Outcome: Delay condoned. Special Leave Petitions dismissed. Accompanying interlocutory applications disposed of.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed and the interlocutory application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether oven roasted areca nuts, roasted pistachios, roasted almond nuts and roasted cashew nuts are classifiable under the claimed Customs Tariff Items, and whether the roasting process takes them out of Chapter 8 into Heading 2008. (ii) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 is available for the imported goods, subject to proof of origin under the applicable rules.

Issue (i): Whether oven roasted areca nuts, roasted pistachios, roasted almond nuts and roasted cashew nuts are classifiable under the claimed Customs Tariff Items, and whether the roasting process takes them out of Chapter 8 into Heading 2008.

Analysis: The classification was determined by applying the General Rules for Interpretation, the Section and Chapter Notes, and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The decision distinguished roasting from drying and treated roasted cashew nuts as specifically covered by the tariff entry for cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted. Roasted almond nuts and roasted pistachios were treated as falling within the specific inclusion for other roasted nuts and seeds under Heading 2008. In relation to areca nuts, the ruling treated moisture content of 10% to 15% as inconsistent with the claimed roasted character and placed the goods in the areca nut entry under Chapter 8 rather than under roasted nuts.

Conclusion: Roasted cashew nuts are classifiable under CTI 20081910. Roasted almond nuts and roasted pistachios are classifiable under CTI 20081991. Areca nuts with moisture content of 10% to 15% are classifiable under CTI 080280, with the appropriate sub-classification depending on form.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 is available for the imported goods, subject to proof of origin under the applicable rules.

Analysis: The exemption was treated as conditional and dependent on the importer establishing origin to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional customs authority in accordance with the relevant rules of origin and the administration rules governing trade agreements.

Conclusion: The notification benefit is available only on proof of the required origin conditions.

Final Conclusion: The advance ruling sustains the proposed classification for roasted cashew nuts, roasted almond nuts and roasted pistachios, rejects the claimed roasted classification for the areca nuts described with 10% to 15% moisture content, and leaves the exemption benefit contingent on compliance with origin requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the specific description in the tariff and the HSN Explanatory Notes prevail, and goods resulting from roasting are to be classified as roasted nuts where the tariff expressly so provides, while goods not answering that description remain within the appropriate fresh or dried nut entry.

Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondent accused should be cancelled on the ground of alleged breach of bail conditions, need for further custodial interrogation, and alleged infirmity in the order granting bail.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, ordinarily showing interference with the administration of justice, evasion of process, abuse of liberty, absconding risk, or tampering with evidence or witnesses. The material on record showed that the respondent had complied with the conditions imposed by the trial court, had been permitted to travel abroad on earlier occasions with conditions, had returned, and had even surrendered his passport before it was later returned by the trial court. The record also indicated cooperation with the investigating agency, attendance when called, and supply of documents and login credentials. No credible material was placed to show breach of bail conditions, misuse of liberty, or any supervening circumstance justifying cancellation. The order granting bail was also treated as reasoned, and the request for further custodial interrogation was held not to furnish a sufficient ground to take away liberty already granted.

Conclusion: The prayer for cancellation of bail was rejected and the respondent's bail was not disturbed.

Issues: (i) Whether a miscellaneous application seeking recall of a non-speaking order dismissing an SLP is maintainable after disposal of the SLP. (ii) Whether subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings, including an OTS and withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can justify recall of the earlier dismissal. (iii) Whether alleged suppression or fraud was made out so as to reopen the disposed of SLP.

Issue (i): Whether a miscellaneous application seeking recall of a non-speaking order dismissing an SLP is maintainable after disposal of the SLP.

Analysis: A post-disposal miscellaneous application can be entertained only in narrow situations such as correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or where directions in an executory order have become impossible to implement because of later events. Once the SLP stands disposed of, the Court becomes functus officio except within those limited contours. A mere attempt to reopen a dismissed SLP does not satisfy the settled standard of maintainability.

Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was not maintainable and was against the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent developments in insolvency proceedings, including an OTS and withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, can justify recall of the earlier dismissal.

Analysis: The later events relied upon arose in a separate statutory framework and beyond the civil revision from which the SLP had arisen. Such developments could not be examined collaterally in a miscellaneous application filed in the disposed of SLP. The Court also reiterated that withdrawal under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 depends on the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors, which is not to be substituted by judicial assessment of competing offers. The applicant's attempt to compare the alleged superiority of its offer with the approved settlement was therefore outside the permissible scope of review.

Conclusion: The subsequent insolvency developments did not furnish a ground for recall and the issue was against the applicant.

Issue (iii): Whether alleged suppression or fraud was made out so as to reopen the disposed of SLP.

Analysis: Fraud may vitiate proceedings, but the exception must be specifically established. The order dismissing the SLP was non-speaking and did not rest on any representation shown to have been suppressed. The material relied upon at best disclosed a separate grievance arising from later or parallel proceedings and did not establish that the dismissal order itself had been procured by fraud.

Conclusion: Alleged suppression or fraud was not proved and no recall was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to reopen the dismissed SLP or to enter into the merits of later insolvency proceedings, leaving the parties to pursue any available remedy before the competent forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A miscellaneous application filed after disposal of an SLP is maintainable only in exceptional post-disposal situations, and a non-speaking dismissal cannot be recalled on the basis of later events or unsubstantiated allegations of suppression, especially where the relief sought would require collateral review of a separate statutory process governed by commercial wisdom.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal in view of the monetary limit under the second proviso to section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The disputed tax involved was Rs. 20,112/-, with penalties aggregating to amounts below the prescribed monetary threshold, and the dispute did not involve any question relating to rate of tax or valuation. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was entitled to decline admission of the second appeal under the statutory bar governing low-value disputes.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal and was not admitted.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding ended at the threshold on maintainability, and no examination on merits was undertaken.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the disputed duty or penalty falls below the prescribed monetary limit and the case does not raise a rate or valuation issue, the Tribunal may refuse to admit the appeal under the statutory second proviso.

Issues: Whether interest at 12% was payable on the amount deposited during investigation and later refunded, and whether the deposit could be treated as a voluntary payment or a pre-deposit attracting the refund regime under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amount was deposited during investigation at the insistence of the Department and was not a voluntary discharge of duty liability. The payment was made under a mistaken notion regarding excise liability and, on the facts recorded, could not be characterised as duty voluntarily paid. In such circumstances, the refund claim was not governed by the refund provisions applicable to duty claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Following the view already taken in the Tribunal's earlier decision, as affirmed by the High Court, interest was held payable on the refunded amount from the date of deposit till the date of refund, at the rate of 12%.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refunded deposit from the date of deposit till the date of refund.

Ratio Decidendi: An amount deposited during investigation at departmental insistence, and later refunded, carries interest where it is not a voluntary duty payment but a deposit made under a mistaken notion of liability.

Issues: Whether the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality or perversity under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the finding that the petitioner had not taken steps to avail input tax credit and that the documents furnished were sufficient.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the narrow jurisdiction under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The Court reiterated that an arbitral award may be interfered with only on limited grounds, including conflict with the public policy of India, patent illegality, or perversity, and that the Court does not sit in appeal over the award. The Majority Arbitral Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had not made any effort to avail the input tax credit, including by approaching the concerned authorities, and had also noted that the respondent had furnished the relevant documents and that the petitioner had reimbursed amounts towards CENVAT and VAT. On that basis, the Tribunal rejected the claim of shortfall. The Court held that this was a plausible and reasonable view on the material before the Tribunal, and that the objections raised amounted only to an impermissible request for reappreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The award did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity, and no ground for interference under Section 34 was made out.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 29.01.2026, the investigation was treated as completed, and a co-accused had already been granted bail. In these circumstances, continued incarceration was not considered necessary, and bail was granted with conditions relating to bond, sureties, appearance before the investigating authorities, and compliance with the statutory conditions applicable to bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation is complete and the accused has remained in judicial custody for a substantial period, bail may be granted, subject to conditions, especially where parity with a co-accused also exists.

Issues: (i) whether the assessment and recovery proceedings were vitiated for want of valid service of notice when the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled; and (ii) whether the ex parte assessment order could stand in the absence of opportunity of personal hearing under the GST law.

Issue (i): whether the assessment and recovery proceedings were vitiated for want of valid service of notice when the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled.

Analysis: Service by merely uploading notices on the GST portal was held insufficient in the facts of the case, since the petitioner was no longer required to monitor the portal after cancellation of registration. Valid service under the GST framework requires effective communication of notice through a permissible mode that actually informs the assessee. The record showed that the proceedings were taken ex parte without proper service.

Conclusion: The service of notice was held invalid and the ex parte proceedings were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the ex parte assessment order could stand in the absence of opportunity of personal hearing under the GST law.

Analysis: The statutory mandate of personal hearing applies where an adverse order is contemplated, and it embodies the rule of audi alteram partem. Since the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before the adverse assessment, the order suffered from breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The assessment order could not be sustained for want of opportunity of personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order and recovery proceedings were quashed, and the department was left free to proceed afresh after notice and hearing in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In GST adjudication, an ex parte order based only on portal-based notice to a person whose registration has been cancelled, without effective service and personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to regular bail in proceedings arising from alleged fake input tax credit offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The accused had been in judicial custody since 29.01.2026. The Court noted that a co-accused had already been granted bail and that investigation was stated to be complete. In these circumstances, further custodial detention was not considered necessary. Bail was therefore granted subject to conditions, including execution of bond, sureties, attendance before the investigating authorities, and compliance with the statutory conditions governing bail.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the accused.

Issues: Whether the applicant, accused of offences under the GST laws, was entitled to regular bail.

Analysis: The applicant had been arrested, the complaint had been filed, no antecedents were shown, and the alleged loss was capable of being addressed through the statutory recovery and penalty framework. The Court noted that the maximum punishment was five years and that the apprehension of the prosecution could be balanced by suitable bail conditions. Without entering into a detailed examination of the evidence, the Court found the case fit for exercise of bail discretion.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicant subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a GST prosecution, regular bail may be granted where custodial detention is not shown to be necessary, the accused has no antecedents, and the prosecution concerns can be met by imposing appropriate conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to homebuyers by commensurate reduction in the price of flats; (ii) whether the respondent was liable to pay the profiteered amount together with GST on the additional realisation; (iii) whether interest was payable on the determined amount.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had profiteered by not passing on the benefit of input tax credit to homebuyers by commensurate reduction in the price of flats

Analysis: The substantive framework under Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires passing on any tax reduction or input tax credit benefit to recipients by way of commensurate price reduction. The Tribunal relied on the DGAP's reinvestigation, the project-wise and area-based computation, and the respondent's own admissions made in prior proceedings that ITC benefit had not been passed on in the pre-GST and post-GST comparison. The Tribunal accepted that the post-GST savings in ITC, measured against total purchase value and apportioned over total sold area, established profiteering on a per square foot basis.

Conclusion: The respondent was held to have profiteered an amount of Rs. 2,07,08,131/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was liable to pay the profiteered amount together with GST on the additional realisation

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle that GST collected on the higher price formed part of the additional realisation retained by the supplier and could not be appropriated contrary to the consumer-protection object of Section 171. On that basis, GST at the applicable rate was added to the profiteered amount to arrive at the total sum payable to the homebuyers.

Conclusion: The respondent was held liable to pay Rs. 2,31,93,107/- in aggregate, including GST on the additional realisation.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on the determined amount

Analysis: Once profiteering and the total amount payable were determined, the Tribunal directed payment of interest at 18% from the date of each homebuyer's last instalment on the amount attributable to that buyer, in accordance with the statutory framework governing restitution of profiteered sums.

Conclusion: Interest at 18% was held payable on the determined amount from the relevant dates of payment.

Final Conclusion: The complaint of non-passing of ITC benefit was upheld, the profiteered amount was quantified on a project-wide, area-linked basis, and the respondent was directed to refund the quantified sum with applicable interest to the affected homebuyers.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-profiteering matters under Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017, the benefit of ITC must be passed on on a fair, project-specific and area-based basis, and judicial admissions by the supplier can conclusively establish profiteering when supported by the computation of post-GST savings.

Issues: Whether assessment and demand proceedings initiated in the name of a person who had already died are valid, and whether the legal representatives can be proceeded against under the statutory scheme only in continuation of proceedings lawfully initiated during the lifetime of the deceased.

Analysis: The proceedings under Section 148A(d) and the consequential assessment and demand notices were issued after the assessee's death. The statutory scheme under Section 159 permits action against legal representatives where proceedings are continued after having been validly initiated while the assessee was alive, but it does not authorise fresh proceedings in the name of a deceased person. A notice issued to a dead person is a foundational jurisdictional defect and cannot be cured as a mere procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The proceedings initiated against the deceased assessee were invalid and unsustainable. The challenge succeeded, and the orders and notices were set aside.

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of cash deposits in the bank account was sustainable, or whether the matter required restoration for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The addition arose from cash deposits of Rs. 25,13,000/- which the assessee claimed were sourced from earlier withdrawals and receipts from family members. The first appellate authority sustained the addition because supporting documentary evidence was not fully furnished. The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought one final opportunity to place the requisite details and documents before the first appellate authority to substantiate the source of deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to give one final opportunity and decide the issue on facts and law.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69A was not finally upheld or deleted and the issue was remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 16,88,000 as unexplained cash deposits could be sustained when the assessee's regular books showed sufficient cash in hand to cover the deposits made during the demonetization period.

Analysis: The assessee's cash book and audited accounts showed an opening cash balance, continued withdrawals and receipts, and a cash-in-hand position on 08.11.2016 far exceeding the total deposits made thereafter. The Revenue did not dispute the availability of cash in hand, but proceeded mainly on the premise that the cash ought to have been deposited earlier in November 2016. That approach did not address the decisive question of availability of funds in the books. Once the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash balance and the earlier November deposits were also accepted, there was no basis to treat the later deposits as unexplained merely because of the timing of deposit.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 16,88,000 was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where regular books of account show sufficient cash in hand to explain cash deposits, an addition as unexplained cannot be sustained merely on suspicion about the timing of the deposit.

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made towards alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of agricultural land was sustainable when the assessee produced evidence of the source of funds. (ii) Whether the trading addition based on estimated profit could be sustained in the absence of any specific defect in the books of account.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made towards alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of agricultural land was sustainable when the assessee produced evidence of the source of funds.

Analysis: The assessee produced confirmation letters of lenders, statements recorded during assessment, jamabandi records showing landholding and capacity of lenders, agricultural receipts, bank statements, girdhavari records, and income-tax returns showing regular declaration of agricultural income. On this material, the source of investment was treated as explained and the ingredients of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions stood established.

Conclusion: The addition for unexplained investment was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the trading addition based on estimated profit could be sustained in the absence of any specific defect in the books of account.

Analysis: The trading addition was made only on estimate, without pointing out any specific defect in the regularly maintained books of account. In the absence of such defect, an estimated addition could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The trading addition was not sustainable and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the additions sustained by the first appellate authority were set aside, resulting in complete relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained investment cannot survive where the assessee proves the source of funds through credible evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, and a trading addition cannot be sustained merely on estimate without specific defects in the books of account.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The issue was found to be covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case, which had followed the Rajasthan High Court decision, and no change in facts for the relevant assessment years was shown. On that basis, the exemption claim was accepted. Once the principal exemption issue was decided in favour of the assessee, the remaining additions arising from the assessment were rendered infructuous. The cross objections challenging reopening were treated as academic after the revenue's appeals failed on merits.

Conclusion: The exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) was allowed in favour of the assessee, and the revenue's appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment dispute was resolved in favour of the assessee on the principal exemption issue, with the ancillary additions and cross objections not surviving for adjudication.

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies was maintainable under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation; (iii) Whether the allegations under Sections 129 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner-auditor; and (iv) Whether the prosecution could continue against the petitioner in the absence of specific allegations and sufficient particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies was maintainable under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The provision permits cognizance on a complaint by the Registrar, a shareholder, a member, or a person authorised by the Central Government. The complaint was lodged by the Deputy Registrar, and the term "Registrar" in the Act includes a Deputy Registrar. On that basis, the filing was treated as competent.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged defaults were connected with the period during which the relevant balance-sheet entries arose, and the complaint was filed in November 2019. As the prosecution was linked with offences carrying punishment beyond the limitation threshold under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the bar of limitation was not attracted.

Conclusion: The complaint was held not to be barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the allegations under Sections 129 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner-auditor.

Analysis: Section 448 requires a false statement or omission of a material fact made knowingly. The complaint did not contain a specific averment that the petitioner knowingly made any false statement or intentionally concealed a material fact. The allegations were found to be general, vague, and lacking the factual particulars necessary to attract criminal liability.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was held to be made out against the petitioner under Section 448.

Issue (iv): Whether the prosecution could continue against the petitioner in the absence of specific allegations and sufficient particulars.

Analysis: The company itself had not been arraigned as an accused, and the pleadings did not attribute any distinct overt act or fraudulent intent to the petitioner. Continuation of the proceedings was held to amount to harassment and abuse of the criminal process, particularly since the allegations against the petitioner were non-specific and unsupported by material particulars.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the petitioner was held unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional applications succeeded, and the criminal proceedings were set aside insofar as the petitioner was concerned, as continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 cannot be sustained on vague allegations unless the complaint specifically discloses that the accused knowingly made a false statement or omitted a material fact with the requisite mens rea.