Issues: (i) Whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and its 2017 amendment operate retrospectively so as to require in-service teachers appointed earlier to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test; (ii) whether the first proviso to section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 protects such teachers from the TET requirement; (iii) whether insisting on TET amounts to an impermissible change in service conditions; and (iv) whether the time earlier granted for acquiring TET required extension.

Issue (i): Whether the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and its 2017 amendment operate retrospectively so as to require in-service teachers appointed earlier to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test.

Analysis: Section 23 of the RTE Act distinguishes between future appointments and teachers already in service. The words used in the provision show that the minimum qualification is prospective for new appointments, while the provisos expressly preserve the position of existing teachers by granting time to obtain the qualification. The 2017 amendment further extended the compliance window for teachers already appointed or continuing in service. The statutory scheme therefore recognizes existing appointments while still requiring eventual compliance with minimum standards.

Conclusion: The RTE Act and the 2017 amendment are not retrospectively invalidating, and in-service teachers remain bound to acquire TET within the statutory period.

Issue (ii): Whether the first proviso to section 12A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 protects such teachers from the TET requirement.

Analysis: The first proviso preserves continuance of persons recruited before the commencement of the NCTE Amendment Act, 2011, but the second proviso makes the minimum qualifications applicable within the period specified under the RTE Act. The two provisos must be read together, and the protection against adverse effect does not eliminate the statutory obligation to acquire the prescribed qualifications within time.

Conclusion: The NCTE Act does not exempt in-service teachers from acquiring TET within the time fixed by the RTE regime.

Issue (iii): Whether insisting on TET amounts to an impermissible change in service conditions.

Analysis: The requirement is not a newly imposed adverse service condition but a statutory qualification designed to secure educational standards for children. The provision allows time for compliance and does not immediately terminate existing service. The challenge based on change in conditions of service therefore does not succeed.

Conclusion: Requiring TET is not an unlawful change in service conditions.

Issue (iv): Whether the time earlier granted for acquiring TET required extension.

Analysis: While the challenge to the underlying legal position failed, the Court took note of the practical impact on teachers and continuity of elementary education. Exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court extended the earlier period for obtaining TET from two years to three years and directed periodic conduct of the examination, preferably twice a year.

Conclusion: The time for acquiring TET was extended to 31 August 2028.

Final Conclusion: The review petitions failed on the merits of the challenge to the TET mandate, but limited equitable relief was granted by enlarging the compliance period for in-service teachers.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory requirement designed to maintain educational standards may validly apply to in-service teachers through a prospective compliance window, and a review will not lie absent error apparent on the face of the record, though equitable time relief may be granted under Article 142 where necessary.

Issues: Whether expenses incurred towards accommodation, medical expenses, vehicle running and maintenance, telephone, dog squad and stationery were includible in the taxable value as consideration for service tax.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the controversy stood covered by earlier decisions in the appellant's own cases and by other Tribunal rulings holding that such reimbursements and notional values for facilities provided by the service recipient do not form part of the assessable value for levy of service tax. On that basis, the demand founded on inclusion of these expenses in consideration was found unsustainable, and the appeal was also governed by the prior view that the extended period demand could not be sustained on the facts accepted in those decisions.

Conclusion: The disputed expenses were not liable to be added to the taxable value, and the demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of without interference in the impugned order, and the question of law was left open.

Outcome: Delay was condoned, time to file the appeal was extended, and the interlocutory application was allowed.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration was sustainable when the show-cause notice was issued in Form GST REG-17 instead of Form GST REG-31, and the petitioner was not granted the statutorily prescribed thirty days' time to respond to the alleged non-compliance with Rule 10A.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated contravention of Rule 10A differently from ordinary cancellation under Rule 22. For a breach of Rule 10A, the registration was first to be suspended and the registered person was to be intimated in Form GST REG-31, with thirty days to explain why cancellation should not follow. By contrast, Rule 22 contemplated a seven-working-day notice in Form GST REG-17 where cancellation was proposed under Section 29. The impugned notice was issued in Form GST REG-17, gave only seven days' time, and the cancellation order was passed before expiry of the thirty-day period contemplated for Rule 10A non-compliance. The prescribed procedure was therefore not followed, and the opportunity afforded was not a meaningful one.

Conclusion: The notice and cancellation order were illegal and were quashed; restoration of the GST registration was directed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the cancellation was vitiated by non-adherence to the statutorily mandated procedure and denial of an effective opportunity to respond, while the petitioner's tax liabilities and other obligations remained unaffected.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute prescribes a specific procedure and form for action against a registered person, the authority must comply with that procedure strictly, and failure to grant the prescribed opportunity vitiates the cancellation.

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to an accused of offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in the absence of antecedents, flight risk, tampering risk, or other circumstances justifying continued custody.

Analysis: The allegations related to GST input tax credit misuse and were supported primarily by documentary material. Investigation stood completed and the complaint had been filed. The maximum prescribed punishment was five years and the case was triable by a Magistrate. The applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period, had no criminal history, and no material was shown to suggest that release on bail would prejudice a fair trial, intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, or result in abscondence. The constitutional principle of personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the settled rule that bail is the norm and jail the exception weighed in favour of release.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

Issues: (i) Whether IT recharge fees were taxable at the concessional rate under section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, alternatively, whether such receipts were not chargeable as fees for technical services under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA; (ii) whether the addition made on account of mismatch between Form 26AS and the return of income required factual verification; (iii) whether short grant of TDS credit required fresh verification and consequential credit; and (iv) whether interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable.

Issue (i): Whether IT recharge fees were taxable at the concessional rate under section 115A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, alternatively, whether such receipts were not chargeable as fees for technical services under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the rate applicable to IT recharge receipts and their character under the treaty. The transaction was held to fall within the permissible foreign exchange framework and not within any prohibited or restricted category requiring separate Central Government approval. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the concessional rate under section 115A. Independently, the services were found to be routine IT support and cost recharge arrangements, without transmission of technical knowledge, skill, know-how, or process enabling independent use by the recipient. The treaty requirement that the services must make available such technical knowledge was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The IT recharge fee was held taxable at the concessional rate and was not chargeable as fees for technical services under Article 13. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made on account of mismatch between Form 26AS and the return of income required factual verification.

Analysis: The addition was founded on entries reflected in Form 26AS, while the assessee's case was that the receipts belonged to other group entities and had appeared due to incorrect quoting of PAN by deductors. The updated Form 26AS and the contradictory treatment by the appellate authority in connected matters showed that factual reconciliation was necessary before sustaining the addition.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification. The issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether short grant of TDS credit required fresh verification and consequential credit.

Analysis: The assessee relied upon the updated Form 26AS to contend that higher tax had been deducted by the payers than the credit allowed. Since TDS credit depends upon the tax actually deducted and the corresponding receipts offered to tax, the matter called for verification of the updated statement and reconciliation of the receipts.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of appropriate TDS credit in accordance with law. The issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable.

Analysis: For section 234B, the income in question was subject to tax deduction at source and, for the relevant assessment year, the amendment to section 209 did not apply. On that basis, no liability to advance tax was fastened on the non-resident assessee and interest under section 234B was held unsustainable. For section 234C, the question turned on whether there was any shortfall or deferment in advance tax, and the matter was directed to be examined in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Interest under section 234B was deleted, while the section 234C issue was remitted for verification. The issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal treaty and concessional-rate controversy, obtained deletion of interest under section 234B, and secured remand on the remaining factual/TDS-credit issues; the appeals were therefore partly allowed overall.

Ratio Decidendi: Where services under the India-UK DTAA do not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how, or process, the receipts cannot be taxed as fees for technical services; and where a non-resident's income is subject to tax deduction at source for the relevant pre-amendment year, interest under section 234B is not leviable.

Issues: (i) exclusion and inclusion of comparables in the transfer pricing analysis, including comparables having different financial year ends; (ii) entitlement to working capital adjustment; and (iii) separate benchmarking of interest on outstanding trade receivables, including the applicable rate and credit period.

Issue (i): exclusion and inclusion of comparables in the transfer pricing analysis, including comparables having different financial year ends

Analysis: The Tribunal applied functional comparability principles under the transfer pricing rules and followed earlier coordinate bench decisions on materially identical facts. Comparables engaged in diversified operations, product engineering, consulting, IP-led services, or lacking segmental information were held to be functionally dissimilar to a captive software development service provider. On the other hand, a comparable rejected only for having a different financial year end was held includible where its public data could be reasonably extrapolated for the relevant year.

Conclusion: Comparable companies found to be functionally dissimilar were directed to be excluded, and R Systems International Limited was directed to be included after considering relevant financial year data.

Issue (ii): entitlement to working capital adjustment

Analysis: The Tribunal held that working capital differences materially affect margins and that the absence of granular daily or monthly third-party data does not justify denial of adjustment. Reliance was placed on the principle that average opening and closing balances from annual reports can be used for the adjustment.

Conclusion: Working capital adjustment was directed to be granted to the assessee while determining the arm's length price.

Issue (iii): separate benchmarking of interest on outstanding trade receivables, including the applicable rate and credit period

Analysis: The Tribunal held that where working capital adjustment captures the impact of receivables on profitability, a separate adjustment should not survive if the assessee's margin remains higher after such adjustment. For any residual benchmarking, the Tribunal applied the principle that the rate should be linked to the currency of the transaction and accepted LIBOR plus 200 basis points. It also accepted a 60-day credit period for benchmarking purposes.

Conclusion: Separate adjustment on trade receivables was restricted in the manner indicated, and for benchmarking purposes LIBOR plus 200 basis points and a 60-day credit period were directed to be applied.

Final Conclusion: The transfer pricing additions were substantially reduced by excluding certain comparables, including one previously rejected only on financial-year mismatch grounds, by granting working capital adjustment, and by reworking the receivables adjustment on the basis of LIBOR plus 200 basis points and a 60-day credit period.

Ratio Decidendi: Functional comparability under transfer pricing must be tested on the basis of the year-specific FAR analysis, and where working capital adjustment already captures receivable-related impact, a separate receivables adjustment may not be warranted unless the pricing effect remains unabsorbed.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 so as to avoid penalty under section 78, in view of prior payment of service tax and the statutory protection available under section 73(3).

Analysis: The appellant had paid the service tax before issuance of the show cause notice and had informed the department. The statutory scheme under section 73(3) provides that, on such payment and intimation, no notice is to be served for the amount so paid, and Explanation 2 to the proviso declares that no penalty shall be imposed in respect of such payment and interest thereon. The Tribunal accepted the view that this protection was available on the facts of the case and that the lower authority had erred in sustaining the penalty under section 78.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the statutory benefit, and the penalty under section 78 was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service tax and interest are paid before issuance of notice and the payment is duly intimated, section 73(3) bars notice for the amount so paid and the statutory protection extends against penalty under section 78.

Issues: Whether the condition of 5% pre-deposit could be waived and the applicants could be permitted to file statutory appeals.

Analysis: The request to dispense with the statutory pre-deposit was rejected. The order records that any statutory appeal would remain governed by the time limit prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and that it was for the applicant to decide whether to pursue the appeal or any other remedy available in law.

Conclusion: The prayer for waiver of 5% pre-deposit was declined, while the applicants were left free to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed time.

Issues: Whether an ex parte assessment order passed without notice of the adjourned date and without granting a personal hearing could be sustained, and whether such order was liable to be quashed with a direction for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The order impugned under Section 73 of the GST Act was passed ex parte. The record indicated that the matter was not decided on the date fixed for hearing and that no notice of the subsequent date was communicated to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the requirement of fairness in proceedings and the opportunity of hearing were not satisfied. The Court followed the coordinate Bench view that failure to communicate the next date and proceeding ex parte on that basis offends natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte order could not be sustained and was quashed. The authority was directed to grant a personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the authority for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment order passed ex parte without communication of the adjourned hearing date and without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing is vitiated for breach of natural justice and must be set aside for fresh after hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether psyllium seeds supplied in their natural, raw and unprocessed form, without drying, freezing, crushing or other processing, qualify as "fresh" psyllium seeds and are exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025. (ii) Whether the same goods qualify as "goods of seed quality" and are exempt under Entry 77 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (i): Whether psyllium seeds supplied in their natural, raw and unprocessed form, without drying, freezing, crushing or other processing, qualify as "fresh" psyllium seeds and are exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Psyllium seeds were found classifiable under heading 1211 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The supply described by the applicant consisted of seeds procured from farmers through APMC auctions in the same condition as harvested, with no artificial drying, freezing or other processing. Applying the tariff description, the HSN notes, and the GST clarification on the distinction between fresh and dried goods, the Authority treated the goods as fresh agricultural produce in common parlance. Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) specifically covers plants and parts of plants, including seeds and fruits, of the relevant kind when fresh or chilled.

Conclusion: Yes. The psyllium seeds, as supplied, are fresh and are exempt under Entry 87 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Issue (ii): Whether the same goods qualify as "goods of seed quality" and are exempt under Entry 77 of Notification No. 10/2025-Central Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025.

Analysis: Entry 77 is a general exemption for all goods of seed quality under Chapter 12, whereas Entry 87 is a specific exemption covering heading 1211. Since psyllium seeds were held to fall squarely within the specific heading-based entry and to be fresh goods, the Authority treated the general seed-quality entry as not requiring separate acceptance for the ruling sought.

Conclusion: No. The claim under Entry 77 was not accepted in view of the finding under Issue (i).

Final Conclusion: The supply of psyllium seeds in the stated unprocessed condition is exempt as fresh goods under the specific heading-based exemption, and no separate exemption was granted on the alternative seed-quality basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are specifically covered by a heading-based exemption for fresh plant parts, the specific entry governs and the fresh character of the supply is determined by the absence of drying, freezing, or similar processing.

Issues: Whether interference with the impugned judgment was warranted, whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue an appeal on making the necessary pre-deposits, and whether the challenge relating to the validity of Section 16(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 remained open.

Outcome: The Court declined to interfere, left the petitioner at liberty to avail available remedies, permitted filing of the appeal with necessary pre-deposits within eight weeks, and kept the validity issue open for consideration before the appropriate forum.

Issues: Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal on account of non-disclosure of the place of arrest, non-supply of the grounds of arrest, and absence of CBIC-DIN on the arrest documents.

Analysis: The arrest memo did not disclose the place of arrest, and the grounds of arrest were not shown to have been furnished as required. The grounds of arrest also did not bear any CBIC-DIN. The respondents failed to controvert the petitioner's reliance on the departmental circular requiring documents to bear CBIC-DIN, and the defects in the arrest record were treated as violations of the mandatory procedure governing arrest and detention.

Conclusion: The arrest and detention were held to be illegal, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the impugned order was not interfered with.

Issues: (i) Whether receipts characterised as fee for technical services from Indian group companies could be taxed in India under the residuary article of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable; (iii) whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be challenged at this stage.

Issue (i): Whether receipts characterised as fee for technical services from Indian group companies could be taxed in India under the residuary article of the India-Thailand Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The receipts were accepted to be in the nature of fee for technical services, but the treaty did not contain a specific article for taxing such income. The residuary article applies only to income not otherwise dealt with under the treaty. Where the income is capable of being examined under the business profits article and the assessee has no permanent establishment in India, such receipts cannot be brought to tax by resorting to the residuary article merely because the treaty is silent on fee for technical services. The issue had already been decided in the assessee's own case for earlier and later assessment years, and there was no distinguishing feature in the year under appeal.

Conclusion: The addition treating the receipts as taxable under the residuary article was deleted, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable.

Analysis: The question of interest under section 234A depended on the actual date of filing of the return and required verification by the Assessing Officer. Interest under section 234B was consequential to the substantive tax determination.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification, and the issue was partly decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be challenged at this stage.

Analysis: The challenge was premature and did not warrant adjudication on merits at the present stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to penalty proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the main taxability issue, was remitted in part on the interest issue, and failed on the penalty issue; overall, the assessee obtained partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific treaty article for fee for technical services, such receipts cannot be taxed under the residuary article when they fall within the business profits framework and the non-resident has no permanent establishment in India.

Outcome: The civil appeals were dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Issues: Whether the provision of corporate guarantee without consideration is exigible to service tax, and whether a remand for quantification can be sustained when no taxable consideration is shown.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the requirement of consideration under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 in the post-negative list regime. The controlling principle applied was that taxability under section 66B arises only when there is an activity for another supported by consideration; in the absence of consideration, the activity does not amount to service. The material on record did not establish any commission, fee, or other consideration for the corporate guarantee, and the reasoning that non-monetary benefits may bear on valuation under section 67 did not cure the absence of taxability itself. Since the demand was founded on a transaction lacking consideration, remand for quantification would serve no purpose.

Conclusion: The corporate guarantee provided without consideration was not taxable as service, and the remand order was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of consideration, provision of a corporate guarantee does not constitute a taxable service under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, and valuation principles cannot be invoked to create taxability where none exists.

Issues: Whether the respondent was a necessary and proper party to the suit and liable to remain on the array of parties despite being an agent of the intermediary in the transportation arrangement.

Analysis: The pleadings showed that the contract for supply was with the third defendant, while the second defendant had arranged transportation and the first defendant acted as its forwarding agent. There was no direct contractual relationship between the appellant and the first defendant, and the cause of action, if any, arose against the principal buyer. The second defendant had already been deleted from the suit as not being a necessary party. In these circumstances, the Court held that the first defendant, being only an agent in the transport chain, could not be fastened with liability for the buyer's default, and the discussion on limitation and rejection of plaint was unnecessary once the application was effectively one for deletion of a non-necessary party.

Conclusion: The deletion of the first defendant from the array of parties was justified, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the plaint itself discloses no privity of contract with an intermediary agent and the real dispute lies against the contracting principal, the agent may be deleted as a non-necessary and improper party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to opening of the GST portal and consequential revocation of cancellation of registration on depositing the dues and complying with the requisite formalities.

Analysis: The cancellation of registration arose from non-submission of returns for consecutive months. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the entire taxes, interest, late fee and penalty and filed an undertaking to comply with the formalities for revocation. The Authority for the GST side also indicated that the portal would be made accessible to enable payment. On this basis, the Court directed opening of the portal within seven days of production of a certified copy of the order, with a further seven days granted to the petitioner to make the deposits. The direction for revocation was made conditional upon such compliance, and the order would not operate if the undertaking was not honoured.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted conditional relief by way of opening of the portal and revocation of cancellation upon timely payment and compliance.