Issues: Whether bankruptcy proceedings against personal guarantors were maintainable where no repayment plan was submitted during the personal insolvency resolution process, and whether the objections based on alleged incorrect computation of dues and prior settlement efforts could defeat initiation of bankruptcy.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requires the debtor to prepare a repayment plan in consultation with the resolution professional. If no repayment plan is submitted, the process does not move to a consensual resolution stage, and the failure operates as the statutory basis for further action under the bankruptcy framework. The personal guarantors were already proceeded against as co-extensively liable under the guarantee, and they had not filed any repayment plan despite opportunity. The Court treated the absence of a repayment plan as attracting the consequence contemplated by the Code and held that the creditor was entitled to seek bankruptcy under the relevant provisions. Objections regarding alleged excess computation of dues and earlier one-time settlement proposals did not displace the statutory consequence, particularly when liability had been admitted and the matter had progressed beyond earlier stages of the recovery and insolvency process.

Conclusion: The bankruptcy proceedings were validly initiated and the challenge by the personal guarantors failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-submission of a repayment plan in the personal guarantor insolvency process results in the statutory consequence that bankruptcy proceedings may be initiated under the Code, and such initiation cannot be defeated by later objections to quantum or by unaccepted settlement proposals.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a physical application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration and have it considered in accordance with law despite the portal limitation.

Analysis: The GST registration had been cancelled for non-filing of returns for six consecutive months. In view of the circumstances and the difficulty caused by the online portal time-limit, the competent authority was directed to accept a physical application for revocation if submitted within the stipulated period and to decide it according to law within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted permission to approach the competent authority with a physical revocation application, which the authority must entertain and decide in accordance with law.

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the revocation application against cancellation of GST registration was sustainable; (ii) Whether the petitioner could make the statutory pre-deposit through the electronic cash ledger.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of the application for condonation of delay in filing the revocation application against cancellation of GST registration was sustainable.

Analysis: The cancellation order had been followed by an application for revocation, and the competent authority had rejected the request on the ground of delay. The Court noted that an application for revocation could be filed within the period of 270 days contemplated under the relevant rules. In view of that statutory position, the impugned rejection of the delay-condonation request could not be sustained. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the authority after receipt of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The rejection of the delay-condonation application was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on the revocation request.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could make the statutory pre-deposit through the electronic cash ledger.

Analysis: For filing the appeal, the petitioner sought permission to overcome the difficulty arising from the blocking of the electronic credit ledger. The Court indicated that the statutory pre-deposit could be paid through the electronic cash ledger in terms of the governing GST provision. This provided the petitioner an available mode for compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to make the statutory pre-deposit through the electronic cash ledger.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was interfered with, the revocation issue was sent back for fresh consideration, and the petitioner was left free to comply with the appellate pre-deposit requirement through the cash ledger.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the GST rules permit revocation proceedings within the prescribed period, rejection of a delay objection contrary to that position cannot stand, and the statutory pre-deposit requirement may be satisfied through the cash ledger where the governing provision so allows.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be relegated to seek rectification of the order-in-original and the consequential recovery notice, with provision for manual filing if the portal does not permit an online application.

Analysis: The petitioner sought relief against the order-in-original and recovery proceedings, asserting full discharge of tax liability and voluntary payment under the GST framework. In the circumstances, the proper course was held to be recourse to rectification before the proper officer under the statute. It was also directed that if the online portal did not permit filing of the rectification application, the respondent must entertain it manually and decide it within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The petitioner was relegated to the statutory rectification remedy, with a direction to accept manual filing if online filing was not possible.

Issues: Whether a provisional attachment order passed under the CGST Act survives after passing of the final order under section 74.

Analysis: The matter was disposed of in line with the stated legal position that provisional attachment under section 83 is only an interim measure and cannot continue once adjudication culminates in a final order under section 74. The operative effect of the final order is that the provisional restraint ceases, and any subsequent challenge to the final order must be examined on its own merits.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment order comes to an end once the final order under section 74 of the CGST Act is passed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to GST at 18% for the work contract services supplied to U.P. Jal Nigam, whether the contrary order dated 6 August 2025 could be sustained, and whether the balance 6% GST was payable.

Analysis: The dispute was held to be essentially legal, as the work had been performed and the controversy concerned the applicable rate of GST. An earlier advance ruling and appellate advance ruling in respect of similarly placed supplies had already determined that U.P. Jal Nigam was not entitled to the lower-rate exemption and that the applicable rate was 18%. The Court treated that determination as having binding effect under the GST Act. It further found that the Jal Nigam's later stand that GST was already included in the contract, and its attempt to justify payment at 12%, were unsupported and arbitrary. The order dated 6 August 2025 was found to have been passed in disregard of the facts and law.

Conclusion: The petitioner's entitlement to GST at 18% was affirmed, the order dated 6 August 2025 was quashed, and the balance 6% GST was held payable by the respondent authority.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned administrative determination was set aside, and the respondent was directed to release the unpaid GST differential to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An advance ruling and appellate advance ruling under the GST regime, once final and applicable to identical supplies, binds the parties under the statutory scheme and cannot be ignored by a public authority to justify payment of tax at a lower rate.

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the sole material was a seized inquiry register entry predating the assessee's purchase, covering multiple survey numbers and a larger area, and not showing any direct or indirect link with the assessee.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on a seized inquiry register recovered in a search of a broker's premises. The entry relied upon was dated 10.03.2019, whereas the assessee's sale deed for the relevant land was executed on 26.02.2021. The entry described land or plots available for sale and did not record any concluded transaction by the assessee. The searched person's statement under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 also indicated that the registers contained details of land or plots available for sale, and his admissions weakened any blanket reliance on the presumption under section 292C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The register entry additionally covered survey numbers 753/1+2+3 and 756/1+2 with a total area far larger than the land actually purchased by the assessee, and the name appearing in the register was of a third person unconnected with the assessee. On these facts, there was no live nexus between the seized material and the assessee, and the reopening was based only on conjectural inference rather than material showing information suggesting escapement of income.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid and was quashed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition for alleged unaccounted production at the Vapi unit was justified on the basis of the seized material and the comparison of production and sales records.

Issue (i): Whether the addition for alleged unaccounted production at the Vapi unit was justified on the basis of the seized material and the comparison of production and sales records.

Analysis: The addition was founded on a comparison between production figures supplied by the production manager and the sales data maintained in strips. The concurrent factual finding was that the department treated tablets and capsules as strips without accounting for the difference in units, which led to an erroneous and artificial mismatch. The records of other products matched, and there was no cogent material showing excess purchase of raw materials, unaccounted labour or manufacturing , or receipt of unaccounted sale consideration despite search action. On these facts, the adverse inference drawn by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable, and no substantial question of law arose from the deletion of the addition.

Conclusion: The addition for alleged unaccounted production was not justified, and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal fails because the disputed addition rested on an erroneous unit comparison and was unsupported by independent incriminating evidence, leaving no substantial question of law for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an addition in search assessment is based on a mistaken comparison of different units of measurement and is unsupported by independent incriminating material, concurrent factual findings deleting the addition will not give rise to a substantial question of law.

Issues: (i) Whether deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for investment in construction of a residential house could be denied for alleged insufficiency of documentary evidence. (ii) Whether the claim for deduction under sections 80C and 80D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh verification after supporting documents were produced at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether deduction under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for investment in construction of a residential house could be denied for alleged insufficiency of documentary evidence.

Analysis: The assessee furnished a joint development agreement, sample construction bills and details of expenditure made through banking channels to show that capital gains were reinvested in a residential house. The lower authorities rejected the claim mainly for want of additional documents such as approval papers, possession certificate and complete vouchers. The arrangement reflected by the joint development agreement and the evidence of expenditure were not discredited by any specific defect, and the denial was held to be overly technical. Section 54 being a beneficial provision, substantial compliance was held sufficient where the reinvestment and construction activity were otherwise demonstrated.

Conclusion: The deduction under section 54 was allowed and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for deduction under sections 80C and 80D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required fresh verification after supporting documents were produced at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The assessee produced evidence such as LIC premium receipts, health insurance premium receipts and investment proofs before the appellate authority. The appellate authority directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and allow the eligible deduction in accordance with law. No infirmity was found in that approach, since the claim depended on verification of the supporting records already placed on record.

Conclusion: The direction for verification and allowance of eligible deduction was upheld and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the principal exemption claim and remained allowed only to the extent of the verified Chapter VI-A deduction claim, resulting in a partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction intended to promote residential investment cannot be denied on a hyper-technical view where the assessee has substantially established reinvestment and construction, and appellate verification is sufficient for documentary-based deductions supported by records.

Issues: Whether the order-in-original confirming anti-dumping duty on imports of titanium dioxide was liable to be quashed and the duty collected from the petitioner was liable to be refunded in view of the later instruction issued after the Calcutta High Court's decision.

Analysis: The instruction issued by the customs authorities pursuant to the Calcutta High Court's judgment was not in dispute. Since the notification levying anti-dumping duty on the relevant imports had already been quashed, the demand based on that notification could not survive. The impugned order-in-original was therefore unsustainable and consequential refund of the duty collected was warranted.

Conclusion: The impugned order-in-original was quashed and set aside, and the amount of duty collected from the petitioner was directed to be returned within 12 weeks.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the foundational notification levying anti-dumping duty is quashed, any demand order and collection made under it cannot survive and consequential refund follows.

Issues: Whether the Order-in-Original passed by the officer promoted as Commissioner on in-situ basis was passed in the capacity of Commissioner so that the appeal lay before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The promotional office order showed that the officer had been promoted to the post of Commissioner and was directed to assume the charge of the promotional post on in-situ basis until regular posting. The adjudication order itself described him as Commissioner (in-situ), and no objection to his authority was raised at the time of adjudication. In that setting, the appellate remedy against the order of a Commissioner lay under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The reference in the order to filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as not controlling the true appellate forum.

Conclusion: The Order-in-Original was passed in the capacity of Commissioner, the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable, and the challenge by the Revenue fails.

Final Conclusion: The statutory promotion and assumed charge were sufficient to treat the officer as Commissioner for adjudicatory purposes, and the Tribunal was the correct appellate forum against the order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an officer has been promoted and directed to assume the promotional post on an in-situ basis, an adjudication order passed in that capacity is to be treated as an order of the Commissioner for determining the proper appellate forum.

Issues: Whether the adjudication order was liable to be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration on the ground that the authority had not duly considered the petitioner's part-payment and supporting reply before passing the order.

Analysis: The adjudication order proceeded on an alleged shortfall in payment of output tax, but the record showed that the petitioner claimed to have made partial payment through GST DRC-03 and to have replied to the pre-show-cause communication in GST DRC-01A. The order did not adequately address this assertion or the supporting material, and the petitioner also sought an opportunity to explain the alleged discrepancy in output tax and interest. In these circumstances, fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of hearing was found necessary.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice for reconsideration, with all contentions kept open.

Issues: Whether the review petition was liable to be dismissed for want of cure of defects and for absence of any error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Analysis: The review petition remained defective despite communication from the Registry and the defects were not cured. Independently, on perusal of the petition, no error apparent on the face of the record was found and the requirements for exercise of review jurisdiction were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on the facts placed before the Court and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The matter was finally concluded by rejection of review, with no ground made out for reopening the earlier decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction can be exercised only where a defect-free petition discloses an error apparent on the face of the record; absent both, dismissal follows.

Outcome: The Curative Petition was dismissed as not meeting the parameters for entertainment.

Issues: Whether a single composite assessment order covering more than one financial year under the GST regime is valid.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the legality of passing one assessment order for multiple tax periods. The governing principle applied was that where assessment is undertaken for distinct tax periods, a single show-cause notice or composite assessment order cannot validly cover more than one tax period in the manner proscribed by the GST framework. Since the impugned order covered an extended period spanning several financial years, it was treated as unsustainable on this ground. Other grounds were not adjudicated and were left open.

Conclusion: The composite assessment order was held invalid and was set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings separately for each assessment year.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the GST assessment scheme, a single composite assessment order cannot validly determine liability for more than one distinct tax period in the manner found impermissible by the Court.

Issues: Whether the review petitions deserved to be entertained despite defects, inordinate delay, and absence of any error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The review petitions were found defective and the defects had not been cured despite notice. There was also an enormous delay of 693 days, and the application for condonation did not disclose sufficient cause. On an independent perusal, no error apparent on the face of the record was found, and the requirements for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The review petitions were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

Issues: (i) whether the second application was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and whether the earlier order reserved any liberty to seek the same relief again; (ii) whether, on the facts of the ongoing liquidation, the Applicant was entitled to seek return of the premises or ancillary directions for digitisation and investigation.

Issue (i): whether the second application was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and whether the earlier order reserved any liberty to seek the same relief again.

Analysis: The grounds urged in the second application were found to be virtually identical to those raised earlier, with only a reduction in the number of pending cases. The earlier order was read as permitting only an offer of alternate premises for the Liquidator's consideration and not as reserving liberty to renew the same challenge. On that basis, the earlier adjudication was held to bar re-litigation of the same controversy.

Conclusion: The objection based on res judicata and issue estoppel was upheld, and no liberty existed to revive the same claim.

Issue (ii): whether, on the facts of the ongoing liquidation, the Applicant was entitled to seek return of the premises or ancillary directions for digitisation and investigation.

Analysis: The controlling test was treated as whether the Liquidator's reason for continuing in possession was a relevant one. Since liquidation proceedings had not ended, the premises were still being used for storage of records and as an office address, and the Applicant itself offered alternate premises, the need for continued possession was held to be genuine. The Court also held that the summary jurisdiction under Section 457 could not be expanded to compel conversion of the Liquidator's tenancy into leave and licence, or to direct a records investigation in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The Applicant was not entitled to return of the premises or the ancillary reliefs sought.

Final Conclusion: The application failed in full, with costs, because the earlier rejection continued to bind the parties and the Liquidator's continued possession was held to remain justified in the ongoing liquidation.

Ratio Decidendi: In summary proceedings for return of premises in liquidation, the Court will interfere only if the Liquidator's reason for continuing in possession is not a relevant one, and a substantially identical subsequent application is barred where no material change in circumstances is shown.

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax on contract receipts was sustainable in the absence of any documentary evidence from the appellant, and whether the invocation of the negative list regime, extended limitation, and penalty called for interference.

Analysis: The appellant did not respond to departmental notices, did not file a reply to the show cause notice, and did not produce work contracts or any other material to show entitlement to classification, exemption, or abatement. The receipts reflected in the income tax records, on which tax had been deducted at source under Section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, supported the inference that consideration had been received for a taxable activity. In the post-negative-list regime, classification was no longer the central enquiry; the relevant question was whether the activity fell within the negative list or any exemption. In the absence of proof from the appellant, the taxable value was correctly taken as the full consideration received. Non-filing of statutory returns also supported invocation of the extended period and the penalty.

Conclusion: The demand, invocation of extended limitation, and imposition of penalty were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Issues: Entitlement to interest on delayed refund of IGST arising from export shipments after the refund was ultimately released.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from export of goods under shipping bills and was ultimately crystallised after the adjudicatory and appellate proceedings attained finality. On a conjoint reading of Section 54 and Section 56 of the CGST Act, delayed refund of tax ordered to be refunded attracts interest once the refund is not made within sixty days from the date of the refund application. The refund application here was treated as arising from the shipping bills, and the balance IGST refund was admittedly released only during the pendency of the petition. The Department's stand that interest was not payable because of administrative or verification issues was held to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing delayed refunds.

Conclusion: Interest on the delayed IGST refund was payable, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax refund becomes payable and is not released within the statutory period, Section 56 of the CGST Act mandates payment of interest for the period of delay, regardless of internal administrative delays once the refund claim has attained finality.