Issues: Whether the cancellation of GST registration and the appellate rejection of the restoration request could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and whether the registration deserved restoration despite the delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis: Cancellation of GST registration carries civil consequences and can be sustained only in accordance with the statutory scheme. The relevant provisions recognise cancellation, revocation, and the requirement of hearing, while the appellate remedy under the GST framework is subject to statutory limitation. On the facts, the cancellation order was found unsustainable and the appellate authority could not extend limitation beyond the statutory bounds. The Court also took note that the petitioner had shown bona fide reasons for the default and that restoration would not prejudice the revenue.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the appellate order were both quashed, and restoration of GST registration was directed. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained restoration of GST registration through writ intervention, with liberty to comply with remaining statutory obligations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST registration cancellation has civil consequences, and the statutory appellate forum lacks power to condone delay beyond the prescribed limit, the High Court may in appropriate cases restore the registration in writ jurisdiction when the cancellation is found unsustainable and restoration would not prejudice revenue.

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded in view of the earlier appellate remand directing simultaneous consideration of the pending show cause notices and grant of a fair hearing.

Analysis: The prior appellate order had remanded the matter for simultaneous decision of the show cause notices and expressly required a fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a fair opportunity and following natural justice. The impugned order had been passed before the appellate order was available to the concerned officer. In these circumstances, the original authority was bound to follow the appellate directions, since the pending notice and the cancellation proceedings had a direct bearing on the adjudication. A fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law was therefore necessary.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: When an appellate authority has remanded proceedings with a direction for simultaneous consideration and a fresh hearing, the adjudicating authority must adhere to that mandate, and an order passed without giving effect to it is liable to be set aside and remanded.

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was prima facie without jurisdiction in respect of a concluded issue arising from redevelopment agreements executed before the GST regime.

Analysis: The notice sought to tax the transfer of flats/tenements given free of cost to existing society members under redevelopment agreements executed in 2008 and 2011, while the audit report dated 26 October 2023 had accepted the settled tax position for the relevant period. The communication leading to the notice also indicated that the matter had been examined in audit and that the proposed demand related to a concluded arrangement. On that basis, the challenge raised a serious prima facie question whether Section 74 could be invoked for a matter already crystallized under the redevelopment agreements and reflected in the audit outcome.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was found to be prima facie without jurisdiction and further proceedings were stayed pending final hearing.

Issues: Whether the premium paid to LIC to fund a monthly annuity for a retired partner-employee was a contingent liability or an expenditure for an existing liability, and therefore allowable as a deduction.

Analysis: The contractual obligation to provide the assured annuity existed at the time the premium was paid. The mere fact that payment of the annuity would arise on retirement or on fulfilment of the specified service conditions did not make the premium itself contingent. The Court distinguished the earlier principle relied on by the Revenue, and held that the facts did not show any alternate arrangement or refundable premium that would make the liability uncertain. Applying the principle that an accrued liability, though discharged later, is allowable in mercantile accounting, the Court accepted that the expenditure was incurred toward an existing liability.

Conclusion: The premium was not a contingent liability and was allowable as a deduction. The assessee succeeded, and the order of the Tribunal was set aside while the appellate authority's view was restored.

Issues: Whether the impugned GST demand order and rectification order warranted interference and remand for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed tax and filing of reply with supporting documents.

Analysis: The writ petition was filed after expiry of the statutory appeal period, but the petitioner expressed willingness to pay 50% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity for fresh adjudication. In the circumstances, the Court directed remand to the respondent for passing a fresh order on merits, subject to pre-deposit of 50% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time and filing of a reply with documents. The Court also directed that the petitioner be heard before any fresh order is passed and that bank attachment be lifted upon compliance with the conditions.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside to the extent necessary for remand, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh on merits subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee undertakes a substantial pre-deposit and seeks an opportunity to contest the demand, the Court may remit the matter for fresh adjudication on merits with appropriate procedural safeguards.

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the GST assessment order confirming the demand based on the petitioner's admitted tax liability.

Analysis: The demand confirmed in the assessment order corresponded to the petitioner's own written reply, in which liability for delayed remittance of tax was ed and payment was undertaken. In view of that admission and the absence of merit in the challenge, no ground was made out for judicial interference with the confirmed demand.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order was rejected and the demand was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether additions based mainly on electronic material retrieved from seized mobile devices could be sustained in the absence of reliable proof of authenticity, continuity of custody, and proper compliance with the prescribed digital-evidence procedure; (ii) Whether approvals granted under section 153D were vitiated for want of independent application of mind to the draft assessments and the material relied upon.

Issue (i): Whether additions based mainly on electronic material retrieved from seized mobile devices could be sustained in the absence of reliable proof of authenticity, continuity of custody, and proper compliance with the prescribed digital-evidence procedure.

Analysis: The additions rested substantially on screenshots, WhatsApp chats, and images said to have been extracted from mobile devices and linked to alleged unaccounted transactions. The record did not establish a complete and reliable chain of custody from seizure to extraction and use in assessment, and the material placed before the Tribunal did not satisfactorily show how the working copies were handled or how the relied-upon outputs were produced for assessment purposes. The Tribunal also found that the electronic material was secondary in nature and lacked adequate corroboration from independent books, documents, or other physical evidence. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the digital material did not possess sufficient evidentiary credibility to sustain the disputed additions.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether approvals granted under section 153D were vitiated for want of independent application of mind to the draft assessments and the material relied upon.

Analysis: The approval was examined in the context of long, electronically driven search assessments involving multiple years and substantial additions. The approval letters did not show any real engagement with the specific issues, the digital-evidence concerns, or the manner in which the Assessing Officer had used the material. The Tribunal held that section 153D requires a meaningful prior approval for each assessment year, and that a bare or ritualistic sanction does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Since the approval reflected no discernible application of mind to the critical aspects of the draft assessments, it was held to be mechanical and invalid.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessments could not survive because the core additions were founded on unreliable electronic material and the statutory prior approval was vitiated. The assessee's appeals succeeded and the Revenue's appeals failed, with the impugned assessments set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where search assessments rest principally on digital material, the Revenue must establish authenticity, continuity of custody, and reliable admissibility of the electronic evidence, and prior approval under section 153D must reflect independent application of mind to the draft order and the material on record.

Issues: Whether Rule 86A permits blocking of input tax credit when no credit is available in the electronic credit ledger, and whether blocking can extend to future or non-existent credit.

Analysis: Rule 86A was construed according to its plain language and the heading indicating use of the amount available in the electronic credit ledger. The power to block credit was held to be available only to the extent of credit actually standing in the ledger at the time the blocking order is made or communicated. The Court followed the view that taxing provisions must be strictly construed and that no future credit or negative balance can be blocked under Rule 86A. The Court accepted that where some credit is available, that amount may be blocked pending adjudication, while recovery or further action in respect of the remaining disputed credit must proceed through the statutory adjudicatory machinery.

Conclusion: Negative blocking under Rule 86A is impermissible. Blocking is valid only to the extent of existing credit in the electronic credit ledger, and the balance disputed credit must be pursued through adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 86A authorises blocking only of credit actually available in the electronic credit ledger at the relevant time and does not permit blocking of future credit or insertion of a negative balance.

Issues: Whether service tax could be levied on legal services provided by an individual advocate to a partnership firm of advocates, and whether the consequential order-in-original and recovery notice were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The relevant notifications governing service tax on legal services exempted the service provided by an individual advocate or a partnership firm of advocates by way of legal services, and also placed the taxable burden under the reverse charge framework with nil liability on the service provider. In the light of those notifications, the demand raised against the petitioner, who was an advocate, could not be sustained. The impugned order was therefore contrary to the binding statutory notifications and was passed without jurisdiction. The Court also followed its earlier view on the same legal position and found the subsequent recovery action to be consequential to an unsustainable demand.

Conclusion: The levy was held unsustainable, and the impugned order and recovery notice were quashed. Relief was granted in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether the consultancy receipts could be brought to tax as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the claim of expenditure supported by self-made vouchers and additional material could be disallowed in full or only to a restricted extent.

Issue (i): Whether the consultancy receipts could be brought to tax as unexplained income under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The assessee had entered into a one-time consultancy arrangement in relation to redevelopment projects and had placed memoranda of understanding and banking evidence on record. A part of the receipts had been routed through banking channels, lending prima facie credibility to the transaction. The existence of the activity and the receipt of income therefrom could not, therefore, be ignored in entirety.

Conclusion: The entire receipts could not be treated as unexplained income under section 69.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim of expenditure supported by self-made vouchers and additional material could be disallowed in full or only to a restricted extent.

Analysis: The assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure with cogent and verifiable evidence before the Assessing Officer. The self-made vouchers and related materials were sought to be introduced at the appellate stage without satisfying the conditions for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. At the same time, the nature of the activity and the assessee's concession justified only a limited disallowance for unverifiable expenses.

Conclusion: The expenditure disallowance was to be restricted to Rs. 10,00,000, and the balance disallowance was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The addition was sustained only to a limited extent for unverifiable expenditure, and the assessee obtained relief on the balance of the disputed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Where documentary material and banking evidence establish a prima facie genuine business receipt, the entire receipt cannot be taxed as unexplained income merely because part of the expenditure remains unverified; however, unverifiable expenditure may still be disallowed to a reasonable extent, and additional evidence is not admissible unless the conditions of Rule 46A are satisfied.

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271D was leviable where cash sale consideration for transfer of immovable property was received through a subsisting General Power of Attorney and the transaction did not amount to acceptance of loan or deposit under section 269SS.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether the receipt of cash in connection with sale of immovable property attracted the prohibition in section 269SS and the consequential penalty under section 271D. The transfer was effected through a General Power of Attorney that had not been cancelled, and the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities on the basis of alleged infirmity in the GPA transaction was not accepted. Following the view taken in co-ordinate bench decisions, receipt of sale consideration in cash in the facts of the case was held not to constitute the kind of loan or deposit transaction targeted by section 269SS, and therefore the penal provision could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271D was not exigible and was deleted; the assessee succeeded.

Issues: Whether the impugned adjudication order was liable to be quashed for failure to grant the statutory opportunity of personal hearing mandated by Section 75(4) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the authority to afford three opportunities of personal hearing before passing an adverse order. The record showed that the petitioner was not granted the full hearing mandated by law, and the option of declining personal hearing in the reply could not override the statutory command. Where the reply was not accepted, the authority was bound to provide the further hearings contemplated by the provision. The denial of the mandated hearing amounted to a breach of the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not stand and was liable to be quashed. The matter was required to be remanded for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were set aside for breach of the statutory hearing requirement and natural justice, with a direction for fresh decision-making by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute mandates multiple opportunities of personal hearing before an adverse adjudication, the authority must strictly comply with that mandate, and an order passed without such compliance is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be quashed for breach of principles of natural justice for want of hearing and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The notice issued to the petitioner expressly required appearance on a future date and also called for a representation with supporting evidence. The impugned order, however, was passed before that scheduled hearing date and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to reply or be heard. On these facts, the procedural safeguard of hearing was not observed, and the order could not be sustained. The appropriate course was to set aside the order and remit the proceedings to the authority for fresh decision after granting hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and set aside and the proceedings were remanded for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner-company could be permitted to repatriate dividend to its foreign shareholders despite pending tax demands and earlier restraint orders, and on what conditions; (ii) whether the income-tax refund for the relevant assessment year could be adjusted against the outstanding demand and whether the lien on the existing fixed deposit receipts could be lifted.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner-company could be permitted to repatriate dividend to its foreign shareholders despite pending tax demands and earlier restraint orders, and on what conditions.

Analysis: The accumulated dividend could not be withheld indefinitely merely because the Department had earlier frozen accounts on apprehension of demand, particularly when the assessed demands were under challenge and stood stayed by the appellate forum or the Court. The Court balanced the competing interests by recognising the shareholders' entitlement to receive dividend while safeguarding the Department through a security mechanism linked to the amount proposed to be repatriated.

Conclusion: The petitioner-company was permitted to declare and repatriate dividend in accordance with law and foreign remittance requirements, subject to deduction of tax at source and furnishing an auto-renewable interest-bearing fixed deposit receipt of equal amount in a nationalized bank.

Issue (ii): whether the income-tax refund for the relevant assessment year could be adjusted against the outstanding demand and whether the lien on the existing fixed deposit receipts could be lifted.

Analysis: Since the demand had already crystallised and the refund was available with the Department, adjustment of the refund against another outstanding demand was permitted. The Court also removed the lien on the earlier fixed deposit receipts, leaving it open to the petitioner-company to withdraw them if so desired.

Conclusion: The refund was allowed to be adjusted against the outstanding demand, and the lien on the existing fixed deposit receipts was lifted.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed in part by permitting dividend repatriation with security, while also permitting refund adjustment and lifting the lien on the existing security deposits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax demand is stayed without any security condition, interim restraint on dividend repatriation cannot be continued indefinitely; the proper course is to balance shareholder rights with departmental protection by permitting remittance subject to equivalent security and tax compliance.

Issues: Whether the petition should be entertained by the High Court when only a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction and the substantial factual foundation of the dispute lay outside Delhi.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction was not determined by the location of the respondent's head office alone. The summons, the ECIR, and the underlying FIR were all connected with Punjab, showing that the genesis of the controversy and the material facts giving rise to the grievance were outside Delhi. A small or incidental part of the cause of action within Delhi did not compel the Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, especially where the doctrine of forum conveniens applied and the dominant facts were elsewhere.

Conclusion: The petition was not entertained on territorial grounds and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere presence of a decision-making authority or a small part of the cause of action within the Court's territorial limits does not mandate exercise of writ jurisdiction where the dominant, material, and integral facts lie outside that territory, and the Court may decline to entertain the matter on the basis of forum conveniens.

Issues: Whether premium paid to LIC to secure a monthly annuity for a retiring employee constituted a contingent liability or an expenditure referable to an existing contractual liability and was therefore allowable as a deduction.

Analysis: The payment was made to discharge a contractual obligation under the partnership arrangement and the LIC policy. The liability to provide the annuity existed at the time of payment, while retirement or completion of service was only the condition for enjoyment of the benefit. A future event that may affect the discharge of the liability does not by itself make the liability contingent. On the facts, the premium was not paid to create a mere reserve for an uncertain future event, and the reasoning that treated it as a contingent outgo was inconsistent with the governing principles on accrued liabilities and deductible expenditure under mercantile accounting.

Conclusion: The payment was an allowable business expenditure and not a contingent liability; the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was set aside and the appellate authority's order was restored, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A liability that has already accrued under a contractual obligation is not rendered contingent merely because its actual enjoyment or discharge depends on a future condition subsequent.

Issues: (i) Whether the arm's length price adjustment in respect of the international transaction, where the transaction value exceeded Rs. 5 crores, was required to be referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer.

Analysis: The matter involved determination of arm's length price of international transactions. The Tribunal found that the adjustment had not been referred to the Transfer Pricing Officer despite the transaction value exceeding the statutory threshold. Following the binding Supreme Court ruling relied upon in the order, the Tribunal held that the issue had to be sent back so that reference could be made to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer with a direction to refer the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer for fresh determination of the arm's length price.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the value of an international transaction exceeds the prescribed threshold, the arm's length price must be determined through reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, and failure to make such reference warrants remand for fresh adjudication.

Issues: (i) transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment for use of trademark and trade name; (ii) transfer pricing adjustment on specified domestic transaction relating to passive infrastructure charges and rent; (iii) disallowance of depreciation on right to use 3G spectrum; (iv) disallowance of penalty paid to the Department of Telecommunication; (v) disallowance of depreciation on asset restoration cost; (vi) addition for liabilities written back; (vii) disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on discount extended to prepaid distributors; (viii) disallowance of license fee and related amortization claim; (ix) disallowance of payments made to IBM; (x) disallowance of royalty WPC expense; (xi) short credit of tax deducted at source and interest on refund.

Issue (i): transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment for use of trademark and trade name.

Analysis: The royalty transaction was benchmarked by the assessee under CUP, while the transfer pricing authority substituted TNMM and adopted controlled arrangements as comparables. The Tribunal treated the controversy as covered by its earlier order in the assessee's own case for the preceding year and followed the same reasoning to test the comparability exercise.

Conclusion: The transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payment was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): transfer pricing adjustment on specified domestic transaction relating to passive infrastructure charges and rent.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the specified domestic transaction adjustment had been omitted from the statute and relied on the effect of such omission to hold the reference and consequent adjustment unsustainable. It also accepted the revenue-neutral character of the transaction in the factual setting of the case.

Conclusion: The adjustment on passive infrastructure charges and rent was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): disallowance of depreciation on right to use 3G spectrum.

Analysis: The claim was examined in light of prior co-ordinate bench rulings in the assessee's own case and related group matters, where spectrum-related expenditure was treated as eligible for depreciation as an intangible asset rather than being confined to amortization under the competing provision relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation on right to use 3G spectrum was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): disallowance of penalty paid to the Department of Telecommunication.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that the payment arose from breach of contractual obligations under the licence arrangement and not from an infraction of law attracting the bar on deduction. The same approach was applied to the analogous penalty relating to the Universal Service Obligation Fund.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the Department of Telecommunication penalty was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (v): disallowance of depreciation on asset restoration cost.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the later High Court ruling recognising the allowability of the underlying obligation as revenue expenditure under section 37. On that basis, the assessee's claim was restored in substance, with verification of the expenditure directed at the assessment stage.

Conclusion: The claim relating to asset restoration cost was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (vi): addition for liabilities written back.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the liability written back related to capital equipment and that the issue had already been decided against the assessee in the prior year on the footing that the remission constituted a business liability within the charging provisions invoked by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The addition for liabilities written back was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (vii): disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) on discount extended to prepaid distributors.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court ruling that such discount is not commission and therefore does not attract the TDS obligation under the provision invoked by the Revenue. The earlier year's order in the assessee's own case was followed.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (viii): disallowance of license fee and related amortization claim.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court authority holding the licence fee to be capital in nature and amortizable under the specified provision. The assessee was therefore directed to have the claim examined and allowed in accordance with that framework.

Conclusion: The issue was allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ix): disallowance of payments made to IBM.

Analysis: The Tribunal treated the payment as lease-related expenditure where beneficial ownership remained with the supplier and the tax treatment was governed by the substantive provisions rather than accounting classification. It followed the earlier co-ordinate bench decision allowing the expenditure as revenue outgo.

Conclusion: The disallowance of payments made to IBM was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (x): disallowance of royalty WPC expense.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court and its own earlier decision that the recurring spectrum-related payments were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure requiring capitalization.

Conclusion: The disallowance of royalty WPC expense was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (xi): short credit of tax deducted at source and interest on refund.

Analysis: The Tribunal directed verification of the assessee's entitlement and instructed the Assessing Officer to grant credit and refund interest according to law.

Conclusion: These issues were allowed for statistical purposes in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on most substantive grounds, with several additions and disallowances deleted, some claims restored for verification or allowed for statistical purposes, and the addition relating to liabilities written back sustained against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For transfer pricing, controlled transactions cannot be treated as comparable uncontrolled transactions for CUP analysis, and a tax adjustment based on an omitted domestic transfer pricing provision cannot survive; further, contractual lease-related outgoings and prepaid distributor discounts are deductible where the governing tax characterisation supports revenue treatment.

Issues: Whether the direction to return the deposited amount to the corporate debtor and to decline acceptance of the affidavit was justified.

Analysis: The corporate debtor had deposited the amount pursuant to the earlier order within the time allowed. The affidavit filed in support of the deposit recorded the debtor's submission that the amount should not be released or remitted to the operational creditor while the stated sanctions-related constraints continued. That statement did not furnish a basis to undo the deposit or to direct its return. The operational creditor also had no objection to the amount continuing in deposit. Since the matter had already been reserved, the adjudicating authority was required to take a decision on the basis of the deposit and the affidavit already filed.

Conclusion: The direction returning the deposited amount and refusing to take the affidavit on record was set aside, and the deposited amount was ordered to remain with the Assistant Registrar.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified to preserve the deposited amount in court custody and to permit the adjudicating authority to proceed on the basis of the deposit and affidavit already filed.

Issues: Whether the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, after approval of the resolution plan and commencement of liquidation proceedings due to persistent default by the successful resolution applicant, could be de novo revived at the instance of the erstwhile resolution professional.

Analysis: The approved resolution plan had already been acted upon to the extent possible, but repeated defaults in payment led to invocation of the liquidation mechanism under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellant himself had initiated liquidation proceedings and later sought restoration of that application. In these circumstances, the request to restore and revive the concluded CIRP was inconsistent with the statutory scheme, because the CIRP had already culminated in an approved plan and, upon its failure, had moved into the liquidation stage. The cited precedents did not assist the appellant, as they arose on materially different facts and did not lay down a principle permitting revival of a closed CIRP after failure of the revised plan and initiation of liquidation.

Conclusion: The request for de novo revival of the CIRP was rightly rejected and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a resolution plan has been approved and, upon persistent non-implementation, liquidation proceedings have been validly initiated, the CIRP cannot be revived de novo, particularly at the instance of the party who himself sought liquidation.