Issues: (i) Whether assessment proceedings carried out by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation after imposition of moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code could be continued and whether claims based on such assessment can be admitted in the corporate insolvency resolution process; (ii) Whether claims filed belatedly by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation after approval of the resolution plan by the committee of creditors can be admitted in the CIRP; (iii) Whether adverse remarks against the resolution professional for alleged non-disclosure of pending proceedings under the insolvency resolution regulations were justified.

Issue (i): Whether assessment proceedings by EPFO after imposition of moratorium and claims based on such assessment can be continued or admitted in CIRP.

Analysis: The moratorium under Section 14(1) creates a statutory freeze on suits and proceedings affecting the corporate debtor during CIRP. Precedent of this Tribunal holds that assessment proceedings by EPFO cannot be continued during the moratorium and that claims based on assessments made during the moratorium are not admissible in CIRP. The assessment in the present matter was completed during the moratorium period and not after liquidation.

Conclusion: Assessment proceedings by EPFO carried out after commencement of the moratorium could not be continued and claims based on such assessment are not admissible in the CIRP; conclusion is against the Respondent (EPFO).

Issue (ii): Whether belated claims filed by EPFO after the committee of creditors approved the resolution plan can be admitted.

Analysis: The CIRP is a time-bound process and claims not submitted within prescribed timelines, particularly claims filed after CoC approval of a resolution plan, cannot be entertained. Authorities caution against reopening CIRP after plan approval to prevent undermining finality and to avoid permitting a cascade of late claims which would prejudice the resolution applicant and impede the process.

Conclusion: Belated claims filed after approval of the resolution plan by the committee of creditors cannot be admitted; conclusion is in favour of the Appellants (RP and CoC).

Issue (iii): Whether adverse remarks against the resolution professional for alleged failure to disclose pending EPFO proceedings under regulation 36(2)(h) were warranted.

Analysis: The information on pending proceedings before the RP and CoC derived from the suspended management and the record does not show disclosure by EPFO to the IRP/RP within the claim filing timeline. In absence of proof that EPFO notified the IRP/RP or that the suspended management omitted the matter knowingly, findings of breach are not supported.

Conclusion: Adverse remarks against the resolution professional for breach of disclosure obligations are unjustified and are to be expunged; conclusion is in favour of the Appellants (RP).

Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed; the impugned order admitting EPFO's claim is set aside and the adverse remarks against the resolution professional are expunged, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is in force during CIRP, assessment proceedings by statutory authorities such as EPFO cannot be continued and claims based on assessments made during the moratorium are not admissible in the CIRP; claims filed after approval of a resolution plan by the committee of creditors cannot be entertained.

Issues: (i) Whether the activity of assembling components into Rural Load Management Units (RLMUs) at site amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the demand can be confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether on the facts the assembly activity amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: Evidence on record indicates that assembled units were produced at the project site as part of a turnkey/erection and commissioning contract; components were duty-paid and supplied for on-site assembly; subcontractors performed assembly work under a principal-to-principal relationship and carried out operations at the site. Circular No. 56/56/94-CX and Circular No. 58/1/2002-CX distinguish job-worker manufacture and turnkey/installation projects for excise liability; marketability requires capability of the product to perform its specific function when removed. The factual matrix shows assembly per site specifications and that the assembled unit without all components was not independently marketable prior to final commissioning. Registration and tax compliance under erection and commissioning services and prior disclosure to the department are material to classification.

Conclusion: The assembly activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; therefore no excise liability arises on the assembled RLMUs.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is sustainable.

Analysis: The department had prior knowledge of the on-site assembly operations and the contractors had registered and discharged service tax for installation/erection activities; there is no contemporaneous material establishing suppression of facts or an intention to evade duty. Where disclosure to the department exists and the transactions were within departmental knowledge, the requirement for invoking the extended period based on suppression of facts is not satisfied.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable; the demand is time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders confirming duty, interest and penalties are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where on-site assembly is performed as part of a turnkey/erection and commissioning contract with duty-paid components, prior departmental knowledge and registration for erection/commissioning services negates the finding of manufacture and the presence of suppression of facts necessary to invoke the extended limitation proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issues: Whether the suspension of the petitioner's GST registration by issuance of Form GST Reg-17 dated 27.02.2026 and related proceedings should be quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the guidelines in Tvl. Suguna Cut Piece Center so as to permit revival of registration subject to conditions.

Analysis: The impugned Form GST Reg-17 dated 27.02.2026 initiated cancellation proceedings and simultaneously suspended the petitioner's GST registration with effect from 27.02.2026. The suspension of registration has been held to be unwarranted. The matter is to be considered and decided by the competent authority by following the directions and conditional framework laid down in Tvl. Suguna Cut Piece Center (including filing of returns, payment of tax, interest, fines/fees, restrictions on adjustment of input tax credit, scrutiny and approval of input tax credit, and revival on compliance). The authority is directed to pass orders on the show cause notice in accordance with those guidelines and to permit revival of registration on fulfillment of the stipulated conditions.

Conclusion: The suspension of the petitioner's GST registration is quashed; the show cause notice is to be decided afresh by the respondents in accordance with the directions in Tvl. Suguna Cut Piece Center, and the petitioner may have registration revived on compliance with the prescribed conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Suspension of GST registration effected by a show cause notice is subject to judicial review and may be quashed where unwarranted, with directions to the revenue to reconsider cancellation proceedings and permit revival of registration subject to compliance with conditional safeguards including payment of tax and scrutiny of input tax credit as per established guidelines.

Issues: Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice in Form GST Reg-17 dated 27.02.2026, which proposes cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration with effect from 01.07.2017, is sustainable and whether relief should be granted to the petitioner.

Analysis: The petition challenges a notice proposing cancellation of GST registration effective from 01.07.2017, issued after inspection (13.11.2025), recording of statement under Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (14.11.2025) and a related demand (DRC-01A dated 18.02.2026). The Court disposed the petition at admission with consent and examined the legality of proposing retrospective cancellation from 01.07.2017. The Court applied the principles of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and followed the guidelines and conditions set out by this Court in Tvl.Suguna Cut Piece Center (paras 227-229) relating to quashing of cancellation orders, conditional revival of registration, filing of returns, payment of tax/interest/penalty, and scrutiny and controlled utilisation of input tax credit.

Conclusion: The portion of the Show Cause Notice that proposes cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration with effect from 01.07.2017 is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass orders on the show cause notice in accordance with the directions issued in Tvl.Suguna Cut Piece Center (including conditional revival, filing of returns, payment of tax/interest/penalty, and controlled scrutiny/use of input tax credit).

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) read with Explanation 1 to Section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee had commenced business in the assessment year 2018-19 so as to allow capital expenditure on scientific research incurred in the preceding three years.

Analysis: The statutory scheme allows capital expenditure on scientific research incurred in the three years immediately preceding the commencement of business to be deemed incurred in the year of commencement. The legal inquiry requires determination of the year in which business was commenced having regard to the nature of activities that necessarily precede commercial exploitation. The assessee's material shows ongoing in-house research, DSIR recognition, capital work in progress and no revenue from operations, no purchases, no closing stock and no manufacture or sale of the researched product during the year under consideration. The admitted facts include that the R&D work and formation of the product formula were still continuing in the relevant year and no product was ready for manufacture or sale. The statutory Explanation 1 requires actual commencement of business for the deeming to operate; mere preparatory or continuing research without proof of results leading to commercial exploitation does not satisfy that requirement. The decisions relied upon concerning commencement in other factual contexts were distinguished on the ground that, in the present case, the R&D had not produced a result or led to manufacture or sale in the relevant year and the conditions of Explanation 1 were therefore not fulfilled.

Conclusion: Deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) read with Explanation 1 to Section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not allowable for A.Y. 2018-19 because the assessee had not commenced business in that year; the revenue's disallowance of the capital expenditure of Rs. 3,72,88,916 is confirmed.

Issues: Whether the applicants seeking to protect rights arising from the sale of a secured asset during an operative moratorium should be impleaded in the pending appeal.

Analysis: The applicants assert that a sale of a mortgaged asset occurred while a moratorium arising from an earlier insolvency order was in force and that the subsequent admission of a second CIRP may imperil the purchaser's and bank's rights. Where a civil right is at risk of being affected by ongoing proceedings, persons whose substantive rights may be collateral casualties are entitled to be heard. The need to implead depends on whether the applicants are necessary or proper parties because, in their absence, collateral damage to rights dealt with in the transaction can occur. The court considered that the applicants have a direct interest in the subject-matter (the sold secured asset) and that their participation is necessary to secure justice and to allow them to place before the tribunal contentions regarding the legality of the impugned admission and the potential impact on the sale.

Conclusion: The applications for impleadment are allowed; the applicants shall be impleaded as respondents 3 and 4, the appellant shall amend the memo of parties and serve the appeal papers on the newly impleaded parties within three days, and the impleaded respondents may file objections by 27 March 2026 with rejoinder by 10 April 2026.

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in refusing to take on record the Baker Tilly forensic/transaction audit report and in dismissing IA No. 151 of 2025 filed by the suspended management seeking directions for a fresh transaction/forensic audit and re-examination of admitted claims.

Analysis: The appeal challenges only IA No. 151 of 2025 which sought recording and ruling upon a forensic audit report purportedly commissioned by the suspended management and reliefs directing the Resolution Professional to conduct fresh transaction/forensic audit and re-examine admitted claims. The statutory framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the CIRP regulations recognises the role and duties of the resolution professional and the commercial decision-making authority of the committee of creditors. The Adjudicating Authority examined the Baker Tilly report and found it unsigned, unstamped, replete with extensive disclaimers and lacking indicia of independent audit ownership and authenticity. The Adjudicating Authority also noted that the suspended management had no authorized locus to commission a transaction/forensic audit at its own instance, that such a report risked conflict of interest and bias, and that confidentiality of CoC information could be breached by unilateral commissioning. The record showed that the resolution professional had formed and filed his opinion and had initiated appropriate avoidance proceedings, and that objections to those proceedings by the suspended management were already on record. The impugned order therefore assessed both procedural and evidentiary infirmities in treating the Baker Tilly report as reliable or admissible and evaluated maintainability of the prayer under Sections 60(5) and 65 of the Code in the context of the facts presented.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority did not err in refusing to take on record the unsigned and disclaimer-laden forensic/transaction audit report commissioned by the suspended management and in dismissing IA No. 151 of 2025; the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed.

Issues: (i) Whether service tax is leviable on labour charges reimbursed by the manufacturer to dealers for free warranty services provided to customers; (ii) Whether service tax is leviable on reimbursement of cost of spare parts used by dealers in providing free warranty and extended warranty services.

Issue (i): Whether service tax is leviable on amounts paid by the manufacturer to dealers as reimbursement of labour charges for free warranty services.

Analysis: Relevant legal framework includes the principles governing taxable consideration under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and judicial interpretations that warranty income is not taxable when no additional consideration is received and the service is embedded in the sale price. The Tribunal applied its precedents addressing manufacturers' payments to dealers for warranty labour, and relied on prior authoritative decisions holding that amounts paid by manufacturers to dealers for labour in free warranty services are not exigible to service tax where they constitute reimbursement or are already embedded in the sale consideration.

Conclusion: Service tax is not leviable on labour charges reimbursed by the manufacturer to dealers for free warranty services; conclusion in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax is leviable on reimbursement of the cost of spare parts used by dealers in providing free warranty and extended warranty services.

Analysis: Consideration was given to Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and its treatment by higher courts and the Tribunal, including the principle that reimbursable expenses cannot be included in taxable value for periods prior to the amendment of Section 67. Tribunal precedents were applied which held that costs of spare parts reimbursed by manufacturers and sold on payment of VAT are not includible in the value for service tax and that extended warranty premiums remitted to manufacturers do not constitute additional taxable consideration for dealers.

Conclusion: Service tax is not leviable on reimbursement of cost of spare parts used in providing free warranty and extended warranty services; conclusion in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demands and penalties relating to service tax on labour reimbursements and reimbursement of spare parts during warranty and extended warranty periods are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Reimbursable expenses and manufacturer reimbursements for warranty labour and spare parts are not includible in the taxable value of services where no separate consideration is received and the cost is effectively embedded in the sale price; consequently such reimbursements do not attract service tax for the periods under consideration.

Issues: Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of net sale proceeds invested in an under-construction residential property where payment was made prior to the sale of the old property, and whether the reassessment disallowing that deduction is liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The appeal examines the scope of exemption under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the temporal tests for acquisition or construction of a new residential property. Relevant facts include sale of an old property on 19.08.2014, payment of substantial consideration for an under-construction villa between February and May 2014, claim of deduction under Section 54F in return filed 24.08.2015, and execution/purchase deed dated 26.04.2017. Authorities relied upon establish that Section 54(1)/54F does not mandate that the very same money received on sale must be physically applied only after the date of transfer, and that acquisition or construction within statutory periods may include prior payments/land costs where the new property is completed within the prescribed time. On the recorded facts the assessee had paid the sale consideration prior to filing return and documentary confirmations support application of the invested amount to the new residential unit. The reassessment and appellate orders disallowed the deduction on the ground that possession/purchase deed date fell beyond the two-year limit; however, precedent affirms that prior purchase/land cost and payments made before transfer can be considered for exemption where statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: Deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is allowable to the assessee on the facts and documentary evidence presented; the reassessment disallowing the deduction is quashed and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) whether deduction under section 80JJAA could be allowed for the eligible additional employee cost pertaining to earlier assessment years as part of the statutory three-year allowance; (ii) whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was rightly deleted; (iii) whether AJIO marketing and advertisement expenditure was revenue in nature; (iv) whether deduction under section 80G was allowable in respect of CSR-linked donations made to an eligible institution; and (v) whether foreign tax credit could be denied merely because Form 67 was filed after the due date under section 139(1).

Analysis: On section 80JJAA, the allowance is linked to the additional employee cost of the year of initial eligibility and the statute permits the deduction for three assessment years, so the later-year claim is not barred merely because the amount relates to earlier eligible years. On section 14A, the assessee had made a suo motu disallowance, the Revenue failed to establish any cogent dissatisfaction with the accounts, and the assessee's own funds were far in excess of investments, attracting the presumption that investments were from interest-free funds. On the AJIO issue, the expenditure consisted of recurring advertisement, sales promotion, digital marketing and related outlays for an existing business channel, and capitalization in the books under accounting standards did not determine its tax character. On the section 80G issue, CSR expenditure disallowed under section 37(1) is not thereby excluded from Chapter VI-A where the donation is otherwise to an eligible section 80G institution and the statute contains only limited express CSR-based exclusions. On foreign tax credit, delay in filing Form 67 was held to be procedural, and the substantive credit could not be denied on that ground alone where the claim and tax payment details were otherwise on record.

Conclusion: The Revenue's objections on sections 80JJAA, 14A and the AJIO expenditure were rejected, while the assessee succeeded on the section 80G claim and the foreign tax credit claim was restored for verification, with the legal grounds on limitation left open as academic.

Final Conclusion: The common order substantially upheld the relief granted to the assessee on merits, deleted the CSR-linked disallowance under section 80G, and sent the foreign tax credit issue back for limited verification, leaving the limitation challenge undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: A deduction or credit otherwise allowable under the Income-tax Act cannot be denied solely because of an adverse accounting treatment or a procedural delay, unless the statute expressly bars the claim or the Revenue discharges the required statutory burden with proper dissatisfaction based on the accounts.

Issues: Whether an assessment framed under section 144B read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without issuing the mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid where the assessee filed a return in response to notice under section 148 and the assessing officer acted upon the return.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined whether the assessing officer had treated and acted upon the return filed by the assessee in response to the section 148 notice, notwithstanding that the electronic verification remained pending and a manual ITR-V was sent for validation. The Tribunal considered departmental guidelines proving that verification may be effected either electronically or by sending a physical signed ITR-V to CPC, and found that the AO took the income declared in the return as the starting point for computation. The Tribunal reviewed coordinate decisions holding that once a return is filed in response to a section 148 notice, a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory before framing an assessment, and that assessments completed without such notice are void. Applying those precedents to the facts where no section 143(2) notice was issued but the AO had acted on the filed return, the Tribunal concluded that the jurisdictional requirement of issuing section 143(2) notice was not complied with.

Conclusion: The assessment framed without issuance of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) is null and void; ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal is allowed and the assessment is quashed, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether notice under section 148 and consequential reassessment and assessment framed under sections 147/144/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 issued and completed in the name of a deceased person are valid.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined facts showing the assessee had died prior to issuance of notice and production of the death certificate. The authorities below issued notice under section 148 and completed reassessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B in the name of the deceased person. The Tribunal considered controlling High Court decisions holding that the term 'person' contemplates a living individual (section 2(31) context), that a notice under section 148 issued in the name of a dead person is not enforceable, and that section 292B cannot cure foundational jurisdictional defects. The Tribunal also addressed the fact that a return filed after death and purportedly verified by the deceased does not validate service or cure the invalidity of notices issued to a non-existent person. The collected authorities and facts led the Tribunal to conclude the issuance of notice and consequent assessment in the name of the deceased constituted a jurisdictional defect rendering the proceedings void ab initio.

Conclusion: The notice issued under section 148 and the assessment framed pursuant thereto under sections 147/144/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the name of the deceased assessee are illegal, bad in law and void ab initio; the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the imported video conferencing solutions and webcams are classifiable under Heading 8473 as parts and accessories of automatic data processing machines, or under Heading 8517 as apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data.

Analysis: The ruling applied Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, together with Chapter Notes 6(C) and 6(D) of Chapter 84. The goods were examined on their technical features and actual functionality. Although they interface with computers in some use cases, the products were found to be capable of independent operation in videoconferencing use, including models with built-in computing and appliance mode. The ruling held that they are not of a kind solely or principally used as parts of an automatic data processing system, and that their essential character is to facilitate voice and image communication over networks. The exclusion in Chapter Note 6(D) for apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data was treated as applicable.

Conclusion: The goods are not classifiable under Heading 8473. They are classifiable under Heading 8517, specifically Tariff Item 8517 62 90, and the classification stands against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The ruling settles that the subject goods are to be assessed as communication apparatus under Heading 8517 rather than as ADP parts or accessories under Heading 8473.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported video conferencing equipment is capable of functioning as standalone communication apparatus and is not solely or principally used as a part of an automatic data processing system, classification follows the heading covering transmission or reception apparatus and not the heading for parts and accessories of ADP machines.

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed for want of a legally enforceable debt and absence of material showing that the cheque liability was that of the petitioner.

Analysis: The record did not show any board resolution or other reliable corporate authorisation fixing the complainant's alleged commission or brokerage. The alleged entitlement was unsupported by contemporaneous accounts, balance sheets, or calculations, and the material relied on by the complainant was found to be unconvincing and inconsistent. The Court found that the purported liability, if any, was of the company and not the personal liability of the petitioner, and therefore the cheques drawn on the petitioner's personal account could not, on the pleaded facts, be treated as issued towards a legally enforceable debt. In the absence of foundational facts showing such debt, the presumption under Section 139 could not sustain the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint and the proceedings arising from it were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded and the criminal proceedings based on the cheque complaints were terminated.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be sustained where the complainant fails to establish foundational facts showing a legally enforceable personal liability of the drawer, especially when the alleged dues are corporate in nature and unsupported by the company's authorised records.

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the plea that the cheque and supporting documents were forged, the cheque formed part of pending police investigations, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

Analysis: The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for trial. At the quashing stage, the Court does not conduct a mini trial or weigh disputed defence material. The issuance of the cheque and the signatures thereon were not disputed. The allegations that the cheque was a blank signed instrument, that the MOU and related documents were forged, and that the cheque had been misused were matters of defence requiring proof in trial. The pendency of police proceedings and the petitioner's reliance on seized documents did not by itself render the cheque-bounce complaint unsustainable, particularly when the complainant maintained that the cheque arose from the MOU and was independent of the documents referred to in the FIRs. Prior dismissal of earlier quashing petitions and the discharge application also supported continuation of the complaint proceedings.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was held to be fit to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the defence raised disputed factual issues that could not be decided in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the cheque-bounce prosecution was permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of forgery or misuse of a cheque, when they rest on disputed facts and require evidence, do not justify quashing of a Section 138 prosecution at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if the cheque and signatures are not in dispute.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arising from undated security cheques could be quashed when the loan account was continuing, repayments had been made, no prior demand or default notice had been issued, and the alleged liability had not crystallised.

Analysis: The loan documents showed a continuing facility, with the cheques given as security for the overall loan and not for a specific instalment or settled due date. The record indicated substantial repayments during the relevant period and did not show a final recall of the facility or a definitive computation of the outstanding liability. The complaint also did not disclose any prior notice demanding rectification of default before presentation of the cheques. In these circumstances, the presentation of the security cheques without crystallisation of the debt or prior demand was held to be inconsistent with the contractual framework and unfair to the guarantors.

Conclusion: The complaint and the connected criminal proceedings were not maintainable on the facts and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The continuation of the cheque dishonour proceedings was found to be an abuse of process in the circumstances of a subsisting and restructured loan account.

Ratio Decidendi: A security cheque issued for a continuing loan facility cannot sustain prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 unless the liability has crystallised and the contractual preconditions for invocation have been satisfied.

Issues: (i) Whether seizure of cash found at premises could be validly made under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether failure to issue notice within six months under Section 67(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires return of seized goods (cash).

Issue (i): Whether cash seized during search can be treated as "things" under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and whether the seizure complied with the statutory requirement of "reason to believe".

Analysis: Section 67(2) permits seizure of goods, documents, books or things if the proper officer has reason to believe they are useful or relevant to proceedings. The legal standard of "reason to believe" requires a rational connection between material available to the officer and the belief that the items are relevant to proceedings; the officer must record reasons supporting that belief. The seizure of cash must satisfy these statutory preconditions and be confined to items demonstrably useful or relevant to proceedings under the Act.

Conclusion: The seizure of cash was invalid. The statutory precondition of a recorded "reason to believe" and the requisite connection to proceedings under Section 67(2) were not fulfilled; accordingly the cash seizure under that provision could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether, independent of issue (i), the Respondents' failure to issue the notice within six months under Section 67(7) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 obliges return of the seized items.

Analysis: Section 67(7) mandates return of seized goods if no notice in respect thereof is issued within six months, subject only to the statutory extension. Non-compliance with this timeline triggers the statutory consequence of return to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. Where the procedural requirement is unmet and no sufficient extension is shown, the statutory consequence follows.

Conclusion: The failure to issue the statutory notice within six months required return of the seized cash to the person from whose possession it was taken.

Final Conclusion: The impugned seizure of cash was unlawful for lack of the statutory "reason to believe" required by Section 67(2) and for failure to comply with the notice requirement of Section 67(7); accordingly the seizure orders were quashed and the seized cash was ordered to be released with applicable interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Seizure under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is valid only where the proper officer has recorded a bona fide "reason to believe" that specific goods, documents, books or things are useful or relevant to proceedings and notices required by Section 67(7) are issued within the statutory period; absence of these preconditions renders the seizure unlawful and mandates return of the seized items.

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal before the Tribunal is rendered infructuous by the rectification order passed by the appellate authority correcting an inadvertent reference and disposing of the appeal against the correct order.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the factual sequence: the appeal before it challenged the appellate order dated 23.10.2025 which contained an inadvertent reference to a different proceeding; the assessee filed a rectification application; following opportunity of hearing the appellate authority passed a rectification order dated 02.02.2026 disposing of the appeal against the correct order. The Tribunal found that the relief sought by the assessee in the present appeal had been granted by the rectification order and that there remained no substantive grievance requiring adjudication by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed as infructuous because the rectification order dated 02.02.2026 by the appellate authority has removed the grievance raised before the Tribunal.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned adjudication travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by relying upon CIMFR test reports not referred to therein; (ii) Whether the coal imported under Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012 satisfied the conditions of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned adjudication travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by relying upon CIMFR test reports not referred to therein.

Analysis: The Show Cause Notice dated 13.06.2013 alleged finalization of provisional assessment without obtaining Mean Reflectance from an authorized laboratory and questioned the reliability of load port CSN reports; it did not mention remnant samples being sent to CIMFR nor annex CIMFR reports. The impugned order relied decisively on CIMFR reports dated 31.01.2014 and 19.03.2014 which post-dated the Show Cause Notice. The CIMFR reports formed the substituted evidentiary basis for confirming demand while the original grounds in the notice were discarded. The subsequent supply of documents during adjudication did not cure the jurisdictional defect of introducing a new foundational ground not contained in the notice.

Conclusion: The adjudication travelled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by relying on CIMFR reports not referred to therein; the impugned order is legally unsustainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the coal imported under Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012 satisfied the conditions of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended.

Analysis: The notification required Mean Reflectance (MR) above 0.60 and Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) of 1 or above. Contemporaneous evidence comprised the load port Certificate of Quality dated 17.01.2012 reporting CSN 1.5 and MR 1.75, and the Chemical Examiner's report dated 02.04.2012 reporting CSN 3. The CIMFR report showing CSN 0.5 was produced more than two years after sample drawal; there is no record of preservation or storage conditions to ensure reliability against deterioration. No cogent scientific reason was recorded to reject the contemporaneous departmental report. The importer's contemporaneous documents thus discharged the burden to establish eligibility and preferring a belated test report over contemporaneous reliable evidence was arbitrary.

Conclusion: The coal imported under Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012 satisfied the exemption conditions of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended; the demand of differential duty and interest is unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Order-in-Original No. 01/2015 dated 10.09.2015 is set aside insofar as it denies exemption and confirms demand in respect of Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012; the appeal is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication cannot introduce or substitute a new foundational ground not contained in the Show Cause Notice; contemporaneous test reports evidencing compliance with conditional exemption must prevail over belated testing conducted after substantial delay absent proof of sample preservation and scientific reliability.