Issues: (i) Whether penalties could be imposed and appropriated from refundable pre-deposit in refund proceedings after an appellate order had set aside the penalties; (ii) Whether interest on the refundable pre-deposit was governed by the pre-6 August 2014 version of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the point from which such interest was payable.

Issue (i): Whether penalties could be imposed and appropriated from refundable pre-deposit in refund proceedings after an appellate order had set aside the penalties.

Analysis: The prior appellate order had set aside the penalties. A refund claim for the pre-deposit had to be examined consistently with that binding disposition and could not be used to institute a fresh penalty determination or recover penalties by appropriation. Such reopening of penalty liability in refund proceedings was contrary to judicial discipline.

Conclusion: Penalties could not be imposed or appropriated in the refund proceedings; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the refundable pre-deposit was governed by the pre-6 August 2014 version of Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the point from which such interest was payable.

Analysis: As the appeal was pending before 6 August 2014, the saving proviso to amended Section 35F, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, preserved the pre-amendment Section 35FF regime despite the later date of deposit. Under that regime, statutory interest becomes payable only where the refundable amount remains unpaid beyond three months from receipt or communication of the appellate order by the jurisdictional authority, and not from the date of the pre-deposit. The dates on which the respective refundable components became due and the consequential interest require computation.

Conclusion: The pre-amendment Section 35FF governs; interest is not payable from the date of deposit but only after the stipulated three-month period. The assessee's claim for interest from the date of pre-deposit fails.

Final Conclusion: The refundable pre-deposit must be recalculated without the impermissible penalty appropriation, and statutory interest must be computed under the unamended regime for each amount that became refundable.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to service-tax exemption for rent-a-cab service provided to an SEZ unit under Notification No. 4/2004 dated 31.03.2004.

Analysis: The Special Economic Zones Act exempts taxable services supplied to an SEZ Developer or Unit for authorised operations, and the situs of rendering the service does not defeat the exemption where the service is supplied for such operations. Form A-1 issued by the SEZ Specified Officer identified the appellant's rent-a-cab service as an authorised service. No documentary material rebutted that certification; transportation of SEZ staff by pick-up and drop was connected with the authorised service.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption, and denial of the exemption on the ground that the rent-a-cab service was rendered outside the SEZ area was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the margin earned from the purchase and resale of airline cargo slots at specifically agreed rates is taxable as Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis: Business Auxiliary Service requires consideration for services rendered to another. Commission received while acting as a general sales agent had already been subjected to service tax. Cargo slots covered by specific rate arrangements carried no commission entitlement; the assessee purchased and resold the slots independently, bearing the possibility of profit or loss. The unchanged factual and legal position warranted application of the earlier final orders on the same issue.

Conclusion: The resale margin arose from an independent, principal-to-principal trading of cargo space and was not consideration for Business Auxiliary Service; the service-tax demand was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted regular bail in relation to allegations of cess and excise-duty evasion.

Analysis: A prima facie doubt was recorded regarding computation of suspected evasion solely from the recovery and seizure of machinery under the prescribed formula. The observation was confined to bail and did not determine the validity of the Rule or bind the trial court. In the absence of antecedents, and since the machinery had already been seized, an unsupported apprehension of repetition was insufficient to justify continued custody.

Outcome: Regular bail granted.

Issues: Whether an adjudication order under Section 73, rejecting the taxpayer's explanation to the show-cause notice merely as unsatisfactory without addressing the specific response, is sustainable.

Analysis: An adjudicating authority performing a quasi-judicial function must address the specific issues raised in the response to the show-cause notice. A bare assertion that the written explanation is unsatisfactory, without reasons demonstrating its consideration, does not constitute valid adjudication. The admitted facts were covered by the earlier decision applying this requirement.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was unsustainable for failure to give reasons and to consider the taxpayer's response, requiring fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-13 lacked jurisdiction to decide the assessee's appeal after its automated allocation under the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021.

Analysis: The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 provides for automated allocation of electronically filed appeals by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, leaving the assessee with no choice of appellate authority. The appeal was allocated to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-13, and the Assessing Officer received the appeal memorandum and an opportunity to participate but raised no jurisdictional objection at that stage. A literal cumulative reading of the jurisdictional entry in CBDT Notification No. 113/2022 dated 13.10.2022 would require a transfer-pricing order, arm's-length-price grounds, and related penalties in every case, producing the absurd result that certain arm's-length-price appeals would have no designated appellate forum. The entry therefore requires purposive and harmonious construction, without treating all stated conditions as cumulatively mandatory.

Conclusion: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-13 validly exercised jurisdiction over the allocated appeal; the Revenue's jurisdictional objection fails, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the FIR and criminal proceeding should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits quashing where the FIR allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence or where continuation would amount to abuse of process of court. The engagement memorandum required filing of the audit report in Form 10BB; the subsequent request for Form 10B followed the revised requirement. The materials also showed that the revised report was ultimately filed after a delay of 37 days with an explanation. These facts did not furnish a basis for criminal breach of trust, cheating, extortion, or any other alleged offence.

Conclusion: The FIR did not prima facie disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner, and continuation of the criminal proceeding was an abuse of process of court warranting quashing.

Issues: (i) Whether foreign currency concealed and carried for export without evidence of lawful acquisition, Reserve Bank permission, or Customs declaration was liable to confiscation; (ii) Whether absolute confiscation of the seized foreign currency should be modified by permitting redemption on payment of fine; (iii) Whether the penalties imposed for the attempted illegal export required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether foreign currency concealed and carried for export without evidence of lawful acquisition, Reserve Bank permission, or Customs declaration was liable to confiscation.

Analysis: Regulation 5 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2015 prohibits export of foreign currency without general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, while Regulation 7 permits export of foreign exchange obtained by drawal from an authorised person in accordance with the governing framework. The currency was concealed, not declared before Customs, admittedly acquired through unauthorised channels, and unsupported by documents evidencing lawful acquisition or authority to export. These circumstances established an attempted export contrary to the foreign-exchange regime and attracted confiscation under Sections 113(d) and 113(e) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The foreign currency was liable to confiscation under Sections 113(d) and 113(e) of the Customs Act, 1962; against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation of the seized foreign currency should be modified by permitting redemption on payment of fine.

Analysis: Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits exercise of discretion to allow redemption even where goods are confiscable. Confiscability alone did not require absolute confiscation; the nature of the contravention, value of the currency, and proportionality of the consequence required a balanced exercise of discretion. Redemption was therefore made available through separately allocated fines of Rs. 3,50,000 each for the respective portions of the currency.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was modified by granting an option to redeem the confiscated currency on payment of the prescribed redemption fines; in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed for the attempted illegal export required reduction.

Analysis: Liability to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 followed from the established attempt to export currency through unauthorised channels. However, the material indicated that the persons penalised lacked the financial capacity to be the actual owners or ultimate beneficiaries and were functioning as carriers; the actual beneficiaries were not conclusively identified. These factors warranted a proportionate reduction in penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty liability was sustained, but the penalty on each assessee was reduced from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000; in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The currency remains confiscable for unauthorised attempted export, but absolute confiscation is replaced with redemption on stipulated fines and the penal consequences are moderated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where foreign currency is liable to confiscation for unauthorised export, discretion to permit redemption must be exercised judicially and proportionately, with penalties reflecting the proven degree of participation.

Issues: Whether a best-judgment order for non-filing of the return could be sustained where the return was filed shortly after expiry of the condonable period together with tax, interest and late fee.

Analysis: The return was filed with payment of tax, interest and late fee after a marginal delay beyond the prescribed and condonable periods. In these circumstances, the belated return warranted scrutiny under Section 61 of the applicable GST enactment. The period from this order until completion of scrutiny was directed to be excluded in computing limitation for proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the applicable GST enactment.

Conclusion: The impugned best-judgment order was quashed, and the belated return was directed to be scrutinised in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether renewal of charitable registration could be refused because a beneficiary received treatment in the private category and the assistance given to that beneficiary constituted about 25% of the trust's expenditure.

Analysis: Renewal under the charitable-registration framework is to be assessed with reference to the charitable objects and activities of the trust. Treatment in a private category, without more, does not establish absence of financial indigence or economic hardship, particularly where prolonged treatment for a life-threatening illness may exhaust the resources of a person of modest means. Further, assistance constituting approximately 25% of the relevant expenditure did not by itself negate the public charitable character of the trust's activities. No other basis for refusing renewal was recorded.

Conclusion: The refusal of renewal was unsustainable and registration was required to be renewed. The consequential rejection of approval under Section 80G, founded solely on the refusal of registration, could not stand.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in excluding Accurate Data Converters Limited as a comparable for determining the arm's length price.

Analysis: Selection or exclusion of comparables is a factual and data-driven exercise that must conform to Rule 10B. Accurate Data Converters Limited had outsourced a major part of its work and was therefore not functionally comparable to the assessee. The Revenue produced no material to displace this factual basis or establish perversity, reliance on irrelevant material, or exclusion of relevant material.

Conclusion: The exclusion of Accurate Data Converters Limited as a comparable was justified, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether prior-period expenditure is deductible in the year in which the related liability became known and crystallised; and (ii) Whether the Consulting Practice and Global Innovation Centre divisions could be aggregated for entity-level transfer-pricing benchmarking.

Issue (i): Whether prior-period expenditure is deductible in the year in which the related liability became known and crystallised.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the year of allowability, not the genuineness or business character of the expenditure. The invoices and their particulars became known only on receipt of the parent company's reconciliation after the preceding year had closed. Under the principle of crystallisation of liability, an expenditure cannot be provided for in an earlier year where the liability and its quantum were not known or ascertainable in that year.

Conclusion: The expenditure was deductible in the relevant year and the disallowance was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Consulting Practice and Global Innovation Centre divisions could be aggregated for entity-level transfer-pricing benchmarking.

Analysis: The transfer-pricing framework requires determination of the arm's length price with regard to the functions, services, risks and economic profile of the tested transactions. The Consulting Practice division rendered market-analysis and consulting services to associated and unrelated enterprises and had been benchmarked using the Comparable Uncontrolled Price method, whereas the Global Innovation Centre division provided captive back-office support services and had separately been benchmarked under the Transactional Net Margin Method. Their functional profiles were materially different, and there was no material change justifying departure from the earlier acceptance of separate benchmarking. Consequently, entity-level benchmarking lacked a sustainable basis; the functional and economic differences in the challenged comparables further supported the grievance against the adjustment.

Conclusion: The divisions were required to be benchmarked separately; the entity-level transfer-pricing adjustment was deleted, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Taxable income must be recomputed by allowing the crystallised expenditure and eliminating the impugned entity-level transfer-pricing adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: Functionally distinct divisions having separately identifiable controlled transactions cannot be aggregated for transfer-pricing benchmarking at the entity level without a material basis establishing their comparability.

Issues: (i) Whether transhipped goods entering India constitute imports subject to the prohibition on import or transit of Pakistani-origin goods; (ii) Whether country of origin could be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction on conflicting documentary material; (iii) Whether Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials at Chennai had authority to inspect and seize a consignment slated for transhipment to Kolkata; (iv) Whether the India-Nepal transit treaty overrides domestic customs law and the import/transit prohibition; (v) Whether seizure should be confined to 300 labelled bags rather than the entire consignment.

Issue (i): Whether transhipped goods entering India constitute imports subject to the prohibition on import or transit of Pakistani-origin goods.

Analysis: Paragraph 2.20A of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 expressly prohibits direct or indirect import or transit of goods originating in or exported from Pakistan. The Customs Act, 1962 treats goods brought into India from outside India as imported goods, while Section 54 permits transhipment only subject to statutory prohibitions. Clearance for home consumption is not a prerequisite for the applicability of the prohibition where goods have entered India for transit.

Conclusion: The transhipped consignments constitute imports for applying the prohibition; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether country of origin could be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction on conflicting documentary material.

Analysis: The accompanying documents inconsistently identified Nigeria, Sudan and Pakistan as the origin of the goods. Such conflicting evidence gives rise to a disputed question of fact requiring determination through the statutory procedures and applicable rules of origin, rather than in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The country of origin is not conclusively determinable in writ jurisdiction and must be determined through the statutory process; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials at Chennai had authority to inspect and seize a consignment slated for transhipment to Kolkata.

Analysis: Notification No. 17/2002-Customs (N.T.) dated 07.03.2002 confers All India jurisdiction on the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Chennai was the first point of arrival of the consignment in India, permitting inspection and seizure there notwithstanding the intended onward transhipment.

Conclusion: The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Chennai had jurisdiction to inspect and seize the consignment; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the India-Nepal transit treaty overrides domestic customs law and the import/transit prohibition.

Analysis: The Customs Act, 1962 and the notification provide a clear domestic legal regime governing prohibited imports and transit. In the event of conflict, municipal law prevails over an international obligation; further, the treaty framework recognises exceptions concerning prohibited goods and essential security interests.

Conclusion: The transit treaty does not override the domestic prohibition; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether seizure should be confined to 300 labelled bags rather than the entire consignment.

Analysis: All 4,050 bags formed a single consignment under two bills of lading and were placed together in the containers. The unresolved discrepancies concerning origin reinforced the absence of a basis to segregate the labelled bags from the remainder at that stage.

Conclusion: There is no basis to bifurcate the consignment or restrict seizure to 300 bags; this issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The prohibition applies to transhipment entering India, and the origin inquiry, enforcement action and treatment of the consignment must proceed under the applicable customs and statutory framework.

Issues: Whether a tax-demand show-cause notice under Section 74 may be issued to an unregistered person without first initiating assessment under Section 63 of the applicable GST enactment.

Analysis: Section 63 prescribes the statutory mechanism for determining the tax liability of a person who has failed to obtain registration despite being liable to do so. It operates notwithstanding Section 74 and requires a best-judgment assessment, with an opportunity of hearing, before an assessment order is made. The question of entitlement to exemption remains for determination in proceedings under the applicable GST enactment.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice issued under Section 74 was quashed, with liberty to initiate assessment proceedings under Section 63 by issuing notice in ASMT-14.

Issues: Whether proceedings restricting refund under Rule 96(10) could continue after its omission without a savings or sunset clause.

Analysis: The governing principle on omission of subordinate legislation is that an omitted rule cannot sustain pending proceedings unless it is preserved by a savings clause or sunset clause. Rule 96(10) was omitted without such preservation; the recommendation that its omission operate prospectively was advisory and did not retain the rule for pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The omitted Rule 96(10) could not be kept alive to deny the refund claim.

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the penalty proceedings should be entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The detailed objections concerning alleged denial of natural justice, reasonable time for penalty proceedings, competence of the initiating officer, and the applicable penalty provision require appraisal of the adjudication record and statutory framework in appellate jurisdiction. Exhaustion of the statutory appellate remedy was required, and no exceptional basis for writ intervention was established.

Outcome: The statutory appellate remedy remains available; no final adjudication of the merits of the challenges was undertaken.

Issues: Whether an assessment order imposing tax and penalty can be sustained where no personal hearing was afforded despite an adverse decision being contemplated.

Analysis: Section 75(4) of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 mandates an opportunity of hearing where an adverse decision against the taxable person is contemplated. The statutory obligation applies even where the assessee did not separately opt for or request a personal hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing is invalid and was quashed, with liberty to the Department to pass a fresh order after granting such opportunity.

Issues: Whether refund proceedings could continue under omitted Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 in the absence of a saving or sunset clause.

Analysis: Rule 96(10) stood omitted without any saving or sunset clause. The binding principle governing omission of subordinate legislation was applied: an omitted rule cannot be kept alive to sustain pending proceedings where the rule-making authority has not preserved its operation.

Conclusion: Proceedings under omitted Rule 96(10) could not continue, and rejection of the refund claim solely by reference to that rule was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether interest expenditure directly attributable to taxable interest income under a back-to-back borrowing-and-lending arrangement could be disallowed in computing expenditure relating to exempt income.

Analysis: Section 14A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 applies to interest expenditure not directly attributable to a particular income or receipt. The borrowed funds were advanced in a back-to-back transaction, and the corresponding interest receipt was taxable and exceeded the interest payment. The interest expenditure was therefore directly connected with taxable interest income and was not expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. The absence of separate accounts or use of mixed funds did not alter the concurrent factual finding of a direct nexus.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance under Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not sustainable; the deletion was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether an upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore could be applied for selecting comparable companies in determining the arm's length price.

Analysis: The challenge concerned comparability under Section 92C(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Rules 10B(3) and 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The sole question pressed by the Revenue was covered in favour of the assessee by a binding co-ordinate Bench decision.

Conclusion: Application of an upper turnover filter of Rs. 200 crore for selection of comparables was sustained, in favour of the assessee.