Issues: Whether the share application money received by the appellant company and the attached properties constituted proceeds of crime derived from the scheduled offences relating to the coal-block allocation.

Analysis: The allegation that outside investors were induced to invest because of the coal-block allocation was inconsistent with the recorded statements of officials of the investing entities, which attributed their investments to the company's growth prospects and did not establish reliance on the allocation. The later position that the investing entities were fronts controlled by the appellant's directors contradicted the original theory of inducement; if accepted, it also negated any inference that the appellant obtained an undue benefit from deceived investors. No material established public investment, a complaint of fraud, or a predicate offence concerning the alleged investment flow. The earlier decision arising from the same ECIR had already found that the share application money lacked the requisite connection with the alleged criminal activity. The allocation letter alone, without revenue generated through coal mining or a demonstrated nexus between the scheduled offence and the funds, could not render the investments proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The share application money and the attached properties were not established to be proceeds of crime; the attachment confirmation was unsustainable in favour of the appellant.

Issues: (i) Whether the engineering assignment was classifiable as Consulting Engineer Service or Technical Inspection and Certification Service; (ii) Whether the services qualified as export of services and whether the service-tax demands, extended limitation, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the engineering assignment was classifiable as Consulting Engineer Service or Technical Inspection and Certification Service.

Analysis: Under Section 65A of the Finance Act, 1994, classification of a composite service depends on its specific description and essential character. The contractual and contemporaneous records showed a continuing engineering assignment comprising drawing assistance, technical clarification, development and rectification of castings and patterns, material specifications, quality coordination and dispatch-related assistance. Inspection and quality-control activities were only components of that broader assignment; there was neither a separate charge nor an engagement as an independent inspection or certification agency.

Conclusion: The services were Consulting Engineer Service up to 30.06.2012 and remained engineering services thereafter, not Technical Inspection and Certification Service. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the services qualified as export of services and whether the service-tax demands, extended limitation, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: For the period from 27.02.2010 to 30.06.2012, the omitted requirement that services be used outside India could not be revived merely because certain activities were physically performed in India. For the earlier period, the foreign customer was the contractual recipient, paid the consideration in convertible foreign exchange, and the Department did not establish that the services were used in India. From 01.07.2012, Rule 3 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 applied because the Department did not establish that physical availability of goods was necessary to provide the engineering assignment as a whole under Rule 4; the place of provision was therefore the foreign recipient's location. The services consequently met the export conditions under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further, prior disclosure of the arrangement to the Department negated wilful suppression or intent to evade tax, rendering extended limitation unavailable. Interest and penalties, being dependent on sustainable tax liability or an independent contravention, could not survive.

Conclusion: The services qualified as export of services throughout the disputed periods; the tax demands, interest and penalties were unsustainable, and extended limitation for the first demand was not invocable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The engineering services supplied to the overseas contractual recipient were outside the charge of service tax as exported services, with no basis for extended limitation or consequential fiscal liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite engineering assignment does not become technical inspection and certification merely because it includes inspection-related activities; where the foreign contractual recipient receives the service for consideration in convertible foreign exchange, physical performance of ancillary activities in India does not by itself displace export treatment or the recipient-location rule.

Issues: (i) Whether pre-01.07.2012 service-tax demands could be sustained where the notices did not identify the taxable service under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether a new classification could be introduced at the appellate stage; (ii) Whether consequential interest and penalty under Section 78 could survive and whether liability under the subsequent notices could be reopened.

Issue (i): Whether pre-01.07.2012 service-tax demands could be sustained where the notices did not identify the taxable service under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994, and whether a new classification could be introduced at the appellate stage.

Analysis: Under the positive-list regime, Section 66A applied only where services received from outside India fell within a specified taxable category under Section 65(105). The notices proceeded merely on foreign-currency expenditure and non-payment under reverse charge, without identifying the taxable service despite heterogeneous transactions involving travel, tuition, memberships, subscriptions, publications and professional fees. The appellate classification of tuition fees as Commercial Training or Coaching Service and membership fees as Club or Association Service supplied a substantive basis absent from the notices. Knowledge of the payments did not substitute notice of the precise statutory charge. Adjudication could not travel beyond the show cause notices, and subsequent tax payment under the negative-list regime could not establish taxability under the earlier positive-list regime.

Conclusion: The pre-01.07.2012 demands could not be restored on classifications not proposed in the notices. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether consequential interest and penalty under Section 78 could survive and whether liability under the subsequent notices could be reopened.

Analysis: Interest depended upon a legally sustainable principal tax demand and consequently could not survive once the restored demand failed. The foundational omission of taxable classification also precluded the requisite basis for suppression with intent to evade under Section 78, particularly where the expenditure records and supporting documents were maintained and produced. Revenue neutrality was not required to be decided. The departmental appeal concerned only the dropping of the pre-01.07.2012 demands; hence, the separately adjudicated post-01.07.2012 proceedings were outside the scope of reopening.

Conclusion: The consequential interest and Section 78 penalty cannot survive. The findings on the subsequent notices remain undisturbed and are not reopened. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee insofar as the restored demand, interest and penalty are concerned.

Final Conclusion: The restoration of the pre-01.07.2012 tax demand, consequential interest and penalty lacks a valid notice-based foundation, while the separate determinations for the later period retain their existing effect.

Ratio Decidendi: A service-tax demand under the positive-list regime must identify the specific taxable service in the show cause notice; an appellate authority cannot cure that foundational omission by introducing a new substantive classification.

Issues: Whether the service-tax demand for the pre-resolution-plan period survived where the Central Government had not lodged its claim under the approved resolution plan.

Analysis: Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 makes an approved resolution plan binding upon the Central Government in respect of statutory dues. Approval of the plan settles and extinguishes claims not forming part of it. The departmental representative confirmed that no claim had been lodged against the adjudicated demand. Since the demand concerned the period 2014-15 to June 2017, preceding the resolution-plan closing date, it stood covered by the plan's settlement mechanism.

Conclusion: The service-tax demand, interest and penalty stood discharged and settled under the approved resolution plan.

Issues: (i) Whether the tooling advances are includible in the assessable value in their entirety, or only the proportionate/amortised tooling cost attributable to the finished goods manufactured with the aid of the tools? (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable and, consequently, whether the remand and the consequential liability to interest and penalty are sustainable?

Issue (i): Whether the tooling advances are includible in the assessable value in their entirety, or only the proportionate/amortised tooling cost attributable to the finished goods manufactured with the aid of the tools?

Analysis: Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 require inclusion of the money value of additional consideration, while Explanation 1 to Rule 6 requires the value of buyer-supplied tools, dies and moulds to be apportioned appropriately. The governing valuation principle is therefore proportionate amortisation based on the tool's expected life, capability and the quantity of finished goods produced, rather than loading the entire tooling advance on a clearance upon receipt.

Analysis: The circular's reference to a Cost Accountant's certificate is not a mandatory statutory condition, particularly where the valuation is supported by reliable underlying records. Tooling invoices, production and tooling records, supplementary invoices, payment evidence and the Chartered Accountant's certificate established the tool values, expected life, amortisation rate, clearances and duty paid. No specific defect in the tool values, life, production quantities, amortisation calculation or any individual clearance was identified.

Conclusion: Only the proportionate/amortised tooling cost attributable to the finished goods is includible in assessable value; the entire tooling advance is not includible merely on receipt. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable and, consequently, whether the remand and the consequential liability to interest and penalty are sustainable?

Analysis: Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires wilful suppression, misstatement or deliberate withholding of material information with intent to evade duty. The tooling advances and the proposed amortisation methodology had been disclosed during departmental audit well before issuance of the show-cause notice. The dispute concerned valuation methodology, and the record did not establish deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. Revenue neutrality, disclosure, bona fide amortisation and payment of duty and interest on the amortised cost also militated against penalty.

Conclusion: The extended period is not invocable, and the consequential interest and penalty under Section 11AC cannot survive. The remand was unsustainable. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The original determination accepting amortised valuation and dropping the proceedings governs, as no short-payment beyond the amortised tooling cost was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Buyer-funded tooling is additional consideration only to the extent of its proportionate value attributable to the finished goods, and extended limitation requires proof of deliberate suppression with intent to evade duty.

Issues: Whether demand notices may be challenged to reopen assessments that have attained finality after exhaustion of statutory challenges.

Analysis: The demand notices were consequential to assessment orders that had already been unsuccessfully challenged through the available appellate and revisional processes. The asserted illness of the petitioner's advocate did not establish denial of reasonable opportunity, particularly where the petitioner had pursued multiple remedies against the assessments. A challenge to consequential recovery demands could not be used to reopen concluded assessments.

Conclusion: The demand notices could not be interfered with or used to reopen the final assessments; the petitioner may pursue the alternate statutory remedy upon complying with its prerequisites.

Issues: (i) Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked against the adjudication order despite the statutory appellate remedy where the challenges concerned invocation of Section 74, audit proceedings, consideration of the defence, and factual demand findings; (ii) Whether a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years is without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked against the adjudication order despite the statutory appellate remedy where the challenges concerned invocation of Section 74, audit proceedings, consideration of the defence, and factual demand findings.

Analysis: Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, except in cases such as breach of fundamental rights, denial of natural justice, patent excess of jurisdiction, or a challenge to vires. The challenge to the existence of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression under Section 74 required examination of the show cause notice, material, replies and adjudication findings. The audit-related objections, alleged non-consideration of documents, payments or reversals, input-tax-credit eligibility, reverse-charge liability, export material and computation of demand likewise required factual appraisal. The assessee had participated in adjudication, filed its reply and produced supporting material; a dispute over the appreciation of that material did not establish a denial of hearing or a patent jurisdictional defect.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was not liable to be exercised; the stated challenges must be pursued before the statutory appellate authority. This issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years is without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory expressions permitting notices for any period or such periods do not prohibit a single notice spanning more than one financial year. Although the time limit for passing an order is computed with reference to each financial year, that limitation framework does not mandate separate notices. Any limitation objection concerning a particular year's demand requires examination in the statutory appeal.

Conclusion: A consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years is not, merely on that account, without jurisdiction. This issue is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenges disclose no exceptional circumstance displacing the specialised appellate mechanism, and the assessee may avail the statutory appeal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal precludes writ intervention against GST adjudication where the asserted defects concern evidentiary appreciation or merits and do not establish a patent jurisdictional error or denial of natural justice; a consolidated notice across financial years is not inherently barred by the statutory scheme.

Issues: Whether the ex parte tax determination proceedings required a fresh hearing.

Analysis: The material facts pleaded by the petitioners were not disputed, and the respondents had not filed their affidavit-in-opposition. A fresh opportunity to raise objections was therefore directed, without examining the merits of the tax demand.

Outcome: The respondent authorities were directed to afford a fresh hearing and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

Issues: Whether communication of audit findings in FORM GST ADT-02 can itself result in recovery without adjudication.

Analysis: Rule 101(5) read with Section 65(6) requires the proper officer, on completion of audit, to communicate the audit findings to the registered person in FORM GST ADT-02. Such communication is administrative in character and does not constitute a recovery action. Any further action must be taken under the applicable provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: Communication of audit findings in FORM GST ADT-02 cannot by itself form the basis for recovery without further action in accordance with law.

Issues: Whether rejection of the application seeking waiver of penalty and interest under the KARA SAMADHANA scheme without disclosing reasons or material particulars was valid.

Analysis: The impugned notice did not disclose the material particulars or reasons for rejecting the application under Section 128A of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017. A non-speaking rejection lacking the basis for denial was illegal and arbitrary. The representation seeking reconsideration was required to be decided after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The rejection notice was invalid and was quashed in favour of the assessee; the representation was required to be reconsidered in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A difference for FY 2018-19 could be treated as inadmissible ITC without examining the claim that it related to FY 2017-18 invoices availed within the statutory time limit; (ii) Whether the Order-in-Original was vitiated by absence of a personal hearing; (iii) Whether absence of a notice in FORM GST ASMT-10 invalidated the proceedings; (iv) Whether interest and penalty were required to await fresh determination of the disputed ITC.

Issue (i): Whether the GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A difference for FY 2018-19 could be treated as inadmissible ITC without examining the claim that it related to FY 2017-18 invoices availed within the statutory time limit.

Analysis: Section 16(4), read with the applicable removal-of-difficulties order, permitted eligible FY 2017-18 credit to be availed in the prescribed extended period. GSTR-2A was a facilitation tool during the relevant period and its non-reflection for FY 2018-19 did not establish supplier tax default where the credit was claimed to pertain to FY 2017-18. The reconciliation required invoice-wise verification with the prior-year GSTR-2A, suppliers' GSTR-1, ITC register, books of account and annual returns, as contemplated by the applicable CBIC circular.

Conclusion: The mismatch could not, without the required verification of the FY 2017-18 credit, sustain disallowance of ITC. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Order-in-Original was vitiated by absence of a personal hearing.

Analysis: The show-cause notice recorded the date, time and venue of hearing as "NA", and the record disclosed no hearing before confirmation of the adverse demand. Section 75(4) mandates a personal hearing where an adverse decision is contemplated, irrespective of a separate request by the taxable person.

Conclusion: The absence of a personal hearing vitiated the Order-in-Original and independently warranted its setting aside. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of a notice in FORM GST ASMT-10 invalidated the proceedings.

Analysis: Sections 61 and 73 provide independent statutory routes. FORM GST ASMT-10 is required for scrutiny proceedings under Section 61, whereas the proceedings in question were initiated under Section 73 read with Rule 142 following an audit reference.

Conclusion: Absence of a FORM GST ASMT-10 notice did not by itself invalidate proceedings initiated directly under Section 73. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether interest and penalty were required to await fresh determination of the disputed ITC.

Analysis: Interest is compensatory and penalty is consequential upon a sustainable principal tax liability. Since the ITC reconciliation had not been verified and the original adjudication was made without a mandatory hearing, the tax liability could not be conclusively determined on the existing record.

Conclusion: Interest and penalty could not be independently sustained and must abide by the fresh determination of tax liability.

Final Conclusion: The disputed ITC requires de novo adjudication after invoice-wise verification and a duly communicated personal hearing, with all factual questions concerning admissibility of credit remaining open.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay.

Issues: Whether the reassessment notices and consequential reassessment orders were valid where the recorded reasons and approvals disclosed factual errors, vague information and non-application of mind.

Analysis: Reassessment for assessment year 2016-17 proceeded on the incorrect premise that the assessee was a non-filer, despite its return having been filed with the same jurisdictional authority. The reasons also ambiguously described banking transactions with a director-shareholder as transactions through bank/in cash. For assessment year 2019-20, the notice referred to an unexplained aggregate amount without transaction-wise or party-wise particulars, incorrectly treated amounts given as undisclosed income, and referred to cash despite transactions being routed through bank accounts. The subsequent reduction of the alleged escaped income from Rs. 6.52 crore to Rs. 2.52 crore further demonstrated that the initial information had not been properly verified. These defects showed non-application of mind in recording reasons and in granting statutory approval.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and all consequential orders for both assessment years were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Issues: Whether tax was required to be deducted at source on external development charges paid to Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran.

Analysis: The jurisdictional High Court's binding determination was applied: Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran is not Government for the relevant statutory exclusion merely because it is created under a statute or performs functions akin to governmental functions. Payments of external development charges to it consequently attract tax deduction at source requirements.

Conclusion: The assessee was required to deduct tax at source on the external development charges and was rightly treated as an assessee in default; the issue is against the assessee.

Issues: Whether registration of a trust could be granted where its educational objects were stated in the trust deed but the material did not establish that the trust itself carried on genuine charitable educational activities.

Analysis: Under the registration framework, inquiry extends to the charitable nature of the objects and the genuineness of activities. While the authority cannot assess the commercial propriety of expenditure at this stage, the applicant must produce prima facie material demonstrating actual charitable activity. The trust deed disclosed educational objects, but the audited accounts and response to notice did not identify any educational institution established or managed by the trust, statutory recognition, or verifiable details of students, teachers or staff. The premises were leased to another entity for running an educational institution and the trust received lease rent. Such use of the premises by another entity did not, without evidence of the trust's own charitable activity or application of rental income to such activity, establish genuineness of the trust's activities.

Conclusion: Registration was not grantable, as the trust failed to establish genuine charitable educational activities of its own; the finding is against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment was invalid for non-compliance with section 144B read with section 144C; (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit on the declared turnover were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment was invalid for non-compliance with section 144B read with section 144C.

Analysis: The assessment was made by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and was outside the scope of the faceless-assessment procedure under section 144B. Statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) had been issued. Non-observance of section 144B could not invalidate an assessment to which that provision did not apply.

Conclusion: The assessment was not invalid for non-compliance with section 144B read with section 144C; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit on the declared turnover were sustainable.

Analysis: Sections 144 and 145(3) permit a best-judgment assessment after the existence of material irregularities or substantial discrepancies in the accounts is established. In share-trading activity, payments and receipts through a broker and adjustment of sale proceeds against further purchases could explain the absence of banking entries corresponding to turnover. The authorities did not address the broker ledger, contract notes and other substantial material, identify defects in the accounting method, or rely on accepted past results. The estimated gross-profit rates lacked a methodical and rational basis and amounted to unsupported estimation.

Conclusion: The rejection of books and gross-profit estimation were unsustainable; the addition was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The substantive addition to income does not survive, notwithstanding the failure of the procedural challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: An income estimate following rejection of books of account must rest on demonstrated accounting defects and a rational, methodical basis suited to the nature of the assessee's business; it cannot be founded on conjectural profit rates.

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of registration and rejection of renewal were sustainable without following the procedure and issuing a notice identifying the specified violation under Section 12AB(4); (ii) Whether cash deposits during demonetisation constituted a basis to treat the trust's activities as non-genuine or to refuse renewal; (iii) Whether payments connected with acquisition of hospital assets from a concern associated with a trustee constituted diversion of funds or a specified violation warranting cancellation of registration and refusal of renewal.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of registration and rejection of renewal were sustainable without following the procedure and issuing a notice identifying the specified violation under Section 12AB(4).

Analysis: Section 12AB(4) requires an inquiry and satisfaction regarding occurrence of a specified violation before issuance of a notice proposing cancellation, followed by a reasonable opportunity to respond to identified charges. The notices neither disclosed the clause under which action was initiated nor identified the applicable specified violation, and the cash-deposit allegation was not put to the trust in the show-cause notice. A general notice combining the inquiry and cancellation stages did not satisfy the statutory procedure.

Conclusion: The cancellation and rejection orders were procedurally invalid for non-compliance with Section 12AB(4), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether cash deposits during demonetisation constituted a basis to treat the trust's activities as non-genuine or to refuse renewal.

Analysis: The deposits for the relevant assessment year had already been judicially determined to represent fee receipts forming part of disclosed income, and that determination had been confirmed by the High Court. The concluded finding eliminated the factual foundation for treating the deposits as undisclosed income or as evidence of non-genuine charitable activity.

Conclusion: Cash deposits during demonetisation could not support rejection of renewal or cancellation of registration, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether payments connected with acquisition of hospital assets from a concern associated with a trustee constituted diversion of funds or a specified violation warranting cancellation of registration and refusal of renewal.

Analysis: An alleged benefit to persons covered by Section 13(3) falls within the framework of Section 13(1)(c), which provides for denial of exemption or taxation at the assessment stage; it is not, by itself, a specified violation under Section 12AB(4). At the registration-renewal stage, the inquiry is confined to charitable objects, genuineness of activities, and established non-compliance with applicable law, rather than examination of each application of income. The asset-acquisition agreement, advances, and later payments to the liquidator were connected with securing hospital assets for the trust and protecting its existing investment. The transaction had also been examined without adverse finding in prior assessments. No material established inflated consideration, non-charitable application, or diversion for the trustee's benefit.

Conclusion: The payments were not a diversion of funds, non-genuine activity, or specified violation under Section 12AB(4), and could not justify refusal or cancellation of registration, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The alleged grounds did not displace the charitable character or genuineness of the trust's activities; its registration and approval entitlement were required to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of charitable registration under Section 12AB(4) requires strict compliance with the prescribed notice-and-inquiry procedure and an established specified violation; an alleged benefit to a specified person under Section 13(1)(c), without proof that charitable activities are non-genuine or outside the objects, is to be addressed in assessment proceedings rather than through cancellation of registration.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty proceedings could be sustained where the notices under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the charge was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income; (ii) Whether the penalty order could be sustained when passed in the name of an amalgamated and non-existent entity; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustainable in respect of the claim for licence-fee expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether penalty proceedings could be sustained where the notices under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the charge was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis: The penalty notices retained both statutory limbs and did not communicate the precise default for which the assessee was required to answer. Such ambiguity deprived the assessee of a definite charge in the penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty proceedings were vitiated by the defective and ambiguous notices, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty order could be sustained when passed in the name of an amalgamated and non-existent entity.

Analysis: The entity in whose name the penalty order was framed had ceased to exist upon amalgamation, a fact disclosed to the assessing authority. The assessment forming the basis of the penalty had also been made against the non-existent entity, and the subsequent assessment in its name had been quashed.

Conclusion: The penalty order passed against the amalgamated and non-existent entity was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was sustainable in respect of the claim for licence-fee expenditure.

Analysis: The licence fee had been treated as revenue expenditure in the earlier appellate proceedings; only the permissible extent of deduction was restricted by reference to turnover. The record did not establish non-disclosure of material facts or assertion of incorrect facts in making the claim.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable on the licence-fee claim, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty lacked a valid jurisdictional and factual foundation and could not be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot stand where the statutory notice fails to specify the applicable charge, the order is made against a non-existent amalgamated entity, and the underlying claim does not involve concealment or inaccurate particulars.