence of a statutory or constitutional obligation to frame a specified policy, writ jurisdiction cannot be used to compel the executive to legislate, create a particular regulatory framework, or adopt a fiscal mechanism.

Conclusion: The requested policy and fiscal directions could not be issued; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The allegations did not disclose a violation of legal right, arbitrariness, mala fides, or abuse of statutory power, while claims requiring factual adjudication remained available before the appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ direction for an independent criminal investigation requires credible material indicating cognizable wrongdoing or abuse of official power; administrative delay and unsubstantiated suspicion are insufficient, and writ jurisdiction cannot compel executive policy formulation or adjudicate damages requiring resolution of disputed facts.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be exercised to quash the subject FIRs; (ii) Whether FIRs registered by different complainants in relation to alleged cyber-fraud transactions should be clubbed and subjected to a composite investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India should be exercised to quash the subject FIRs.

Analysis: A petition under Article 32 for quashing criminal proceedings is maintainable where a fundamental-right violation or compelling circumstances warrant direct constitutional intervention. Nevertheless, the jurisdiction is extraordinary and ordinarily the aggrieved person must pursue remedies before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The assertions that the petitioner was abroad, lacked knowledge of the transactions, and that others misused the bank account did not establish infringement of a fundamental right or exceptional circumstances justifying bypass of those remedies.

Conclusion: Direct quashing relief under Article 32 was declined, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether FIRs registered by different complainants in relation to alleged cyber-fraud transactions should be clubbed and subjected to a composite investigation.

Analysis: Multiple FIRs are impermissible only where they concern the same incident or connected acts forming one transaction; the determination turns on the test of sameness, including unity of purpose and design, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action. Here, the FIRs involved different complainants, occasions, victims, amounts, transactions and consequences, without a live transactional connection between them. A similar modus operandi and the alleged transfer of portions of the funds into one bank account did not make the incidents a single transaction. The investigations were at an early stage and required separate forensic examination, money-trail analysis and identification of participants.

Conclusion: Clubbing, consolidation and a composite investigation were refused, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner may pursue remedies before the appropriate forum, with all parties' contentions remaining open for determination on their merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 32 jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings is ordinarily not exercised absent a demonstrated fundamental-right violation or exceptional circumstances, and separate FIRs may continue where distinct victims and transactions disclose distinct offences despite a similar modus operandi.

Issues: (i) Whether a legal representative is liable for tax, interest and penalty due from a deceased sole proprietor; (ii) Whether assessment orders passed without notice or hearing to the legal representative satisfy the statutory requirements.

Issue (i): Whether a legal representative is liable for tax, interest and penalty due from a deceased sole proprietor.

Analysis: Section 93(1)(b) makes the legal representative liable, out of the deceased's estate to the extent it can meet the charge, where the business is discontinued and liability is determined before or after death.

Conclusion: The legal representative cannot claim immunity from the deceased proprietor's tax liability and is liable to the extent of the deceased's estate. This is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether assessment orders passed without notice or hearing to the legal representative satisfy the statutory requirements.

Analysis: Sections 75(4) and 75(6) require an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated and require the order to state relevant facts and the basis of decision. As no independent notice or hearing was afforded to the legal heir after the proprietor's death, the assessment proceedings were vitiated; the impugned orders also did not satisfy the requirement of a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were invalid for breach of the statutory hearing and speaking-order requirements. This is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The tax liability may lawfully be pursued against the legal representative within the limits of the deceased's estate, but only through fresh proceedings that comply with the prescribed procedural safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: A legal representative's statutory liability for a deceased taxpayer's dues does not dispense with the mandatory requirements of notice, opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order before determination or recovery.

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal's finding of entitlement to refund precluded examination of other legal impediments to refund; (ii) Whether rejection of the refund claim on the ground of payment of tax on abated value, without prior notice to the assessee, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal's finding of entitlement to refund precluded examination of other legal impediments to refund.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the refund applications were maintainable and not time-barred under the transitional GST provisions. Its direction for consequential relief did not require automatic payment without examination of distinct legal impediments, including restrictions arising from a relevant notification or unjust enrichment. Consideration of such matters by the adjudicating authority was not contrary to judicial discipline or the doctrine of precedent.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order did not bar examination of independent legal impediments to the refund claim.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the refund claim on the ground of payment of tax on abated value, without prior notice to the assessee, was sustainable.

Analysis: The ground that CENVAT credit was impermissible because tax had been paid on an abated value was not put to the assessee through a show cause notice. The assessee was consequently denied an opportunity to respond to that ground before the refund claim was rejected.

Conclusion: The rejection on an unnotified ground was unsustainable and required fresh consideration after notice and hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim must be reconsidered through a procedurally fair adjudication, with a reasoned decision after the assessee is given notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A consequential-refund direction does not exclude scrutiny of independent statutory impediments, but a refund claim cannot be rejected on a ground not previously disclosed to the assessee for response.